38.

Her perception is just the opposite of mine.  But, here question is WHAT IS AMERICA DOING WITH THE HOMELESS EVERYDAY?  Does seem like a no brain-er, but I don't see very many people helping their neighbors who are homeless.  Once or twice a year they will help some people who become homeless because of a natural disaster, like a hurricane, or tsunami, or earthquake, but will they help those who are chronically homeless?  Not based upon what I have experienced.  Not based upon the 6000 homeless folks on the Island of Oahu where the government has stated now every year that they will end homelessness within 10 years and 5 years have gone by and they haven't increased the 216 spaces they had for the homeless 5 years ago, it is still 216 spaces.  No change.  Nobody is feeding them every day.  There are food banks that may pass out some small portion of food once a month or once a week, but the homeless can't carry around cans of food when everything they own is on their back.  And when the homeless go to some of these churches or non-profit organizations to get it, they are treated like scum of the earth (they soon stop doing that).  I know, because I experienced it first hand too many times (and I can show you hundred of others who have also experienced this).  They have no place to put food.  They need to eat every day, just like everyone else, but they may get something to eat a couple of times a week, it is easier to get something to drink than something to eat.  They don't really care, because nobody else cares.  It does take somebody to give their individual attention to help one homeless person, but I haven't seen many.  There are a few vets that the counties pay to help find them and give a few of them some attention for a short time, and then "Good bye."  I guess I can go on and on about the poor treatment the rich give the poor, but it won't do any good, because the Bible is not inspiring too many people to really do anything on a long term basis.  Oh, well, says America.

I didn't really mean to stand on my soap box when I started writing this, maybe I just need to vent once in a while. 

I am still homeless and not one person has stood up for me and said I will DO something for you, Bob.  And I have helped hundreds of people every day for years.  Now when I need help, nobody is there for me.  I must trust in God, because I haven't found one person who will trust in me.

God bless you and your family.

Your brother in Christ,

Bob Erb @ www.boberb.com and check out item 38 on

http://www.liferecoveryministry.org/wst_page3.php

you are a solution to a problem
o.k
the lord says your significance is not iin your similarities to others, it is in your difference..
find your point of difference and solve a problem with it
wow.
prosperity is inevitable,i suddenly discovered that one of the master keys to personal miracles is to get involved with the needs of others,
think about joseph, he used his gift to benefits others....gifts of interpreting dreams, he used it to calm a tormented pharoah.what happened ,he was promoted,from a prison to a palace
think about job too, during the worst crisis of his life, he also prayed for his friends, the word says proverb   3.27 with hold not good fffrom them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.
i see you solvig great problems with what the master has alread deposited in you.
cheers
you prophetic partner
kingsley diala

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

37.

1 Kings 3:28

And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered; and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him, to render justice.

Knowing that you are a lawyer, I looked into this in a legalistic way, or at least in the legalistic way that I percieve it to be.  And I share what I have concluded here; but I would be open to any other iterpretation you may have also.

What was the relevance of the evidence on which Solomon relied?  Is it possible that this "wisest" of all judgments was based on irrelevant evidence?  Would a modern appellate court uphold a judgment based on such evidence if the appellate court were not convinced that the trial judge was divinely inspired? 

In thinking about this problem, consider the following: Relevance is a relational concept.  You cannot tell whether something is relevant without knowing what it is you are trying to decide.  Thus, the most important question about any item of evidence is "What is this evidence offered to prove?"  What is the "fact ... of consequence?"

It looks as if Solomon were deciding who was the real mother.  But the evidence, namely the differing responses of the two women to the prospect of the child being killed, seems quite ambiguous when judged in terms of its probative value on the question of which woman is the real mother.  One can easily imagine further facts about the two women and the child that would affect our view of the significance of their responses. 

Suppose there was evidence that one of the women was a brutal child-hater who already had more children than she wanted, while the other was a person who opposed all forms of killing and who had been trying for years to bear a child.  Would this evidence be relevant?  How would it cut?  A brutal child-hater who already had more children than she wanted might prefer to have the king kill the baby rather than see it go to her hated, lying neighbor. 

Perhaps the neighbor was indeed a saintly person who had wanted a child for years and, when she found her baby dead, had pulled a switchbut then repented when she saw that the king was about to kill the baby.  Is it possible that Solomon concluded that he could not decide who the natural mother was and therefore based his decision on a quite different ground, namely, who would be the better mother?

But if Solomon were deciding not who was the real mother, but who would be the better mother, we have little question about the relevance of the women's responses, and Solomon's judgment exudes wisdom.  The relevance of the evidence thus depends on what issue actually is being decided.

Suppose that Solomon knew just what he was doing: He wanted to act in the best interests of the child, and he was convinced that he would best serve the interests of the child by awarding custody of the child to the kind and generous woman the "better" mother as opposed to the natural mother.  Moreover, suppose further that he knew that a "best interests of the child" standard would be a radical departure from Hebraic tradition, likely to be highly controversial, perhaps even unpopular enough to lead his subjects to question his wisdom.  Was it wise for Solomon to portray his judgment as one about who was the natural mother?  By doing so, Solomon avoided many hard problems with the "best interests of the child" standard.  What, for example, would stop a third woman from saying that she would be an even better mother to the child, or the natural mother from saying, "since when is it the law of Israel that you can take babies away from their real mothers?"

Do we think less of Solomon if we imagine that he saw all of this and consciously engaged in deception?  Should the lawgiver always communicate his laws and judgments forthrightly, or are there circumstances in which we, knowing the full picture, would condone and perhaps even approve a bit of distortion in how we adjudicate a controversy in order to affect how our adjudication of the controversy is perceived by the populace?  Is this the wisdom of real politics or a path to self-deception and corruption?  In any event, what do these issues reveal about the logic of relevance in courts?  If logic is not the only component of relevance in law courts, what other values does the concept of relevance serve? 

Another view of the Solomon story sees it as a demonstration of ruthless, brutal male power exercised over powerless women who are stereotyped into the good woman, cowed and deferring to male authority, and the bad woman, strong enough to resist superior male power even when it seems hopeless and irrational. 

Alternative explanation of the biblical story (versions of which exist in many other cultures) is that it is a fiction designed to legitimize Solomon's attempt to make a transition from military conqueror to legitimate sovereign by demonstrating the wisdom of his judgment, but that, in fact, it does just the opposite if closely examined.  We could argue that it is at least a reasonable interpretation that the first woman yielded to the king when he flaunted his physical power and authority.  The Other, whom history brands the bad, selfish woman, resists power, continues to assert her claim, and stands on principle, even in the face of a great loss.  We can read the Other woman's statement as an outcry against injustice and brutality, a breakdown of reason.

Indeed, the Other's comment comes only after the ["good"] One's concession of the child and thus does not appear to be a product of reason.  If the Other were truly cold and calculating, she could have simply kept her silence and received the child....

The king lifts a murderous sword, and we manage to perceive it as a coup of reason, attributing to him not ruthless brutality, but amazing and modern wisdom....

The notion that the Other saw through him and called his bluff, only to be penalized for upstart counterwisdom, or that she understood the cruelty of power, and despaired, remains submerged.  We accept as supreme wisdom, as "the wisdom of God," a process by which a powerful man tricks two powerless women and sorts them into two piles: the good and the bad, the motherly and the unmotherly, the truthful and the lying.  "Reason" here (and the very beginning of law) takes the form of a simplistic rule stating that proper mothers are selfless and sacrificing, a rule applied through the emotional torture of making the alleged mother believe in the imminent death of her baby and waiting to see what she happens to blurt out.

So, this is just one bit of evidence of King Solomon being perceived as a wise man.  His accumulation of the Proverbs by a king afterwards also puts his wisdom into view.  Other men who were perceived as wise also viewed Solomon as the wisest.  And I could go on and on with more evidence, but I think you get the picture. 

Because Solomon had so many wives and concubines might suggest that he was not too wise.  On the other hand, he had to have learned a lot from the results of having so many.  What do you think about that?

God bless you, Randy.  I pray that the demons that attack you be eliminated in the name of Christ Jesus.

Your brother and friend in Christ,

Bob Erb @ http://www.liferecoveryministry.org/wst_page3.php and check out item 37,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

36.

Our bodies, which are the members of Christ, and temples of the Holy Ghost, must not be defiled.

Bob Erb @ http://www.liferecoveryministry.org/wst_page3.php and check out item 36.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

35.

   (4) For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

Solomon broke God's commands concerning interaction with foreign people by marrying women from nearby nations who did not worship the same god.  God had prohibited marriage with the people of Canaan because He know that they would lead the Israelites to worship other gods.   Not only did Solomon begin to worship other gods, but he even built alters to them.  God became angry and punished Solomon for his disobedience.  It is tempting to do things our own way (or what our friends and society tells us) without seeing what God says.  When we do this, we shouldn't be surprised when problems arise.  God is calling attention to our mistakes, hoping we will turn back to Him and His offer to rescue us.

Solomon's wives and concubines, His idolatry.