Your Wholesale Source for Toys & Diecast model cars

Toy Wonders New Arrivals

August 30, 2013

Dear Customers,

A few shipments arrived this week. If you log into your account at www.toywonders.com, before clicking on any of the links below, approved wholesale accounts will see wholesale pricing.

Forgot your password?

Having trouble viewing this page

Missed a previous week's newsletter?

DIECAST Collectible Model Cars And More

Image
Item#
Description
Stock Status
90346-1969-Chevy-Camaro-124-Jada
90346
Restock
90545W-1965-Ford-Mustang-124-Jada
90545W
New
90789VV-1972-Pontiac-Trans-AM-124-Jada
90789VV
New
92034PR-2008-Dodge-Challenger-124-Jada
90234PR
New
92121BK-2010-Chevy-Camaro-124-Jada
92121BK
New
92121VV-2010-Chevy-Camaro-124-Jada
92121VV
New
92121YL-2010-Chevy-Camaro-124-Jada
92121YL
New
92387WS-2009-Corvette-Stingray-124-Jada
92387WS
Restock
5061D Nissan Fairlady 350Z
5061D
Restock
5332D Kimsmart - 1932 Ford 3-Window Coupe
5332D
Restock
X8893-996F-164-Hotwheels-Retro-Entertainment
X8893/996F
New
11228-18E-Drivers-164-M2
11228/18E
New
11228-18F-Drivers-164-M2
11228/18F
New
81161-11F-Ground-Pounders-164-M2
81161/11F
New
32500-MN01-Auto-Truck-164-M2
32500/MN01
New

Please do not reply to this email address.
Any questions or comments, please email us at [email protected].
To unsubscribe to this newsletter, send an email to [email protected] and put the word 'unsubscribe' on the subject line
.


Thank you

Lu Su
Toy Wonders, Inc.
www.toywonders.com
201-229-1700

Lu Su

God and the Art of Toy and Diecast Marketing
Marriage in the 21st Century (Kicking God Out)
By L S Su

In the last article, I introduced a word that is absent from most people 's vocabulary -unless it's to express shock or surprise. That word is holy. Holy simply means to be devoted to the service of God (i.e. what God has joined together...). Whatever is devoted to the service of God is considered sacred. What is sacred has purpose, agreed? If a beat up and marred table can be holy and if the dirt Moses was standing could be holy, then it's not inconceivable that you being composed of the same things as dirt can be holy too. Then at the end of the article I concluded from my personal observation in studying the Bible that God's uses both marriage and government as conduits to bless mankind (i.e. you, your children, your dog, your neighbor, your children's children etc.). But here's the thing; kicking God out of both institutions will have very bad consequences.

The rationale for this statement is pretty simple. Instead of making God the ultimate authority in marriage and in government, man usurps God's rightful position and makes himself the ultimate authority. Thus one's moral compass is no longer set on God (an unchanging absolute), but now on what man thinks is right and wrong. But before you start blaming Obama's current administration or your spouse (ex-spouse) for how your marriage has turned out, kicking God out of our lives happened WAY before the 21st century.

Roughly in 1200 BC (i.e. 3200 years ago) the group of people that were hand picked to be God's representatives kicked God out of their lives. And this was even after they saw with their own eyes amazing miracles performed in Egypt, the Red Sea parting and walking through on dry ground, and miraculous food and water for them in a dessert. When people reject God this occurs:

"every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes " -Deu 12:8,

A society should be VERY concerned when its people and leaders start doing whatever is right in their own eyes. I guess a big question is whose eyes do we prefer to use (e.g. Hitler, Anthony Weiner, Sandy Duncan)? And then there's that age old problem on what to do when a leader has a wooden eye. But before you join a good portion of the world's population that dislike this group of people that got transplanted from Egypt to Israel, the concept of taking your eye off God started WAY before then. Man and Earth started this downward slide when it first encountered this simple question:

"Did God really say?" -Genesis 3:1

So what is wrong with this paradigm shift? What's so bad about letting man deciding right and wrong instead of God? The answer to this question is something most people will NOT accept or want to hear. But these are not my words, but Jesus':

“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -Matthew 7: 9 - 12

Packed in the above statement is how God wants us to live and his great desire to bless and give good gifts to His children. But did you catch that tiny little comment imbedded in the passage? Jesus didn't sugar coat his words. Did you catch the offense remark? Jesus called you and I evil.

Though I didn't take a poll, I'm going to speculate that most people don't consider themselves evil. But if it is true that man is evil, then it's dangerous to set our moral compass based on man's wisdom. Evil breeds corruption. Both institutions can withstand a certain low level amount of corruption; but when both become overly corrupt, that institution will collapse. In other words the two biggest conduits in which God uses to bless mankind collapses.

I once sold a husband and wife team. They would come to our facility, purchase toys and resell them to small grocery and gift stores in the area. They were a couple that somehow escaped the Soviet Union during the height of the cold war. Soviet Union? Iron Curtain? Film? I think these are unfamiliar terms to my kids. Anyway, the wife picked up English very quickly. She was small and very slender -about 5 feet tall and maybe 90 lbs on a good day. But I admired both of them both and considered her a tough woman. She would pull up in her van, break larger case packs into smaller ones, physically load her van herself, drive into some pretty rough neighborhoods, and turn toys into cash.

One day I entered into a discussion with the husband in our showroom. I asked him what life was like in the Soviet Union. He told about the constant shortage of basic necessities. He told me about waiting in very long lines for the entire day in order to get something very basic, like a pair of shoes. He said the way the government ran companies, there would be zero chance that by the time it was his turn, they would have the right shoe size he needed. He then advised me, "But you still take the shoes, even if it doesn't fit and you use them to trade with someone else that has something you can use." He then, in his thick accent stated something interesting, "The Soviet Union's government is against two things. God and family." Then he asked me rhetorically, "How long do they think that country can survive?"

In the late 20th and early 21st century both marriage and government have come under assault in the United States by certain groups of people (including judges) that have interpreted "freedom of religion" as "freedom from religion". When this occurs, the natural reaction to remove God, religious symbols, and creeds from all public access. Such places as public schools, courts, government buildings, public squares, airways, and even the pledge of allegiance. Hence if the conversation ever moves to defining marriage, some people will want you to keep your God out of it.

I find this kind of interesting. When I read the newspaper, it's generally devoid of any mention of God. The one exception seems to be when some horrific tragedy occurs. People then want some sort of explanation and will often resort in blaming God.

"Where was God during the Sandy Hook school massacre when 26 people (20 were children) were killed?"

One sarcastic writer wrote a reply for God, "I wasn't allowed inside."

Before our government was officially formed, our founding fathers gathered, agreed to some basic tenants (non-negotiable's), wrote them down, and signed their name to it. The document started with these words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Moreover, our founding fathers did something really interesting and different than any previously established government in history. They patterned the government after the triune nature of God. Our government consists of three parts, together they function as one, and though one is considered the head, all are equal and all vital.

Our founding fathers basically created an governmental infrastructure, patterned it after the one true living God, and gave its citizen's free will. So in country (for now) you are welcome to believe in God. You are also welcome to disbelieve in God. Most past and current governments that ruled over their people don't give you this free-will option.

I've always wondered how people who do not believe in God (or a Creator) understand this statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." How would this statement be re-written minus God?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that through evolution they have unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." So time plus chance plus natural selection plus survival of the fittest has now resulted in all men being equal and possessing rights that are not to be ever taken away? Does that sound reasonable to you? What stage in man's evolution did this come to existence? All men have evolved to a point that they are now equal with each other?

A good friend of mine is Indian (from India). He can shave at 9:00am and by noon he's already got a 5 o'clock shadow. So I constantly bust his chops and remind him that he must be lower on the evolutionary scale than I am.

For me, all men being equal and possessing unalienable rights can only be true if there is a Creator. God must exist in order for all men to be CREATED equal and to be ENDOWED with certain rights. The act of creating and endowing involves a person right?

Had I been around when Thomas Jefferson had drafted, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," I would have advocated a small change. "Pursuit of Happiness?" Really? What do most people think will brings them happiness? Sex, drugs, fame, money, and toys? This toy monger would have tried to get TJ to use change one word. Instead of "Pursuit of Happiness" I would have pushed for "Pursuit of Holiness". You see, the pursuit of happiness is all about ME. The pursuit of holiness is about GOD.

Both concepts of holiness and equality pre-existed the concept of marriage or government. The Bible very early on establishes both concepts. They happened to be two qualities found within the triune nature of God.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image,.....So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. -Genesis 1: 26 - 27

"Let us...."?. If God is one, who is us? At the time this was originally written, God's children only knew that there was only one God. It wasn't until Jesus that we learned more intimate details of God -and that He is triune in nature. For me this simple passages screams out for equality for all of mankind regardless of sex, nationality, or whether they believe or disbelieve in a Creator. Equality was around before marriage; so was this concept of holiness.

Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. -Genesis 2: 3

In the 21st century, kicking God out of marriage and the government seems to be the trend. As mentioned, this becomes inherently problematic. Let me show you. Marriage and government have some sort close relationship with each other correct? Next time, let me show you the inherent problems that arise in the arguments for those who attempt to define marriage devoid of holiness.

 

Back to the top