|
Author
|
Topic: does this make others as nervous as it does me?
|
|
|
SoftTouch
Advanced Member
Member # 2316
|
posted
AMEN Sister Hardcore! I appreciate your perspective on this very much.
I see all the things you listed too and I know it's prophecy being fulfilled and it is God's Will that it be so... so be it! Amen!
Things like this are 'wake up calls' to those who have fallen asleep. I pray they'll wake up soon!
--------------------
Psalm 119:104Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 105Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Posts: 3465 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
hardcore
Advanced Member
Member # 4492
|
posted
I guess I have a slightly different take on this.
First of all, I expect this sort of thing, so it doesn't surprise me or get me too riled up. Actually, land grabs have been happening for quite a while for "environmental" reasons. This case just happens to be getting a lot of press. When the tree huggers are out in force disrupting people's lives, the media isn't as interested.
With regard to the Christianity Today article:
Are churches becoming more vulnerable to this sort of thing? I suspect so. But my feeling is; let God's will be done.
I firmly believe that God has been actively separating the wheat from the chaff within the church body for a while now. I think that the line in the sand has been drawn (on Sept. 11, 2001 perhaps?) and it is time for Christians to decide who they will really follow. I think it is time for the church to wake-up and get serious.
I see more apostacy than ever and it is on the increase.
I see spiritually dead churches.
I see church pews filled with itching ears and preachers willing to scratch them.
I see false teachers at every turn.
I see the gospel being watered down to the point of being unrecognizable.
I see born again bible believers being deceived at every turn.
I see Christians who defend men instead of their Lord.
I see sound biblical doctrine forsaken for unity.
I see political correctness seeping into churches from every angle.
God will not be mocked. Judgement will begin with His own. Why not consider the possibility that He will do this by shaking up an entire congregation at once? - i.e. church building removed.
Maybe it will take God physically removing Christians from their comfy pews before they'll get a clue. If church doors are being locked, bulldozed, or burned, it is because God allows it.
If the Lord allows a church bulding to be destroyed, He allows a church building to be destroyed. Is it sad? Yes. Is it the end of the world? No. Ask a Christian in China how important it is to their faith to have a pretty building with a steeple on top and indoor plumbing.
We are the church. Buildings are not.
Besides, remember Romans 8:28?
quote:
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
Maybe I sound too hardened; maybe I am. It's just that I am starting to become more at peace about living in these times. We're told it's going to happen, so I guess the shock value is lost on me. I expect what I see happening and I expect much much worse to come.
What saddens and troubles me? Lost souls and deceived Christians, as a harsh "end times" reality unfolds before our very eyes.
I agree with the following quote from Christianity Today more than any of them.
quote:
"The less fortunate are vulnerable and that's what Christians should be concerned about," Whitehead said. "The churches can fight back; small land owners and families can't."
I hope that Christians in New London will step up and help these people who are faced with losing their family homes. Much in the way that Gramajo told us her Charities group does.
hc
Posts: 627 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
MySavingGrace
Advanced Member
Member # 4697
|
posted
^^^^ so our "christian" president and others support this! Shocking!!!! (sarcasm here unfortuantely)
But, if they take down chruches for this sick stuff, no offense but Judgement Day will not be nice for them. To destroy any house, let alone God's house for this is a great sin and blaspehmy to Father God and to us.
When the bible says turn the other cheek, it doesn't mean literally. It means make them hit you iwth the back of the hand so they recognize you as an equal (you make them this way.) If I become a member of a chruch and they wanna take it down for this stuff, don't expect me not to picket. I know I'm not supposed to be filled with fear and rage, but this is a sign of end times if churches can be destroyed for this!
No Starbucks or meijers can replace a chruch. freakin lift the church above it or under it and keep it there and have stuff around it (like how older places have apartments where businesses are) but don't get rid of churches!
--------------------
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/forum
Support the mother who lost her son protest the war
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/
here are my comments, I am UHaventDoneNothin
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/121
Posts: 426 | From: United States | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
SoftTouch
Advanced Member
Member # 2316
|
posted
Check this out:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/126/12.0.html
Experts Warn Houses of Worship at Risk After Court Ruling
Eminent domain ruling could make churches, poor vulnerable
--------------------
Psalm 119:104Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 105Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Posts: 3465 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Yes, praise God! My husband was reading this to me yesterday morning and my reaction was the same as yours; it is another step closer. But we have waiting for us a mansion in heaven so let them cease what they will cease. This is not the place of our citizenship.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
SoftTouch
Advanced Member
Member # 2316
|
posted
Should Martial Law ever be declared the government will be able to sezise any property they want to without any given reason, thanks to the Executive Orders that were signed in the 90's.
I was concerned about the Supreme Court's decision too, it's just another step. There is more going on then meets the eye. We really don't have 'rights' in this country, we just think we do. Let someone in power desire something you have and see what your rights really are. But as someone else reminded us... we are Not of this Kingdom, but of Jesus' Kingdom to come. There will come a time on this earth (probably not too long from now) when we won't have a place to lay our heads either - just as our Precious Lord and Savior said of himself so long ago. But we KNOW who wins this war!!!! PRAISE GOD!!!!
Maranatha!
--------------------
Psalm 119:104Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 105Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Posts: 3465 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bygrace
unregistered
|
posted
Yes, This does leave a lot of room for abuse...
Remember that one of the things stated in the Communists Manifesto is the abolishing of private property.
This all is part of the paving the way for a one world government.
bygrace
IP: Logged |
|
|
TEXASGRANDMA
Advanced Member
Member # 847
|
posted
Hubby and I just finished reading this together:
Micah 2
Judgment against Wealthy Oppressors
How terrible it will be for you who lie awake at night, thinking up evil plans. You rise at dawn and hurry to carry out any of the wicked schemes you have power to accomplish. 2 When you want a certain piece of land, you find a way to seize it. When you want someone's house, you take it by fraud and violence. No one's family or inheritance is safe with you around!
--------------------------
We did not seek it out but we read Micah 1 yesterday.
betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
http://www.indieheaven.com/artists/mm (son-in-law)http://www.myspace.com/mireles
Posts: 4985 | From: Washington State | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
redkermit
Advanced Member
Member # 4059
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by TEXASGRANDMA:
I see this being used in the future to take homes away from people that the government doesn't like.
Let say you leave in a small town and you are running for office against the mayor, what is to stop him from having a business force you out of you home. You can no longer run for office because you no longer have a residence in this town.
betty
Certainly leaves a lot of room for abuse, doesn't it?
--------------------
I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked. (Ps. 84:10b)
1 John 2:6
Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
Listen Online:
www.wmuz.com
www.997flr.org
Posts: 604 | From: Michigan | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
redkermit
Advanced Member
Member # 4059
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by MySavingGrace:
^^^^ I don't see the storing up treasures in this life being taken away as the problem. Say you live somwhere that has been your greatgrandparents then your parents etc with lots of hiostry. And, if its where you live and your children live I see a right to live there.
As I stated, I don't agree with the decision, but what "rights" do we have? What kingdom are we a part of?
--------------------
I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked. (Ps. 84:10b)
1 John 2:6
Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
Listen Online:
www.wmuz.com
www.997flr.org
Posts: 604 | From: Michigan | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TEXASGRANDMA
Advanced Member
Member # 847
|
posted
I see this being used in the future to take homes away from people that the government doesn't like.
Let say you leave in a small town and you are running for office against the mayor, what is to stop him from having a business force you out of you home. You can no longer run for office because you no longer have a residence in this town.
betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
http://www.indieheaven.com/artists/mm (son-in-law)http://www.myspace.com/mireles
Posts: 4985 | From: Washington State | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
MySavingGrace
Advanced Member
Member # 4697
|
posted
^^^^ I don't see the storing up treasures in this life being taken away as the problem. Say you live somwhere that has been your greatgrandparents then your parents etc with lots of hiostry. And, if its where you live and your children live I see a right to live there. Say you have a couple horses and a rach. You don't have the horses for "treasure' but love those horses and riding. I know an apartment complex I was at got taken oever after I left so that it could be turned into condos and it kicked people out. Though it wasnt a government thing, I see this as similar. I see it creating many problems of where are people going to go. I also see it as a sign of a police state taking place in our country.
What I really dislike is not just homes but older buildings being taken down. My mom was very involved with keeping a local bank because I tihnk its from the 1800s or early 1900s and she didn't want it to be taken down for a new company. I think part was taken down but part saved, not sure. Its sad how in our country old buildings are taken down for businesses. No new architeture in my mind is better than old ones.
--------------------
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/forum
Support the mother who lost her son protest the war
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/
here are my comments, I am UHaventDoneNothin
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/121
Posts: 426 | From: United States | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
redkermit
Advanced Member
Member # 4059
|
posted
This is very disconcerting, and I absolutely don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision, but ultimately, we are not to store up treasures here on earth, anyway. Anything in our possession we do not own.
--------------------
I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked. (Ps. 84:10b)
1 John 2:6
Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
Listen Online:
www.wmuz.com
www.997flr.org
Posts: 604 | From: Michigan | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
TEXASGRANDMA
Advanced Member
Member # 847
|
posted
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America — was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property.
Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice
John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote.
Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class.
They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice
Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights. Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs.
"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.
O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
___
-------------------
I find this upsetting.
betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
http://www.indieheaven.com/artists/mm (son-in-law)http://www.myspace.com/mireles
Posts: 4985 | From: Washington State | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
