My name is Eric Ruark and this is the story of my journey how I learned of Dr. Atkins and where it led me. I want to extend a huge Thank You to Dr. E C Fulcher Jr for allowing me to share my story on his site regarding Health and Wellness. There are so many different options out there and many ways that help people every day, this is just my story of what helped me then, and when I am focused, continues to help me currently.

At 72 (almost 73) years old, I can actually say that I have had a weight problem almost all my life.  And I have proof.  Many years ago, I discovered an unlabeled tin with a reel with an 8mm film inside.  Since I happened to own an 8mm projector (we are talking about sometime in the early 1970s), I fed the reel into the projector and discovered that it had been taken by my father in 1949.  It was easy to date.  It was a film of ME coming home from the hospital for the first time. 

It was early March.  I had been “from my mother’s womb untimely ripped” at around 8 am on a Friday in late February.  The film showed me being passed around for all the relatives to handle and cuddle.  I look like a normal baby.  Then the film cuts to someone feeding me.  AND I’M FAT.  Fatface, still too young to feed me and obviously not wanting the food that was being forced into my mouth.  Every spoonful that went in, most of it was spit out and rolled down my chin.  Then there was the obligatory shot of the naked baby laying on the changing table.  At that time, I am so fat that I cannot pick my fat jowls up off the table.  I’m surprised I didn’t die in my crib for being too fat to roll over.

The problem is that I have never thought of myself as FAT.  When I look in the mirror, I do not see a fat person.  I see ME.  It’s hard to explain, but I have been fan/thin all my life.  Although I have been fat, I don’t remember myself as fat.  I remember seeing a picture of myself sitting in my grandmother’s black cherry tree and I’m not fat.  There was another photo of me wearing my Davy Crockett coonskin cap (courtesy of Walt Disney ca. 1956) and I’m not fat.  Yet, there is also a photo of me in the Meteorological Club as a freshman at Prep School (1962) and I am the big-bellied little kid on the left side of the line.  Also, there is the memory of being singled out by the football coach in grade school (along with Hemmy and Phil) as being the “cannon fodder” for the practices because the three of us were fat.  I distinctly remember being 136-pounds in the sixth grade (1960).  It was something about the sixes that stood out in my mind. 

Fat/thin has never been important to me because there is a ME that I see when I look into a mirror that is “perfect”.   If I gain or lose weight, I do not notice it.  I notice it only in the way my clothes fit (or don’t) or the way that people treat me.  I have been picked on when fat.  I have been bullied when I was fat.  I had the worst first senior prom imaginable, and I was thin.  (I attended two, but that story doesn’t belong here.) My weight always seemed to be other people’s problems, not mine.

The person who had the most problem with my weight was my mother, a realization that has led me to consider myself an abused child.  After all, she was the one who “made” me fat to begin with as a means of control.  (I told you this was a personal odyssey.) 

Around 1965, I hit 220-pounds.  At that time, my mother was bemoaning my weight to her BFF, Bibbi, who was married to a prominent New York Attorney.  Bibbi told my mother about a doctor in NYC that was having remarkable success in helping people lose weight – a man named Dr. Robert Atkins.  So, my mother got me an appointment.  In retrospect, I think that this was a put-up or shut-up moment.  Bibbi called Mom’s bluff.  If he has a weight problem, then do something about it, kind of thing.  (Bibbi’s family had that kind of effect on my mother’s family.  It caused the death of my grandfather, but my mother and grandmother never held Bibbi’s family accountable.)

Now, my going to see Dr. Atkins was not a simple thing.  I was in a New England boarding school with rules and regulations out the wahzoo.  These were old school rules, from our 6:35 am rising bell to only being allowed off the school property only three times a month.  So, for me to go to Dr. Atkins required a whole bevy of hoops to jump through.  Also, I was in school in Connecticut and Dr. Atkins was in New York City.

Well, all the i’s were dotted, and my father drove me down to NYC to see the doctor.  And with that first appointment began my education about foods, which ones our bodies need, and which ones are bad for us.  Dr. Atkins was very forthcoming about his theories and the research he and his fellow doctors were doing.  And with that began a sustained program that literally took me out of the school dining hall and placed me in the infirmary kitchen cooking my food separate from the rest of the school body.  There were some meals I could eat with my classmates, like bacon and eggs in the morning.  But on those mornings when the school was serving pancakes or French toast, I was over in the infirmary cooking my Canadian bacon and frying my eggs.  (There is a photo in my prep school yearbook of me cooking some lamb chops in the infirmary.)

With the weight loss, several things changed.  I became more active.  As a fat kid, I managed the school’s sports teams.  As someone losing weight, I began to play them, specifically ice hockey and lacrosse.  When I graduated and headed to college, I took up rowing and ended up on the Varsity-8.  I even rowed against the East Germans in the Cherry Blossom Regatta in Washington, D.C.   I had a 48-inch chest and a 19-inch waist.  (Apparently, my kidneys are higher in my body cavity than in most people.)  But, again, looking in the mirror, I didn’t see a difference in who I was.

I started to gain weight again, after college when my first wife got pregnant.  I gained weight right along with her.  I stopped following the Atkins regimen and just bean eating and drinking whatever I wanted.  With marriage and three kids, I got fat again.  The divorce didn’t help matters.  After my divorce, I tried Atkins again, but it wasn’t working.  I contacted Dr. Atkins again, and he immediately saw me.  As I got older, my metabolism was changing, and he tried to get me back into the sink of things.  But I lost interest.  I had nothing and no one to succeed for including myself.  Since I never saw a difference, I figured, why bother.  And then came 1989.

In 1989 I probably weighed in the vicinity of 300-pounds, and my gallbladder went south and I developed gall stones.  Only, my gall stones were not the usual “stones” but were the size of coffee grounds and they plugged the channel that allowed my pancreas to release digestive acids into my intestines.  The end result was that my pancreas blew up like a balloon and ruptured spilling the digestive acids into my body.  When that happens, you basically get cut in half by your own body from the inside out.  If the doctors catch it early enough, they put you in a medically induced coma and tie you down to the hospital bed to allow the acids to eat their way out of your body without destroying any major organs and drain into a rubber sheet.

In most cases, it’s a death sentence, but mine was unique in that the acids did not “turn on” and were caught by the caul that surrounds the pancreas.  I had to have several painful procedures to have the caul drained.  And in order to keep the pancreas from producing digestive juices, my entire digestive system had to be turned off.  For over 40-days, I was not allowed to eat or drink.  I had a tube running down my nose into my stomach in order to suck up any fluids that got down my throat.  To make a long story short, I miraculously healed.  My doctor said that if I hadn’t been fat, I would be dead.  I lost close to half my body weight and by the time I got out of the hospital (off and on I spent close to 4-months flat on my back) I was thin.

Because both my gallbladder (which had been removed) and because my pancreas had been damaged, my diet was severely limited.  But the strange thing was that my limited diet was practically hardcore, Atkins.  So, for three years, I was a good boy.  And, then I got complacent.  I began doing things that I should not have done, eating and drinking things I should have avoided, and I began to gain weight again.

In 2016, I noticed that my waist was 54-inches and I began a concentrated effort to lose weight.  I went back on Atkins and dropped 14-inches. (I don’t own a scale.)  And then once again, I got complacent.  Remember, all this time, whether fat or thin, I only see ME.  I don’t see myself as fat or thin.  My waist got down to 40-inches and I got complacent again and started not watching what I was eating.  I gained 8-inches on my waist.

Then came January 2021 when my Pastor said that I should think about getting back into acting.  The next day, I received a promotion for headshots out of the blue.  It was a scam, but one that I knew I could take advantage of.  So, I did.  When I saw the headshots, I did not like the way I looked.  To me, I looked fat.  So, I decided to do something about it… again… and went back on the Atkins regimen.  Once more, I am losing weight and inches.  And thanks to my Pastor’s suggestion I have been in a movie that has won two international awards including one from the coveted Cannes Film Festival.

I am also more concerned about my health than I ever was.  I recently changed my insurance policy and because of that, I had to get a whole battery of tests.  My blood pressure is slightly elevated and because it was slightly elevated, it brought my cholesterol into question.  So, now I am on blood pressure medication and a statin for my cholesterol.  It is my hope that by continuing on Atkins, I will be able to stop all medications since, back in the day, Dr. Atkins got my diabetic grandmother off all her meds and controlled her blood pressure and insulin production using diet only.  I know what to do.  I just have to decide to do it.

Written By Eric B. Ruark

The post My Personal Odyssey on the Weight Loss Train: How Atkins Helped Me appeared first on Dr. E.C. Fulcher, Jr..

I recently had a conversation with someone who made a comment about a church in Harford County that had stained glass windows. The comment actually took me by surprise as I had thought this person to be somewhat intelligent, but what they said made me second guess that. They made a statement to the effect that the church had stained glass windows and therefore must be hiding something or doing something illegal. I asked if they had ever gone to that church or knew anyone that did, and their response was no, but that they just knew. I was very shocked at the rationale behind this statement as I had always seen stained glass windows in churches across the country and never would have thought that secrecy or illegal activity was the reason. Because of this, I decided to do a little research and find out what the stained glass window thing was truly about.

Historically the purpose of stained glass windows was not to allow people to see outside but to beautify buildings, control light, and oftentimes to tell a story. Many believe that stained glass was first created by ancient Egyptians and/or the Romans, both of whom largely excelled in the making of small colored glass objects. During the Medieval period, stained glass window making flourished, reaching its peak during the Gothic period, in which stained glass windows were used in cathedrals; stained glass window making persisted into the Renaissance period, but declined at the end of this period. Today, there has been a revival in the popularity of stained glass.

The origins of stained glass are not certain, but ancient Egyptians were probably the first people to discover glass while making their vessels; the oldest examples of man-made glass are Egyptian colored glass beads from around 2700 BC. Stained glass windows were first used by well-to-do Romans in their homes in the first century AD. Early examples of stained glass windows can also be found in some of the palaces and mosques in the Middle East. In Jarrow, England at St. Paul’s Monastery, some of the oldest pieces of a stained glass window from 686 AD were found; the earliest stained glass piece presenting a picture is the head of Christ from the 10^th century, discovered at the Lorsch Abbey in Germany.

The stained glass windows that are familiar today did not come about until the 10^th century, with the construction of Gothic cathedrals. The oldest complete stained glass windows were those of Augsburg Cathedral in Germany, constructed in the late 11^th century. The Medieval church funded most of the stained glass windows of the time. Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis was a famous patron of stained glass art and lived just outside of Paris. He used the wealth of the abbey to make windows larger and more beautiful because he considered light the manifestation of God himself. Subjects of stained glass windows being made during this time were mostly religious in nature and served to tell Biblical stories to laypeople that could not read, as well as beautifying the churches. It has been speculated that the stained glass windows probably had a more profound impact on the people than the sermons themselves. Some of the windows used obscure symbolic icons that scholars of today study to learn about the daily life of the time. Gothic windows were generally tall and spear-, wheel-, or rose-shaped. A good example of Gothic stained glass windows is those of the Notre Dame chapel, which holds one of the largest rose-shaped windows in the world. 

Between the Renaissance and the mid-19^th century, stained glass windows fell from favor. This was largely due to changes within religious norms of the time – the church had been the supporter of the arts, and the new Protestants did not believe in fancy artwork and decoration. By 1640, stained glass was rare and only small panels featuring heraldry were used for homes and city halls. The English Parliament demanded all images of the Virgin Mary and the Trinity be removed from churches, so many stained glass windows were smashed by fanatic vandals. The destruction only stopped because it was too costly to replace the windows. Stained glass window making became a lost art.

It wasn’t until the mid-19^th century that the interest in Gothic style was revived all over Europe and in the United States. Artists sought to recreate the lost technique of medieval stained glass windows. John La Farge and Louis Comfort Tiffany were makers of stained glass during the Art Nouveau period and created opalescent, confetti, drapery, and ridged glass. The windows of Louis Comfort Tiffany, Marc Chagall, and Frank Lloyd Wright are fine examples of modern stained glass windows. This revival was cut short by the depression of the 1930s and 1940s, which was then followed by WWII. In the last thirty years, interest in stained glass windows has again been revived. Select fine art programs within colleges and universities teach the art of making stained glass and many individual artists have flourished. Stained glass making is also a very popular hobby.

Given this history and the revival in stained glass windows, it is not surprising that a goodly number of churches across the world have them.  The church in Harford County is not alone in the appreciation of this art form.  Since the building is a church, the faux stained glass windows add a certain theological air and in many respects take the place of a sign. 

While this may be the historical and religious side to having stained glass windows, there is also a very practical side as well. Most churches these days video live or record their services. In order to do this, there is a need for windows to be covered. A lot of people don’t realize what goes into recording a live performance.

As anyone who has ever attended a Church service that is being recorded or watched on the internet will realize, the sanctuary is, in effect, a TV studio.  For the moment, try not to think of the main room as a church with a pulpit and pews, but as a theater with a stage and audience.  Almost everyone has seen the star of a talk show like ELLEN or WENDY come off the stage and go into the audience to talk with or interview the people there.  Those instances give the viewers the impression that the entire area is bathed in equal light.  But that is not the case.  What you have in reality is a stage covered with floodlights and an audience sitting in relative darkness until the MC goes into the audience and the house lights are turned up to accommodate the cameras.

And that is the key: the cameras.  Like the human eye, the camera has a lens that allows light to enter and be recorded.  This brings us back to the blocked windows in the church sanctuary.  In order to video the service correctly, the light must be balanced and even.  Think of it this way – if you walk into a dimly lit room from the bright outside, you are momentarily blinded by the dark until your eyes adjust to the new area of light.  A camera operates the same way.  If the windows were not shielded and a bright object passed in front of one near a camera, the camera would automatically dim to accommodate the new light thus dimming what was happening on the stage.  Sun, reflection, a cloud… there are all kinds of events that could vary the light coming in through a window that would affect the camera which would affect what someone watching on TV would see.  Can you imagine how irritating it would be to watch a show which was constantly going from light to dark indiscriminately? 

So while there is a very rich history in the art and usage of stained glass windows, there is also a very practical and very necessary reason for windows not being clearly visible. Neither of which involve anything sinister or illegal. I wish people would empower themselves with knowledge before speaking aloud. It seems to be that the ones with the least amount of knowledge about a particular situation are always the ones with the loudest comments on the topic. I prefer facts not feelings.

Written by Eric B. Ruark and Tanya J. Tillman

The post THERE IS A PURPOSE FOR STAINED GLASSED WINDOWS appeared first on Dr. E.C. Fulcher, Jr..

I was reading online and came across some negative comments pertaining to churches having security. It didn’t specify if the security was armed or unarmed, so to me, it seemed that they were just questioning and kind of attacking churches that have security and I thought to myself, why is that a problem? I mean, we go to the mall and there is security there right? We go to ballgames, concerts, clubs and there is security there as well. The security is there to prevent and protect the individuals using their services so they can enjoy a care-free experience. I mean face it, there are a lot of evil people in the world. So, I began to wonder why are people ok with security at public places like the ones I mentioned prior and so many more places, but security at a church is taboo.

So let’s look at this rationally. People tend to do their best to protect the things they love and that’s ok right? For example, you lock your house and car doors, put alarm systems in, by guard dogs, and yes some even arm themselves to protect themselves and their loved ones. Everyone agrees that those actions are ok because you are protecting yourself and your loved ones. So then, if a group of people loves their church, why can’t they take the same measures to protect the church they love and the people they worship with?

Let’s take a look at Jesus and his Disciples. They followed Jesus everywhere he went and took care of everything that needed to be done, but some don’t realize that they also acted as security. If you read Mark 5:30-31 “30And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? 31And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?” The fact that they were surrounding Jesus and someone touched him, he looked to them to find out who had touched him and the disciples replied that there were so many people they couldn’t see or keep everyone back. That sounds like they were trying to provide security for Jesus. So is it ok that Jesus had security? He had security and was still crucified.

Churches have always been under attack for one thing or another. As we get more modern, we have more modern ways to provide protection. Let’s be real, God doesn’t love everybody and not everybody loves God enough to leave his worshipers alone.  Let’s look at some examples of reasons churches need to be protected and have security.

June 2015: Charleston, South Carolina: Dylann Roof, 21, shot and killed nine black church members during a Bible study group inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Police contend the attack was a hate crime. A jury sentenced him to death in January 2017, and he’s now on death row in Terre Haute, Indiana.

August 2015: Waynesville, North Carolina: Wade Allen Baker, of Clyde, North Carolina, died after an exchange of gunfire with police, who had responded to a 911 call claiming that people had been shot at the Maple Grove Baptist Church in Waynesville, North Carolina.

September 2015: East Selma, Alabama: A man was charged with three counts of attempted murder after shooting his girlfriend, their baby, and a clergyman inside the Oasis Tabernacle Church in East Selma, Alabama.

October 2015: Detroit, Michigan: A Detroit pastor shot and killed a man during Sunday services when the man went after the pastor with a brick. The pastor whipped out his Glock handgun and fired several shots, killing the man.

February 2016: Dayton, Ohio: A gunman opened fire at St. Peter’s Missionary Baptist Church in Dayton, Ohio, killing the pastor. More than 20 people were reported to be inside the church at the time of the shooting,

April 2017: North Wales, Pennsylvania: Authorities say a dispute between two members at Keystone Fellowship Church in a Philadelphia suburb during a Sunday worship service ended with one person shooting and killing the other. Authorities didn’t say what the disturbance was about.

May 2017: Kansas City, Missouri: A church greeter was shot while welcoming parishioners at a church in south Kansas City. The suspect entered the House of Refuge Family Worship Church through a rear door and fired multiple shots. Greeter Montell Bruce was struck in the head, but his injury was not life-threatening.

June 2017: Oakland, California: Police arrested a man who they allege fired eight bullets into a religious statue outside St. Felicitas Catholic Church in Oakland, California. They investigated the shooting as a hate crime. No one was injured, but a police spokesman said that officers struggled with the male subject when he was taken into custody. The name of the person arrested was not immediately released. He was described as a white male in his mid-30s.

September 2017: Nashville, Tennessee: One woman was killed and seven other people were hurt after a suspect identified as a Sudanese immigrant opened fire at a Tennessee church.  The FBI confirmed it launched a civil rights investigation into the shooting.

November 2017: Fresno, California: A man waiting at a church parking lot shot and killed his estranged wife and her boyfriend after they emerged from Mass at St. Alphonsus Church. The husband, Manuel Garcia, 64, then drove to the family home 11 blocks away and, as SWAT officers massed outside, took his own life.

November 2017: Sutherland Springs, Texas: 26 people were killed and 20 others wounded in a shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs. Devin Patrick Kelley fired at least 450 rounds inside the church. A nearby resident shot and wounded Kelley before the killer drove away and ultimately ended his own life.

October 2018: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: A man opened fire in the Tree of Life synagogue in an anti-Semitic attack, killing 11 people and injuring six others.

April 2019: Poway, California: One person was killed, and at least three were wounded by a shooter at the Chabad of Poway synagogue.

I could go on and on, and this is just from America alone and only covers some of the shootings up to the middle of 2019.  It doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg for the invasion of churches around the world. There is a church in Abingdon, that set up its security detail many years ago, and was criticized and ridiculed. Now, many local churches have come to that church to ask how to go about initiating church security.

It is a sad commentary that churches, once the epitome of sanctuary, are no longer considered a safe haven.  Many churches have enemies from disgruntled parishioners who have left the flock to one member’s dislike for another to someone from another religion who considers another church an anathema. 

There are several churches in the Harford County area that have security. Mountain Christian Church has armed security and Harford County and the State Police have been known to sit in on their services. Trinity Lutheran Church has armed security as well, and they also have Harford County and the State Police sit in on their services.

It is sad to say that even the church I attend has enemies.  Over the years, our church has received bomb threats and our Pastor has even received death threats.  All threats have been turned over to the police and/or FBI and have been thoroughly investigated.  Recently one member who left the church made some spurious accusations which were investigated by the police and found to be completely groundless.  But still, the accusations were made and people believed the lies because the police report exonerating the church is buried in the last paragraph which few people have the time or inclination to read to.

No one goes to church expecting violence. But in this day and age, you cannot rule it out. It is better to be prepared and to let those who might be thinking about that violence be forewarned that their actions will have immediate consequences not just to the churchgoers, but to the perpetrators themselves. Bullies very rarely pick on someone they KNOW will hit back. 

Hopefully, this will help you to take a step back and think about it rationally and not from a place of fear or rumors, or personal emotions. The number of church attacks is facts and I bet each person that was saved because of the church security is very grateful.

Written and Edited by Eric B. Ruark and Tanya Tillman

The post CHURCHES AND SECURITY appeared first on Dr. E.C. Fulcher, Jr..

Grace, the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings. Seems simple enough to understand and accept right? Free and Unmerited Favor of God. Who wouldn’t want that? You would think that everyone would be lining up to accept this amazing free gift, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Let’s talk about that.

Why is Grace so hard to accept?  Maybe the question should be asked this way: Why is YOUR Grace so hard for OTHER people to accept?  Because that’s the real problem.  It’s not that you cannot embrace Grace; it’s that others cannot accept your accepting Grace.  Kind of convoluted, isn’t it, but makes sense. People see you enjoying your freedoms that Grace has allowed you and immediately they are offended and become judgmental of your expression of acceptance. But why?

In the Bible, Grace is mentioned 170 times in 159 verses.  The first time is in Genesis 6:8 “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord”.  But what exactly did that mean?  If you read the verses leading up to verse 8, you will see that the LORD is planning on destroying every living thing for Genesis 6:6 “And it repenteth the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart”. But he didn’t repent the existence of Noah.  He gave Noah a get-out-of-jail-free card because he “found favor” Proverbs 3:4 “So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man”. What had Noah done to receive that Grace?  Nothing.  It was a gift.

As you look through the other verses where Grace is mentioned, you begin to notice a pattern.  Grace is a gift.  No one does anything to receive it.  They are either given Grace, or they are not.  Grace is always tied up with another word: “found” or some variation thereof.  The Lord gives Grace and men either find or obtain Grace.  Proverbs 3:34 in various translations of the bible, hint that the Lord gives Grace to scorn the scorners, “Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly. Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly. Surely He scorns the scornful, But gives grace to the humble. Surely he scoffeth at the scoffers; But he giveth grace unto the lowly. He mocks the mockers, but gives grace to the humble”. Reading this and thinking about the original question of why is it so hard for others to accept your grace, makes the answer more obvious and easier to swallow. It’s simple-jealousy. 

Grace allows you to do something and be something that they cannot be: FREE.  Everyone without Grace is bound to try to follow the WHOLE law of God, which is impossible.  In order to find salvation, they must obey every jot and tittle to the letter.  In numerous places, in several letters, Paul refers to this juxtaposition of Grace vs. Debt.  Even James says that if you follow the Law, you must follow the whole law and that to break even one the most minor of rules negates the whole thing. 

Grace frees you from that.  Christ’s death frees you from that.  The blood of Christ frees you from that.  When God sees you through the blood of Christ, one of God’s natural laws comes into play.  Photographers like Ansel Adams and Edward Weston and others used this law to their advantage.  Panchromatic film (Black & White film) does not see or record color in the way our human eyes and brains do.  B&W film sees ALL the visible colors of light.  (God sees all the colors of light, after all he created it: “Let there be light.”)  So, if you are looking at a red rose and photograph it through a red filter, when you go to print the picture, the rose will appear white.  Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool”. 

In effect, the jealous person becomes incensed because he can see a red rose; he can touch a red rose; he can even smell a red rose – therefore, the rose in your picture should be red.  But you can hold the photo up and say, “No.  God sees my rose as white.”  You see, there is nothing that anyone can do to make that red rose turn white.  Like the followers of Baal on top of Mt. Carmel, all the shouting, self-flagellation, dancing in the spirt… in short, nothing will turn that red rose white.  But that also means that you, as the possessor of Grace don’t have to do anything, either.  God sees your rose as white because of the filter he looks through. You are now free to devote what time you may have used trying to turn the red rose white towards other, more fruitful projects like Matthew 11:29 “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls”.

The jealous person can look at you and see your “sins”.  You may drink.  You may smoke.  You might even go to a club in which scantily clad women (or men) perform. And they can get all Bertha-Better-Than-You about it.  But according to the Bible, it is written that 1Cor. 15:50 “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption”. 2 Cor. 5:16 “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more”. So why try to perfect something that cannot be perfected in the first place.  This line of thinking actually leads us into another question for another post: Why are some people so blinded that they cannot see the obvious? All they have to do is read and understand.  But that must mean that God does not want them to understand.  In other words, God does not love everybody…. WHAT??? And the crowd goes Wild!!! We shall definitely come back to that, but for now, lets focus on those he does love.

To those of us he does love, he looks at us through the blood of Christ and does not see our sins.  Not that our sins are not there.  He just doesn’t see them.  And therein lies His Grace.  He freely looks through his filtered spectacles (i.e. the WORD) and sees us as he first created us before the fall, giving us the chance to know Him as Adam was supposed to know him.  Freeing us to be what we were originally created to be.

Why wouldn’t anyone want that????

Written by Eric B. Ruark and Tanya J. Tillman

The post GRACE: THE GREATEST GIFT NEVER EARNED appeared first on Dr. E.C. Fulcher, Jr..

What is a Denomination? Why is the meaning of the word Denomination important? What does the word Denomination have to do with religion? These are all very good questions and I would like to take a moment and talk about them.

Let’s start by talking about what the word Denomination actually means. To start off, let’s go to Merriam-Webster and see what they have to say. This is their definition of the word; denomination noun

de·​nom·​i·​na·​tion | \ di-ˌnä-mə-ˈnā-shən  \

Definition of denomination

1: an act of denominating: the denomination of prices in U.S. dollars

2: a value or size of a series of values or sizes: metric denominations

especially : the value of a particular coin or bill, bills in $20 and $50 denominations

3: NAME, DESIGNATION: especially : a general name for a category, listed under the general denomination of gifts

4: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices, people from several different Christian denominations

Now let’s go to the Granddaddy of all Dictionaries, The Oxford English Dictionary,(OED) and see what they have to say.

1. A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church; 1a. A group or branch of any religion.

2. The face value of a banknote, coin or postage stamp; 2a. The rank of a playing card within a suit, or of a suit relative to the others.

3. Formal name of designation, especially one serving to classify a set of things; 3a.The action of naming or classifying something.

So now that we have a basic understanding of what the word Denomination means from two different sources we can discuss it further. Why is it important to know what the word means before we continue, well, you have to know what you’re talking about before you use the word. We will go further into that thought a little later. For now, looking at the definitions presented, do you realize that of all the definitions, there are really only two of those definitions that a person thinks of when thinking of using the word Denomination. Those two would be;

1. When talking about money; and
2. When talking about religion

That’s not so surprising, as many words have many meanings that we don’t use. But what is surprising is the two definitions that are always referenced when dealing with this one particular word, Denomination; money and religion. Why do you think that is? Why is it interesting? Well, let’s talk about it.

Let’s start with the religious aspect. Did you know that the word “Denomination” does not appear one time in the Bible?  That is not to say that one of the definitions for the word denomination is not evident in the Bible. PHARISEES, SADDUCEES, and HERODIANS were all religious sects and easily fit the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition 4. a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices, people from several different Christian denominations, as well as Oxford English Dictionary’s definition 1 and 1a  A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church; 1a. A group or branch of any religion. It is probably safe to say that from the moment man began worshiping the creature and not the creator, there have been different sects from the beginning of time.  Do you worship the thunder or the lightning? The rain or the flood?  The wind or the sun or both?

But what makes a denomination or sect?  I think the most humorous, facetious, and perhaps the most correct example was in the movie THE FOUR MUSKETEERS when Porthos asks Athos why they are fighting the Huguenots and Athos explains, “We cross ourselves from right to left and they cross themselves from left to right.”  A sect can stay within the religion, but a denomination is a complete split or Autonomous as the OED calls it.

Well, what’s wrong with a denomination? You might ask.  Everything, I would answer.  Christianity was founded on the principle of the believers being of one mind and one accord. Acts 1:14: “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” Acts 2:42: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” Acts 2:46: “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” There are also numerous other places that all state the early Christians were of one accord.  They were like-minded.  They all believed the same thing.  Jesus, himself, preached this unity of mind in Matthew 18: 19-20: “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my father which is in heaven.” “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Do the Baptists believe the same thing as the Presbyterians?  No.  Do the Presbyterians believe the same thing as the Catholics?  No.  Each denomination has formed a church around a slightly different set of core beliefs.  They have made void the Word of God by their traditions. 

Now, about the definition surrounding money. Looking at the Merriam-Webster definition 1 and 2 along with the OED definition 2. The face value of a banknote.  Church denominations are just like money denominations.  According to the Baptists, you must do x, y, and z to be saved.  According to the Presbyterians, you must do a, b, and c in order to be saved.  They are as different as are a 5- and 10-dollar bill.  A $5 will only buy you half as much as a $10 and a $10 will only buy half as much as a $20.  And none of them will buy as much as a good old Ben Franklin $100.  Different religious denominations promise you salvation and justification but in none of them do you have to perform the same actions to get saved.

Not long ago, Pastor Dr. E C Fulcher Jr went into the hospital for some much-needed surgery.  While he was being admitted, the attendant asked him what his religion was.  “Christian,” the Pastor answered.  “I mean what denomination,” the attendant asked.  “Christian,” the Pastor repeated.  “No, I mean, are you a Baptist, Methodist or what?” the attendant asked.  “Christian,” the Pastor answered totally dumbfounding the attendant who, obviously, had no idea what he was talking about.

We are not Baptist.  We are not Pentecostal.  We are not Presbyterian.  We harken back to that first church the one where the members sat in the upper room, all of one mind and one accord.  We believe in doing things the Bible way and not as some deacon board in some city in Georgia wants things done.  We are Christians and that calls for a whole different allegiance, one to the Word of God and not the traditions of men.

The post DENOMINATONS appeared first on Dr. E.C. Fulcher, Jr..

A while ago, during a sermon, Dr. E C Fulcher Jr made a statement that got me thinking. He mentioned that while he was a Man of God sent here to perfect the saints as it states in Eph 4:11-12 “ And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:”, that he could save us and yet also be a castaway himself. I thought to myself, how could that be possible. I considered this statement and realized that he was echoing Paul’s famous statement in 1Corinthians 9:27 “But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”  Reading this scripture only made me think more and I decided that I needed to do some more digging. There must be a deeper meaning.

The word Castaway being translated here in the New Testament is the Greek ‘adokimos’ which means unapproved, rejected (and by implication) worthless.  And it got me to thinking… are the men of God in the Bible castaways of one sort or another?

Let’s take a look at Moses. Moses was chosen to lead his people out of bondage into the promised land, yet… he became unapproved and was rejected from crossing over into it.  His people weren’t any less saved or less chosen because of his mistake.  He became a castaway on the wrong side of the Jordan River.  He was allowed to look into the promised land, but he was not allowed to enter it, Deu 32:52 “Yet thou shalt see the land before thee; but thou shalt not go thither unto the land which I give the children of Israel.” Thus, making him one of God’s castaways.

Then there was Joseph, who began his adventures as a castaway.  He was unapproved and rejected by members of his own family.  His brothers hated him so much because he was loved by his father more than all his brothers, Gen 37:4 “And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.” He was cast out of his family by his brothers and sold into slavery, Gen 37:27 “Come let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content.” Yet, he was able to use the gifts of his dreams and interpretation that God gave him to overcome his castawayness (my word) and rise to the highest position in the land of Egypt. Gen 41:42-43 “And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt.”

Not to mention Sampson, another of God’s castaways.  Sampson was gifted strength by God, his command was to never tell anyone the source of his strength. However, Sampson fell in love with a woman named Delilah. He allowed himself to be seduced by her and because of his love for her, told her the secret, Judg 16:17 “That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.” This gave Delilah the information that she needed and she turned him over to the lords of the Philistines for payment, who came and cut his hair. His loss of strength was a symbol of his castawayness. 

According to historical records, Isaiah and Jeremiah were unapproved and rejected by the people they were trying to reach.  Isaiah was so rejected that he was murdered, sawn in half, by the people who refused his message.  Jeremiah had to flee Jerusalem and ended up in Ireland and the people who rejected him ended up in captivity in Babylon. 

But the Bible was written for those of us upon whom the end would be and it was written in English (KJV) which means that we also have to look at the English word “Castaway” and derive some meaning therein.  Cast – a – way.  Something that is thrown away.  But thrown by whom? 

Take Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, they were “cast” into the furnace by the King’s men, Dan 3:21 “Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.”

Then there wasJonah, he was “cast” into the sea by the sailors for the whale to swallow him, Jon 1:12 “And he said unto them, Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea: so shall the sea be calm unto you: for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you.”  

Now Stephen was “cast” out of the city to be stoned, Acts 7:58-59 “And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”  

In virtually all the verses in which “cast” is used, it means to throw. 

But when you “throw” something, you throw it somewhere.  There is no nebulous place called “away”.  If I throw a wrapper “away”, I have thrown it into the garbage.  Think of all the “away” places you have thrown things and you will see that whatever “away” place has been your target, “away” has been a place.  And a “place” equals a target.

A baseball pitcher throws a baseball away from him but towards the target of the catcher’s mitt.  A quarterback throws the football towards a receiver downfield.  The whole concept of being a castaway depends on who is doing the throwing: man or God.

Now, I live on a boat, so the whole concept of casting something away took on a whole different direction.  I’m a fly-fisherman.  Norman Maclean nailed it in the final paragraphs of his book, A River Runs Through It.  Robert Redford used it as the closing soliloquy for his movie of the same name:

            “Of course, now I am too old to be much of a fisherman, and now of course I usually fish the big waters alone, although some friends think I shouldn’t.  Like many fly fishermen in western Montana, where the summer days are almost Arctic in length, I often do not start fishing until the cool of the evening.  Then in the Arctic half-light of the canyon, all existence fades to a being on with my soul and memories and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise.

            Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it.  The river was cut by the world’s great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time.  On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs.

            I am haunted by waters.“

When Dr. E C Fulcher Jr talked about being a castaway, this statement flooded into my head and took on the form of an analogy.  God is the fly fisherman.  The men of God are the fly (bait) and the fish are the Hagios.  God is not seining netting the river to capture all the fish that are swimming there.  He doesn’t want them all.  He is very particular about which fish He wants.  He casts his fly, the Man of God, to a specific location and the Man of God’s message lures one fish in particular to it.  He is not casting his fly away.  Rather He is casting it to something.  The chosen, the called-out ones, are harvested one at a time, slowly with meticulous care until the creel is filled.  The creel only holds so many.  This many and no more.  Only in the eyes of an unbeliever, can the Man of God be a castaway.  To us fish, he is something to be desired above all else.  He is the direct connection to God and by him, God will reel us in.

Rev 22:1 ” And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.”

Written by Eric B. Ruark and Tanya J. Tillman

The post THE MAN OF GOD…….A CASTAWAY???? appeared first on Dr. E.C. Fulcher, Jr..

As we have seen, the Democratic Party started out as the big business, whites only, small central government party.  There were Progressives (as they were called before 1917) but those people tended to be on the Republican side of the aisle.  Theodore Roosevelt was considered a Progressive and he was a Republican.  Woodrow Wilson was considered Conservative, and he was a Democrat.  But that all changed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and the 1935 relief act. Brief Description (FDR signs Emergency Relief Appropriation Act – HISTORY.)

To understand what happened, you have to look at what happened in Russia in 1917.  There was a revolution.  Actually, there were a series of revolutions: the Tsar was overthrown; the Mensheviks took power; the Bolsheviks overthrew the Mensheviks and established a Marxist state run by a triumvirate of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin.  While Lenin and Trotsky were working towards the creation of a Communist/Marxist state, Stalin was working behind the scenes to take full power.  He made his move when Lenin died.  He ousted Trotsky and assumed complete control of the Russian Communist Party. 

Books have been written about what Stalin did and the millions he murdered in his quest for power.  One of the best was written by Trotsky before his assassination in Mexico in August of 1940.  The upshot of the whole thing was that Stalin was NOT a Marxist/Communist.  He was one of the Reactionaries that Marx warned about in the Communist Manifesto.  He basically reinstated Tsarist policies under the guise of Communism and made himself the sole, unquestioned ruler of the reconstituted U.S.S.R. (The Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics).  The old-timers knew what he had done.  My grandparents and their friends who fled the 1912 revolution in Russia called Stalin “The Red Tsar”.  He hid his totalitarianism behind the façade of communist jargon.  What the Left, the media, and the pundits are all spouting today are not Marxist principles but Stalinist ones.

Now, into that mishmash, we have to throw in a little American Exceptionalism. 

Americans have a way of adapting European concepts to fit themselves in a totally unique way.  There are some politicians who try to deny this, but a simple reading of world history will put the lie to them.  Americans broke from England with its King and parliamentary style of government and created one with a revolving President and an offsetting Congress and Supreme Court.  They took the Leftist ideas coming out of the Soviet Union and adapted them to the American Experience.  All worker’s jobs in the USSR were protected.  There was no unemployment because the government found you a job whether you liked it or not.  Millions died in Soviet Government-owned factories, worked to death and Stalin simply murdered anyone who tried to tell about it.  It was years before the truth of what was happening behind his Iron Curtain, as Winston Churchill called it, came out.

But what FDR did with the 1935 bill was add protection to the unemployed, something that was totally anathema to the Marxist concept.  Yes, the US Government established a work program, the WPA, but there were some people who did not or could not work.  In Marxist theory, these people should have been allowed to die off.  They would become the collateral damage of establishing a new social order, as one former American President described them.  By extending this protection to non-workers, FDR created a class of individuals who were dependent on the Government for their sustenance without contributing to the fund from which that sustenance derived. Some may think this is great, it will provide for those that can’t provide for themselves. Well, consider this story that was told to me…..

A mouse is placed in a glass jar filled with its favorite grain, corn. He thinks to himself, this is Amazing! I don’t have to search for food any longer, fearing for my life, wondering whether I will starve or not. So the mouse beings to eat freely whenever he wants. As time goes on, he begins to taste some things that he doesn’t necessarily like, but hey, there is still plenty of corn, so he dismisses the things he doesn’t like and continues to eat the free corn. More time passes and now the mouse is at the bottom of the glass jar and he finds nothing but dirt, rock, and weeds. No more corn. Then the mouse realizes that he is at the bottom of the jar and cannot even climb out to go find food for himself. Then one day, some corn is dropped into the jar. He thinks I am saved, I have corn to eat. But the corn does not come when he wants. Now he realizes that the food will only come when someone drops it into the jar, otherwise, he has nothing to eat. At that moment, he begins to think that he is doomed because he is now at the mercy of someone else for his food and he is no longer able to forge for himself, so if no one drops corn into the jar, he will surely starve to death.

I ask, what does this sound like to you? What do you think this will create?

This created the underclass that Marx warned about, a class of non-workers that Politicians would keep subservient to them in order to ensure their elections.  But to what end?  Marx called the politicians who used this subservient class, Reactionaries because they were using their political power to return the government/society to something that had gone before and was not progressing towards the sought-after Communist utopia.  But just what is it that the people who run the Democratic Party want to return to?

For Stalin, the only kind of Totalitarian government they knew was the Tsar.  Remember, they had been ruled by one family since the 1600s, yet the first Tsar was Ivan the Terrible, and he took control in 1547.  Europe had seen various families controlling the governments of vast regions of the continent: Frederick III, a Habsburg, was confirmed the first Holy Roman Emperor in 1452.  The last Habsburg Emperor, Frans Joseph died in 1916.  At one point in European history, there was a Habsburg on virtually every throne in Europe except England.  The Prussian states, which eventually became Germany had the Hohenzollerns.  France had the Bourbons.  England had the Plantagenets, Stuarts, and others.  So, when we look at the history of European Totalitarians, the “Left” has numerous examples of ruling families to emulate in the New World Order.

But, what about America?  We have never had a ruling family.  But, we have had people who knew how to rule on the same level of subjugation.  Remember Andrew Jackson and his plantation?  Just look at Cuba and Venezuela.  The Castros, hiding behind the façade of communism/socialism have basically reinstated the old Colonial paradigm with themselves as the rulers over a captive population, Venezuela, the same.  The colonial paradigm works as long as the conquered colonials are kept a step or two above the level of desperation.  Only desperate people revolt. 

In America, the paradigm is the Plantation, and as we have seen from history 1620-1865, the Plantation system works.  It wasn’t the slaves who rebelled and started the Civil War.  It was the plantations’ economic competitors in the North.  On a plantation, you had masters and slaves.  The slaves worked to provide the master with things to sell (cotton or tobacco); the master would sell those commodities and then provide the slaves with what they needed to live from clothes to food to shelter to medical. 

In my humble opinion, the Democratic Party is a party of Reactionary elites who are trying to re-establish a national plantation with themselves as the masters and the rest of us as their slaves.  The middle-class, the new proletariat, the workers are being taxed with ever higher and higher taxes to get them used to the government taking all and then giving back just what the proletariat needs to be a step or three above the survival level.  They are taking the money, now, and rather than redistributing it among the workers, they are giving it to the non-workers only because they have to have a place to put it.  Once they achieve their goals and convert the working middle class into their slaves, they can get rid of those on welfare, just as Venezuela has done by either allowing them to starve or run away.  But in all honesty, there is nowhere else to run.  Anyone on welfare today will become the collateral damage of tomorrow when they are no longer needed to vote the Democratic elite into power because once the Reactionary Elite has achieved that level of power, elections will no longer be necessary or will be so controlled as to be meaningless.  Stalin had elections.  He always won.  One day, in the not too distant future, we will have elections here in America and the Democrats will always win as will a couple of Republican flunkies just to make the corrupt elections seem honest.

But the Democrats will be in for a big surprise.  They have ignored the Bible and the last day prophesies.  As the Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky triumvirate, or the Pompey, Crassus, Caesar triumvirate, or the triumvirate of Octavianus, Antony, and Lepidus, someone will emerge from the shadows to assume supreme power with an angel of Satan, or Satan himself empowering him.  And he or she will rule until the Saints of God return in their power to establish the millennium.  Consider these scriptures….

Revelation 6:2-8 “(2) And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. (3) And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. (4) And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. (5) And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. (6) And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. (7) And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. (8) And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.”

Now with those verses in mind, take a look around the world today, and hopefully, your eyes will be opened.

Written by Eric B. Ruark and Tanya J. Tillman

The post The History of Politics appeared first on Dr. E.C. Fulcher, Jr..

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! was the clarion call of the Marxist/Communist party.  Note the word WORKERS.  Marx’s entire philosophy hinged on the belief that the proletariat, the wage-slaves, from around the world would unite in one great revolution and create the ultimate Communist utopia.  There was no room for what we call “welfare” in his system.  He considered non-workers scum (his word not mine) and warned against this non-laboring class of people being swept up into the revolution as the hired thugs (his word, not mine) of a Reactionary Elite.

In Marxist philosophy, there are four words that you really have to key on: Proletariat, Bourgeoise, Capitalist, and Reactionary. 

The Proletariat were the workers, the wage-slaves, the field hands of the Bourgeoise elite.  Capitalists were the owners of the corporations, companies, and businesses that employed the Proletariat.  With Bourgeoise, think middle-class in today’s terms, lower-end capitalists, small business owners who employed a handful of people.  Reactionaries were people who wanted to keep and return to the society from which the Marxists were rebelling.

Reactionaries wanted to keep their serfs and wage-slaves; the Bourgeoise wanted to keep the business that lined their pockets with money and let them lead a good life; the Capitalists wanted to keep control of their corporations.

According to Marx, these three groups denied the Proletariat the right to receive the proper compensation for their labor.  For Marx, it centered around who owned the means of production.

Think of a company, any company that makes a Billion Dollars a year. Say they make a Widget.  The president of the company makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.  The company’s executives make huge amounts of money but not as much as the president.  And the workers who actually make the Widget get an hourly wage.  If there is a huge demand for Widgets in a particular year, the president and the executives all receive bonuses.  And the workers continue to make their hourly wage.

According to Marx, the people who actually made the Widget should receive the financial benefit not those at the top.  He argued that the Billion Dollars should be equally divided among ALL the employees in that company and not shared only at the top.  In his world, it was a sin that the Capitalists were living high on the hog off the blood, sweat, and tears of the common laborer.  It was the laborer who invested his heartbeats in making that Widget and therefore really owned the Widget and should reap the benefits from its sale.

Expanding that to the national and then the world level, since the Proletariat owned the means of production for everything, they should all share equally in the rewards for literally making everything.  Stop and think for a moment.  Is there anything that you use, wear or eat that is not made, handled, or grown by someone else?

Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity!  Marx raised the whole idea of Communism to a kind of religion, as well he should since he stole the whole idea from the Bible.  But wait, you say, Communism is atheistic.  There is no God in Communism.  Marx called religion the “opiate of the people”.  In the Communist Manifesto, he literally dismisses religion in one line as not worthy of even being discussed.  He had to because anyone who seriously read the Bible would see Marx was a fraud.  He took God’s plan for his chosen people and then substituted the State for God.  And with that substitution, he doomed Communism to failure.

What, you don’t believe me?  Acts 2:44-45 “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”

And

Acts 4:34-35 “Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.”  

Can someone say, “Commune?” 

The God of the Bible is a totalitarian who favors communism/socialism for His followers.  The first law is that God comes first in everything.  If you put God first, you almost automatically become a Communist.  You work to please God, not yourself.  You give God all that you make.  And since you have given all, God, who knows all, gives you back what you need.  And what do you need?  The Bible says, 1 Timothy 6:8 “And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.”.  Everything else is vanity.  Notice that the Bible didn’t say “with Chateau Briand and Gucci let us be therewith content.”  If you don’t believe me about all being vanity, read Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 2:24 – There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labor. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.

Ecclesiastes 5:19 – Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat therefor, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God.

And then there are all the verses about a man enjoying the fruits of his labor.  Grab a Concordance from the Library (when one opens again), or download a Bible App and search the words “fruit”, “labour”, “work” and their various variations and you will be shocked at how many talk about the laborer getting the full benefit from his labor:

Psalm 128:2 – For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee.

Proverbs 14:23 – In all labour there is profit: but the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury.

But, as Marx supposed, how can a laborer enjoy the fruits of his labor if there is someone there to take them from him?  And then you have the nail-in-the-coffin (so to speak): 2 Th 3:10 – “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”  If you don’t work, you don’t eat.  Could you be any more Marxist than that?

If you read a biography of Marx, you will discover that he was a student of Fredrich Hegel’s philosophy and adopted his dialectical method to criticize established society, politics, and religion from a leftist perspective.  It was this dialectical method that led him to develop an abject dislike for organized religion which he blamed God for.  He, therefore, took what the Bible had to say about labor and took God out of the picture, substituting the State for God.  But he forgot about human nature, and that’s where non-God-Centered communism breaks down.  A person might feel moved to give ALL to God, like the poor woman who gave her two mites in Mark 12:42- “And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing”. But how many would feel so moved to give all to the State?  In a beautiful, altruistic world in some other matrix, maybe.  But not on earth then, or today.  Man is too in love with the seven deadly sins. 

Which brings us back to today’s Democratic Party and the Reactionary Elite.

To Be Continued…….

Written by Eric B. Ruark

The post The History of Politics appeared first on Dr. E.C. Fulcher, Jr..

From its inception in the 1830s, the Democratic Party was the party of big business.  I know, you are thinking that wait a minute, the Republicans have always been the party of big business.  Maybe 20^th Century big business, but not 19^th Century big business.  In the 19^th Century, what we consider the big business, today, still gleamed in their inventors’ eyes or fledgling companies just struggling to get the venture capital to get off the ground.  Railroads were regional and men like Cornelius Vanderbilt were working at monopolizing them.  But that was to come after the Civil War.

Prior to the Civil War, big business was cotton.  Cotton ruled the world and American Southern planters ruled cotton.  In fact, as people were beginning to contemplate a Civil War, the Southern politicians thought secession a done deal because they thought that England would not allow the supply of southern cotton to be disrupted to their mills.  If the English mills did not get southern cotton, the British economy would collapse.

Well, the dearth of southern cotton played right into the hands of a small number of wealthy mill owners.  Fearing a civil war in America, these men began growing cotton in Egypt along the Nile and in the blossoming British Raj in India.  What was once too expensive to import economically suddenly became the rage when Lincoln blockaded the southern ports and the supply of American cotton began to dry up.

This also allowed the British mill owners a chance to kill off their competition.  Much of Britain’s cotton products were produced by small, home industries.  When the supply of American cotton dried up, these small businesses went out of business and the workers had to leave their homes and go to the manufacturing centers looking for work.  These underpaid wage-slaves became the hunting ground for a new philosophy coined in Germany by a young man named Karl Marx.

Europe had one thing that America did not: a class-based society.  It was exactly the thing that the early Americans had run away from.  In America, a longshoreman like Cornelius Vanderbilt could work their way up the economic ladder and become one of the wealthiest men in the country by sheer force of will and fists.  In Europe, that would not be possible.  A man born in one social-economic class was fated to stay in that class.  Marx became preoccupied with an attempt to understand his contemporary capitalist mode of production, as driven by a remorseless pursuit of profit.  According to Marx, that profit was derived from the exploitation of the workers whom he called the proletariat.  (Think of the British cotton workers in the example above who lost their home businesses and then had to work for the men who had destroyed them.)  According to Marx, this class struggle would eventually lead mankind to Communism as the fairest and most equitable means of distributing the wealth earned from a class’s common labor.

During the course of the 19^th Century, the Marxist philosophy began to take hold among the down-trodden of Europe’s lower classes.  The most famous expression of his socialism was the Paris Commune of 1871 when a radical socialist, anti-religious and revolutionary government took control of the city of Paris when the French government collapsed during the Franco-Prussian war.  When France surrendered to Prussia and a new government was formed, the Paris Commune refused to recognize it.  Eventually, the new government sent in the French army and the commune came to a bloody end. 

Marx’s writings had a deep impact on those people who felt that the system had marginalized them, slipped them into categories from which they could not get out.  And there was no country where that was more apparent than in Russia.

Russia was ruled by the Tsar.  The Tsar was more than a king or an emperor.  He was the owner.  Basically, the Tsar owned Russia and everyone there lived there by his sufferance.  He gave out the property for the nobles to live on.  If the Tsar gave an estate, that estate included everyone and everything on it.  The people were not allowed to leave the estate without the owner’s permission.  It was a form of slavery that made America’s slavery look like a walk in the park.  Whereas many American states had laws as to the treatment of slaves, there were no such laws in Russia.  An estate owner could beat one of his serfs to death without consequence.  The Romanov family ruled Russia as Tsars from 1613 to 1917.

In 1917 there was a revolution in Russia, followed by a series of mini-revolutions and coups the result of which was the establishment of a Communist government under the control of a triumvirate, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin.  When Lenin died, Stalin maneuvered for control and became the sole ruler in Russia.  Trotsky fled to Mexico where he was eventually assassinated. 

The Russian Revolution attracted many Americans.  Remember, this was the height of the Jim Crow period.  Racism was rampant.  Big business, Republican-style was King, Workers were being exploited and living in dirt poor conditions while the corporation owners were living in the mansions on top of Nob Hill.  Marx’s socialist ideas found a home with a small group of people who felt the need to rectify this exploitation.  Unions were formed and struck for fair wages.  At the Ford Motor Company, striking workers were machine-gunned by the Nation Guard which was established to keep this “Red” terror in check.

Coal miners struck.  Pullman train porters struck.  And all strikes were met with an iron fist.  Since the company owners tended to be Republican, their workers began to find a welcome mat spread for them with the Democratic Party.  As time went on and the 20^th Century progressed, more and more Marxist ideas became enshrined in Democratic platforms.  Minimum wage.  Fare wage.  Social Security. Workers had rights.  Workers had the right to be protected.  Workers had the right to safety measures.  Then in 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt created the first National Welfare program that had nothing to do with workers, but rather with those who did not work.

And the exact thing that Marx warned against happened.  To Be Continued…

Written By Eric B. Ruark

The post The History of Politics appeared first on Dr. E.C. Fulcher, Jr..

Not many people get my sense of humor.  In fact, there are those who doubt that I have one, usually Liberals who can’t tell a joke themselves.  Take, for instance, the woman who, in her profile listed she/her as the way she wanted to be addressed.  She took offense when I responded to her that I preferred Sir as the way I wanted to be addressed.

Now, I am not a White Supremacist as she claimed.  I AM white and I AM superior to most people (my I.Q. was 162 the last time it was tested), but I tend to side with Puck in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream when he said, “Lord, what fools these mortals be.”  My answer comes from an old Bridget Bardot movie, in which the juvenile delinquents confront the hero and ask his name and the hero responds, “Monsieur, point Avant, point derriere.  Rien de plus”, which roughly translates as “Mister (Sir), period in front, period behind, nothing more.”  I have always wanted to use that line, but until the Liberals added a whole slew of sexes to the two that God saddled us with, I wasn’t able to.  Now, when I tell people to call me Sir, I am insulting them.  Go figure.

Okay, all seriousness aside, I do get a kick out of poking fun at people who take themselves too seriously.  Like the other day, I posted a comment: “Let’s reopen indoor dining and bars for those who have already had Covid.  They can’t catch it and they can’t pass it on.”  One of my Liberal friends posted:  Unproven.  This was from an intelligent man in his 70s who forgot that people who have had Covid also have the antibodies from that disease, which means that they can’t catch it again.  That’s why the government is pushing the vaccines so hard.  The vaccines do not cure the disease, they merely allow the body to manufacture the antibodies against it.

I thought we knew things like that.  That’s why we got the smallpox vaccine as children.  It allowed our bodies to make the antibodies so we would not contact what was once one of the most virulent diseases on this planet.  Polio, the same.  Measles, the same.  We have been so good at controlling diseases that the current generation has no concept of what the purpose of those vaccines was for.  I’d call them fools, but they are foolish because of ignorance, ignorant because they haven’t been taught. 

For example, there is a wave of posts on the internet about how the Democrats have been taken over by the Socialists/Communists and how we are headed towards a socialist government like Venezuela or Cuba.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Oh, we may be heading towards a Cuba/Venezuela style of government, but it has nothing to do with socialism.  To understand that, you have to go back to the beginning and learn things that the “Left” doesn’t want you to know, things that they no longer teach in school.  So, settle back.  I am about to unload on you.

The Democratic Party traces its inception to Thomas Jefferson and his agrarian policies.  But its real beginning was in the 1830s with the presidency of Andrew Jackson.  At that time, Jackson corralled the Jeffersonians from the various states and organized them into a viable political party with its various elements working together towards a common goal, namely getting him elected.  Jackson was the perfect organizer.  He was a general, known for having brought various elements together in his defense of New Orleans from the British in the War of 1812.  He owned an enormous plantation, The Hermitage, (which is currently a museum outside of Nashville, Tennessee) encompassing some 1,120 acres which took some 150 slaves to run.  And according to my History Professor at Rutgers, you had to be one hell of an organizer to run a plantation of this size in the early 1800s.

Jackson was hardly an egalitarian.  The press at the time called him King Andrew because he ruled by what we would now call executive order.  And he ruled with an iron fist.  I say ruled, rather than governed.  The United States had, at one time, a national bank, much like the Bank of England.  The Jacksonian Democrats thought the bank was a tool of corporate interests.  So, Jackson destroyed it.  He refused to recertify the bank’s charter and the bank collapsed. 

The Cherokee Indians were living on prime cotton land in Georgia.  They had Americanized themselves.  They were living in houses, had plantations, owned slaves.  But they were Indians and certain southern planters coveted their land.  So, Jackson ordered them removed to the newly created Indian territory on the other side of the Mississippi River.  The Cherokees took him to court and the Supreme Court told the president that he didn’t have the authority to move the Cherokees.  Jackson told the Supreme Court to go to Hell.  He had the army and that’s all he needed.  Hence, history has the Trail of Tears, unlawful removal of an entire tribe during the harshest time of year. 

Moderates were uneasy about Jackson’s imperial attitude, so they began grooming a well-known personality with a lot of charisma to go up against him, Tennessee Congressman David Crockett.  Jackson threw the whole weight of his machine against Crockett and in what was probably a rigged election, Crockett lost his Congressional seat and his chance to run for President of the United States.  When asked what he thought about the election, Crockett made the famous statement, “You can go to Hell.  I’m going to Texas.”  Who knew that immortality awaited him at the Alamo.

Democratic historians like to claim that these early Democrats represented a wide range of views but shared a fundamental commitment to the Jeffersonian concept of an agrarian society.  They viewed the central government as the enemy of individual liberty.  The Jacksonians feared the concentration of economic and political power in a centralized national government.  They believed that a centralized national government would intervene in the economy that benefitted special interests and would create corporate monopolies that favored the rich.  It was a political philosophy that became known as “States’ Rights”.  (Not exactly the Democratic position today.)

But what was that “Agrarian” society that the Democrats wanted to protect?  Look up the word “Agrarian” and you’ll read that the word means “relating to the cultivation of land”.  The current spin-meisters would like you to believe that the Jackson Democrats were all about the small farmer.  But small farmers weren’t the movers and shakers.  It was the big plantation owners, like Jackson, men with property and by property read slaves who ran the Democratic Party.  That’s why whenever states were added to the Union, one had to be brought in as a “free” state and the other as a “slave” state.

By the late 1700s after the Revolution of 1776, Northern States were coming to the conclusion that slavery was not profitable.  Northern states had to contend with something that the Deep South did not – Winter.  In the north, farms had to close down for about five months.  Anyone owning slaves, field hands dedicated to farming, had to have their slaves idle for most of the year.  It simply was not profitable.  What was profitable was setting up a mill on one of the many rivers that did not freeze over and set up some kind of manufacturing business.  This led to another problem.  During the winter, it was not only the slaves who were idle, their white owners/families were, too. 

The competition arose between the whites and the blacks for jobs in the growing factories in the North and since most of the blacks were slaves, there was nothing simpler to get them out of the way than to “sell them South”.   As the towns around the mills began to grow into cities, more and more white men and families moved off their farms in order to have a constant income.  This gave rise to a new class of people, later identified by a European Radical Reformer named Karl Marx as “wage-slaves”.  Marx differentiated “chattel-slaves” and “wage-slaves”.  (But more on that later.)  But in the South, the big plantations did not have to close down.

Although modern pundits would have you believe that the conflict between the North and the South was over slavery, it was not.  Slavery was one element, but the conflict was entirely economic.  The North looked upon the Southern economy as being based on “Free” labor.  The big planters did not have to pay their slaves whereas, the Northern manufacturers had to pay their labor.  How could the North compete with free labor?  The Northerners had to pay their employees a living wage.  The South did not.  And so the idea of the Abolition of Slavery began to creep into the politics of the era.  This brings us to the Republican Party.

The Republican Party emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed for popular sovereignty which meant that the people within the state had the right to decide whether or not a state would be free or black.  In Kansas, people from North and South flooded into the state to take part in the voting.  They began fighting hence the rise of the Bleeding Kansas mantra. 

In 1856, the fledgling Republican Party put up John C. Fremont for President of the United States.  Fremont was a well-known explorer and a Senator from California.  Despite his notoriety, he lost.  Their next candidate was Abraham Lincoln.  He won.  He won because the Democratic Party was split along regional lines, the more radical Democrats from the Deep South put up one candidate, and the moderates from the mid states like Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia put up another.  This three-way race allowed Lincoln to win.

When Lincoln won, the Deep South seceded, and we had the Civil War.

After the Civil War, the Democratic Party was shut out of politics on the national level for several decades.  But that did not stop them on the local level.  They created the Klu Klux Klan to terrorize people, namely the Blacks who had been given the right to vote along with their freedom.  Several of their surviving generals, led by former General Early began to push the concept of “The Lost Cause”. 

The Lost Cause was a revisionist history of what happened.  The South’s seceding was a just act and heroic cause.  They were defending States’ Rights.  Slavery was just and moral because the former slaves were happy, even grateful.  The Lost Cause permeated literature and as the century came to a close and a new century dawned, the Lost Cause entered the realm of Hollywood and the films.  The first full-length feature film was an adaptation of a best-selling novel extolling the Klan, The  KLANSMAN.  Hollywood changed its title to BIRTH OF A NATION.  Later came the ultimate expression of the lost cause in GONE WITH THE WIND.  The acceptance of the Lost Cause allowed the Democrats to work their way back into national politics.

As the Democrats regained power, Democratic politicians pushed through JIM CROW laws stripping Blacks of their civil and human rights.  Racism became rampant across the country.  1919 was the year in which more blacks were lynched than at any other time in American History.  The Democrats pushed for segregation.  School boards set up an American Apartheid in separate but equal schools.  Whites and blacks were not allowed to mix.  In churches, whites sat in the main area, and blacks were relegated to the balcony.  Blacks were marginalized as to where they could live.  Color lines were not to be broken.  Interracial marriage was against the law.  There was a separate movie industry.  There was a separate baseball league.  There were separate units in the Army.  In the Navy, Blacks could only be servants, not sailors, nor officers. 

To be perfectly honest, during this time, the Republicans were not doing much to resolve the racial issues.  They were the party of big business, expansionism, and high tariffs.  (Up until the Civil War, the United States Government took money in from Tariffs.  A tariff was a tax placed on goods imported into the United States.  During the Civil War, because imports were less, Lincoln inaugurated a personal income tax in order to pay for the war.  He said that once the war debt was paid off, the income tax would stop.  In 1862 a Republican congress passed a law taxing some incomes at 3% and others at 5%.  In 1872, the income tax law was declared unconstitutional and repealed.  It was later reinstated by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat in 1913.)

If you are thinking that this doesn’t look anything like the current Democratic Party, you are right.  Something happened to change them. 

(To be Continued)

Written by Eric B. Ruark

The post The History of Politics appeared first on Dr. E.C. Fulcher, Jr..