Thursday, February 9, 2017

GOD’s Protection of Cain

by Linda McKinney

How many times have I heard that GOD marked Cain with black skin because he killed his brother, Abel? I have heard hard hearts say so, I have seen it in writing in places where it should have never been put to paper (or internet) and I have heard it spoken by bigoted, misled, ignorant people. To me, it is a disgusting statement, sentiment, misnomer, idiocy. Those who believe such a lie do not study their Bibles and do not know the Word of GOD or they would never have believed such a perversion of GOD’s Word.

Let’s look at the truth because it is desperately needed. In Genesis 4 it states:

"And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

"9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. 11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; 12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. 13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. 15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden."
If you read what is actually said, GOD sent Cain from ever seeing GOD’s face again and GOD put a mark on Cain that would – read it carefully – protect him from harm: “lest any finding him should kill him.”
The KJV Bible was written in Old English and the Old English definition of “lest” is:

conjunction (subordinating; takes should or a subjunctive verb)
1. so as to prevent any possibility that:
So the meaning of the term is “So as to prevent any possibility that any finding him should kill him.” The mark GOD put upon Cain was a protective mark, not a mark of shame, or of being an inferior being! GOD still loved Cain and didn’t want him dead. GOD put a mark of protection on Cain so that no one would try to harm him.

We know that Cain lived a long life because he not only got married in the land of Nod, he also had children and built a city that he named after his first son, Enoch. He had other children as well but the Bible never says for how long Cain lived – with the mark of GOD upon him – but the life spans listed in the Bible of his relatives at the time were along the lines of 930 years, 912 years, 905 years, etc. GOD’s mark on Cain did not mean that he lived longer nor shorter than his kin, and the years mentioned here are his father, Adam’s, his brother, Seth’s, and Seth’s son, Enos, respectively.

Also, nowhere does it say that the mark GOD put upon Cain is genetic. Nowhere do you see that GOD marked Cain and Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, Lamech, Jabal, Jubal and Tubalcain, Cain’s descendants. GOD made it clear that the mark was upon Cain, but when GOD puts a mark upon one person it doesn’t automatically mean that it is inherited down the ages. I have a bigger than usual birthmark that neither of my children have. It’s a form of a “mark” that involves the skin, which is where the bigots say was the mark of Cain. Why did my sons not inherit the mark since GOD marked me?

Cain’s descendant (four generations later), Lamech, murdered someone as did his ancestor. However, in this case, GOD does not mark Lamech. He has to make it on his own. Even without GOD’s marking of protection upon him, Lamech lived until he was 707 years old! That’s not as old as his ancestors but it was about the same as the rest of the people of that time. He died before his son, Noah, built the ark, so GOD saved Lamech, the murderer, from drowning.

If having dark skin was a bad thing, why would GOD allow Song of Solomon Chapter 1 to say:

"The Bride

"5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

"6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

"7 Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions?"
So, bigots, where is your evidence that GOD marked Cain with black skin because he was a murderer? Where is your evidence that darker skin was a mark of anything, much less anything bad? You use Cain as a reason to hate blacks, assuming that darker skin was the mark of Cain. The mark of Cain is not delineated in the Bible, but bigots choose to say that it was dark skin, a certain hair texture. In saying so they not only betray their bigotry but they also betray their ignorance of the Bible’s actual truths.

Truth: GOD does not love nor condemn anyone based upon skin tone. GOD looks at whether they have a relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ. That’s the only factor taken into account in GOD’s book. Anyone who uses skin tone as a deciding factor for whether to like someone, to associate with anyone, to deny them the basic courtesies of civility is going to be judged by GOD and it won’t be good for that bigot. So those who are slandering GOD’s Word (see John 1:1-5 and tell me you want to continue doing so) should not only be ashamed of yourselves but you should fall on your knees immediately and beg GOD’s forgiveness for your slander, lies, hatred and for judging people for something for which they may not be guilty (see Matthew 7:1-3) but you may!

It’s time to stop the lying. It’s time to stop hating. It’s time to stop slandering GOD’s Word and start reading and understanding the Word of GOD. It’s time for bigots to lay down their hatred, pick up the Light and the Word of GOD and to repent of their wrong.

By the way: it goes for the other way around, too. If you have dark skin and you hate people with lighter skin, stop it. You’re doing the same thing for an unjustified reason, too.

________________________

© 2017 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Sunday, December 25, 2016

My Christmas Present to You: "In the Shadow of Christmas Day"

© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

In the shadow of Christmas day
And the wake of Santa’s sleigh,
The wrappings of presents set out by the curb to stay…

In the dawning of the day after
Recalling dreams come true and laughter
The voice of one calling in the desert -- quietly as if from rafters ==

If one listens to the hushed sound
“I love you” is the message that resounds
Will you listen actually hear; in your heart rebound?

Christmas is not a present to unwrap on Christmas Day,
But the Gift of One Who was born to take our sins away –
To take our place upon the Cross after being mocked, scourged, He was put on display…

For all to deride and spit upon as they walked by,
He was labeled “King of the Jews” with a cry,
“No! Not that!” unwanted, they said it was a lie.

But King He was – over time, space and all
That man knew then, knows now – big and small,
He died there, begging forgiveness for those who refused His call…

Yes, blind, rebellious, hard-hearted, they refused to see
Truth, hung there upon the Tree,
Rising again, whole but scarred, eternal marks on him instead of me.

His back is ever shredded, from lashes given to a Babe laid upon the hay,
The nails left eternal marks on the Child Who did obey,
Thorns dripped blood down royal brow on young man who gave His life for you that day.

In the shadow of Christmas when we celebrate the day
The Child born to take our sins away
Began the greatest, hardest journey that calls to you every day…

“Come to me! I love you!” the Child cries out to you
But in rebellion, egotistical, sinful people cling to what is untrue
And leave the arms open wide to receive them, empty as his heart so longs for you.

Wrap the presents and bake the pies,
Cling to family, worship the lies,
While in eternal love your Savior’s heart cries

For if there be any sadness in heaven you know
‘Tis for those who refuse His love and on their own ways go
Fr He knows their path will lead them to eternal throes…

And God’s Baby Son was born to save all men
No matter color, nation, creed, He cries out to them,
“I love you! Come to me!” they turn their backs, their choice, themselves condemn.

_____________________

© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Disney’s “Frozen”: Bad and Inconsistent

It’s been three years since the Disney movie “Frozen” was released in 2013. My first impression of the movie - via the commercials for it - was not good. I immediately thought that it was a bad movie for children – especially girls.

Until recently I had not watched the movie, and without having done so I made a negative comment about it at the checkout line somewhere and was rebuffed by the cashier because of that comment. I went home and looked up the IMDB.com synopsis of the movie and wondered if my first impression had been wrong.

I did not plan to watch the movie and let the whole thing slip from my mind until last Sunday when Mom and I returned from our seven night Caribbean cruise. One of the networks was showing “Frozen” and I asked Mom if she’d ever seen it. She admitted to only seeing snippets of it so I asked if she’d like to see the whole thing. She said “Sure.”

Before I go any further, I need to post a disclaimer: We do not do Disney. We don’t go to Disney World, buy Disney products, watch Disney movies, or anything else Disney. Thus we had no idea as to what “Frozen” was about except for my impression via commercial. Watching the movie for my Mom speaks to how much I would do for her so we watched the movie.

Watching the movie proved my impressions correct. It was a horrible movie. I made notes that evening after it was over as to what I thought about it. If you like the movie you may not wish to read any further. Stop now. If you want to know what I thought of it read on. I warn you here and now, though, that it isn’t good.

There were bad messages throughout the movie that I think our children could do without. The list is nine messages long and is as follows:

1) Elsa’s birth power to change things into snow and ice was to be hidden away, ashamed of and made into a negative, not a positive. That’s akin to making a handicap into something to be ashamed of. It wasn’t Elsa’s fault that she was born with that power. Yet, in the movie, her parents apparently know of her gift from a very early age and teach her to hide it, to be afraid of it, to be ashamed of it. It’s a detriment, not a positive as it could have been. “Be ashamed of your gift” is a bad message, yet that’s the message the movie all but starts with.

2) When Elsa accidentally injures Anna her parents take them to a troll to have Anna healed and where Elsa was told that fear would be her enemy (which it is for everyone) and she has to learn to live with it but control it. Immediately afterward the movie shows Elsa’s parents locking her away and teaching her to let fear control her life entirely! If fear is not supposed to control her as the troll says, then isn’t locking Elsa away in a room and isolating her doing exactly what the magic troll says not to do? Would not a better lesson from the parents for Elsa have been to look fear in the face and kick its ever-living butt via facing it head-on and not letting it control her? Too bad the movie writers didn’t think of that and write it that way. Instead, fear controlled her for years, no matter what the troll said.

3) When locked away in that room Elsa chose to not respond when Anna was at the door. Even if her power was a danger to her sister, Elsa’s choosing to shut her sister out from behind the door is again allowing fear to control her life and further removing her sister from her life. The movie doesn’t even hint at that being wrong, which it should.

4) Coronation Day arrives and Elsa finally emerges from her isolation only to accidentally (because she feared it happening) reveal the truth of her powers to the whole village and her guests. As she runs away she starts singing the song “Let It Go!” and the words are very telling:
It's time to see what I can do
“To test the limits and break through
“No right, no wrong, no rules for me
“I'm free”
I’ve heard time and time again how the movie had good examples for girls in the character of the two sisters. Really? “Let it go” being the breakout song for the movie is a good example? “No right, no wrong, nor rules for me, I’m free” is a good example you’d want your children to follow? I think I’d rather have them follow the example of Ruth in the Bible than that. Do you really want to give your daughters permission to live that way? According to one source, the song was supposed to have been written for a villain and a different movie and was slightly rewritten to be used in this movie anyways.

5) The whole idea of a strong heroine is undermined in Anna’s effort to save Arendelle during which she has to have a man’s help in order to even reach her destination, Elsa’s frozen castle. Yes, she did fight off the wolves – with the help of Hans - and she did reach her destination – with his help. So she’s brave enough to face the dangers, but she would never have reached the castle without Hans’s help; actually without the help of two other males: Sven the male moose and Olaf the snowman! So where is the excellent message there? She can’t even find the staircase without a man’s help! If she had accomplished her goal (or even found the stairs) on her own would that not have been a better message?

6) When Anna does reach Elsa and asks her to come help save their hometown and to stop making the snow, Elsa reacts in her selfish “no right, no wrong, no rules” manner: she creates a snow monster that tries to kill Anna and Hans! That’s something a loving sister would do, now isn’t it? She tried to have Anna murdered because Anna asked Elsa to help save their hometown. Right and wrong discarded and ignored because it wasn’t convenient for Elsa to come down and stop the winter. That is a good role model for girls, isn’t it? (Yes, that’s sarcasm.)

7) The Prince, Christoph, is a toad who only wanted Elsa and Anna’s kingdom and after Elsa’s attempt to kill Anna via snow monster failed, Christoph tried his hand at it. He refused to give her “true love’s kiss” and locked her in a room, announcing her death prematurely and blaming Elsa whom he then set out to murder. Anna’s example to girls is to not take your time and get to know a man and find out who he really is but to betroth yourself to the first guy who comes along with smooth moves and honeyed words. No, she had to find out that the guy she gave her heart to was a power-hungry, murderous Prince of Lies and almost paid the ultimate price for her foolish heart-on-her-sleeve choices.

8) True love was to be the cure for Elsa’s latest injury of her sister, which inevitably resulted in Anna’s total freezing. True love was available for a kiss from Hans but it wasn’t what the writers wanted. Hans was not to be her true love (as was also done in Disney’s “Maleficent”) cure, but instead, her sister was her “true love”. Familial love – female to female in both cases mentioned – is the “true love” that was the cure. Forget that the traditional “true love” is male/female resulting in marriage and happily ever after; it’s a female/female love that will save the needy. Is that the proper message for young, impressionable girls?

9) Prince Christoph tries to kill Elsa and he captures her and locks her up in a dungeon. She escapes only with the help of males. Again, where is the good example for girls when a “no right, no wrong, no rules” female needs the help of males to escape the evil of the lying Prince? If you’re going to make a woman a good example, let them have a woman who gets herself out of a tough situation without the aid of a man. Moreover, if you are a “no right, no wrong, no rules” person, wouldn’t Elsa have done whatever it took to get out of that situation? Yes, I do mean “whatever”. No right and no wrong equal “whatever” does it not?

Those are the “bad example” problems I have with the show. Nine issues that should have been addressed differently were left in as bad examples for girls. Those issues should have been all of the negatives I have against the movie, but there is one glaringly, obviously bad example of the movie makers’ lack of story integrity. Can you tell me what that is?

The first time Elsa hurt Anna was when they were playing in the ballroom and Elsa hit Anna’s head with the power to freeze. Before they took Anna to the trolls the movie showed Elsa crying and cradling Anna in her arms. At the end of the movie Elsa stands up after Anna’s frozen body stops Christoph’s blade and Elsa embraces Anna’s frozen body, crying and holding her. My belief is that if Elsa really cared about Anna when they were children and Elsa first injured Anna, would Elsa not have kissed her then and cured her at that time if it is female/female familial love that could have cured her? Would that not have negated a need for a trip to the trolls? If a sisterly kiss can totally thaw the frozen Anna after Elsa’s coronation, would not the same kiss have cured a simple head injury and white hair when they were children?

Considering the negatives with “Frozen” the movie it is not a movie to be taken lightly and, IMHO, should not be something that parents allow their children to watch nor to emulate. “Frozen” is a horrible movie with a bad, inconsistent, poorly conceived storyline with horrible messages for all. After all, if being “free” is having “no right, no wrong, no rules” – including attempting to kill (or at the very least injure) your own sister – would it not be better to let your children watch something more like CBN’s “Superbook” series, or even old episodes of “Lassie” both of which teach good things instead of negatives?

__________________________________

© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Support Groups To Do WRONG?

Warning: The following blog will trigger some people. It is Free Speech and it is written not out of hatred but out of love and the desire to make people think twice, thrice, or more about what they are doing with their children’s lives.



In the last month I’ve seen two or three PBS (taxpayer funded) shows on how to accept being LGBTQ, etc. (I think there are more but I don’t know what they are). I watched one recently about a woman who decided when she was little that she wasn’t a girl, but a boy. She had always wanted to be a boy and as an adult she finally made the medical change to her exterior body so that she could become an exterior male. Her DNA is still female and no matter how long she lived nor how she died, years later if her bones were dug up and her DNA tested the results would be that the bones belonged to a female. Would that result be changed by the externals? Does a full body tattoo change you into an oil painting?

In the show the “transgendered man” (the woman) decided to “help” children – children – by starting a “support group” so that they could have support in their childhood belief that they, too, were trapped in the wrong bodies. They filmed the kids in the group rejoicing in the fact that – as minors -- they were undergoing hormone therapies, getting “binding” shirts, and making decisions about whether to remove their internal reproductive organs along with changing their externals. I watched in sadness and pity as they talked about how glad they were to be going through the process.

Then I watched as at least one parental support group was founded and the parents who were dealing with their children’s beliefs about their bodies were filmed talking about how some had a difficult time with it, and how hard it was to realize they would not have grandchildren and how bad they felt after acquiescing to their child’s – I’ll repeat that: child’s – delusions and finally buying him dresses and frilly things. She felt guilty about denying that joy to her son for so long.

That’s when my heart sank. I really was amazed that the parents were so guided by their child instead of the parents’ wisdom, experience and authority guiding the child. The parents had all given up and given in. They let the immaturity of their child (as young as six!) guide their own decisions instead of vice versa. That’s not just sad, it’s wrong, stupid and fear based. The parents who cave to that sort of emotional blackmail (for that is what it is) fear their child’s love being withdrawn more than they fear what the future may hold if they do what is right for their child. Basing life-impacting decisions on fear of losing your child’s approval, friendship, love is not doing what is best for the child.

As for the support groups, that really irked me. The old saying “Misery loves company” is what I saw in that group. I saw people asking others to join them in their self-destructive behaviors and beliefs. I saw people acting like drug addicts supporting each other in their addictions. I saw an adult leading young children and teens into the abyss of “I did it, you can, too!” Like a pied piper leading the way to the candy store where it’s all free today, the adult “facilitated” the belief that the children were wrong: in the wrong body, trapped by their sexual feelings and identity that conflicted with their physical bodies and their DNA and that if they just had the medications and operations they’d be “fixed”. To me, that’s the wrong message. It’s a message that they are damaged, incorrect and incomplete as they are and that they need to be allowed to go to drastic measures to be made right.

The support group: As I’ve said it was a group that supported doing the wrong thing There is no need for a support group if you are doing the right thing. Doing the right thing – what you know is correct in the eyes of GOD and what is best for your child – does not create a demand for a support group. Doing the right thing is its own support group. If you tell your child that he cannot play in the middle of a busy highway do you have to go to “Bad Dad Anonymous” that evening because you feel so guilty about telling your child no? Do you have to call someone for a crisis counseling session when you tell your nine-year-old that she cannot drink antifreeze? Rhetorical questions, but you get the point.

When you are doing the right thing, whether child or adult, you know that it’s the right thing. You know that what you are doing is right in the eyes of GOD and doing it does not create conflict within your soul. It makes you happy, proud and content. When you are doing what’s right you call people and brag about it. You know that it’s the right thing and you have peace in your soul.

Contrast that to what the support group encouraging children to make decisions they have no right, should have no authority, and certainly have not the wisdom to make and it is astonishing that anyone would attend such a group. The problem is the groups were full and there are more forming all the time! Parents, why are you allowing others to encourage your child to do something so damaging and drastic? Wasn’t there a time when our children were precious to us and we would pull them away from those who would encourage such destructive behavior in children. Now? We drop our children off to spend an hour or two with the people who do so and come back and pick them up to go shopping for clothing of the gender they want to become.

The taxpayer funded PBS transgender shows lately have been positive representations about support groups for those who need them. Does that sound like anyone believes that “transitioning” is the right thing? Are support groups, psychological counseling, special treatment; all signs of doing the right thing?

When did psychiatry take leave of its senses and decide that someone choosing to allow a minor – sometimes very young children (I’ve seen a show that featured a six-year-old boy being allowed and encouraged to dress as a girl) – to decide what was right and what was wrong? If that be the case for such an important decision as gender why cannot children decide also what job Dad should have, or what the family budget should be, or whether the brother the transgender child hates should undergo a lifesaving operation? When did it become okay for the youngest member of the family to make the biggest decision in the family? When did parents stop being parents?

If you want what’s best for your child, don’t let the child make the decisions! The child is meant to be able to rely on Mom and Dad for that sort of thing. It’s the Mom and Dad’s responsibility to make the big decisions, not to leave it to their child.

There is also something else that the Mom and Dad are not supposed to do and that is to influence the child toward something that will require psychological counseling and/or support groups! Be the Mom and Dad! Be the responsible parent who says, “No. This is not the truth. It’s not what is right. You are confused and it’s difficult to be confused but when you are confused it’s not a good idea to make life-changing decisions. I will love you forever, but I will not approve of any drastic decisions or actions you may wish to make. Right is right and as long as you are under my roof and I’m paying your bills you will be dressed as you were born.” As an adult Mom and Dad don’t make big decisions out of confusion – or at least they shouldn’t – and yet, they allow their child to do so and go along with that child so that the child won’t be angry at them? Really?

I can hear the politically correct crowd screaming at this blog, “Oh! You’re terrible! Support groups are used for a lot of things that are right: Alcoholics Anonymous is a support group and that’s doing good things! Support groups are used for medical conditions and other things, and they are doing good things! You’re just a bigot! You’re just doing hate speech! You’re an awful person!”

Alcoholics Anonymous is a support group for those who wish to stop doing the wrong thing, not to start doing the wrong thing. When a support group is needed to help people go against GOD, go against the way the family is supposed to function (the child making the decisions) and against human creation, then it’s a support group that is supporting doing wrong thing. It is a support group that is supporting sin and helping others accept it; which is why it’s so hard to accept! Sin is sin! Accepting sin is not easy and support groups that help people accept sin are not good!

Consider: When was the last time you saw a support group for those who are planning to commit, or have committed murder and the corresponding support group for their loved ones who are now sullied via association? (Or when was the last time you saw family members support the idea; outside of generational gang members?) Are there support groups for people who are having affairs? Are there support groups for people who wish to continue committing burglaries, shoplifting, embezzling? No? Why not? If having support groups for doing one wrong thing is desirable then would not support groups for the other sins be a good idea, too?

Yet, when it comes to six-, eleven-, or fourteen-year-olds deciding that they are not the gender they were born as then in this twisted, politically correct world it has to be celebrated and supported not just by those around them but by the world as a whole. Their confusion must be passed on to the rest of us and none can withstand the onslaught of political correctness and if you do, you shall pay!

Heaven and hell shall both rain down on me their fury and my eyes shall be plucked out, my tongue removed and my children taken away from me because I cannot be a good influence on them because I refuse to fall prey to the agenda of the politically correct and sinful! How dare I! (And how dare I call it “sin”!?) I shall dare ask the “Big Question” again: If it isn’t sin then why does it cause such pain for those who are choosing it and the parents allowing or going through it with their child? Doing the right thing does not cause pain, confusion, embarrassment, shame. Doing the right thing is just easy. Why can’t parents nowadays do the right thing, stick to their beliefs and say “No.”?

Could there be an upset child if the parent says “No”? Yep. Absolutely. But where is it said that you should raise your child with your child never experiencing disappointment, irritation, frustration with you? Be the parent. Be the strong one. Your child needs you to do so.

If your child were online and talking to strangers online would you want your child to go alone to meet that stranger and do whatever the stranger and child want? No? Then you’d be the parent and say not just “No!” but “No way!” right? Is that not going to cause disappointment, irritation, frustration with you as well? So why not allow your child to do that? After all, it’s just as safe.

Let us not forget the fact that the choices “parents” (and I use the term loosely for those who are allowing their children to make these choices while they are still minors) are also condemning their children to a suicide attempt rate of as high as 41%1 (those who experience harassment, violence, etc2.) and saying “Yes, you can!” to someone who wants to change genders when they are ten is not going to help them avoid that!

What’s it going to be, world? Are you going to allow parents to be parents and do the right thing for their child in saying “No!” or are you going to pressure and shame parents into conforming with the politically correct crowd and allowing their child to make decisions that should only be made by adults and should not be encouraged prior to reaching the age of majority? Is doing the right thing going so far beyond the realm of parenting nowadays that the child is allowed to make a 41% suicide rate decision?

You would allow that but you call me hateful? Are you not the hateful ones because of your desire to cause more people to go through an operation that would subject them to the kind of future that includes a suicide rate as high as 41% when the average suicide rate for Americans is 14.7%3? If you are encouraging these children (and that’s what they are: children) to face that sort of future suicide rate possibility, are you not the hateful one? What I am saying is encouraging them to live without that decision and without that regret! Why is that “hateful”? Again, it’s like saying “No!” to someone who wishes to play on a busy highway! A forty-one percent suicide rate possibility is not a future anyone should look forward to!

I can also hear you screaming: “But it is things like what you’ve written here that makes them commit suicide because it’s your hatefulness that supports those who will make that happen!” Is it?

Which hurts more: someone saying “No, you should not be doing that because it’s bad for you”, or saying “Go ahead and do that and if it makes your life worse, so be it! At least you did what you wanted and it’s a free country!” It’s not what a child wants that should dictate what they get! Yes, for Christmas get them the book, the Xbox, the CDs, but don’t cave to that child’s desire to do the wrong thing! Stand up and be a parent!

There is an attitude out there that says that if you get the sex change operation you are “living authentically4”. Ooohh. That sounds so profound does it not? The problem is that being “authentic” also includes admitting that you are experiencing something difficult to go through but that you’re going to be strong and courageous and you’re going to do what is right, not just what is currently supported and not something to feed the addiction. Many people struggle with difficult things in their lives, but there are not always surgical changes that can be an alleged “magic bullet” to make things right with the world. Even if you were “living authentically” via having a sex change operation how long is that “authenticity” going to last when those who do go through with gender reassignment surgery live a much shorter life than heterosexuals5.

Struggle makes us stronger, or at least it used to. Nowadays no one can face any amount of adversity, difficulty, or pain. Life must be covered in fairy dust and fluffy clouds, rainbows and unicorns and no one should experience the slightest amount of discomfort. Isn’t that right? Neither child nor adult should have to spend a nanosecond in mental distress. The world must be covered in bubble wrap physically and emotionally and anyone who disagrees with the politically correct crowd who supports the childhood decision to commit to a transfiguring operation must be silenced because they’re a bigot.

A 2011 study found6:
Results: “The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9). Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts (aHR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9–8.5) and psychiatric inpatient care (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 2.0–3.9). Comparisons with controls matched on reassigned sex yielded similar results. Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.
Conclusions:
“Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.”
Sound like gender reassignment surgery is all roses or even a good answer? If not, then a smart parent, a loving grandparent, whoever loves that child should say “No.” and there are myriad excuses for the people who allegedly love the child to not do so, but how many excuses do we need for doing the right thing?

Something one of the children in the support group said shocked me. She/He (I have forgotten what the DNA said the child started as) said (paraphrasing) that if someone had an accident or something happened to say, a man and he didn’t have a penis anymore due to that accident would that make him any less who he was? If not the child asked, why does it matter whether that child’s genitals were altered? Wouldn’t they still be who they are? DUH! If the child had the maturity needed to thoroughly understand the choice they are making, the child would realize that if their own "logic" was applied to them making that choice the child would realize that changing the outside of their own body will not change who they are so why bother with the operation? The total lack of awareness in that question was shocking and disturbing yet parents worldwide are allowing children who haven’t the awareness and maturity to realize that truth to make such a horrible decision at such young ages.

What is wrong with those parents and the doctors who put the money they will make on the operations and treatment ahead of the child who is being subjected to what amounts to a social experiment at the expense of that child? We already abort babies in utero and that has destroyed part of your soul if you if you support that practice. Are we as a society simply prolonging that abortion period out to the time after the gender reassignment when the transformed child realizes that the operation did not make everything all roses and rainbows and the unhappiness is creeping in again and then what? What can be changed back, switched out, or operated on to make one happy then? If the surgeon offers nothing new and exciting to try will the sleeping pills hold the answer? Will we have a generation that is split in half via suicide due to this sort of lax parenting and irresponsible doctoring? What price will we pay for laziness and fear of our children being angry at our decision, of shouldering the responsibilities ourselves, or of trying to fit in and keeping our child’s “love” when it could be no more than a cry of the soul, “Mom, Dad, do you love me and when will you set a boundary for me to finally show me that you love me enough to say ‘NO!’?”

In conclusion, boundaries are good7 and if parents don’t have the courage to set them they are setting their child up for failure and unhappiness. Support groups that encourage doing the wrong thing should not be seen as a positive environment for children. Parents have a hard time dealing with them if the show I saw was any indication. Yet, the parents were allowing their child to attend the support group that says, “Do what is wrong. Do what is going to be harmful to you. Do what will not make you happy, will possibly shorten your life and make you no different on the inside than you already are, just do it!” That’s irresponsible parenting and it’s really sad that parents who do this are not wise enough to realize it.

1) http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/suicide-attempts-among-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-adults/ By Ann P. Haas, Philip L. Rodgers, Jody L. Herman January 2014: Retrieved 10/24/2016, 3:12 a.m.

2) http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf The Williams Institute Suicide Attempts among Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Adults: Retrieved 10/24/2016, 3:15 a.m.

3) https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/ American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: Retrieved 10/24/2016, 3:29 a.m.

4) http://www.livescience.com/9648-sex-change-operations-science-sociology-psychology.html Live Science; Sex Change Operations: The Science, Sociology and Psychology by Sally Law; Retrieved 10/24/16, 4:07 a.m.

5) http://www.peter-ould.net/2013/11/13/transgender-mortality-rates/ Transgender Mortality Rates by Peter Ould; Retrieved 10/24/2016, 4:33 a.m.

6) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.PDF Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden Cecilia Dhejne1, Paul Lichtenstein2, Marcus Boman2, Anna L. V. Johansson2, Niklas La ˚ngstro ¨m2,3, Mikael Lande: Retrieved 10/24/2016, 4:45 a.m.

7) http://www.theconfidentmom.com/04/faith-and-family/setting-boundaries-children/ How Boundary Setting Can Positively Affect Children – Tamara Wilhelm, MA, LMHC, Retrieved 10/25/16, 2:28 a.m.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Difficult Question #8: Agreement, Spoken Word and GOD’s Handiwork

How many times have you heard the message that you have to “Say it and sign for it”, or that if you “profess with your mouth” that you will have what you profess. Belief is needed for the words to work, because those words you have to speak in true faith. If you profess without belief it will be a waste of air. However, professing with belief – even belief that is the size of a grain of a mustard seed -- brings about miracles beyond your imagination, blessings and a growth in your mustard seed faith.

Many biblical scholars will tell you that GOD spoke the world into being, the atmosphere and the stars were created when He said, “Let there be…” and that everything was created via His spoken word.

As I was reading Genesis 1 the other day on my way through the Bible for the second time this year I was surprised to realize that “spoken creation” is not what the Bible says happened. I was shocked I had never seen nor heard that before, but there it was. I re-read the words. I looked at them as my jaw gaped. It wasn’t true! Totally spoken creation was not true! Those who teach that “GOD spoke and it happened” are incorrect. Let me show you.

The creation story in Genesis 1 (KJV) states:
The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The First Day: Light

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The Second Day: Firmament

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The Third Day: Dry Ground

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

The Fourth Day: Sun, Moon, Stars

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The Fifth Day: Fish and Birds

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

The Sixth Day: Creatures on Land

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Note what it says in 1:1 – In the beginning GOD created, not spoke, created. He used his hands and “created” the heavens and the earth. He never spoke it. When we reach verse three “GOD said let there be light and there was light” and that is when we see the first spoken word.

Read the words of each verse of the creation story and you will see that sometimes He spoke and sometimes He created. There will be some who say that He created via speaking it all. Not true. The Bible is very specific and there are no superfluous or misleading words. A spoken word means a spoken word; created means something different than that.

In the “And GOD said” verses He is creating things with his spoken words, but in verses one, seven, sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-five and twenty-seven we have two words: “created” or “made”. Let us examine the different words GOD used in creating the “heavens and the earth”. Comparing the words of the Bible tells us that there is one word for “said”; two words for “created”; and one for “made” (Source: Hebrew Lexicon):
1:1; 1:27 (twice)

"created" בָּרָ֣א ba·ra 1254a to shape, create a prim. root

1:3; 1:6; 1:9; 1:11; 1:14; 1:24; 1:26; 1:28; 1:29

"said" וַיֹּ֥אמֶר vai·yo·mer 559 to utter, say a prim. root

1:7; 1:16; 1:25; 1:26

"made" וַיַּ֣עַשׂ vai·ya·'as 6213a do, make a prim. root

1:21; 1:27

"created" וַיִּבְרָ֣א vai·yiv·ra 1254a to shape, create a prim. root
So we see that the words are different and they have different pronunciations, with only two of them “created” having the same definition. “Ba-ra” and “vai-viv-ra” both mean “to shape, create”, but they’re different words. The word “said” in Hebrew is “vai-vo-mer”, meaning “to utter, say”. Uttering or saying is not shaping, creating, doing, or making, now is it? So we see that GOD did sometimes speak about creating but then He went about actually doing it with His own hands, as seen in verses twenty-four and twenty-five, for instance.

So GOD did not speak the universe into existence. Yes, words were part of it, but if you look at the words used to describe the actual events, the words prove that GOD also put His hands into it and “created”, “made” and “shaped” the universe and all that therein is.

Let’s take a look at the second discovery I made in Genesis Chapter 1. As I was reading it a specific idea jumped out at me. Look at how the story of the creation of the universe is worded. “Let” is throughout the story. “Let” denotes getting permission, or agreement. If your child comes to you and says, “Mom may I….?” Your response is sometimes “I will let you do that”, not necessarily in those words, but the equivalent to. “Let” is an agreement word, as in GOD was in agreement with the Holy Spirit and His Own Son, Jesus Christ. They had to be in agreement for the universe to be created; especially that most crucial to us portion in which another word is included (vs. 26), “Let us” make man. “Let us”: even GOD had to ensure agreement before taking that last step that was so important to them – creating Mankind.

Agreement between GOD, Jesus and the Holy Spirit was important enough that they ensured it throughout the creation of our universe: “Let”. If it’s that important for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to have agreement on that how important is it for husband and wife, or any two people who desire the same thing to be in agreement?

Remember the Tower of Babel story in Genesis Chapter 11? That’s the story about how all of the people were of one language and they all agreed to work on the same thing: building a tower tall enough to reach up to heaven so they would be famous. GOD saw how united they were, how much in agreement and He came down to check them out. What He saw alarmed Him so much that He confounded their language because He saw:
“And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”
What was that the Lord said: “and now nothing will be restrained from them”. They all agreed to work together and do this one thing and that meant that “nothing will be restrained from them”. Agreement amongst the people who all had one language meant that GOD Himself had to fear what they could accomplish. Look at the words: “now nothing will be restrained from them”! Nothing! That’s a pretty strong word!

GOD made the universe – with agreement from Jesus, His Son, and the Holy Spirit – and He did so with His own two hands as well as His words. It was possible because GOD had agreement with the other two who were around to agree (consider John 1:1-3).

Speaking agreement and believing it can accomplish many things; miracles can, indeed, happen. Since we are made in the “image and likeness of GOD” and our belief in His Son enables us to do “greater things” than Jesus did while He was alive, don’t you think it’s time we start agreeing and enabling us to do “greater things” (John 14:12). If you’re married get into agreement with your spouse so that you can have a united front. You can unite on child-rearing issues, budget issues, vacation issues: just hash it out until you agree. This will make your marriage more harmonious and more miraculous and isn’t that much better than what most people have?

Agreement and creation using His hands as opposed to the spoken word: two new things to consider when you are considering the creation of the Universe.

_______________

© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Difficult Queston #7

Question: Why did it have to be Jesus Christ who died for our sins? Why could it not have been John The Baptist, or Peter, or someone similar?

We know that we are sinners. We have lied, cheated, stolen, committed sexual sins of all sorts, broken the Sabbath, blasphemed GOD, worshipped people and things that are not The One True GOD (Hollywood and internet celebrities, jobs, vehicles, families, pastimes, or possessions), and because of that we need a Savior. We need a way to prevent our eternal soul/spirit from being eternally separated from GOD and being in eternal darkness and punishment. That’s the basic message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

One of the details of that basic message, though, is that we are not good enough to save ourselves. We have done the sinning, how can we atone for that ourselves? Even if we were the ones who tried to atone for our own sins how could we do so? We are too unclean to be able to make ourselves clean again.

Consider: If you have a white sheet that you drag through the mud again and again and again and you put oil, food and all kinds of other nasty stains on it, how do you clean it? You wash it in water and detergent, perhaps adding some bleach or an “oxy” product to make it as clean as possible. If you had a “twin” to that sheet, one that had never been dragged through the mud, had never been stained with anything, and had no spot to remove and you compared the two sheets, would the muddied, stained sheet be as clean as the one that had never been so much as taken out of the package? Of course not.

You will not be able to save yourself because that dinginess that results in dragging your soul through the mud is not clean enough to allow your soul into heaven. It’s not a matter of effort on your part, you can’t try hard enough, say enough of whatever people think would be the right words, etc. It’s a matter of simply accepting the gift of Christ’s blood to wash that sheet white again because that’s the only thing that can.

You see, it’s not just you who cannot clean your own sins. There’s no mere mortal man who can pay the price for another mere mortal man. The only truly sufficient sacrifice had to be Jesus Christ because He is part GOD part man. It’s the “part GOD” part that is the answer to our need for a Savior. It could not be John The Baptist, for instance because – although he does have a wonderful story of his conception and birth – he is still just a man; a man in need of a Savior himself. He had his own stains on his own sheet, so to speak.

Jesus, having lived a sinless life in which he has no muddiness, no stains or other marks on his soul (his sheet) was the only One who could have been clean enough to have paid the price. Most people who have accepted His gift of salvation – of covering our muddy sheets with His clean one – acknowledge that He is the only one who lived a sinless life.

The question is, was that enough? What if Jesus Christ had been only man? What if He had been a man who had been able to live a sinless life: no thoughts He should not have had, done nothing He should not have done, said nothing He should not have said, etc.? What if He was just a sinless human and not part GOD? Would that have sufficed for mankind to have been saved through His sacrifice?

In a word, No. In order for the sacrifice to have been enough the only way to accomplish that was to have Jesus be part GOD, as it says in the Bible. You see, the fact is that if Jesus had not been part GOD, He could not have known the truth of the separation portion of what hell is like. Jesus experienced that on the Cross when He cried, “My GOD, my GOD why have you forsaken me?” it was then that Jesus experienced for the first time in His eternal life separation from the Father that He’d been with since before time, before the earth was formed and before anything else was made (see John 1:1-3). It was separation. GOD, His Father, had to turn His back on Jesus Christ, The Son He loved so much because it was in that separation that Jesus took upon Himself all of our sins, all of our wrongs and disobediences, and because of that GOD could not look upon it. GOD had to put away His Son so that our sin did not contaminate, pollute, corrupt Himself. True separation was experienced for the first time by the two who did not deserve it in order to allow you and I to be able to experience an eternity in heaven in their presence.

It was in that timeframe, that separation, that Jesus Christ -- who had already been scourged, mocked, beaten, crowned with a crown of thorns, and was in such pain from all of that – that He paid the final bit of the price. He had gone through the physical part of the price, now this was the spiritual portion. If He’d gone through just the rest of it that would not have been enough. It had to be true separation for the price to have been paid for you and I. In that separation is when Jesus experienced what hell was like and what we would go through when we die without Him. That’s because hell is an eternity without GOD, love, peace, forgiveness, comfort, joy, laughter, acceptance, or any chance of escape. Jesus felt that separation and that’s when He paid the price in full. When He said, “It is finished!” and gave up His soul/spirit, the price was paid in full; it was “finished”.

That’s why neither John the Baptist, nor any other mere mortal, could have paid the price for our sins. John, having never experienced true union with GOD the Father, could never have known that separation. John may have understood intellectually what it meant, but his soul could never have experienced what it was like to have had his soul separated from GOD because as a human his soul was never there to start with. His body may have died and his soul/spirit may have separated from it, but since John never spent the part of his life prior to becoming human as – and this is the important thing – part of GOD, John could not have experience the separation as did Jesus Christ because of John 1:1-3:

“In the beginning was the Word [Jesus Christ], and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD. The same was in the beginning with GOD. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Jesus Christ was “In the beginning…. With GOD”. That’s why John the Baptist could not have been enough. Jesus Christ was with GOD and was GOD. Part GOD, part man; without which we could never have been saved.

Won’t you accept that great gift today?

____________

© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Sunday, September 11, 2016

All Islam is Radical

The terrorists who attack and kill innocent people, who skin people alive, attack innocent people in nightclubs, are not acting out of being a “terrorist”. They are acting out of being Muslim. It’s not an anomaly, an aberration; it’s the religion itself and its teachings that make the actions normal within the religion. Some actions of the people of that faith are considered “unusual” but not terrorism.

For instance, when men in their early twenties marry nine-year-old girls that’s not terrorism, it’s following in the footsteps of Muhammed. Consider, though, that if someone who is not Muslim would do so we call that pedophilia. Pedophilia is terrifying to its victims. When a child is used for the sexual gratification of an adult it is painful, confusing, scary and physically harmful to the child and for the future of that child. It’s not terrorism because it’s not categorized as such. It’s normal for that religion and it’s okay.

When they force their older daughter to marry someone the daughter is not interested in marrying, they are not bad parents, they just want their daughter to be married to this particular person, right? After all, it’s not about love. It’s about obedience. And if the girl decides to not marry the man her parents want her to marry, well, that girl is to be killed in an honor killing. They douse her in gasoline and set her ablaze. That will teach her and others who disobey their parents to be very careful to obey. That’s not radical. Not radical at all. Toasting your daughter to a crackly crisp is normal. Right?

Throwing gay men off the roof of a tall building or skinning him alive is normal, for Islam. They teach that homosexuality is wrong and that it’s punishable by death. So, they kill the man that they disagree with and they congratulate themselves for doing the thing that their religion tells them to do. The problem is that they turn a blind eye to the fact that their own religious adherents practice what they call “bacha bazi”, which is young boys – boys too young to even have facial hair -- for sexual gratification. So if men are having sex with boys (male to male sex), they aren’t practicing homosexuality, they’re practicing “bacha bazi”, according to their own teachings and the way they execute their beliefs. The men in power get to have young men as sex slaves but the average Joe on the street can’t be homosexual or he’ll be bound and thrown off a building. That’s not terrorism. It’s not extreme. It’s normal. It’s Islam.

Let’s not forget female genital mutilation (FGM; which is now being illegally done in America) :

“[I]nvolves cutting the external female genitalia for non-medical reasons. Depending on local customs, it could also include additional modifications ranging from cutting away part of the clitoris to removing the inner and outer vaginal lips before sewing the remaining skin together, leaving a small hole for urination and menstrual blood.”
(NOTE: The article claims that it is also done in some Christian sects, but it is generally done under pressure from the majority Muslim community.) If this were done by the Westwood Baptists or Warren Jeff’s cult of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints it would be considered a horrible thing and those practicing and promoting it would probably be arrested. Can you imagine doing this to your daughter? They sew the vaginal opening closed so that sexual intercourse will be as painful as possible and the clitoris being gone or almost gone will prevent any sexual pleasure for the girl. The whole thing is barbaric, but to consider the kind of pain the woman who has undergone this sort of thing – especially after being married off at age nine and raped then (too young to have achieved the age of consent, so it is always rape) with whatever resulting damage from that -- must experience every time she is involved in the “act of love” is inconceivable. The procedure “is carried out in girls aged between birth (7 days) up to pre-adolescence, always before the first menstruation and marriage” although it is sometimes left to later. How radical is it to ensure that every time a married woman has sexual intercourse it is extremely painful instead of pleasurable? There can also be complications during or immediately following the procedure as well as lifelong medical complications, no matter to what degree they harm the woman. These include:
“[I]mmediate health complications include shock, haemorrhage, infections and psychological consequences [11, 12, 13]. The long term health risks consist of chronic pain, infections, cheloids formation, primary infertility, birth complications, danger to the new born and psychological consequences [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Even FGM/C types I and II, sometimes considered as more innocuous, may involve severe health complications. For example, they have been reported to provoke unequivocal complications like shock, haemorrhage, urogenital complications [12], obstetric complications [18] and sexual dysfunction [15].”
That’s not just radical, it’s unimaginable. Yet this is the usual practice of even those who are not considered to be extremists.

In NYC during prayer time for Muslims, they fill the streets and stop traffic (even ambulances, police and fire) and they do it via actually praying in the streets as well as by parking their vehicles (often taxi cabs because they’re the drivers of) near mosques. They have the right to pray, but they don’t have the right to disrupt the safety and security of the neighborhood they are supposed to be a part of. As a member of the community one should try to ensure that the last thing they do is prevent someone from getting help if needed. When we drive down the road and an emergency vehicle comes up behind us, sirens blaring, lights flashing what do we do? We pull over because it’s the law and it’s the right thing to do to let those emergency personnel get to those needing help as quickly as possible. It’s just the right thing to do and we would want someone to do the same for us if that emergency vehicle were on the way to our house, accident, fire. When Islamists are in the roads and stopping traffic – including for emergency vehicles – that’s not being part of the neighborhood, it’s impeding the neighborhood, controlling it and demanding that the neighborhood accommodate it and give it special treatment. It is not trying to accommodate the neighborhood; it is commanding the neighborhood. It is demanding special treatment, special permissions, special routes for those emergency vehicles and special delays for those needing the help when it takes over the streets. It is not something that Catholics would be allowed to do without getting the right permits and it being a one or two day event, at most. Praying is a normal part of many (if not most) of the world’s daily religious expressions. However, how many religions of the world take over streets and block traffic and demand they be allowed to do so without a permit and don’t move for emergency vehicles? Would Presbyterians be allowed to do so? Is that not radical?

Hijabs are another part of the “normal”, “non-radical” Islamist’s life. Covering a woman head to toe in a drab color (usually black) so that she will be considered “modestly dressed” is only the norm for nuns in convents, and that is a choice for them. The fact that there are mandates in Muslim countries for women to wear hijabs makes it not a choice. It’s something the male dictates and women either adhere to or get beaten or worse if they do not accept, dress in a hijab and obey. That’s not “radicalism”, it’s misogyny; or at the very least, a slave/master relationship. Some Catholic nuns wear habits, but Catholicism does not demand that all females who are past a certain age wear a habit. When slaves were owned in America the master got to beat the slave for disobedience. If Muslim women disobey anything their husband wishes to tell them to do or not do, they can be beaten – it’s commanded in the Koran/Qur’an to do so. Would that be accepted in America if a Christian were doing it? What is not radical about being commanded to beat your wife?

In Islam, rape is blamed on the woman and she can be thrown in prison, or worse, if a woman reports being raped. That’s why the number of rapes reported may be infinitesimally smaller than the actual number. Even if the rape victim is a baby it is the baby that is punished – even by the family itself – instead of the male perpetrator! In prison, a rape victim may even have a child because of the rape and that child is born in prison and the child is incarcerated for as long as the mother remains in prison. The mother and child are punished for the sins of the father while the father goes free and easy. There is no condemnation for rape in Islam because men have the right to choose to rape and they have the right to choose to punish their own victim. If a man does not confess to raping her, or there are not four male eyewitnesses to the rape who will turn the guilty man in, then the perpetrator can turn his own victim in to the authorities and even though she tells them that it was he who raped her, she will still wind up being imprisoned. She has no recourse. He can smirk at her, turn on his heal and walk away from his rape victim as she is incarcerated for however long the judge decides after her rapist has delivered her to authorities. That’s radical.

Divorce for a man in Islam is “I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you.” The man gets all of the property and the children, the woman gets nothing and is sent packing back to her family where her family is allowed to do an honor killing because she has brought shame on the family name (although the divorce may have nothing to do with her actions or words). If she’s not sent back to her family the ex-husband’s family may take her as a slave and do whatever they wish to her, forcing her to work as the cook, maid or whatever they deem needed in the household.

How many women in America would tolerate being restricted from driving a vehicle? In Islam women can be ordered to not drive, even not go out of the house, and if she is caught driving by herself she can be dragged by the car and stoned or worse. Imagine living in a country where you are not allowed to drive wherever you wish to drive, even if it meant driving your child to the hospital. What do you do? How do you get your child to the hospital? How do you get your child anywhere?

How many religions would be the cause of a 9/11 attack, or a bombing of the WTC parking garage, or the Fort Hood massacre (he did yell "Allahu Akbar!"), or the San Bernardino slaughter? On 9/11/2001 there were Muslims dancing in the streets of Muslim countries. Children as well as adult were dancing, drinking, celebrating, shooting bullets into the air because of the attacks on innocent unsuspecting, unprepared people. Children died in the attacks and the Muslim children followed their elders' lead and danced as well, having no compassion for the dead who were younger than they. What other religion teaches that? ISIS is another example of Islam's mainstream beliefs. Beheading Christians, burning people alive, drowning them in a cage, blowing them up, etc., etc., etc. There is no end to their cruel barbarity. Yet, the left/progressives/liberals tell us that we have to accept Islam because it's not radical. I beg to differ. Where do we see Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists doing this? Nowhere. It doesn't happen and if it did it would not be tolerated! But with Islam, it is. It is even excused.

Islam doing all of this is “acceptable” to those who think along the lines of “As long as they don’t bother me-ism”. They are allowed to do whatever they wish, to treat their adherents as they wish, as long as they don’t bother “us”. It’s okay to do whatever they want to their own – FGM to blaming rape on the victim – and we don’t want to make waves or say that Islam is radical in any way, shape, or form.

All of these instances and more are proof that Islam IS a radical organization and that they have broken societal norms for Americans and for most of the rest of the civilized world. Given their history in the overall scheme of things, I believe it is safe to say that Islam as a whole is RADICAL. That’s all there is to it. To have the beliefs Islam has and try to mingle those Islamic beliefs with what America and the rest of the world have been doing is not just a recipe for disaster it’s a guarantee for it! It’s time to admit that Islam is the problem and to perhaps do something that most of the western world would scream against: limiting Islam for the safety of the whole world.

© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved