tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45656398638641835632024-02-22T06:14:34.623-05:00Space Coast ConservativeConservative. If you don't like it, too bad.Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-42240920280987028812018-03-01T02:03:00.001-05:002018-04-25T16:56:53.452-04:00Can Sin Be In Heaven?I have often heard preachers say that one of the reasons you must accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior is that sin is not allowed to enter the kingdom of GOD. I’ve heard the example used multiple times of a paint can filled with absolutely white paint (the sinlessness of GOD’s presence in heaven) and a single drop of black paint (sin) being dropped into that white paint and making that absolutely white paint no longer white.<br><br>
The problem is, that’s a false premise.<br><br>
Pick your jaw up off the floor and follow me here and you’ll soon understand. Remember the story of Job (long “o”)? Check out what it says in <a href="http://biblehub.com/job/1.htm">Job 1:6-12</a>:<br><br>
<blockquote>“6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that <i>there is</i> none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.”</blockquote>
So if Satan was there with GOD in heaven and they were talking, then doesn’t that mean that – since GOD’s abode is heaven – Satan with all of his sin and pride and hate was also in heaven? Is that not correct? <br><br>
Let’s go further into Job and see that it wasn’t just the one time that Satan was present in heaven with GOD. In <a href="http://biblehub.com/job/2.htm">Job 2:1-7</a> we see that Satan returned to the presence of GOD and did more talking to Him:<br><br>
<blockquote>
“Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that <i>there is</i> none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. 4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. 5 But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. 6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life." </blockquote>
So that’s twice that we know of that Satan was in the presence of GOD in heaven. So sin, which we have been taught cannot be in heaven, it says in the Bible was in heaven.<br><br>
Let us not forget that it was also in heaven when Satan became puffed up (conceited) and decided to lead a rebellion against GOD and one-third of the angels in heaven followed Satan into banishment. Read about that in <a href="http://biblehub.com/jude/1-6.htm">Jude verse 6</a> (only one chapter, thus it is verse 6) we see <br><br>
<blockquote>“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”</blockquote>
Their “first estate” was in heaven with GOD. Thus sin was in heaven during the rebellion. We also see:
<a href="http://biblehub.com/luke/10-18.htm">Luke 10:18:</a>
<blockquote>“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”</blockquote>
<a href="http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-4.htm">2 Peter 2:4</a>:
<blockquote>“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;”</blockquote>
Note that they sinned <i>while in heaven</i> and then were cast down. Sin was in heaven. Not only was sin in heaven, but <I>it started there!</I> (Pick your jaw up!)<br><br>
<a href="http://biblehub.com/revelation/12.htm">Revelation 12:7-9:</a>
<blockquote>“7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”</blockquote>
The “dragon” here is Satan. So why do we so often hear preachers preach about heaven being “without sin”? Some say that the myth gets its origins from <a href="http://biblehub.com/habakkuk/1-13.htm">Habakkuk 1:13</a>:
<blockquote>“<i>Thou art</i> of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, <i>and</i> holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth <i>the man that is</i> more righteous than he?”</blockquote>
But if you look at the fact that we know that GOD and Satan have had conversations about Job face to face, in heaven, then we know that it’s not that GOD cannot look at evil. Some of the other translations say:
<blockquote>“Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You can not look on wickedness with favor.” – New American Standard Bible<br>
“But you are pure and cannot stand the sight of evil.” – New Living Translation<br>
“But you can't stand sin or wrong.” – Contemporary English Version</blockquote>
I think that the GOD I serve is holy, righteous and good, but He is also able to look at whatever He wants to look at, but He can also overlook (look at and put on “ignore”) sin. GOD is GOD and there is nothing He cannot do except sin. To say that He could not look upon sin is to say that when He was speaking to Satan about Job He was looking a different direction while talking to Satan. That’s rude and I don’t think GOD did that. I think that GOD keeps an eye on His enemies because if He doesn’t then Satan may try to get an upper hand. We already saw that Satan was cast out of heaven by GOD and His Archangel, Michael. So why would GOD not be able to look at something He created even though that something (someone) sinned? Doesn’t GOD look at you and I daily? <br><br>
“GOD is watching over you” is something we hear all the time. Do you sin daily? Perhaps you told a little “white lie” perhaps to save someone’s feelings, or had a little gluttony to help you through a difficult time (as did I when my cat died two days ago: chocolate helped)? It says in <a href="http://biblehub.com/psalms/121-5.htm">Psalm 121:5</a>
<blockquote>“The LORD himself watches over you! The LORD stands beside you as your protective shade.” – New Living Translation</blockquote>
So, the answer to that is, “Yes. GOD watches over us.” So, does he see our sin? Yes. He must see our sin. Is He strong enough to handle it? Absolutely. Does He overlook it? Not in a non-judgmental way, but in a way that he puts your sin on “ignore” and he watches you without registering your sin. Have you ever had a time when you’re talking to someone, looking into their eyes and you don’t really see them because your mind is so out of focus or preoccupied? GOD does that. He doesn’t see your sin when He sees you. He waits patiently for that moment when you finally give in and accept Jesus Christ (His Only Begotten Son) as your Lord and Savior. If he weren’t watching for you to come home, the story of the “Prodigal Son” returning home in <a href="http://biblehub.com/luke/15.htm">Luke 15:11-32</a> would be a totally useless biblical lesson.<br><br>
Let’s look at the question considering this information: Can sin be in heaven? Yes! Absolutely yes! (Again, pick your jaws up off the floor.) However, the reason it can be there is that GOD is absolutely strong enough to handle it and He can overlook it, tune it out, whatever, for as long as it takes to get the job done that He wants done. In other words, it can be there long enough to suit His purposes: longer than that cannot be.<br><br>
In the discussion with Satan about Job and how wonderful a character Job was, GOD allowed Satan to come in and try to cast aspersions upon Job’s character after which Satan was given permission to take all that Job had: children (he did), cattle (he did), property (he did that, too). When that failed, GOD gave Satan a second chance to do Job some damage, but this time allowed Satan to harm Job, just that Satan had to “<a href="http://biblehub.com/job/2-6.htm">spare Job’s life</a>”. GOD wasn’t only strong enough to look at Satan, but to negotiate what damage Satan wanted to do to one of GOD’s most trusted servants.<br><br>
No, it’s not that sin cannot enter into heaven, it is that sin is not allowed to <b>stay in heaven</b>. When we stand before GOD and we carry our sin up there with us to face judgment those who are not covered with the blood of Christ will still be covered in their sin. Thus, sin enters heaven that way, does it not? However, when it enters any which way, sin is not allowed to linger. It must move on to a more “appropriate” place: hell. We see in <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/revelation/20.htm">Revelations 20</a> the story of the Great White Throne judgment and how it says that
<blockquote>“12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is <i>the book</i> of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”</blockquote>
So we know that for that time of judgment, a person's soul and spirit (together as one) are standing before GOD, who is still in heaven, and thus, their sin is in heaven. Their deeds were all written in the books and those whose names were not written in the book of life were “cast into the lake of fire”. (That’s not what we want to happen to people so that’s why we tell people about Jesus and get people’s names into the book of life: so that they don’t get “cast into the lake of fire”.) After all, if you’ve sinned enough to be “cast into the lake of fire” and you’re standing before GOD doesn’t that tell you that your sin was there, too?<br><br>
We see that:<br><br>
1) Sin has already been in heaven during the rebellion, during the conversation about Job (twice) and probably multiple other times<br>
2) Sin is allowed in heaven and it apparently does not affect GOD<br>
3) Sin in heaven includes our sin on the great white throne judgment day<br>
4) GOD is strong enough to handle looking at sin (He is <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omnipotent">omnipotent</a>, after all!)<br><br>
So if sin is allowed in heaven and GOD can handle it, why are we taught that sin is not allowed into heaven at all? That’s confusing, isn’t it? <br><br>
I think it’s because heaven has already had one rebellion and GOD doesn’t want another one on His hands. He knows that if He allowed sin to enter <i>and stay in heaven</i> that it would not be good for heaven, for Him, for those who are there already. Sin has a way of oozing and sliming its way into hearts, minds, bodies, egos, and making itself at home and polluting and corrupting everything and everyone it has half a chance of touching. If sin were not just allowed into heaven, but allowed to linger and allowed to take root bringing disobedience, rebellion, hatred, lust, etc., into heaven as did Satan while he was up there, heaven would no longer be heaven, would it?
<blockquote>
“1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, <i>and be</i> their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.<br><br>
“5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”</blockquote>
That’s the heaven we look forward to, those of us who have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior, according to <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/revelation/21.htm">Revelations 21: 1-7</a>. Those who do not have Jesus as our Lord and Savior have <a href="http://biblehub.com/revelation/21-8.htm">Revelations 21:8</a> to look forward to:
<blockquote>
“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”</blockquote>
If sin could stay in heaven, then the pollution that is sin (How far does a lie spread because people are willing to believe it, want to fit in, or whatever?) will destroy heaven. GOD will not – <b>cannot</b> – allow sin to <i>stay in heaven</i> because if He did sin would destroy it. GOD loves us too much to allow that. Sin not covered by the blood of Jesus Christ must be “cast into the lake of fire.” It is not just protecting those of us who have accepted Jesus Christ and will remain in heaven with Him, but it also allows GOD to keep His solemn, holy word. When GOD makes a promise, He keeps it. GOD promised those of us who accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior a “<a href="http://biblehub.com/revelation/21.htm">New Jerusalem</a>” to live in:
<blockquote>
“9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.<br><br>
“10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; 12 And had a wall great and high, <i>and</i> had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are <i>the names</i> of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.<br><br>
“15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. 16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred <i>and</i> forty <i>and</i> four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. 18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. 19 And the foundations of the wall of the city <i>were</i> garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.<br><br>
“22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither <i>whatsoever</i> worketh abomination, or <i>maketh</i> a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.”</blockquote>
That’s why GOD cannot allow the pollution of sin to stay in heaven. If someone without the covering of the Lamb were to stay it would destroy heaven, the New Jerusalem and all who were therein. Sin can enter heaven outside of the City, New Jerusalem, but it cannot stay. Is your sin covered by the blood of the Lamb and is your name in the Lamb’s book of life? <br><br>
______________________________________________________________<br><br>
© 2018 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-69866206881658267922018-01-19T16:13:00.001-05:002018-01-19T16:13:16.535-05:00My Biblical View of FoodLet’s start with the facts:<br><br>
1) I believe that the Bible is the Word of GOD, is absolutely infallible, true (jot and tittle) and that it all came from His lips.<br>
2) I believe that Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh. <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/1.htm">John 1:1-3</a> (KJV) states, “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing [sic] made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”<br>
3) I believe that we were made in the image and likeness of GOD (see <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm">Genesis 1:26</a>).<br>
4) I believe that “science” doesn’t know half as much as it says it does and less than half as much as it thinks it does. How often has a food item (eggs, coffee, coconut oil, chocolate, wine, etc.) been bad for you one day and good for you the next, then go back to bad, then good yet again?<br><br>
Okay, now on to my thoughts on this subject.<br><br>
In the Bible we see that there are multiple references to things like food, eat, ate, drink, feasts, and specific food items. Breads are mentioned: leavened, unleavened and shewbread (a part of the sacrifice to GOD) and even breads made out of “<a href="http://biblehub.com/exodus/29-2.htm">wheaten flour</a>” so GOD is not gluten intolerant.<br><br>
Fish, beef, lamb, goat, birds, fruit, olives, wine, water, cheese and many more food items were mentioned; even the fat of the bullock and the ram which were eaten by GOD as an offering (<a href="http://biblehub.com/exodus/29-2.htm">Exodus 29</a>) so we know he ate the fat and didn’t worry about the cholesterol, calories, or whatever else is “bad” about it. In fact, GOD ate the stuff that the doctors nowadays tell us to not eat. Which, not being a fan of eating the fat on a piece of steak, chicken or whatever, I’m okay with not doing. I trim every bit of fat off. I’d say that I’ll leave it for GOD to eat, but there is no need for Him to ask for sacrifices – or sharing – since He gave His Son for us and all need for sacrifice of any kind is done away with once and for all.<br><br>
We see in the Old Testament that there are specific things to avoid because they were “unclean”, but that in the New Testament those “unclean” things were made clean by Christ’s sacrifice (Acts <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/acts/10.htm">10</a> and <a href="http://biblehub.com/niv/acts/11.htm">11</a>) Note: Here it references both food items and that the gentiles were made clean by GOD. After all, GOD told Peter to “kill and eat” and GOD does not sanction murder or cannibalism, so it can’t be just man referenced here that was cleansed by GOD!<br><br>
Let’s get more specific, though. In the Garden of Eden before the fall of man (okay, before<a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/3.htm"> Eve ate the apple</a> and convinced her hubby -- weak-willed, disobedient Adam -- to do so, too. After all GOD told Adam in <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/2.htm">Genesis 2:16-25</a> to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not Eve. She wasn’t there yet!), humans were vegans. There was no death on earth yet: no blood-shed death, so plants could be eaten but animals could not, and people and animals ate only plants. Some people say this is the “ideal” diet. Do they take into account the fact that the “ideal” diet includes sugar, since it is plant based, alcoholic beverages, flours of all kinds since they are plant based (yes, white wheat flour, too) and rhubarb and other <a href="http://www.ghthomas.blogspot.com/2009/05/carcinogens-and-vegetables.html">known carcinogens</a>?<br><br>
We have Eve and Adam (listed in order of appearance with the fruit) to “thank” for the partaking of steak, salmon, veal, etc. However, we also have them to blame for death, diseases, sins of all kinds, etc. Admittedly, they did us no real favors unless you consider never tasting a cut of beef called Tri-Tip as something that falls into that category of things to be glad for (and it does!). I’m not grateful for the sin; it was inevitable that sooner or later it would happen, but imagine if it had taken two or three generations! I am grateful that GOD had a plan from the <a href="http://biblehub.com/ephesians/1-4.htm">time before he created the earth</a> for when it did happen.<br><br>
Anyways, the fact remains that the Bible tells us that we – mankind – are made in the image and likeness of GOD and that we are told by in <a href="http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/12-15.htm">Deuteronomy 12:15</a> to “kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after” as long as it’s not the blood that you want to eat, it’s okay in Deuteronomy 12:15. Then again, in Deuteronomy 12:20 we see “I will eat flesh, because thy soul longeth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.” And in the same chapter, verses 21-22 says “thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. (22) Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.” GOD says not to eat of the blood but everything else? That’s just fine!<br><br>
So we see that GOD says to eat “whatsoever thy soul lusteth after” as long as it’s not the blood of the animal. That’s the only thing that was out of bounds for GOD’s people at the time. It wasn’t until GOD gave the covenant with the Israelite children that He took things away. Declared unclean in <a href="http://biblehub.com/niv/deuteronomy/14.htm">Deuteronomy 14</a>, in verses 7-21, GOD tells us:
<blockquote>“However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.<br><br>
“Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has fins and scales. But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat; for you it is unclean.<br><br>
“You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.<br><br>
“All flying insects are unclean to you; do not eat them. But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.<br><br>
“Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God.<br><br>
“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”</blockquote>
That’s when the dietary restrictions were set down and what they said. What we must remember is that those restrictions were removed in Acts 10 and 11 and we have been under no restrictions since then.<br><br>
The Bible tells us what kinds of food GOD uses to associate with certain people. Did you know that the first mention of food in the Bible is in Genesis 1:29, in which GOD says that He has given us “every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed: to you it shall be for food”? So food’s first mention is before the fall of man (that Eve ate it first thing). Although, prior to the fall GOD had already put animals that were to be considered “clean” for man to start using as food later, so it must have been a part of the plan from the beginning. After all, GOD knew that the heart of man is<a href="http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/17-9.htm"> wicked and deceptive</a> so He knew that we would (sooner or later) break fellowship with Him and that we would love a good steak. That’s why after the fall, GOD created animal sacrifices to atone for sins.<br><br>
In fact, the first mention of food other than herbs and fruit is the serpent’s curse in which GOD says that the serpent “shall eat dust”. The third mention of food besides those already mentioned (herbs, seeds, fruit, dust) is the sacrifice offered to GOD by Abel.<br><br>
This is an important mention because it tells us what GOD – in whose image we are created – eats. It says in Genesis 4:4-5 that “Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering.” We know that GOD eats the offerings given to Him so that’s the third mention of food and we all know that the number <a href="http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/3.html">three is the number of perfection or completeness</a>. So if GOD is eating the fat of the calf, as seen in Exodus 29, then we know that we can eat the fat of the calf.<br><br>
For food, the Bible tells us that we can eat whatever we want. We don’t have to stick to the vegan diet because GOD knew ahead of time that man can sin and He provided animals for us to eat and did, in fact, command us to eat (Acts 10 & 11). He did not just “allow” us to eat the animals listed in <a href="http://biblehub.com/niv/deuteronomy/14.htm">Deuteronomy 14</a>, He commanded us to eat the things that used to be unclean. If GOD says to do it, it cannot be bad for us, nor can it be sin.<br><br>
We also see that we are given specific examples of what others ate. For instance, in Isaiah 7:14-15, we see that Jesus was said to be a man who would eat “<a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/7.htm">butter and honey</a>”. John the Baptist was a man who was Christ’s precursor and who ate “<a href="http://biblehub.com/mark/1-6.htm">locusts and wild honey</a>”. The children of Israel were delivered into a “<a href="http://biblehub.com/exodus/3-17.htm">land flowing with milk and honey</a>”. There are many examples of people who were to eat honey, specifically. <a href="http://biblehub.com/exodus/16-31.htm">GOD provided manna from heaven that tasted like honey</a> and the Israelites lived on that for a very long time. <a href="http://biblehub.com/songs/4-11.htm">From a bride in the Song of Solomon</a> to the Revelation where <a href="http://biblehub.com/revelation/10-10.htm">John ate the scroll and it tasted like honey</a> (Revelation 10:10), we see that the sweet flavor of honey is throughout GOD’s Word. When Christ was risen from His grave, we see in Luke 24:42, that He ate “<a href="http://biblehub.com/luke/24-42.htm">broiled fish and some honeycomb</a>.” Even after being risen from the dead Christ had a sweet tooth! We see honey mentioned throughout the Bible but <a href="http://biblehub.com/proverbs/25-16.htm">not too much because it will make us vomit</a>. Notice something about the mention of honey? It is associated with special people, times and places of GOD: the Promised Land, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the time of Christ’s return. From this we can gather that to eat sweets is a special gift from GOD.<br><br>
However, how many of you remember a time when you were a kid and ate too much of your Easter or Halloween candy and got a tummy ache because of it? I admit that I did. I ate too many sweets when I had the chance when I was a kid and a few hours later paid the price. That’s a temporary discomfort to eat too many sweets and throw up because of it. Notice, though, that the Bible does not say that you will have a permanent illness, a continual affliction, or whatever other words you want to put to it, because of eating too much honey. It does not say it will give you diabetes or anything else as far as a disease is concerned. <a href="http://biblehub.com/proverbs/25-16.htm">It says you’ll puk</a>e: once, not for the rest of your life. That’s not a long term, life altering, drug-treatment inducing illness. It’s a puke or GOD would have said otherwise because GOD “<a href="http://biblehub.com/numbers/23-19.htm">is not a man, that He should lie</a>”. GOD says it will make you puke. It will. But it won’t do anything besides that or GOD would have told you.<br><br>
Which takes me into the next part of my thought (and belief) process: Where in the Bible – the Word of GOD Almighty – does it say that food will give us diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, cavities, obesity or anything else bad?<br><br>
In <a href="http://biblehub.com/niv/proverbs/23.htm">Proverbs 23</a> it talks about not eating the delicacies of the rulers if you are prone to gluttony because “that food is deceptive”. But if you read the context of the scriptures, it is not referring to food, but to the beliefs of the rulers. If you read the Word, Jesus says in <a href="http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-11.htm">Matthew 15:11</a> that it’s not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but what comes out of the man’s heart via his words and deeds. So what we put into our bodies is not what causes the problem, is it?<br><br>
Am I saying that we can be gluttons? Nope: not at all. The Bible warns us against that in <a href="http://biblehub.com/proverbs/23-20.htm">Proverbs 23:20</a>. It also tells us to be careful about “strong drink”, but did you know that it says in <a href="http://biblehub.com/numbers/28-7.htm">Numbers 28:7</a> that “strong drink” was given as part of an offering to GOD? So Jesus drank wine and GOD drinks “strong drink”, but warns us to not drink too much of it, or to get drunk. GOD does tell certain people they cannot drink strong drink, or even wine, but for the most part, of wine and strong drink only have a little. Don’t be a drunkard is what GOD says. <br><br>
Considering all of this, why does science, the “health food” industry and doctor advice tell us to watch what we eat, eat mostly fruit and veg, and to cut back on fats, gluten-laden foods and sweets?<br><br>
“Science” tells us all the time that something is “bad” for us: eggs, coffee, chocolate, coconut oil, cheese, red meat, all meats, anything containing alcohol, etc., etc., etc. There is almost no food/drink item that “science” has at one time or another said was bad for us. But remember: “science” is not GOD. GOD knows a lot more than any scientist ever will or can. “Science” also changes its “mind” while GOD does not.<br><br>
So why the “change of mind” from the time the time of the Israelites receiving the dietary restrictions to the time of Paul being shown the sheet with the “unclean” animals and being commanded to kill and eat? There are a few things to take into consideration to get to the truth in that.<br><br>
First, in <a href="http://biblehub.com/niv/acts/10.htm">Acts 10:9-16</a>, we see that the circumstances have changed from the time of the old dietary restrictions. Jesus Christ had already been crucified and the price for our own cleansing was paid by Christ’s death. Prior to His crucifixion the Israelites were told not to eat “unclean” things because they were told to be obedient to GOD and the eating of those “unclean” things was an act of disobedience. No matter how wonderful that bacon smelled, they could not eat at their neighbor’s house for that meal.<br><br>
You see, when the Children of Israel were at Mt. Sinai after leaving Egypt led by Moses, they were asked if they could keep the commandments GOD was going to give them. Their reply is in Exodus 19:8, “<a href="http://biblehub.com/exodus/19-8.htm">All that the Lord has spoken we will do.</a>” They probably meant it at the time, but soon thereafter, they were <a href="http://biblehub.com/exodus/32-4.htm">making a golden calf and worshipping it</a>. So they could not really “do all that the Lord has spoken”, could they? So when GOD saw that they were a <a href="http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/3-7.htm">hard hearted people</a> He did all he could to rein them in. Part of that “reining in” was to put more rules around them to try to make them control themselves. As time went by more rules were laid down. It’s like having a two-year-old who won’t stop playing with the goldfish until it’s dead. You try to tell him no, then you tell him to not go near it, then you move the fishbowl and finally you have to either get rid of the goldfish altogether or you have to put a tall fence around it. The more rules the better they’d behave, right? Neither the two-year-old nor the Israelites would agree with that (I suspect a lot of us would be the same way!)<br><br>
When GOD saw them heading in one direction, He’d make another rule, another set of “don’t do that’s”. He saw them being tempted to join in the worshipping of other gods, the gods of their neighbors or even their enemies and GOD would write a rule to prevent Israel from worshipping their neighbors’ idols. Or He’d see that they were considering marrying outside of the children of Israel and <a href="http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=do+not+marry+nor+give+in+marriage">GOD would write another rule about not marrying them</a> in order to keep them safe and to prevent them from falling into the worshipping of their spouses’ idols. That didn’t work either, though, did it? So GOD made rules to keep the children of Israel safe: including the dietary restrictions.<br><br>
Those restrictions <a href="http://biblehub.com/exodus/15-26.htm">kept them from getting trichinosis, a food borne disease, and other diseases</a>. Since people didn’t know at the time how to properly cook pork these restrictions were given to keep Israel safe from a possibly devastating disease. Even in that time, GOD says “I am the Lord that healeth thee” (KJV). So we see that He’s not wanting them to get ill (He is offering healing in the warning), but He knows that eating poorly cooked pork can make them ill, even so ill that they die. The restrictions were for obedience (in which they failed in other areas), and for their own health. In Acts 10 & 11 when the sheet was lowered with the “unclean” animals on it and the command given to “kill and eat”, we see that Jesus Christ had created a path for the people to be made clean via His sinless life, death on the cross, and resurrection. Prior to Christ’s death there was no “direct” pathway to heaven. Christ did that for us so there was no need for any kind of dietary restrictions to test obedience, and it was safe to cook pork because by then we had figured out how to perfect the cooking of pork products and how to prevent them from making us sick.<br><br>
Can anyone tell me where it says in the Bible that food will make you healthy? It says not to eat certain things because (at the time) that stuff would make you sick, but where does it say that it can make you healthy? Not being made ill by something is not the same as being made healthy. A “healthy” diet nowadays has so many variations. There’s vegan, beef-based, low calorie, gluten free, low carbohydrate, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diets">the list goes on</a>. Where in the Bible does it say that eating or not eating certain foods will make you healthy? Does it say so? If not, why do we think that what we eat is the deciding factor of how we feel and what we look like?<br><br>
A lot of people put all kinds of stock in exercise in order to lose weight. But did you know that the Bible says in <a href="http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/4-8.htm">1 Timothy 4:8</a>:
<blockquote>“For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.”</blockquote>
Bodily exercise profiteth little? Did you know that the Bible (the Word of GOD) says that?<br><br>
A lot of folks will point to “science” and try to convince us that “science” knows how our bodies work because they have studied it. “Science” tells us that we have to eat more vegetables, more whole grains, more organic, purer foods. We should not eat red meat (if we eat meat at all) and we should definitely stay away from sugars and sweet food (even honey). We should not eat white bread, cheese, drink milk (after all, they say, <a href="https://youtu.be/Kambf8mfKLg">what other animal drinks</a> <a href="https://youtu.be/XqcHAeAMCfU">milk from another animal</a>?), or have anything close to foods with chemicals in them anywhere near our mouths or bodies. BTW, what exactly is food made of? Does any food have any naturally occurring chemicals in it? I mean, if mushrooms had no chemicals in them then we couldn’t eat them, could we? Even water has chemicals in it: H2O is a <a href="http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/o.html">chemical designation</a>.<br><br>
It’s the manmade chemicals we should not eat as additives to our food, isn’t that what they say? Isn’t that like saying that if you can <a href="http://www.epinions.com/review/Doctor_Dreadful_Freaky_Food_Lab_32725988/32725988/216854990468">make something with chemicals</a> that you shouldn’t eat it? Chemicals, though, are in almost everything we eat. <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/630930/vitamin">Vitamins, for instance, are chemicals</a>. Do you want to do without vitamins?<br><br>
<a href="http://www.choosemyplate.gov/print-materials-ordering/dietary-guidelines.html">The federal government has made recommendations</a> on what and how much you should eat and the president’s wife has made a big deal of what she thinks is <a href="http://www.letsmove.gov/eat-healthy">a good diet for the rest of us</a> (too bad <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/first-lady-celebrates-b-day-steakhouse-featuring-28-obama-burger-kobe-beef-bacon-cheese">she doesn’t take her own advice</a>). The federal government has been doing this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_USDA_nutrition_guides">since 1894</a> and they have changed over time. If they and their scientists are so smart, why was it later admitted that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/opinion/when-the-government-tells-you-what-to-eat.html?_r=0">their recommendations were fouled up</a>:
<blockquote>“First, last fall, experts on the committee that develops the country’s dietary guidelines <a href="http://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?File=18613&bhcp=1">acknowledged that they had ditched the low-fat diet</a>. On Thursday, that committee’s report <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-calls-for-less-sugar-and-eases-cholesterol-and-fat-restrictions/?_r=0">was released</a>, with an even bigger change: It lifted the longstanding caps on dietary cholesterol, saying there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol. Americans, it seems, had needlessly been avoiding egg yolks, liver and shellfish for decades.”</blockquote>
So why is “science” so wrong about so much? It’s because “science” does not know our bodies as well as our bodies’ Creator. Our bodies’ Creator knows how our bodies work without having to do any sort of research, without consulting anyone, without doing studies. GOD says “kill and eat” and to eat whatever we want. “Science” tells us to eat only this and that, and to eat those things a certain way, cooking it the “healthiest” way and to not eat the other stuff. “Science” also has to deal with <a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/there-are-14000-lobbying-groups-washington">lobbyists who try to do what they can to sell the food products they represent</a>. That’s something that people who listen to the “science” don’t usually take into consideration. So we take “science” at face value and believe what they say because, after all, it is “science” and “science” would know, right?<br><br>
If they know so much, then why do such things as the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html">Twinkie® diet</a> work? Twinkies are, after all, full of fat and carbs and preservatives and all kinds of things that are “bad” for us. The “science” will tell you that it won’t work. The “science” will tell you that if you try it your cholesterol, fat, weight, blood pressure, and all the “bad” things will increase and your body will be in horrible condition and maybe – if you’ve eaten enough of it – you’ll have a heart attack or whatever. You’ll never be healthy while on the Twinkie diet is what “science” will say. However, looking at the results – lower bad cholesterol, higher good cholesterol, lower triglycerides, weight loss and lower body fat – you’d think that “science” would learn a little from the experience. Has “science” caught the drift of the Twinkie diet (and <a href="http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/30-day-pizza-diet/">other surprising successes like it</a>) and realized that the “science” is not supported by the effectiveness and success of these diets?<br><br>
The Bible says (and let us not forget that this article is about my belief in the Bible as the Word of GOD) that Jesus Christ is our healer and <a href="http://hopeinspirationministry.com/bible_verses_on_health.htm">in Him we are healthy</a>. If you believe that the Word of GOD is true, too, then why would you worry about eating anything as long as you bless it, or about exercising as long as you don’t feel a conviction from GOD to do so? Is that not how we should all live: trusting GOD to guide us and trusting in His goodness toward us? He said to eat after we ask GOD to bless our food. If we do not trust Him to do so – bless it so that it cannot hurt us – then how can we trust Him to do anything He has said?<br><br>
__________________________________________<br><br>
© 2017 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved<br><br>
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-17763558367415323492017-11-07T15:40:00.000-05:002017-11-07T15:42:19.774-05:00Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?As I sat in my back yard chair a few days ago, I started thinking about how fences have impacted our lives. We have a tall privacy fence made of wood and the neighbors have the same kind of fence. We can’t see each other’s yards, but we can see the rooftops. When I was a kid it wasn’t like that.<br><br>
When I was a kid we lived in military housing most of our lives but even in the civilian houses we went past on the way to school we saw many houses without fences. There were friends we visited, and the kids would go outside and play in the yard while the parents were talking and usually preparing food. I don’t remember fences back then. <br><br>
I remember when I was a kid we’d play in someone’s back yard, then get tired of their toys and all go to the next kid in our group’s back yard and play with their toys, and move from yard to yard playing with whatever the kids in that house had until we grew bored with them. Or, we’d play a game of hide and seek and the whole immediate neighborhood was fair game, running to find a hiding place in the neighbor’s yard that was good enough to be the last one found but close enough to hear the “Allie, allie, in come free!” if we weren’t found. We could play tag running through five back yards, baseball across property lines; Army, or cowboys and Indians in seven yards, front and back. It was fun, a lot of exercise and made for good neighbors. <br><br>
When someone’s children acted up, any parents would be allowed to reprimand them, or they’d do the worst thing possible: call our parents and tell them what we did wrong. Heaven forbid that was their choice because we knew that we’d get a spanking then! <br><br>
We were taught back then that if something doesn’t belong to you that you can’t touch it without the owner’s permission. If you break something, apologize and make it right and to never steal. We were not taught that there is something called “economic inequality” that made it okay for us to steal. That was not something that anyone thought back then.
When I watch the movies and television shows from back then (I am aging myself), I don’t see fences around the back yards. I see fences in the front yards sometimes, white picket fences trimmed with annuals or well-kept shrubs. Sometimes you see a farm show with a fence to keep the dog, chickens, or other farm animals in, but not often did you see a back yard with a fence. <br><br>
Nowadays you can’t drive through anything but a deed restricted community and see open back yards, and even some deed restricted communities have fences; they’re just controlled by the property owner’s association (Home Owner’s Association, whichever). Those communities may have security gates at the entrances, private security guards roaming around in golf carts or regular vehicles and high prices for their HOA fees to pay for that security. <br><br>
Fences are almost a must, a necessary accoutrement today because children (and some adults) were never taught the lessons of our childhood: <br><br>
• If it’s not yours don’t touch it <br>
• Thou shalt not steal <br>
• Ask permission before playing with something <br>
• Don’t trespass if you don’t have permission <br><br>
Those things are no longer escaping parents’ mouths. Those things are not taught in public schools (or many private schools). Those things are not the acceptable norms of the left. Instead, excuses are made for those who have “less than” the next guy and theft is considered okay by some if the perpetrator has the excuse of _____________ (fill in the blank). It’s an astonishing change in what seems like a very short period. <br><br>
Those who would break and enter, steal out of your yard after breaking a gate’s lock, or who want to do harm to those inside the house are no longer afraid of society’s norms nor their scorn. They want what they want and it’s by whatever means they deem necessary that will get them that and it’s okay if the excuse is available. <br><br>
Society has made this possible by making excuses for the perpetrators and by giving parents the “My Child” complex, but only when in righteous indignation against anyone else verbally disciplining their child. What do I mean? When a child does wrong, and a neighbor does verbally discipline that child, the child goes home and whines about it to the parent. The parent will go to extreme efforts to make sure that the neighbor knows that verbally disciplining their kid is not an option and that it means war between the “adults” and it better not happen again or else! Meanwhile, the kid is off doing whatever he/she wants again because the parent doesn’t care what the kid is doing as long as that child is not in their parent’s hair. <br><br>
Parents will visit their fourteen-year-old child in jail and ask the child why they did that, accepting whatever excuse the child gives (including “I didn’t do it. It wasn’t my fault. It was Jimmy (or Kate, or whoever)!” In the parent’s heart they know their child did it. They tell others up one side and down the next that the child is innocent, they borrow the money from friends and family and bail the kid out and make excuses for their bad behavior to one and all. In front of the judge the parent makes all kinds of promises, attends the four-hour parenting class while the kid does community service and then, since the boxes are checked, go back to kicking the kid outside so that the parent can get back to whatever the parent wants to do: besides parenting! <br><br>
This is what the fences are for. They’re for the children who were never parented correctly. They’re for the children who were taught that whatever they want to do is okay as long as they have someone else to point to. They’re for the children who were taught that there is no right and no wrong; if it feels good, do it. They’re for the children who, because of the terrible parenting felt unloved and unwanted their whole lives and never learned to find fulfillment in what they can do for themselves, instead of what they can take from others – whether that taking be in government payments or theft and violence. <br><br>
Fences are a form of self-protection. We protect the things we worked hard to earn the money to purchase. We protect our privacy and hope that those fences will keep out those who want to violate it. We protect our families and hope that fences will help prevent harm to them, whether through a child wandering into the road or through a perpetrator breaking into our homes and doing harm. <br><br>
Fences are a sign of a failure of parenting and society. Parenting because with good parents, children do not do the things written about here. Society because we have been cowed into accepting the lie that there are those who have less and because of that less they have an excuse to do the things written about here. Instead of standing up to those spreading that lie we have chosen to not fight the lie and allowed it and its results to be woven into the fabric of our beings. <br><br>
Fences are a sign of the division of society. With good fences we do not speak to our neighbors, thus do not know it. We do not recognize our neighbors thus we do not know who does and does not belong over there. Fences make us not care unless it is catastrophic and then we may offer to help a little. Instead of helping with the car repair if we have that knowledge, or the lawn care if our neighbor breaks a leg, or the cooking if our neighbor is down with the flu but needs to feed the kids, we stay behind our fences and consider that all is well with the world as long as our little fences make us okay. We can see the neighbors’ rooftops, but can we see the neighbor? Only if we are over six feet tall. <br><br>
Fences make us delusional, isolated, insular, while making us feel safer (and, yes, sometimes they are effective in that). Fences divide us but protect us against certain dangers (unruly animals, etc.) but they also have their drawbacks. Fences allow us to swim in our pools without too many eyeballs on us, but they also prevent us from seeing the man next door having a heart attack in the back yard. <br><br>
“Good fences make good neighbors”? In today’s world we feel we must have them to “keep the other guy honest” but do they accomplish that, or do they just keep the honest guys honest? Fences have been jumped by those who don’t think the rules apply to them so fences are not always effective. <br><br>
Fences are kind of like guns. The law abiding don’t need them to stay out or to prevent them from stealing from or hurting their neighbor. As with guns, it’s those to whom the law means nothing that fences may help against. If the fence doesn’t work, the gun will. <br><br>
_______________________________________________________________<br><br>
© 2017 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-8253288100806470062017-06-19T02:05:00.001-04:002017-06-19T12:52:02.363-04:00Job: A Different Perspective<a href="http://biblehub.com/akjv/job/1.htm">Job</a>
<br><br>
I’ve heard a lot of Christians say that because of the story of Job in the Bible that they believe a loving, gentle, kind, forgiving, merciful, graceful GOD – our Father - would give us illnesses and hurt us to teach us a lesson. I find that idea and belief abominable.
<br><br>
If that be the case, then if a Dad reached over and broke his child’s arm to teach him not to throw a ball in the house, I would be out of line to reproach the Dad, to try to prevent him doing so, to even report him to the police. If GOD hurts us and makes us ill as a lesson to us, then we have no right to expect good things from anyone who loves us.
<br><br>
The “I’ll make you sick or hurt you because I love you GOD” is not the GOD of the Bible. Even in the story of Job, which Christianity loves to point at and say, “See! There’s my biblical backing!” GOD’s character is misrepresented (to say the least) as a foundation to stand on for that erroneous “GOD who hurts us” belief.
<br><br>
So, let’s look at the Bible story of Job to see what kind of alleged “foundation” they think they have.
<br><br>
In Job 1:1 Job is described as a “blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil”. Even GOD said about Job that “there is none like him on the earth” (vs.8), and it is reiterated that he is “blameless and upright” and that he “fears God and shuns evil”. Does that sound like someone GOD would hurt to teach him a lesson? If so, what kind of lesson does Job need to learn? What wrong was Job doing that he had to be taught a lesson? Or, in the opinion of the Christians who make this claim, does GOD teach Job a lesson without Job needing a lesson, in GOD’s own opinion?
<br><br>
If you read what is written there, the Bible says that GOD was talking to our mortal enemy, Satan, and that GOD was standing up for Job. Why would GOD do that if he wanted to teach Job a lesson? No, what was actually happening is that GOD was saying to our enemy that if he looked at Job he would find someone who would not be destroyed by our enemy. GOD said, “Have you considered my servant Job…?” (1:8).
<br><br>
In verses 10-11, Satan replies that there was a “hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side” so why would Satan consider attacking Job because GOD protected him so much? Satan went on to say that if GOD “stretched out [His] hand and touch[ed] all that he [Job] has” that Job would “surely curse” GOD to His face.
<br><br>
To this GOD responded in 1:12 that everything Job had was in Satan’s power, with the exception that Satan could not touch Job himself. Why would GOD do this? To prove to Satan that there are faithful people who will not turn away from GOD, who will not curse GOD, who will not fall away from GOD or from belief in Him, if bad things happen to them! It wasn’t a test, a lesson, or an attack on Job: <i>it was a lesson to Satan</i>!
<br><br>
Look at everything Satan took from Job in verses 13-22: his oxen and all but one servant with them (vs 15); his sheep and all but one of the servants with them (vs 16); his camels and all but one of his servants who were with them (vs 17); his children and all but one of the servants with them (vs 19). What does Job do?
<br><br>
In verses 20-22 we see Job’s response to <i>Satan’s attack</i>: Job “arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head and he fell to the ground and worshipped.” Who did Job worship: Satan, who took everything away from him, or GOD, who still loved Job and allowed all of this to happen to him because GOD chose to teach Satan a lesson? Job worshipped GOD. GOD was proven correct in trusting Job. In verse 22 we see “In all this Job did not sin nor charge GOD with wrong.”
<br><br>
That’s something that should have impressed Satan, but apparently it wasn’t enough. In 2:1 there was another meeting of the “sons of GOD” and Satan again showed up.
<br><br>
GOD asked Satan where he came from (2:2) and Satan replied “From going to and fro on the earth and from walking back and forth on it.”
<br><br>
Then -- absolutely certain that Job would be faithful -- GOD again pointed to Job (poor, faithful Job) and asked if Satan had “considered [His] servant, Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears GOD and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited me against him, to destroy him without cause.” (vs3).
<br><br>
See what it says: Job “<i>still</i>” held “fast to his integrity” and that he was a “blameless and upright man” who feared GOD. Does that sound like Job needed a lesson taught to him, or does it sound more like GOD has faith in Job and in the fact that – even though the first time Job was used to teach Satan a lesson it devastated his life – GOD was absolutely certain that Job could be trusted in his faithfulness, his uprightness, his blamelessness?
<br><br>
GOD may seem harsh here, picking on Job again, but think of what it is saying about Job that GOD has so much faith <i>in him</i>. Job was a favorite of GOD’s. However, being GOD’s favorite doesn’t mean that your life will be easy as breathing. Consider Mary, mother of Christ, who was another favorite of GOD’s and who was chosen as a young teen to bare GOD’s “only Begotten Son” – while single, but betrothed and who had to face the slings and arrows of the town gossips, the accusations of town people, her future in-laws, etc. David was a favorite of GOD’s, but when he messed up, having an affair with Bathsheba and fathering a child with her then ensuring her husband’s death, the child he fathered in that affair died. Although GOD’s favor was still upon David, the baby died. That’s not an easy thing to endure, but David understood it and cleaned himself up and worshipped GOD after the child died (2 Samuel 12).
<br><br>
In GOD’s second time of telling Satan to “consider” Job, Satan was told that Job was in Satan’s hand “but spare his life”. Satan was allowed to do anything to Job he wanted, but he could not kill him. Job wound up with boils “from the souls of his feet to the crown of his head.” Job used a potsherd to scrape the boils from his skin and he went and sat in ashes and his wife told him to “curse God and die” (2:9)! That’s pretty harsh. It’s also what a lot of people would do in the same situation. His children are dead, his cattle, camels and sheep are gone, along with the servants that were with them. His wife is all that’s left and his wife tells him to turn his back on GOD and die! Harsh!
<br><br>
Look at what Job did instead. In 2:10 we read that Job stood up for GOD; “‘Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?’ In all this Job did not sin with his lips.”
<br><br>
Even when Job’s friends came and accused him of having some sort of sin in his life – apparently they hadn’t heard GOD’s opinion of Job – Job lamented his own conception and birth (chapter 3) but he didn’t lament GOD’s touch on his life. In the coming chapters we see Job’s “friends” (with friends like these…) telling Job he is claiming to be “innocent” (4:7), but he can’t be if GOD is doing this bad stuff to him. Job has to deserve this kind of treatment for something that is hidden. Eliphaz goes so far as to say that he saw a vision in a dream that said that no one can claim to “be more pure than his Maker” (4:17), which Job, so far, hadn’t claimed to be!
<br><br>
His friends go on and on and on about how Job must have done something – anything – to deserve this punishment from GOD: he must be guilty, but denying it. Job defends himself against their accusations (as did GOD’s statements to Satan regarding Job), and Job answered them and defended himself in chapters 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 23-24, and 26-31, the youngest “friend” standing up and berating Job for six chapters (32-38).
<br><br>
Job 32:1 says, “So these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.” Is that a bad thing? Remember, GOD considered Job a “blameless and upright man” of whom there were “none like in all the earth”. I think that Job was just agreeing with GOD and that’s a good thing to do! (“Where two or more agree as touching anything…” Job and GOD in agreement are two or more, correct?)
<br><br>
In the end of the book we see GOD speaking out of the whirlwind and asking Job questions that there is no way he can say “Yes, I can”, or “Yes, I am” to. But listen to the questions and they could just as easily be directed at Job’s three “friends”, too. Then, after GOD is finished questioning Job, what happens? Is it then that Job is punished? Is it then that – after saying he was more righteous than GOD – the Lord finally takes a whack at Job and gives him leprosy, break his leg, makes him blind, makes him have erectile dysfunction? No.
<br><br>
The loving, gentle, kind, forgiving, merciful, graceful GOD of the Bible does none of those things. We see what happened to a man who GOD accused to his face of claiming to be more righteous than him, GOD spoke to Job’s “friends” in 42:7-8 and ordered them to make reparations with Job and to make offerings because GOD’s “wrath is aroused against you” because “you have not spoken of me what is right, <i>as my servant Job has</i> (my italics).” GOD, who was supposedly punishing Job, told Job’s three friends that <b>Job said what was right and they had not</b>.
<br><br>
Adding frosting to the top of the cake, in 42:10-17 GOD restored Job’s losses after Job prayed for his friends – without GOD ordering Job to do so. GOD restored Job’s losses so much that He gave Job “fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of oxen, and one thousand female donkeys”, and seven sons and three daughters again and GOD made Job’s daughters very beautiful (it doesn’t say anything about the sons’ looks).
<br><br>
So, Christians who claim Job as “proof” that GOD punishes us with bad things happening to us, where is your proof? What lesson did Job, the "upright" and "blameless" man have to learn and where did GOD say, "Job, I did this to teach you lesson X"? Where is it that you found anything close to “proof” in Job of the GOD who punishes people and that we have to accept illnesses and pain from a loving, gentle, kind, forgiving, merciful, graceful GOD? I’d like them to show me where it is that GOD does that to His children because I truly do not see it in Job. Look at the words written there and see GOD's <i>protection of Job</i>, not His punishment and not a lesson for him. GOD was teaching our enemy something, not Job.
<br><br>
I can already hear some of you yelling, Oh, but Job suffered because of the lesson! He lost his children, but Job knew his children well enough to know that he had to do what was needed to cover them with GOD's forgiveness. He was given new children to replace those the enemy took. I won't read into Job, but maybe GOD knew something we did not? I don't know. Do you?
<br><br>
_____________________<br><br>
© 2017 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved<br><br>
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-73204069504981519012017-04-26T01:19:00.001-04:002017-04-26T01:26:53.451-04:00“Earth Day”: Hypocrisy on Parade?Not being believers in “Earth Day” practices, beliefs, or fears, we only remembered “Earth Day” after seeing all of the event signs and participants. For “Earth Day” of this year my husband and I were in the panhandle of Florida, birding (and yes, we drove there). We didn’t plan on birding in “celebration” of “Earth Day” as did others we met. It was just a free weekend for my hubby, the first he didn’t have to work in a while.<br><br>
While we were spending time together as a couple sharing a common interest, we saw whole families walking toward the “Earth Day” event of their choice, vehicles lining the streets as the event’s parking lots overflowed with “one-dayers”: those who put on a show of caring for the earth for “Earth Day” only and otherwise may or may not recycle but do nothing else the rest of the year. You know: the people who go four wheeling on someone else’s property, light a bonfire there and drink beer until the wee hours, leaving the beer bottles/cans for the next person to clean up as they wend their way home, kicking up dirt and already planning their next foray into the forest.<br><br>
We also saw those who are “true believers” and who practice their beliefs to some extent on a daily basis, but who were <i>putting the lie</i> to their beliefs. Think of it. The true believers’ activity on “Earth Day” included:<br><br>
   • Their appliances and electrical devices were probably plugged in and working while they slept until their alarms went off. Their food was being cooled, water heated without a reason and their own bodies cooled via air conditioning while they slept under blankets.<br><br>
   • They probably took hot showers and ate a normal breakfast before most of them got into their vehicles and drove to their “Earth Day” event.<br><br>
   • At their “Earth Day” event, some of them boarded buses – giant fossil fuel users and polluters – in order to get to another area for that part of their “Earth Day” celebration.<br><br>
   • After doing their “thing” for that portion of their “Earth Day”, they re-boarded the bus and went back to their original “Earth Day” meeting place and maybe did more there, or got back into their personal vehicle and drove it either to a restaurant to eat, another event, or maybe back home.<br><br>
   • When they arrived home, they used more appliances – air conditioning, oven/stove, refrigerator, dishwasher, washing machine and dryer, etc. – as well as lights, radio/television, electronic devices, etc., until they went to bed for the night during which their refrigerator still cooled their food, the air conditioner cooled them, and their hot water heater still heated water until needed the next morning as their electronic devices charged for the next day’s use.<br><br>
So the reality of the “Earth Day” ceremony of going out and participating in something to prove that you are interested in, dedicated to, or a “true believer” in “helping” the earth is actually just hurting it.<br><br>
Instead of doing all that is wrong and going to hurt the earth on “its day”, why don’t they:<br><br>
   1) Turn off all of their electrical appliances at the breaker box the night before as they go to bed? <br><br>
   2) Get up in the morning without showering (to preserve water) and pop a mint to freshen their breath? <br><br>
   3) Get on bicycles and bike to the event where they would not use any water, nor create any pollution besides their own exhaling? <br><br>
   4) When finished, bike home? <br><br>
   5) Spend the rest of the day reading until bedtime and go to bed without eating or showering so that they didn’t use any electricity or water? <br><br>
The next morning they could switch their breakers back on, shower after the hot water heater warmed things up and they could eat a hot breakfast after their “Earth Day” fast. Why not celebrate “Earth Day” that way so that you can help the earth on “Earth Day” instead of harming it? I think that would be a more fitting activity list for those who purport to put the earth as a priority in their lives. <br><br>
For those who think that the earth is <i>not</i> being injured by humans living here and that the earth is <i>not</i> that fragile and who don’t believe that we should be worshipping the earth or anything else in this realm, we can go about our usual activities because we didn’t put our names to the lie. We can feel free to use our vehicles, appliances, electronic devices, hot water, etc. Not being a hypocrite is a wonderful thing and if we don’t believe in the “Earth Day” ceremony and we don’t participate in it, it’s also more fun.<br><br>
If these make believers wanted to do something good for the earth instead of going out and participating in – or even participating in the planning of – “Earth Day” events, as they did this year, they would change things up. For every future “Earth Day” event of the future may I suggest the following?<br><br>
   1) Plan all “Earth Day” events close enough to population centers that anyone in that population center wishing to attend may <b>walk or ride a bicycle </b>to the location.<br><br>
   2) Plan events for “Earth Day” that would produce <b>no carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide or other emissions</b> of any kind. <br><br>
   3) Use <b>no paper advertising</b> for Earth Day” events should be used in order to save the trees: nothing in newspapers, magazines, brochures, snail mail letters, or flyers of any kind.<br><br>
   4) <b>Use no advertising that requires any kind of electrical support</b>. No television, radio, internet, or robo-calls should be used so that polluting power companies cannot be used to get people to participate in “Earth Day”. <br><br>
   5) All “Earth Day” events should be planned to <b>not disturb the ground in any way, shape, form, or fashion</b>. Planting trees, while symbolic, may be “good for” the earth, but it also lends itself to erosion in the area until the trees take hold.<br><br>
   6) <b>Use no water at “Earth Day” events</b> for we all “know” that water is in short supply and that means that it should be used sparingly, instead of as a show to impress others, which is no better than having a swimming pool in your back yard that you keep filled, chlorinated and cleaned but rarely use.<br><br>
   7) <b>Don’t allow dogs</b> at “Earth Day” events because they are humans’ pets and it is due to their existence that we humans have to pollute the earth via visits to the veteran’s office, trips to buy food, toys, to take them on walks, and during those walks, they drop pollutants and leave them to be picked up by others, or left to be washed into the earth. <br><br>
   8) <b>Make everyone stay on the pavement/asphalt</b> because if they walk on the grass, who knows what new species may be growing there but killed off because of so many people trampling on them? There should be no hikes through the woods, no bike rides into the forest. Prevent everyone from touching the woods because they can harm it by participating in it.<br><br>
   9) <b>Allow only “true believers”</b> to participate in “Earth Day” activities. Those who show up for “Earth Day” but do nothing otherwise besides recycle are hypocrites and we all know that being a hypocrite in anything harms any movement instead of adding to its followers. You can’t get a Planned Parenthood president to take a pro-life stance and expect Planned Parenthood to maintain donation inflow.<br><br>
   10) If vehicles are used to attend the event they must be <b>electric vehicles</b> that have been charged via an electrical source that does not pollute (no coal power plants), kill nature's animals (no wind produced electricity), nor any water sourced electrical power. This way no harm can be done to the earth in order to drive to “Earth Day”.<br><br>
   11) If you’re going to celebrate the earth, do so properly and <b>hold a Wiccan/Gaia worship ceremony</b>. After all, it’s a celebration of the earth, why not do the Wiccan/Gaia thing? If you’re really all that enamored of the earth, if you’re really going to honor it, why not admit that you worship it? It is your god? You hold it as a holy thing? At least those who are not zealots would see the road they’re headed down and the truth may snap some out of it.<br><br>
That would be a much better “Earth Day”. No hypocrisy, no harm to “Mother Earth”, using no natural resources that demand stripping the earth of her plants, water, coal, wind, or whatever else must be used to create paper, electricity, or anything else to advertise, organize, or participate in the day, or creating pollution via people driving their vehicles or riding buses to the different events or locations. “Earth Day” would be a real celebration -- and worship -- of the earth if those who want to celebrate it would actually do so without doing more harm than good. Don’t you agree?<br><br>
___________
© 2017 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-79911239118620187902017-04-06T00:19:00.001-04:002017-04-06T00:36:22.757-04:00How I Know GOD IsLove. It’s just that pure, plain and simple. That’s how I know GOD is real. In 1 John 4:16 we see the truth: <a href="http://biblehub.com/1_john/4-16.htm">GOD is love</a>. Without GOD there would be no love.<br><br>
When I say “there would be no love” I mean exactly that. There would be no love in any form: no erotic (male/female marital love), filial (brotherly love), agape (love of GOD), nor “empathy love” that would make you run to help someone trapped in a burning car. None of those would exist. No one would realize that we were missing something because you never miss what you’ve never had. That’s how I know that we have the One, True GOD watching over us and loving us. There is love.<br><br>
Without GOD, there would be no human motherly love toward her child. All human children would be born from animal instincts to mate and the children would be left to fend for themselves as though they were sea turtles (to choose something we’re all familiar with here in Florida). Sea turtles lay their eggs in the sand, bury them and return to the sea. When it’s time for the eggs to hatch the mother is nowhere to be found and the babies make their ways out of the eggs, up out of the sand and – if they’re lucky – into the sea to make their way the best they can. Some don’t make it far from the nest thanks to sea gulls and other land predators, or they make it to the ocean only to live a day and be eaten by a predator in the sea. No mommy to take care of them, watch over them, instruct them in how to avoid being eaten by that sea gull, or defend them against the tiger shark or grouper once they get to the ocean. Human children would be left to themselves, like the turtles.<br><br>
That’s not, however, the way we do it. Most women, once pregnant, trying to get pregnant because they desire a child so much their hearts ache for one, or at least once they’ve given birth and seen their child, have a mothering instinct that kicks in and a connection is made with the child and barring circumstances that are not the norm (substance abuse, sociopathy, etc.), will do everything she can to protect her child, go to extremes to feed, clothe and house her child. It’s an instinct, but it’s formed from, based and predicated upon love. She looks at the face of her newborn and falls so very deeply, inexplicably, irrevocably in love with her baby that most mothers will lay down her life for her child, no matter what. She’s that child’s mommy; nothing will stop that, change that, remove that, not even giving it up for adoption. Love makes this happen. Love proves that GOD is real.<br><br>
Without GOD there would be no other forms of love: brotherly love, erotic (Eros) love (like between a bride and groom), or “empathy love”: the kind of love one has for a stranger when you help him get up off the ground after a hard fall, or buy him dinner when he’s hungry. Without GOD there would be none of that because, like sunlight, in order to have love there must be a source of love. GOD is that source.<br><br>
Without GOD there would be no one willing to lay down his life for his fellow man, for <a href="http://biblehub.com/john/15-13.htm">“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”</a> It’s impossible to have that kind of sacrifice without having GOD’s example and gift of His Son who laid down His life for us so that we don’t have to face an eternity in hell if we choose to follow Him and accept His free gift. No one would be a cop, serve in the military, risk their lives to save a stranger or the stranger’s child from a rising river and a stalled and flooding vehicle. Without GOD there would be no firefighters willing to run into a burning building to rescue a trapped person, a dog who is whimpering in the locked apartment, or even the parakeet much loved by its elderly owner.<br><br>
“Oh!” you smugly retort, “But they’re getting paid to do that!”<br><br>
True, but they were not being paid to do so when they choose that career. Ask firemen (generic term meaning “people” in general) if they chose the career because they wanted the pay and you’ll be laughed at to your face. Ask them if they went into the career because they wanted to help people and that’s what will get a resounding “Yes” most often. They may or may not call it “brotherly love” or “empathy love” but that’s what it is: they risk laying down their lives for their fellow man every time they respond to a dangerous situation.<br><br>
We all know that there is love and there is lust. Lust is not love if you will admit the truth. You may lust for someone (your neighbor, a celebrity, or a former high school classmate), but that doesn’t mean that you love them. “Eros love” – not lust, love – is what the bride and groom share that makes them truly commit to each other for life. That “until death do us part” portion of the wedding vows is not always followed but when given they are supposed to be meant and it’s supposed to be a real commitment. If it were not for this kind of love then most of the children in the world would be born out of lust (a lot more frequent nowadays than sixty years ago); the temporary joining of bodies in order to fulfill temporary animalistic desires, sometimes more desired by the male than the female. Eros love, as Helen Joy Lewis put it, “the most appreciative of all pleasures”(1) and is the kind of love that makes the marriage ceremony so solemn, so celebrate, so important and not to be mucked with via changing laws. The marriage kind of love is the one GOD talked about after creating Adam and Eve and he said to “be fruitful and multiply” and we learned in both the Old and New Testaments that <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-24.htm">“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”</a> And Jesus instructed us <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/19.htm">“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female</a>, <a href="http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-5.htm">5</a> And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? <a href="http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-6.htm">6</a> Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” One flesh. One. That’s how deeply man and woman are joined together in love, not lust.<br><br>
Look at how those who do not love act and you will see that there is a difference between those of us who do know GOD via knowing how to love and knowing love in return; no matter what kind of love we experience we do experience it. Those incapable of experiencing it are often called <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/home/ovc-20198975">sociopaths</a> because they do not connect with others, have no idea what right and wrong are and wouldn’t know how to treat others if they were not instructed in how to do so and were not restricted in their deeds because others are watching. Sociopaths cannot feel the love of others toward themselves nor do they know how to give love in return. They can fake it both ways, but they can’t really feel it. That’s why sociopaths can commit such heinous acts; no love – not even brotherly or empathy love -- equals no remorse.<br><br>
Another example of not realizing the truth of GOD’s love and the way it affects people is the way those societies that do not follow the GOD of Christianity conduct themselves. ISIS is not following the GOD of Christianity; their god does not love them, he loves their acts if it happens to please him at the time but even their martyrdoms do not always please him and it holds no guarantees. Heaven is not promised in the Quran for martyrs. That was <a href="http://www.alim.org/library/hadith/SHB/266/5">not even guaranteed to the prophet of Islam, Mohammed</a>. Yet, they kill their own children for their god so that they may be able to spend time in heaven with the same god who they want to please so desperately that kill their own children so that he will be placated. That’s not love in my book. Nor is stoning your daughter, neighbor, sister, or wife to death because she dared drive a car, go outside by herself, not wear a full hijab. If that’s love I think a lot of us would say, “No thank you!” to love.<br><br>
Look at how other societies do things, societies that do not follow the GOD of Christianity, and you will see other things that are scary, questionable, too negative to be considered a good thing. Am I saying that Christians always behave perfectly? No. I am saying that the overall differences between Christianity and other religions can be very minor as to be miniscule, to so big they can be considered enormous. Different religions sometimes have similar beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that the non-Christian religion is better than the Christian religion. Look at what each of them believes, teaches and practices (actions speak louder than words). Then tell me that the GOD of Christianity is subservient to, less than, not as good as the gods of other religions.<br><br>
“Oh, but the Crusades!” you scream at your screen. The “crusades” were long ago and more about power and money than they were about religion. The Crusades really had nothing to do with religion; it had more to do with territory and who controlled it. Yes, the mask of Catholicism was worn, but it wasn’t really a religious war; it was about power and territory. The pope may have been involved, but that doesn’t mean that everything the pope did then nor currently does is based upon Biblical principles.<br><br>
Now I want you to reread the first two sentences of the second paragraph. No love would look something like this: There would be no one willing to lay down his/her life for their fellow man. No one would be willing to give birth to babies because the baby in the womb would not illicit motherly love, but just the inconveniences of today’s abortion industry. Murder most heinous would be the norm; horrors of the worst kind being done to others for the fun of it. Bribery of the highest officials in the land would be normal. Robberies using whatever force needed to get what was wanted would be an hourly occurrence. Gang rapes the norm; animals would be treated as cruelly as evil hearts would do to them and no one would raise an eyebrow. Godless gangs would roam the streets doing as they wish without anyone even thinking of stopping them: there would be no law enforcement to do so because no one would be willing to lay down their lives for their fellow man. Think of any of the vile things one can do to a child that is currently done in the sex slave industry then multiply it by ten, twenty, thirty. That is what will be done without love because mercy stems from love and without it there would be no reason to stop.<br><br>
That’s a world without love. That’s what tells me that GOD is: “I Am that I Am.” Without Him and His intercession into the minds, hearts, souls and spirits of mankind, our world would be so very dark and hateful that you would not want to recognize it. GOD is love and love exists. Our world is – for the most part – a better place than that. If GOD was not real, it would all look like ISIS and it would all be darkness, hatred, murder, horrendous things done in the name of whatever they choose to call it.<br><br>
It’s just that simple. GOD is love and it comes from and is part of Him. If you love anyone or anything you know GOD is the source of that love for without Him, it would not be love. He gave His only begotten Son – who chose to do what was necessary for Him to do in order to save us – to die in our stead. That’s love. If it weren’t for Jesus Christ’s self-sacrifice for us we would be doomed to receive the eternity in hell that we deserve.<br><br>
GOD is love. Without Him we would be demons not even as close to acting as civilized as the wildest animals, the smallest brained slugs, the hyenas that laugh at civilization or the deepest ocean depth’s creatures that never see light. Darkness would not begin to describe us, our souls, our actions, our filth.<br><br>
______<br><br>
<b>1)</b> Helen Joy Lewis, “The Four Loves” as published in “The Beloved Works of C.S. Lewis”, pg. 264: Inspirational Press, A Division of BBS Publishing Corporation, 450 Raritan Center Parkway, Edison, NJ, 08837: Harcourt Brace & Company, 622 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, FL 32897<br><br>
______________________<br><br>
© 2017 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved<br><br>
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-7752262039542622222017-02-09T01:54:00.001-05:002017-02-09T01:58:09.451-05:00GOD’s Protection of Cainby Linda McKinney<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Let’s look at the truth because it is desperately needed. In <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/4.htm">Genesis 4</a> it states:<br><br>
<blockquote>"<a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/4-9.htm">And Cain talked with Abel his brother:</a> and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.<br><br>
"<a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/9.htm">9</a> And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/10.htm">10</a> And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/11.htm">11</a> And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/12.htm">12</a> 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. <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/13.htm">13</a> And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/14.htm">14</a> 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. <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/15.htm">15</a> 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.<br><br>
<a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/16.htm">16</a> And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden."</blockquote>
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.”<br>
The KJV Bible was written in Old English and the Old English definition of “lest” is:<br><br>
<blockquote><b>conjunction (subordinating; takes should or a subjunctive verb)</b><br>
1. <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lest">so as to prevent any possibility that:</a> </blockquote>
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 <b>protective</b> 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 <i>mark of protection</i> on Cain so that no one would try to harm him.<br><br>
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 <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/5.htm">930 years</a>, 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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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 <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/5-31.htm">707 years old</a>! 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.<br><br>
If having dark skin was a bad thing, why would GOD allow <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/songs/1.htm">Song of Solomon Chapter 1</a> to say:<br><br>
<blockquote><b>"The Bride</b><br><br>
<a href="http://biblehub.com/songs/5.htm">"5 </a>I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.<br><br>
<a href="http://biblehub.com/songs/6.htm">"6</a> 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.<br><br>
<a href="http://biblehub.com/songs/7.htm">"7</a> 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?"</blockquote>
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.<br><br>
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 <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/1.htm">John 1:1-5</a> 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 <a href="http://biblehub.com/nlt/matthew/7.htm">Matthew 7:1-3</a>) but you may!<br><br>
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 <a href="http://biblehub.com/john/8-12.htm">the Light</a> and the Word of GOD and to repent of their wrong.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
________________________<br><br>
© 2017 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-66594542224442108082016-12-25T17:23:00.003-05:002017-03-04T01:48:47.033-05:00My Christmas Present to You: "In the Shadow of Christmas Day"© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
<br><br>
In the shadow of Christmas day<br>
And the wake of Santa’s sleigh,<br>
The wrappings of presents set out by the curb to stay…
<br><br>
In the dawning of the day after<br>
Recalling dreams come true and laughter<br>
The voice of one calling in the desert -- quietly as if from rafters --
<br><br>
If one listens to the hushed sound<br>
“I love you” is the message that resounds<br>
Will you listen actually hear; in your heart rebound?
<br><br>
Christmas is not a present to unwrap on Christmas Day,<br>
But the Gift of One Who was born to take our sins away – <br>
To take our place upon the Cross after being mocked, scourged, He was put on display…
<br><br>
For all to deride and spit upon as they walked by,<br>
He was labeled “King of the Jews” with a cry, <br>
“No! Not that!” unwanted, they said it was a lie.
<br><br>
But King He was – over time, space and all<br>
That man knew then, knows now – big and small,<br>
He died there, begging forgiveness for those who refused His call…
<br><br>
Yes, blind, rebellious, hard-hearted, they refused to see<br>
Truth, hung there upon the Tree,<br>
Rising again, whole but scarred, eternal marks on him instead of me.
<br><br>
His back is ever shredded, from lashes given to a Babe laid upon the hay,<br>
The nails left eternal marks on the Child Who did obey,<br>
Thorns dripped blood down royal brow on young man who gave His life for you that day.
<br><br>
In the shadow of Christmas when we celebrate the day<br>
The Child born to take our sins away<br>
Began the greatest, hardest journey that calls to you every day…
<br><br>
“Come to me! I love you!” the Child cries out to you<br>
But in rebellion, egotistical, sinful people cling to what is untrue<br>
And leave the arms open wide to receive them, empty as his heart so longs for you.
<br><br>
Wrap the presents and bake the pies,<br>
Cling to family, worship the lies,<br>
While in eternal love your Savior’s heart cries
<br><br>
For if there be any sadness in heaven you know<br>
‘Tis for those who refuse His love and on their own ways go<br>
Fr He knows their path will lead them to eternal throes…
<br><br>
And God’s Baby Son was born to save all men<br>
No matter color, nation, creed, He cries out to them,<br>
“I love you! Come to me!” they turn their backs, their choice, themselves condemn.
<br><br>
_____________________<br><br>
© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved<br>
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-16711442728424722962016-12-18T23:13:00.001-05:002016-12-18T23:17:52.598-05:00Disney’s “Frozen”: Bad and InconsistentIt’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.
<br><br>
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 <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294629/synopsis?ref_=tt_ql_stry_3">IMDB.com synopsis</a> of the movie and wondered if my first impression had been wrong.
<br><br>
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.”
<br><br>
Before I go any further, I need to post a disclaimer: We do <i>not</i> 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.
<br><br>
Watching the movie proved my impressions correct. It was a <i>horrible</i> 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.
<br><br>
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:
<br><br>
<b>1)</b> 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.
<br><br>
<b>2)</b> 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 <i>not</i> 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.
<br><br>
<b>3)</b> 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.
<br><br>
<b>4)</b> 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:
<blockquote>“<a href="http://www.lyricsfreak.com/i/idina+menzel/let+it+go_21075120.html">It's time to see what I can do</a><br>
“To test the limits and break through<br>
“No right, no wrong, no rules for me<br>
“I'm free”</blockquote>
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 <a href="http://blog.godreports.com/2014/03/disney-hit-song-has-kids-singing-no-right-no-wrong-no-rules-for-me-im-free/">one source</a>, 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.
<br><br>
<b>5)</b> 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 snow<i>man</i>! 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?
<br><br>
<b>6)</b> 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.)
<br><br>
<b>7)</b> 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.
<br><br>
<b>8)</b> 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 “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587310/synopsis?ref_=tt_ql_stry_3">Maleficent</a>”) 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?
<br><br>
<b>9)</b> 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?
<br><br>
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?
<br><br>
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?
<br><br>
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 <a href="http://us-en.superbook.cbn.com/">CBN’s “Superbook”</a> series, or even old episodes of “Lassie” both of which teach good things instead of negatives?
<br><br>
__________________________________<br><br>
© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-72843847564922615022016-10-25T23:11:00.001-04:002016-10-25T23:11:17.575-04:00Support Groups To Do WRONG?<b>Warning:</b> 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.<br><br>
<br><br>
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?
<br><br>
In the show the “transgendered man” (the woman) decided to “help” children – <i>children</i> – 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 <b>minors</b> -- 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.
<br><br>
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: <i>child’s</i> – delusions and finally buying him dresses and frilly things. She felt guilty about denying that joy to her son for so long.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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 <i>wisdom</i> 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.
<br><br>
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 <i>right thing</i>?
<br><br>
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 <b>six-year-old</b> 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?
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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?
<br><br>
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!”
<br><br>
Alcoholics Anonymous is a support group for those who wish to <i><b>stop</b> doing the wrong thing</i>, not to <b>start doing the wrong thing</b>. 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 <b><i>supporting doing wrong thing</i></b>. 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!
<br><br>
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? <i>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?</i>
<br><br>
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, <i>you shall pay</i>!
<br><br>
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: <i>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?</i> 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.”?
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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 <a href="http:\williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu\research\suicide-attempts-among-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-adults\">41%</a><b>1</b> (those who experience <a href="http:\williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu\wp-content\uploads\AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf">harassment, violence, etc</a><b>2</b>.) and saying “Yes, you can!” to someone who wants to change genders when they are ten is not going to help them avoid that!
<br><br>
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?
<br><br>
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 <a href="https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/">41% when the average suicide rate for Americans is 14.7%</a><b>3</b>? 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!
<br><br>
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?
<br><br>
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!
<br><br>
There is an attitude out there that says that if you get the sex change operation you are “<a href="http://www.livescience.com/9648-sex-change-operations-science-sociology-psychology.html">living authentically</a><b>4</b>”. 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 <a href="http://www.peter-ould.net/2013/11/13/transgender-mortality-rates/">live a much shorter life than heterosexuals</a><b>5</b>.
<br><br>
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 <i>child</i>hood decision to commit to a transfiguring operation must be silenced because they’re a bigot.
<br><br>
A 2011 <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.PDF">study found</a><b>6</b>:
<blockquote>“<b>Results:</b>
“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.<br>
“<b>Conclusions:</b><br>
“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.”</blockquote>
Sound like gender reassignment surgery is all roses or even a good answer? If not, then a smart parent, a loving grandparent, <i>whoever loves that child</i> 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 <i>right thing</i>?
<br><br>
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 <i>their own "logic"</i> 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.
<br><br>
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!’?”
<br><br>
In conclusion, <a href="http://www.theconfidentmom.com/04/faith-and-family/setting-boundaries-children/">boundaries are good</a><b>7</b> 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.
<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
3) https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/ American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: Retrieved 10/24/2016, 3:29 a.m.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-1334108931959227992016-10-19T03:40:00.001-04:002016-10-19T03:44:49.771-04:00Difficult Question #8: Agreement, Spoken Word and GOD’s HandiworkHow 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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
The creation story in <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/1.htm">Genesis 1 (KJV)</a> states:
<blockquote>The Beginning<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
The First Day: Light<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
The Second Day: Firmament<br><br>
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 <i>were</i> under the firmament from the waters which <i>were</i> above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
<br><br>
The Third Day: Dry Ground<br><br>
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry <i>land</i> appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry <i>land</i> 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, <i>and</i> 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, <i>and</i> herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed <i>was</i> in itself, after his kind: and God saw that <i>it was</i> good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
<br><br>
The Fourth Day: Sun, Moon, Stars<br><br>
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: <i>he made</i> 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 <i>it was</i> good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
<br><br>
The Fifth Day: Fish and Birds<br><br>
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that <i>may</i> 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.
<br><br>
The Sixth Day: Creatures on Land<br><br>
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 <i>it was</i> good.
<br><br>
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 <i>is</i> 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 <i>there is</i> life, <i>I have given every</i> green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, <i>it was</i> very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
</blockquote>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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: <a href="http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/1-1.htm">Hebrew Lexicon</a>):
<blockquote>1:1; 1:27 (twice)<br><br>
"created" בָּרָ֣א ba·ra 1254a to shape, create a prim. root<br><br>
1:3; 1:6; 1:9; 1:11; 1:14; 1:24; 1:26; 1:28; 1:29<br><br>
"said" וַיֹּ֥אמֶר vai·yo·mer 559 to utter, say a prim. root<br><br>
1:7; 1:16; 1:25; 1:26<br><br>
"made" וַיַּ֣עַשׂ vai·ya·'as 6213a do, make a prim. root<br><br>
1:21; 1:27<br><br>
"created" וַיִּבְרָ֣א vai·yiv·ra 1254a to shape, create a prim. root</blockquote>
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.
<br><br>
So GOD did <i>not</i> 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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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?
<br><br>
Remember the Tower of Babel story in <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/11.htm">Genesis Chapter 11</a>? 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 <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/11-7.htm">confounded their language</a> because He saw:
<blockquote>“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.”</blockquote>
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!
<br><br>
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 <a href="http://biblehub.com/context/john/1-1.htm">John 1:1-3</a>).
<br><br>
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” (<a href="http://biblehub.com/john/14-12.htm">John 14:12</a>). 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?
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
_______________
<br><br>
© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-45216419324322371412016-10-16T19:27:00.002-04:002023-08-08T17:05:54.175-04:00Difficult Queston #7: Why did it have to be Jesus Christ who died for our sins?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?
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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?
<br><br>
In a word, No. In order for the sacrifice to have been enough the only way to accomplish that was to have <a href="http://biblehub.com/john/10-30.htm">Jesus be part GOD</a>, 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, “<a href="http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-46.htm">My GOD, my GOD why have you forsaken me?” </a>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 <a href="http://biblehub.com/niv/john/1.htm">John 1:1-3</a>). It was separation. GOD, <a href="http://biblehub.com/luke/10-22.htm">His Father</a>, 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.
<br><br>
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, “<a href="http://biblehub.com/john/19-30.htm">It is finished</a>!” and gave up His soul/spirit, the price was paid in full; it was “finished”.
<br><br>
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 <a href="http://biblehub.com/niv/john/1.htm">John 1:1-3</a>:
<br><br>
<blockquote>“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.” </blockquote>
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 <i>was</i> GOD. Part GOD, part man; without which we could never have been saved.
<br><br>
Won’t you accept that great gift today?<br><br>
____________<br><br>
© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-56371129061603397542016-09-11T15:50:00.001-04:002016-09-11T16:02:01.592-04:00All Islam is RadicalThe 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.<br><br>
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 <a href="http://freedomoutpost.com/muslim-man-rapes-8-year-old-bride-dies/">physically harmful</a> 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.<br><br>
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 <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/11/taliban-jihadists-skin-man-alive-after-ripping-his-eyes-out/">douse her in gasoline and set her ablaze</a>. 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?<br><br>
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978890/ISIS-barbarians-throw-gay-man-building-bloodthirsty-crowds-Syria.html">Throwing gay men off the roof of a tall building</a> or <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/11/taliban-jihadists-skin-man-alive-after-ripping-his-eyes-out/">skinning him alive</a> 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 “<a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/taliban-honey-trap-boys-kill-afghan-police-034032649.html?ref=gs">bacha bazi</a>”, 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.<br><br>
Let’s not forget female genital mutilation (FGM; which is <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/fgm-rates-have-doubled-us-2004-304773">now being illegally done in America</a>) :<br><br>
<blockquote>“[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.”
</blockquote>
(<b>NOTE:</b> The article claims that it is also <a href="http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/background/islam-or-culture/">done in some Christian sects</a>, but it is generally done under <a href="https://copticliterature.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/prevalence-of-and-support-for-female-genital-mutilation-within-the-copts-of-egypt-unicef-report-20">pressure from the majority Muslim community</a>.) 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 “<a href="http://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4755-8-26">is carried out in girls aged between birth (7 days) up to pre-adolescence, always before the first menstruation and marriage</a>” 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:
<blockquote>“[I]mmediate <a href="http://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4755-8-26">health complications include shock, haemorrhage, infections and psychological consequences</a> [<a href="http://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4755-8-26#CR11">11</a>, <a href="http://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4755-8-26#CR12">12</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.5.1000">13</a>]. The long term health risks consist of chronic pain, infections, cheloids formation, primary infertility, birth complications, danger to the new born and psychological consequences [<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.5.1000">13</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67023-7">14</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.035">15</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3156.2001.00749.x">16</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00896.x">17</a>, <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Female%20genital%20mutilation%20and%20obstetric%20outcome%3A%20WHO%20collaborative%20prospective%20study%20in%20six%20African%20countries&journal=Lancet&volume=367&issue=925&pages=1835-41&publication_year=2006">18</a>]. 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 [<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3583468">12</a>], obstetric complications [<a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Female%20genital%20mutilation%20and%20obstetric%20outcome%3A%20WHO%20collaborative%20prospective%20study%20in%20six%20African%20countries&journal=Lancet&volume=367&issue=925&pages=1835-41&publication_year=2006">18</a>] and sexual dysfunction [<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.035">15</a>].” </blockquote>
That’s not just radical, it’s unimaginable. Yet this is the usual practice of even those who are <b>not considered to be extremists</b>.<br><br>
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 <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244858/taking-over-streets-john-derbyshire">praying in the streets</a> as well as by <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068796/The-fancy-Manhattan-block-Islamic-center-grinds-halt-prayer-time-Muslim-taxi-drivers-blocking-street.html">parking their vehicles</a> (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 <i>impeding</i> the neighborhood, <i>controlling</i> 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 <b>delays</b> 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?<br><br>
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 <a href="http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/wife-beating.aspx">commanded in the Koran/Qur’an</a> 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?<br><br>
In Islam, <a href="http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/rape-adultery.aspx">rape is blamed on the woman and she can be thrown in prison</a>, 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 <a href="http://linkis.com/madworldnews.com/AqZ7v">if the rape victim is a baby it is the baby that is punished</a> – 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. <b>That’s radical.</b><br><br>
Divorce for a man in Islam is “<a href="http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/triple-talaq.aspx">I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you.”</a> 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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
How many religions would be the <b>cause</b> 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 <I>not radical</I>. 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 <b>excused</b>. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
All of these instances and more are proof that Islam IS a <i>radical</i> 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 <b>guarantee</b> for it! <b>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.</b><br><br>
© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-16649044662112224052016-04-26T00:20:00.002-04:002018-10-22T17:50:28.257-04:00Donald Trump is a DuckHey, Trump supporters, <i>wake up!</i><br><br>
<b>UPDATE Oct. 22, 2018:</b> I have changed my mind about Pres. Donald J. Trump since he was elected. He has done great things for America and I am so VERY GLAD he won!
I say this because I believe it’s time for those who support Trump because “He’s an outsider!” to wake up and smell the coffee, feel the cool breeze on your faces and to let your brain think about more than the “outsider” you think you’re supporting.<br><br>
I use quotes around “outsider” because you’re asleep at the wheel if you think he’s an “outsider”. Which outsider do you know whose wedding included <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/16/hillary-clinton-had-a-front-row-seat-at-donald-trumps-most-recent-wedding/">hillary clinton (bill</a> joined her later at the reception) as guests? In fact, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-and-the-clintons-have-a-cozy-past/article/2568804">their daughters are often seen together in NYC</a>. How many “outsiders” do you know of who have supported <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/17/analysis-trump-gave-money-to-gop-dem-lawmakers/">both democrats and republicans</a>? Which “outsider” are you familiar with who has worked within the system for the last fifty years and knows half of the U.S. House and Senate well enough to invite them to his parties? <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-goes-washington-gop-establishment-events-n542346">He goes to the insider events</a>, for goodness’ sake! “Outsiders” don’t have the kinds of supporters Trump has nor do they have the kinds of <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/11/trump_all_my_hollywood_friends_say_everyone_out_here_is_going_to_vote_for_you_but_wont_admit_it.html#!">Hollywood friends Trump has</a>.<br><br>
“Outsider”? Right. If Trump is an “outsider” I’m the sun, moon <i>and</i> the stars!<br><br>
“Outsiders” are – by definition – outsiders. Thus they have no knowledge of the “inside” workings of the Washington elite and the elite’s supporters. If you consider yourself an “outsider” – as I’m sure most of you do – do you have the kinds of friends, party invites and knowledge as does Trump? If not, then <i>that’s</i> the definition of an “outsider”.<br><br>
For those who are supporting Trump because he will turn things in D.C. upside down with his “outsider” status, you’re asleep, too. He has done so many deals with D.C., with the wheelers and dealers, that he has some of the D.C. insiders on auto-dial, I’m sure.<br><br>
Why is it that you have the whole idea that Trump is an “outsider” when he has all of this going on?<br><br>
How many “outsiders” can get the things done worldwide that Trump has gotten done? You don’t get things done in NYC without rubbing elbows with the high-muckety-mucks and slapping their backs. “Outsiders” don’t do that.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.trumptowerny.com/">Trump Towers</a> is a magnificent building, obviously. However, the people who have graced its corridors and dirtied its bed sheets are not the Mom and Pop people of mid-America, of course. Which Mom and Pop who isn’t an “insider” can afford those kinds of prices?<br><br>
Trump spews a lot of rhetoric about being an “outsider” and that’s all fine, but is it TRUE? <br><br>
Let’s face the hard cold facts here. There is a perfect example of what is actually going on with Trump and his supporters. He’s playing them like fool’s fiddles. Remember when he said that he could go out and shoot someone in the street and people would still vote for him? Does that not tell you how much he is taking your belief in his “outsider” status – and thus those who support him as such – <i>for granted</i>? He thinks that because you don’t know that he’s been partying with these folks and rubbing elbows with them for the last fifty years that you automatically assume that he’s an “outsider”. Well, donating to both sides of the aisle to get things done is not being an “outsider”, it’s being a player. In this instance he’s playing a large portion of the American people for fools. <br><br>
Trump supporters, you may hope to have someone who isn’t a D.C.-ite in the White House, but which candidate currently running is not an insider? Trump has no “outsider” credentials except for the fact that he has never been elected nor appointed to any political office. That doesn’t mean he’s an “outsider” it means he’s an insider who is too busy making money to <i>donate to elected officials</i> to run for public office. Period. <br><br>
Insiders don’t have to be elected officials to be insiders. Anyone who has influence inside of D.C. is an insider. Trump’s given enough money, done enough for elected officials – or appointed officials – to be an insider, agree? So what is there that is “outsider” about him? <br><br>
Remember, he hasn’t been undesirous to be an insider. He has done the “<a href="http://mashable.com/2015/06/16/donald-trump-president-fake/#ouTMw.OeTaqr">run for president</a>” bit before. He covets being an elected official. He wants it so badly he can taste the Kobe Beef right from the current White House resident’s mouths. (Okay, that’s gross, but you get the idea.) Don’t you think it’s time for you to make his “outsider” status a reality? <br><br>
Falling prey to the “outsider” appeal of the Trump “legend” of “outsider-ism” is not something most people realized they were doing, I suspect. They want fresh blood, new faces, new words: words they can believe. The problem Trump-ists have is that there is <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies">no proof they can believe Trump</a>! He has <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/lies-damned-lies-and-donald-j.-trump/article/2001471">said this, that and the other</a>, but in several cases <a href="https://www.bing.com/search?q=Trump%20walks%20back%20&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=trump%20walks%20back%20&sc=4-17&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=D87FBD643F1C4FFAA24B29862D71029B">has already had to take back his words</a>. Sounds like a Washington insider to me! <b>If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck…</b> <br><br>
His flip-flops on his own “principles” should tell you something about his “outsider” status as well. “Outsiders” have a core of principles upon which they base their lives, behavior, words and political stances. Core values/principles hold you fast and steady to who you are and what you will (or will not) do to get what you want. If you believe that stealing is wrong and that’s a core value, you don’t steal. If you believe that lying is wrong and it’s a core value, you don’t lie. If you believe that being elected takes whatever it takes is a core value, then you do whatever it takes. <br><br>
Is that not what Trump is doing: whatever it takes? He has always done so. Give to the democrats and to the republicans (no respect, no caps) and that’s how you play the game: it’s “the art of the deal”. We’ve known about his giving to both sides of the political spectrum in order to get deals done for ages. But how about when he’s president? What will that look like when he’s in the White House? Will that “outsider” who plays both sides of the fence do the same to get his own way while he’s “representing” us? We’ve seen what that looks like with the clintons and obama do we really want it again, even from someone you thought of as an “outsider”? Hillary with her family’s foundation and the money she raked in as Secretary of State was playing both sides of the fence. The current occupier of the White House is playing both sides of the fence when he refuses to build a fence at our border and when he brings in thousands of Muslims while saying he’s bringing in Christians from Syria. That’s playing both sides of the fence. We’ve been there, doing that. Why should we play the same song over with a different title: this time “Outsider For Hire”? <br><br>
It’s not just Trump’s lies, his double-mindedness, his donating to both sides, his lack of principles (how many times has he <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-evolving-stance-abortion/story?id=38057176">flip-flopped on abortion</a>?), but most of all, for me, it’s his taking the support of so many faithful, principled, desperate for freedom and relief Americans for granted that chafes the most. How dare he yank your chain and pull you around the way he has and do so while bragging about it and all the while being an insider, <i>par excellence</i>! He isn’t just an insider, he is one of the most inside of the insiders. After all, you don’t get a former president and the presumed next democrat nominee at your wedding if you aren’t an insider, <i>n’est-ce pas</i>? <br><br>
Think about it, America. Then move on away from Donald J. Trump. Insiders are as insiders do and we’ve already been there, done that, got the tax increases, failed healthcare, failed V.A. care, failed foreign policies and failures at telling the truth enough to know better. <br><br>
I do not support give 100% support to any candidate for the 2016 presidential race. The most I can muster for any candidate is 60% and that’s for Sen. Ted Cruz, but I don’t really like him that much. At least with him, we have a record of his actions as Texas Attorney General and U.S. Senator to know his history. (Full disclosure: Cruz – 60% support; Kasich – 15%; Trump – 10%; Socialist sanders and Clinton – 0%.)
We don’t have that record of actions as an elected official, held accountable to the people who elected him with Trump; all we have are words. Considering his words have been lies, walking things back and bragging, I don’t think that’s good enough. His actions speak louder. His actions are not “outsider” actions, but they do influence “insider” results. Remember, he likes to inflict pain on the little guy. In fact, he is quoted as having said this:
<blockquote>“‘I’ll do what I have to do,’ he continued. ‘Even if I’m not going to win. <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/whats-the-deal-with-donald-trump/309261/">I do it because at least you can inflict pain that way on somebody</a>, in terms of legal fees and other things.’”</blockquote>
He’s yanking your chain. Ducks are ducks. Don’t continue calling him an “outsider” when in fact he’s a duck.<br><br><br>
<b>(Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927, Independent of any candidate, campaign, committee, or duck.) It's also known as FREE SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED!</b><br><br>
____________________<br><br>
© 2016 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved.
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-49892516885935649152015-10-12T17:15:00.000-04:002015-10-12T17:15:57.285-04:00Watch Out, America! He's mocking and denying something again!Have you ever noticed that whenever themuslimvileone starts mocking and/or denying anything that it’s exactly what he is going to do?<br><br>
For instance:<br><br>
Remember when he said that if you “<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/05/obama-denies-you-can-keep-it-videotaped-promises/">like your doctor you can keep your doctor</a>” and “If you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare”? Remember that? He was denying the Republican assertions that you’d lose your doctor. What actually happened?<br><br>
Remember when <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-strategic-oil-reserve/2012/03/15/id/432686/">he denied the idea of releasing our strategic oil reserves</a>? Yep.
He lied about that, too. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/12/us-usa-energy-reserves-idUSBREA2B12V20140312">He sold 5 MILLION barrels of our strategic oil reserve in 2014</a>.<br><br>
Also last year, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-denies-plan-to-work-around-congress-on-iran-deal/article/2555046">he denied planning to sidestep Congress</a> in order to do the Iranian nuclear deal. Of course, as we all know, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2799715/obama-plans-totally-sidestep-congress-suspend-iran-sanctions-rush-resolve-nuclear-talks-november-deadline.html">he sidestepped Congress to get the deal done</a>.<br><br>
In 2014, he threatened to have our planes shoot down Israeli jets if they tried to destroy Iranian nuclear plants, but <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/1/report-obama-threatened-shoot-down-israeli-warplan/">this year he denied saying it</a>. He later went so far as to claim to be the <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/02/obama-im-the-closest-thing-to-a-jew-to-ever-be-president/">“the close[s]t thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this [Oval] office.”</a> He then had the audacity to <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/23/rabbi-barack-teaches-jewish-values/">preach to Jews about being Jewish</a>. (Chutzpah!) He may not have shot down Israel’s planes, but <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/times-obama-failed-israel/2015/03/02/id/627730/">he did not support them in at least seven different ways</a> that may have put them in danger. In fact, it’s a lot <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/20/a-complete-timeline-of-obamas-anti-israel-hatred/">more than seven times that he has harmed Israel</a>.<br><br>
In 2011, <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-chapman/flashback-obama-mocks-gop-border-security-they-ll-want-moat-and">he mocked the idea of a secure border, claiming that it was something he’d already accomplished</a>. Yet, as we’ve all seen in the last year or so <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/09/obama-expands-immigration-via-border-security-plan/">our borders are as leaky as a former Secretary of State’s e-mail security.</a><br><br>
In his Senatorial campaign <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-past-statements-on-same-sex-marriage/">he liked the idea of “homosexual marriage”, during his presidential campaign, he was against it. Recently he’s been for it again.</a><br><br>
Before <a href="https://youtu.be/NsRfrcit05M">he was elected prezidunce, he was against using Executive Orders to circumvent Congress</a>. Now we see that <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders">his actions speak MUCH louder than his previous words</a>!<br><br>
<a href="http://metro.co.uk/2012/09/24/barack-obama-denies-going-soft-as-rival-mitt-romney-spoils-for-war-590376/">He denied going soft on the Middle East</a>, but <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/dershowitz-obama-support-of-arab-spring-big-mistake/">his later actions prove that he was soft</a>.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204488304574425294029138738">He denied that the individual mandate in his healthcare TAX was a tax</a>, but the <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html">SCOTUS ruled that it was</a>.<br><br>
As a candidate, <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-officials-deny-obama-supports-abortion-demand-cant-name-one-restriction-he-supports_654276.html">he denies supporting abortion on demand,</a> but as <a href="http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=11024">prezidunce he, of course, supports it wholeheartedly</a> and fights to make sure that his healthcare TAX is used to pay for them. Even going so far as to <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/03/obama-admin-tells-supreme-court-force-catholic-nuns-to-obey-birth-control-mandate/">SUE NUNS</a>!<br><br>
So we see that he has a pattern: Denial/Mocking then doing exactly what he was denying or mocking. That’s a real problem for America because now he’s denying something that will affect all of us, and perhaps create a Constitutional crisis. You see, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/28/obama-i-could-run-and-win-a-third-term-as-president/">he’s mocking and denying the idea of a third term for him</a>. Which, if he sticks to his pattern means that he will run! That’s what I’ve been saying for quite a while now, is it not?
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-24147236124523558302015-04-06T17:41:00.002-04:002023-08-08T17:04:48.357-04:00Random Creation? Look at the Numbers!By Linda McKinney<br><br><br>
The “BIG Question” in a lot of people’s minds is the question, “Is GOD for real?” Personally, I believe in Him, but you may not. I don’t understand how anyone cannot. If you look at the numbers, there is proof of Him. How’s that? Let me explain.<br><br>
Think of the universe and how many stars are in the universe. It’s been estimated that there are <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/">120 to 300 sextillion</a> (that’s 1.2 x 10²³ to 3.0 x 10²³) stars in the observable universe. All of those stars and they’re all exactly where they need to be, doing what they should do.<br><br>
Look at the number of atoms within the observable universe and it’s estimated that (same link as above):
<blockquote>“[10 to the 78th power] to [10 to the 82nd power] atoms [are] in the known, observable universe. In layman’s terms, that works out to between ten quadrillion vigintillion and one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion atoms." [superscript not working, thus the written out exponents]</blockquote>
Remember, that is in the observable universe: the universe that we can actually observe with anything from the naked eye to the most advanced telescopes.<br><br>
When was the last time you heard of a disaster involving the universe (besides a <a href="http://www.disasterintheuniverse.com/">Norwegian psychedelic-pop/rock band</a>)? Unless you consider the alleged “Big Bang” a disaster (which allegedly created you; are you a disaster?), there hasn’t been one. In fact, there are a few questions as to how the Big Bang could have produced a few of the results that we live in today. For instance, the <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/104863/goodbye-big-bang-hello-hyper-black-hole-a-new-theory-on-universes-creation/">question of temperature equilibrium: science says there hasn’t been “enough time” for uniformity of the temperature of the universe</a>. So where’s the disaster in that? It should have been a big disaster if the universe’s temperatures weren’t uniform as it is considering that an unbalanced temperature could have resulted in us never having happened in the first place because the Earth would have baked, or frozen before we had the chance to even climb out of the mythical primordial ooze. Frozen ooze does not humanity make.<br><br>
So we have many vigintillions of atoms, making up many sextillions of stars without a single disaster that was created by a “Big Bang” that “just happened” and that exhibits scientifically unexplainable phenomena. We’ll come back to that later.<br><br>
The second set of numbers I want you to look at is the human body and DNA. I include DNA because if we were created out of random acts after the “Big Bang” and that we are just happenstance as well, then that must be taken into account.<br><br>
Did you know that the average adult human body has <a href="http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/StevenChen.shtml">enough DNA in it to make nearly 70 trips from the Earth to the sun and back again</a>? On average, there are <a href="http://www.numberof.net/number-of-dna-strands/">4,600 trillion DNA strands in the adult human body</a>. So this DNA just happened out of the blue? It all happened out of chance. It was a long time coming, but it all came to be. That’s what those who do not believe in a Creator want us to believe. <br><br>
Okay, now I’m going to throw a little game into the mix. Do you remember the <a href="http://spacecoastconservative.com/images/labrynth.jpg">maze game</a> toy? You know, the one that is usually a wooden box with a lid that moves on two axes (ak-seez; plural of axis), has many holes and barriers and you have to get a single ball through the maze to the correct exit in order to “win” the game? Consider how many times you’d have to play that game and get that marble from one end of the game to the other, dropping the ball into the correct “winning” hole – with your eyes closed while you play. You’d never know when to turn the knob for tilting the board one way or the other so you’d be randomly tilting the board and the ball would fall where it may. Correct? <br><br>
Now, I want you to think of those numbers; the 4,600 trillion DNA strands in the human body and of the ten quadrillion vigintillion atoms in the observable universe. <br><br>
In order to understand why “random” events did NOT make the universe, man, or anything else in it, I want you to imagine doing the <a href="http://spacecoastconservative.com/images/labrynth.jpg">maze game</a> (pictured in the link) but make the maze game big enough to house all of those DNA strands of a single human body and the atoms of the universe combined, with the appropriate number of holes for each of those atoms and DNA strands to have ten each holes an opportunity to fall through that is not the correct hole, and one each that is the correct hole. Remember, there is only one hole that is correct for each atom and each DNA strand to make the universe we live in and to make us as we are.<br><br>
Think of that gigantic board with all of those holes and barriers and all of the balls marked “atom” or “DNA” and the fact that they are trying to go around the maze and not fall into the wrong holes. Now, remember, this is a “random act” that made the whole universe and humans, so we cannot have an intelligence behind how the top tilts and when it tilts. So, like you playing the single (simple) game with your eyes closed, you have to have a randomizer; say, a “computer” that is programmed to truly randomly tilt the board left or right (X or Y). Considering how many atoms and DNA strands on the board and that they each have eleven holes they can fall into (ten wrong holes; one correct hole) what are the chances that we would have been created at all? Can anyone do the math on that one? What would that look like?<br><br>
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 78th power) atoms in the observable universe x 4,600,000,000,000,000 DNA strands x 11 holes each (ten incorrect and one correct) + whatever the possibilities of the balls going into the wrong holes x however many tries it takes to get EACH of the balls into the CORRECT hole at the correct time = A LOT!<br><br>
Remember, each of those balls MUST go into the correct hole that they would have to go into in order to create us just as we are, to make the universe the way it is and to make everything work the way it does. Add to that the fact that each of those balls must go into the holes at the precise right time in order to have things exactly as they are. If one ball fell into the precisely correct hole too early before the others that had to be there already were there, then whatever was supposed to be created at that time would not have been corrected. So, if the Milky Way galaxy was supposed to be created on Tuesday, July 10th (to pick a date out of a hat) but not all of the atoms had fallen through the correct hole in the maze yet, or had fallen into the wrong holes and were not available to be used at all, then the Milky Way would have been gone, missed its chance, a loser. Oh, well. <br><br>
And there is no intelligent design behind this? <br><br>
There are between <a href="http://www.space.com/25959-how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way.html">100 billion and 400 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone</a>. What if -- on that maze game with all of those balls and holes -- the single set of atoms that didn’t make it into their correct hole at what had to be the correct time in order to complete the galaxy as a whole, were the set that made up the Earth? Then where would we be? The universe may be there, as well the atoms for Earth, but not in order and not on time. The Earth’s atoms would be under the lid, rolling around in the wrong place at the wrong time and unable to do anything about it.<br><br>
Intelligent design skeptics estimate that the universe is somewhere around <a href="http://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html">4.54 billion years old</a>, give or take several million years; or <a href="http://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html">13.7 billion years</a>, depending upon who you listen to. (How very precise.) The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that the Earth is <a href="http://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html">about 6000 years old</a>. If the 4.54 billion years-old number is correct, and there is no intelligence behind the design of the whole shebang, just chance and nothing else, then would 4.54 billion (or 13.7 billion years) be enough time to create – totally by chance – the universe and the capability to sustain creatures like those on Earth: humans as well as the wide variety of animals: fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, insects. Was there enough time to get all of that done before even the 13.7 billion years was used up and time arrived at this moment? Look back at the math of the chances. <br><br>
Intelligent design, on the other hand, teaches us that there is an infinite GOD who is an intelligent, wise, loving, righteous, holy, caring, imaginative, artistic, joyful, eternal, unchanging, omniscient, omnipresent, merciful, patient, kind, compassionate, great, strong, impartial, consistent, sovereign, self-existent, Father of us all who created the heavens and the Earth for us to enjoy and observe. It teaches us that there was no multiple billion year need for GOD to need to let chance have its way with anything. It teaches that there was a mind behind the universe and the laws that govern it. <br><br>
<a href="http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/p/PhysicsLaws.htm">The laws that govern the universe</a>: what about those? <a href="http://www.everystudent.com/wires/organized.html">Would they also not be part of the equation?</a> <a href="http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/3794/where-do-the-laws-of-physics-come-from">They didn’t come into being just because Newton, Kepler, or whoever figured them out</a>, so suddenly – Kaboom! -- E=MC2! Consider that the “Big Bang” that is currently taught as the beginning of the Earth and the universe doesn’t teach us where the rules that govern the physical actions of the universe came from. For instance, was gravity there to start with as soon as the “Big Bang” happened? If it was not there, then from whence did it come? Or when did it start and what brought it about after how many years? <br><br>
Do those who preach the “Big Bang” theory at us day and night want us to disregard the following questions: IF the “Big Bang” theory is true, <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/">when did gravity start?</a> Where was it before the “Big Bang”? <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/56157/gravity-equation/">Did it get stronger or weaker after the “Big Bang”?</a> Did it stop for a while before/during/after the “Big Bang” so that the universe could be “formed” and then start again? If they can’t tell us that the “Big Bang” is no longer a theory then why do they preach it as though it were fact?<br><br>
Side note: They paraphrase an old saying that if you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem">give enough monkeys typewriters and enough time, that they will type the Bible</a>. Doubters say that. I say that those monkeys, given enough time to get bored with the whole typewriter thing will destroy those typewriters. Those who use that idiotic saying do not take into account the dispositions of monkeys, so it is a totally useless lie. They ignore the “law of disposition” (a law I just created) that governs the actions of monkeys. Monkeys don’t just sit quietly and push the buttons that are supposed to be pushed and use the machine as man would use the machine. They’re monkeys and don’t know that it’s supposed to be used that way. Sooner or later those typewriters will all be destroyed and yes, they may have typed “I” and “a” or maybe even gotten to two letter words “be”, “or”, “it”, etc. The chance of monkeys typing three letter words automatically get smaller and of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem">typing a whole book is infinitesimal</a>. The same holds true with the “Big Bang”. End side note.<br><br>
So now our numbers look more like this: <br><br>
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 78th power) atoms in the observable universe + 4,600,000,000,000,000 DNA strands x 11 holes each (ten incorrect and one correct) + whatever the possibilities of the balls going into the wrong holes x however many tries it takes to get EACH of the balls into the CORRECT hole at the correct time + physical laws’ existence (or creation?) = ALMOST INCALCULABLE! <br><br>
Look at the numbers. <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/">Look at how much faith it takes to make the “Big Bang” theory “work”</a>. <a href="http://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html">Look at how many theories are used to help back up the theory of the “Big Bang”.</a>Then look at my illustrative <a href="http://www.amazon.com/John-N-Hansen-TR-1001-Labyrinth/dp/B000BNQFQ4">maze game</a> again because that is a true representation of the whole “Big Bang” theory, minus Intelligent Design. Think of the fact that “random” plays such a vital role in the theory and how big a “random act” it actually is. Look at the numbers. It is not just a number that is being sold you in the bill of goods that is the “Big Bang” atheist theory. It is the deepest, darkest lie taught as fact in existence today besides the lie that GOD is not real and does not love you. <br><br>
The “Big Bang” theory is just that: theory. It is a way to deny you the truth. <br><br>
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-22787039784556168202015-02-24T18:42:00.000-05:002015-02-24T18:42:47.141-05:00The Birthday Party -- Net "Neutrality" Analogized© 2015 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved<br>
_________________________<br><br>
This is the tale of a twin brother and sister and their birthday party. They were turning fifteen and their parents promised them a birthday party – one that was going to be grand and held at a nice venue. The sister and brother were told that they could each invite twenty friends that only they knew and that they could each bring one parent as a safety precaution, plus they could each invite five friends (and one parent) that they both knew. So a total of 100 people could be invited to the party. All invitees had to RSVP no later than five days prior to the party. <br><br>
The daughter, who was very popular, invited her eighteen BFFs and their mothers, plus two BFs and their mothers. She was thrilled about being able to invite so many and just knew that she was going to have a very fun birthday! She was so excited she could barely stop texting about the party for the next three weeks. <br><br>
The son -- whose idea of a good time was reading Plato, Aristotle, Homer, etc. – thought of only three people to invite, but with his parents’ help, he got the number up to seven (including parents). He didn’t want anyone there for him since he disdained the company of people who were not as intelligent as he (which disqualified most people alive in his estimation), but he cooperated just to please his parents. He’d rather not have a party and spend his birthday reading in his bedroom instead. <br><br>
Two days after the invitations went out, the word about the birthday party had gotten out and some of the daughter’s other friends wanted to come, too. Unfortunately, she had to tell them that it was a limited party. She was rather upset that she couldn’t invite more people, and when she told her parents about that, she was surprised to find out that she could invite several more: eighteen more, to be exact; plus their parents. Happy day!<br><br>
Ten days prior to the party the parents sat the twins down and told them the way it was going to be. Since the daughter had been so popular and had so many respondents RSVP in the positive and the son had only two, the parents had decided that, to keep it fair, the extras that the daughter had invited would now be considered friends of the son and they would be relegated to doing things with the son. <br><br>
“But that’s not fair!” pouted the daughter, “They’re my friends, not his!” <br><br>
Their parents said they understood, but they had to be fair. After all, they were both their children and they loved them equally and wanted this party to be fun for them both. The daughter stormed out.<br><br>
A week prior to the party, the parents called another meeting. It was explained that because the daughter had more friends and because they had to assign some of her friends to the son’s portion of the festivities, those people would be buying gifts for the son and the parents were going to assign dollar amounts to the guests and tell them how much each guest should spend on the gifts. <br><br>
“But that’s no fair!” the daughter loudly proclaimed, “They’re my friends who should be buying gifts for me! <br><br>
The parents explained that they understood but that because they were both their children and they loved them equally, they decided that it would only be fair to make sure both of their beloved children had the same amounts spent on them.<br><br>
The daughter stormed off. <br><br>
Three days before the party, as the family finalized the arrangements at the venue for the party, the parents mentioned that the daughter would have the veggie platters in her area while the son would have the soda, chips, candies and cake in his area, and that would increase the amount of time and attention his area got since he didn’t have as many friends coming to the party. <br><br>
“But that’s not fair!” screamed the daughter. “They’re my friends and they want to spend time with me! They’re coming for me!” <br><br>
Her parents explained that they knew that her friends were coming for her and that they appreciated her friends coming to acknowledge and celebrate their children. But they had to make sure that their wonderful son got the same amount of attention at the party so they were going to put the fun stuff on the table for the son.<br><br>
The daughter slammed the door on her way out.<br><br>
The day of the party, the parents and their twins set out for the party venue well ahead of party time. The twins looked at their respective decorations and both were unimpressed. The son just didn’t care and the daughter was jealous that her brother had the better decorations – to “make it fair and so that more people would spend time in his area”. By now she’d heard it all before and was just tired of it. <br><br>
The party guests started arriving and as they entered, the parents grilled each guest as to which twin they were there for, how much they had spent on the gift and then they assigned each guest to whichever twin was “in need of more”. The guests, definitely surprised by the system, nevertheless obeyed and went to their assigned areas, greeted their assigned twin and proceeded to try to have a good time. <br><br>
The daughter started enjoying her part of the festivities until the parents came over and said, “I’m sorry, daughter, but we must take from you some of your guests because your brother is not having as good a time as you. We hear much more laughter and happiness from this part of the room than from his side.” The parents started herding her guests to the other side of the room where people were basically sitting quietly, munching on fruit, chips, candies, cookies, foreign goodies and every kind of non-alcoholic drink you could want. <br><br>
This made the daughter reach her breaking point and she started to cry. When her parents heard her crying they came back to her and asked her what the matter was. She sobbed out, “In your efforts to be fair to both of us you have always taken from me and given to my brother. What is fair about that? Why is it fair to take my friends and put them with my twin for my birthday party? Why is that fair?”<br><br>
The father replied, “But, Daughter, you know that we love you both. You know that we love you equally. You know that we only do this with the best intentions. You know that we want what’s best for you and for your twin brother. What is wrong with that? Is that not fair?” <br><br>
“It’s fair to want both of us to have the best,” she sobbed, “but it’s not fair to take from me my friends and put them with my brother for my birthday. They don’t even know him, have anything in common with him, nor do they want to be with him because they came for me! How is that fair?” <br><br>
“It is fair because we love you both and that is fairness. Fairness makes sure of equal outcome without regard to how it came about.” Her father stuck out his chin, “If you are ungrateful and cannot see the fairness in that, then you are ungrateful.”<br><br>
***********<br><br>
What do you think? Was the daughter treated fairly? How about the guests: were they treated fairly? Or even the boy: was he treated fairly having the party hoisted upon him instead of not participating at all? <br><br>
This, my friends, is what Net “Neutrality” does. Liberal/progressive/leftie (LPL) websites and the big businesses pushing for Net “Neutrality” (a lie within the name is still a lie) is the twin brother. LPL websites don’t get as many visitors as they want, so they will be making sure that the Conservative websites are either taken down, or that traffic is routed to the LPL websites instead of to the Conservative site they wished to visit. <br><br>
Replace the parents in this story with the government. Does it make a difference? Replace the daughter with the decisions that the consumers in a free market, capitalist system get to make. Replace the brother with the largesse of the welfare/equal results. Yes, he was a hapless “victim” of the largesse, but it’s the illustration of the upcoming largesse of the government’s involvement in the internet that shall happen if Net “Neutrality” happens. <br><br>
Now, consider this: The parents’ (government’s) decision to decide how much was spent on each child is unfair to the children because they may have received much nicer gifts if the parents hadn’t decided to set a dollar amount for each guest to spend. However, in Net “Neutrality” it won’t be the consumers (the “gift givers”, i.e. guests) deciding how much to spend. That will be up to the government, the parental equivalent.<br><br>
The parents’ choice to make the guests spend time with the son instead of the daughter they actually came to see (in most instances) is the government deciding where we can go on the internet. This, too, shall happen in Net “Neutrality” because we all have to be equal and we all have to have the same outcomes. That’s what the government wants. If it can have that, it will have control.<br><br>
The whole thing would have been better for everyone concerned – yes, even the parent (government) -- if they had let things play out as they would have without parental interference. However, the government (parents) had to try to show that they loved their children equally. That love, in reality, was not love but controlling outcomes. They wanted to prove that the world loved their children equally, too. Their interference only led to misery all the way around. The daughter was miserable, as was the son. The guests were miserable and uncomfortable, confused and frustrated; those guests are “We, The People”. The only people at the party not miserable were the parents (government) who were in total control of everything and everyone. That’s just how the government likes it.
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-32993375899027980342014-08-24T09:49:00.002-04:002014-08-24T09:51:08.842-04:00Obama: America's Lucifer
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDOdn4eYhm8cxsYwE41_EAI0oRtxuOUk7yvEyZ4JHfzroW6rxreTmwcgEyBNHxXZ-Ll6iDBydkvowr9u56TLU0QAMdw3jEKtZburo98TFCWCA1YY9VHKMoEkNpzTeDhnWhjgnlGK7Ggy6T/s1600/PA254138.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDOdn4eYhm8cxsYwE41_EAI0oRtxuOUk7yvEyZ4JHfzroW6rxreTmwcgEyBNHxXZ-Ll6iDBydkvowr9u56TLU0QAMdw3jEKtZburo98TFCWCA1YY9VHKMoEkNpzTeDhnWhjgnlGK7Ggy6T/s320/PA254138.JPG" /></a></div>
By Linda McKinney<br><br>
When <a href="http://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/1.htm">GOD made the heavens and the earth</a> <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=424">He had already</a> <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=424">made the angels</a> and the angels <a href="http://biblehub.com/context/job/38-1.htm">shouted for joy</a> when the foundations of the earth were laid. Thus, we know that the angels were happy that GOD was creating our earth and preparing a place for us (as He does now for when we leave our corporeal bodies and enter into His presence for eternity). We also know that heaven, when first created and before the rebellion of Satan, was a wonderful place full of love, light and cooperation and praise of the Lord GOD Almighty.<br><br>
Within that band of angels was <a href="http://biblehub.com/context/ezekiel/28-11.htm">a special angel, a beautiful angel</a> assigned the task of covering GOD’s glory and containing His beautiful light. This angel’s name, it is taught, is Lucifer: a <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/smiths-bible-dictionary/lucifer.html">“bright star”. </a>According to the teachings of Christianity (that’s the perspective I write from because I am one), Lucifer was so beautiful and considered himself so very powerful (after all, he contained the glory of GOD, so he had to be more powerful than GOD) that he got puffed up, conceited, egotistical and decided he was going to lead a rebellion within heaven against GOD. Lucifer was going to take over. He was going to oust GOD and be the one in control. In other words, he was going to make us Lucifer worshippers.<br><br>
GOD, on the other hand, didn’t agree with any of that. GOD decided that it was bad enough that Lucifer considered himself so “wunnerful, wunnerful” that GOD cast Lucifer out of heaven along with all of the angels who supported Lucifer’s attempt to take over and oust GOD. Good move on GOD’s part, I’m sure.<br><br>
When I remember this story it reminds me of the “Hope” and “Change” thing that the president used to get into office --- along with the other lies and deceptions – and of the fact that he hasn’t kept any of his promises and he’s done all he can to destroy us and our great country. Let me illustrate if you will.<br><br>
When the president campaigned, he gave folks the promise of “Hope” and “Change”; and many people believed him and followed him. <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/10/cnn-acorn-fraud-and-ties-to-obama/">Some followed him so blindly that they cheated for him</a> so that they could ensure his election. He got elected, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/26/acorn-workers-convicted-admitted-guilt-election-fraud/">they got the shaft</a>.<br><br>
When Lucifer campaigned, he got angels to follow him (about <a href="http://biblehub.com/revelation/12-4.htm">one third of the angels followed him</a>) did he promise them “Hope” to be like GOD as he did with Adam and Eve? Did he promise them “Change” in the same way, or that with him as head angel, the big Winger, whatever, did he promise them “Change” in that they’d get their turn on the throne because he’d give up the throne after a while and one of them could have their turn? After all, it’s only fair. Right? <a href="http://biblehub.com/revelation/20-10.htm">They got the shaft, too</a>.<br><br>
When the president <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/president-obama-nobel-peace-prize-winner-back-on-war-footing/">won the Nobel Peace Prize without earning it</a>, others were placing their belief in him without any real evidence of anything remotely close to success.<br><br>
When Lucifer got other angels to follow him, had he had any successes besides big talk and bragging? He was going to rule heaven, and they put their trust in him although he never actually did that, got there, whatever. Because of his lack of success <a href="http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/28-16.htm">he – and all those who followed him – were cast out of heaven</a>. Wow. Success!<br><br>
Before even becoming president, he walked into some really sweet circumstances and parlayed them to his own advantage in 1996 using <a href="http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/barack-obama-and-chicago-thug-politics-stealing-elections-one-at-a-time/">betrayal and dirty tricks to get what he wanted</a> and <a href="http://againstobama.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/old-school-dirty-politics-of-obama/">betraying a woman to do so</a> in his effort to win IL State Senator; and <a href="http://www.redstate.com/diary/cmndr45/2012/08/08/democrat-dirty-tricks-you-aint-seen-nothin-yet/">using the messy divorces of both his primary and general election opponents to his advantage in his 2004 U.S. Senate bid</a>.<br><br>
Lucifer, after being thrown out of heaven, and became ruler of this world. After all, if he can’t be in charge up there why not be in charge down here? His ego demanded he be in charge. So to get what he wanted he used <a href="http://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/3.htm">betrayal and dirty tricks to get what he wanted</a>. He lied to Eve and told her that she would be “like unto GOD” (verse 4) but that’s what he actually wanted for himself. In getting her to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, she was set up by him and he betrayed her trust in order to get what he wanted.<br><br>
While running for president in 2008, he and his campaign used a lot of <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=obama's%202008%20presidential%20candidate%20dirty%20tricks&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=obama's%202008%20presidential%20candidate%20dirty%20tricks&sc=0-16&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=15ba2b61e6234823b9d9a5b6dd74c638">dirty tricks and lies to get what he wanted</a>: control over as many people as possible, something he’d wanted for <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/biographer-on-obama-he-had-a-pet-ape-named-tata-spent-his-evenings-smoking-pot-and-when-he-was-in-the-third-grade-wrote-a-paper-about-how-he-wanted-to-be-president/">a very long time</a>.<br><br>
Lucifer, after being thrown out of the garden and told to crawl on his belly (<a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-14.htm">verse 14</a>), decided that he would start lying to all of the people of the earth to try to get control over more people. He is now called <a href="http://biblehub.com/john/8-44.htm">“the father of all lies”</a> and he deserves to be so called. Controlling people – even through lies – was something Lucifer had wanted for a very long time.<br><br>
After getting elected president, he started lying even more. <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/andrewlanger/2013/07/20/the-ongoing-obamacare-scam-n1644653/page/full">His healthcare scam</a> has been <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/12/22/reporter-asks-obama-whats-it-be-called-liar-year">a lie all along</a>, and he is <a href="http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies">daily lying to more and more people</a> and is doing its utmost to <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/01/Obama-Doubles-Down-On-Destroying-The-Economy">destroy the economy</a> of the greatest nation on earth. <a href="http://humanevents.com/2014/06/16/its-official-obama-hates-america/">His policies have been disastrous</a>. He has <a href="http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-york-post-confirms-obama-training-87000-taliban-afghanistan/">put our troops into greater danger because of his own policies</a> than any president since…. When?<br><br>
Lucifer couldn’t have done better himself, but he does try. He lied to Eve to get her to disobey GOD and he wants us to continue doing so today. In order to get you to disobey GOD, Lucifer will lie to you and <a href="http://biblehub.com/context/zechariah/3-1.htm">accuse you</a> and tell you that you are beyond redemption, a failure that GOD cannot use, someone who will just keep sinning and you’re going to bring dishonor to GOD because of your sin. Lucifer wants to keep you down and out and keep you feeling unloved, unqualified and unfaithful. Those -- and more -- are some of <a href="http://goingbyfaith.com/the-devil-made-me-do-it-and-7-other-lies/">the lies Lucifer will tell you</a>.<br><br>
The president is known for <a href="http://spectator.org/articles/39422/barack-obamas-body-language">looking down his nose at everyone</a>. That’s one of the ways he <a href="http://spectator.org/articles/39422/barack-obamas-body-language">shows his conceit</a> and disdain for the rest of us. <a href="http://www.biblenews1.com/define/arrogance.htm">Arrogance is a sin</a>, but that <a href="http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/obamas-arrogance-display-government/">doesn’t prevent the president from practicing it</a>. He’s also known for <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/obamas_empathy_gap_1.html">his disdain of the rest of us</a>. <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=obama+accuses+America&form=IE10TR&src=IE10TR&pc=MATBJS">He lays false accusations at our feet</a> <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/05/border-meltdown-obama-delivering-290000-illegals-to-u-s-homes/">while he is the guilty one</a>.<br><br>
It was <a href="http://biblehub.com/niv/ezekiel/28.htm">Lucifer’s conceit that made him think he could overthrow GOD</a> and made him lead a rebellion against GOD. His conceit brought about his downfall and his ruin and the future for him is very dark because of it. Lucifer’s attitude is begotten into those of us who are not willing to humble ourselves and serve a loving, forgiving GOD. But <a href="http://biblehub.com/philippians/2-10.htm">even Lucifer will bow down at the mention of Jesus Christ’s name</a> and he will someday have to humble himself. Unlike the president, it is written in blood that this shall happen, and he shall spend the eternity of eternities in torment and pain.<br><br>
Finding <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=obama+tries+to+destroy+america&qs=n&pq=obama+tries+to+destroy+america&sc=0-18&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=caaca33a595d46f6b5bf9254145d90c2&first=9&FORM=PORE">new ways to destroy America is the president’s favorite past time</a>. Whether it be with <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/04/Study-Obama-s-EPA-Rules-Will-Disproportionately-Hurt-the-Poor">new EPA regulations that will hurt the poor</a>, or with preparing for a <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/do_obamas_executive_orders_reveal_a_pattern.html">non-existent “national emergency” in which he can declare martial law</a>, he likes to <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/obamas-plan-to-destroy-america-hatched-at-columbia-says-classmate/">destroy as much of America – and our children’s futures – as he can</a>. He likes to <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown">gain control of things the government has no right to control</a>, <a href="http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-could-nullify-the-2nd-amendment/">take away our rights</a> and do everything he can to <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-people-vs-barack-obama/">make America a weak</a>, <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/socialism_obama_and_americas_future.html">socialized nation</a> <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=obama%20is%20creating%20chaos&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=obama%20is%20creating%20chaos&sc=1-23&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=5e1d65c291cc443598a58a5c57fdbba7">in chaos</a>.<br><br>
Like the president, Lucifer likes chaos also: something <a href="http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/14-33.htm">GOD neither likes nor creates</a>. He uses <a href="http://biblehub.com/john/13-2.htm">those who are willing to do his bidding</a> and takes <a href="http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/2-11.htm">advantage of situations as he sees fit</a>. <a href="http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/4-4.htm">Lucifer blinds people to his true intentions</a> as the president did with “Hope and Change”.<br><br>
Religion is something the president talks about, but apparently doesn’t <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/15/the-obamas-go-to-church/">participate in church services often</a>. The problem is, he’s also quick to try to <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72617.html">take away our religious freedom</a>. It doesn’t matter to him and that’s proven by his actions. <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obama-shutdown-of-catholic-mass-sparks-reaction/">He’ll lie to you about religion</a>, but he <a href="http://godfatherpolitics.com/11245/obama-confirms-christians-in-military-are-targets/">won’t support Christians’ right to practice their religion</a> as they see fit.<br><br>
As with the president, <a href="http://biblehub.com/revelation/11-7.htm">Lucifer will also target and persecute Christians</a>. Lucifer will <a href="http://biblehub.com/revelation/9-11.htm">destroy as much of the Christian religion as he can</a>: <a href="http://biblehub.com/1_peter/5-8.htm">he looks for those he can destroy </a>. Will he get you? If not, don’t worry the president will.<br><br><br>
The president echoes Lucifer so minutely that it’s difficult to see any difference in them. The fact that Lucifer uses people to do his bidding is evidenced daily by the inhuman things we see done to our fellow man. The fact that the president of the United States of America is so in line with Lucifer tells me that it is quite possible – I’d go so far as to say probable – that Lucifer is using the president to try to destroy the only Christian-founded nation on earth. The sad part of it is that the president seems an oh-so-willing tool.<br><br>
Thus, the question becomes when shall we prevent the president from being further used to destroy our nation? Or shall we just allow it and succumb to Lucifer and his demon servant? Where is your “far enough”? Or is it <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/05/06/obama-syria-red-line-new-york-times-story/2138249/">a red line drawn in sand as the president is infamous for using</a>?
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-13063552989836779572014-03-24T13:26:00.003-04:002020-09-07T16:35:13.955-04:00Tranferred: Already A LOSERI wrote this and posted it to my previous blog way back in March of 2009 and read it today and realized how prescient I was. It's time to re-read it. It's sad that folks didn't listen.<br><br>
Space Coat Conservative<br><br><br>
____________________<br><br>
<b>Posted by Space Coast Conservative at 3/24/2009 12:50 AM</b> <br><br>
<b>Categories:</b> Politics<br><br>
<b>Tags:</b> Future B. Hussein O. President<br><br>
<br><br><br><br>
B. Hussein O.'s first sixty days in office have been nothing if not historical. And, no, I do not mean historical in that he is the first fraudulently, Acorn-elected "African-American" President. I mean something totally different.<br><br>
Why his presidency is historical within the first sixty days is that no previous White House occupant so quickly, agressively and totally went socialist on us as this one. None other; no matter the skin color, political party affiliation, or the size of his shoes or bank account prior to being elected. No previous POTUS has ever accomplished the total sacking and trashing, the thrashing and bashing of the American economy as this POTUS. Within his first sixty days, B. Hussein O. has proposed (in his official budget: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/">Budget</a>), a budget that, "The Congressional Budget Office on Friday estimated that the budget proposal would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade — or $2.3 trillion more than the White House had estimated." (Quoted from <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/23/republican-criticizes-banana-republic-budget-proposal/">FoxNews.com</a>) That's historic.<br><br>
The problem B. Hussein O. is not seeing is that — at the pace he's going — not only will America be broke and desparate fast and easy with his "bodget" proposals, but his actions are having an unforeseen consequence. That consequence? When will America, after this B. Hussein O. fiasco, be willing to elect an "African-American" person to the Oval Office again? B. Hussein O.'s lack of leadership in the right direction, his party-harty attitude (even laughing at the budget deficit he is proposing) and his idiocy when it comes to any ideas as to foreign policy or foreign diplomacy (twenty-five DVDs for the British Prime Minister that won't even play in British DVD players? Get real!), his lack of connectivity to the American people (when was the last time you saw him with anyone besides D.C. elitists?) and you add it all up to a failure as President already. Failure because he is already dooming anyone who may wish to run as an "African-American" candidate. Because he's allowing them to be painted with the same broad brush as he is painting himself with: IDIOT, MORON, COMPLETE LOSER. He may look like a GQ candidate for the front cover, but in his head, he's got nothing but game (probably Atari's"Pong"®).<br><br>
I seem to remember another candidate who was a similar loser; Bill Clinton. Anyone remember him? Anyone remember his attitudes and disconnectedness when it came to the American people? Remember his attitude toward the little people in "fly over country"? Remember how his disdain was shown for those of us who pay our taxes and live free in America and love our country? Remember how his wife displayed her hatred for Americans voicing their opposition to the two Arkansans who didn't know right from wrong (and still don't). Look at their legacy. When will anyone from Arkansas ever hold high elected office again? I'd bet it's going to be a long time.<br><br>
Has B. Hussein O. thought of this? Has he even stopped to consider his legacy for those who may wish to follow in his footsteps? Nope. He's too busy following his teleprompter down the road to perdition and his recklessness down the road to political Hades. He's messing up big time and too stupid to realize it. (Either he's too stupid, or he just doesn't care. My guess is both.) He doesn't care about those who may wish to come after him and try to follow in his (illegal, Acorn-aided) footsteps. Nope. He's too busy schmoozing with the hoity-toity to care about those who may wish to emulate him. He doesn't care if he's messing things up for them: as long as he gets his now, that all that matters. Ask Michelle, she'll tell you. She's on the same road, the same page and the same note as her hubby-bubby. Neither of them care that they are totally screwing it up for the rest of the "African-American" dreamers.<br><br>
When great men make a path for others to follow, it is a lasting path. One of those great men was Martin Luther King, Jr. His speech, "I Have A Dream" was a great speech. It inspired millions and is still inspiring millions. It was and is a powerful dream-maker. When we look at how Mr. King led people, we see that he had a real impact on people's lives and that he was a man of character, courage, conviction and leadership by example. His legacy is that, because of his life, others will be and are better off. He taught us and continues to teach us to judge a man, "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."<br><br>
When I think of those "African-American" men who have been great leaders, I do not think of B. Hussein O. (although as the first of his race to be elected POTUS, shouldn't that be the first person who comes to mind?). I think of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas (first "African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice), Bill Cosby (NOTE: before the sex scandal was known about), and others like them who, after their tenures are up in their current or former positions, their legacies will lead to more "African-American" men and women being able to pursue their dreams and have their futures be brighter because of those who came before them. The men listed in this paragraph have done something legitimate and worthwhile that will have a positive impact on the lives of current and future people of "African-American" descent. A positive impact, not a negative impact; that's the standard.<br><br>
I judge B. Hussein O. not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. He does not care about those who come after as long as he gets his. He does not meet the standard of leaving the world a better place (how can a financially devastated America be part of a better world?). He does not meet the standard of leaving a goal for others to attain except and unless they aspire to defraud the American electoral system as B. Hussein O. did with Acorn. <br><br>
I judge B. Hussein O. as a negative influence because he laughs as others are suffering (calling it "gallows humor"), he plans more hard times for everyone in America — not just the rich as he promised during his campaign — making even those who wish to emulate him to have a more difficult time in the process. B. Hussein O. has totally messed up in his first sixty days with the worst budget in the history of the whole of America's existence. And for this I condemn him to being already the worst POTUS ever. Let me repeat that: B. Hussein O. is already the WORST POTUS EVER. <br><br>
He is not a great man. He is a loser, a gamer and a fraud. He could have been — and SHOULD have been — so much more. He chose otherwise. That makes him a sorry excuse.<br><br>Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-78250723559140691042014-01-31T03:29:00.001-05:002014-02-20T13:56:42.184-05:00Difficult Questions: Moved from my forumsA few years ago I did a series of what most folks consider "Difficult Questions" covering biblical questions that people find hard to answer. I don't like my forums where they are currently stored, so I thought I'd send them over here to make things easier. I may continue the series here, we'll see. <br><br>
The questions with their answers are as follows:<br><br><br><br>
_____________<br><br><br><br><br><br>
<b>1) "Where did Cain, Enoch and Seth get their wives? Did they marry their own sisters?"</b><br><br>
My Answer: <br><br>
"And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."<br><br>
1) Cain could not have found his wife among his sisters because he was already away from his family when he married.<br><br>
2) It says that Cain "dwelt in the land of Nod" which apparently already had people there because it was "east of Eden" and had a wife for Cain.<br><br>
3) God says that we are not supposed to commit incest (although several people in the Bible did). In Leviticus 20:17, it states (KJV) "And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it [is] a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity."<br><br>
4) In James 1:17, it says about God, "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (God does not change), then He thinks the same about incest today as He did back then, and He thought the same about incest in Genesis as He does today. <br><br>
Cain got his wife in the land of Nod, as it states in the Bible. <br><br>
The Bible traces the lineage of Adam and Eve because Adam was the first man. It does not say Adam was the only man. The tracing of Adam and Eve's descendants establishes the lineage of Jesus and that establishes the lineage of Israel as the blessing of all the people of the earth (Gen. 26:4b). The blessing of all the nations of the earth is Jesus Christ and His dying on the cross for all of us.<br><br>
_______________<br><br><br><br><br><br>
<b>2) II Peter 3:8 says: "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."</b><br><br>
<b>I was once asked how that can be true? How does God see time? Can you answer these questions?</b><br><br>
My Answer:
"Clean off your dining room table. You can see every part of the tabletop and you can see the beginning and the end. You can see it side to side and you can see every scratch (if any) and every ding (if any). That's the way God sees time. <br><br>
God sees the beginning and the end ("the Alpha and the Omega") and He sees it fully. That's how God sees time. It's all the same to him: One second to one thousand years all visible to him at all the times. <br><br>
_______________<br><br><br><br><br><br>
<b>3) According to the Bible, is there such a thing as predestination, or do we have free will in all things?</b><br><br>
My Answer:
Predestination is not biblical. God gave us free will. It says so multiple times in the Bible. We have free will.<br><br>
If you read the second difficult question about how GOD sees time, you can relate this to that. When GOD sees time, HE also sees the possibilities of our choices. Imagine it this way, <br><br>
Think of a bird's feet. Some of them have four toes (some three toes) going forward, one going backward. Imagine your life is a bunch of bird feet, the backward toe of the next foot touching one of the toes of the first foot. So, two touches foot one's third toe, foot three touches foot two at the first toe, foot four touches foot three at the fourth toe... etc.<br><br>
If you start at your birth and you go forward making decisions and choosing which way to go, where to turn, what is right and wrong for your life, you have gone along one of the "toes" going forward (or sometimes backward). Maybe you are choosing to go along toe one, or toe two. <br><br>
When you compare that path to the path that GOD would have had you choose, you may have travelled along HIS path maybe for a while in your life, maybe never, maybe -- from adulthood on at least -- almost always if not always. <br><br>
If you colored the path GOD would have you travel red, then the path you actually travelled blue, most of us would see that our path is not always on the line with GOD's path. Some of us try to make it close, some of us don't believe in GOD, so don't worry about following HIS path. <br><br>
Either way, because GOD sees the beginning of time and the end of time at all times, HE can also see the results of each of the choices each of us makes. HE knows what our choices MAY be, HE knows what the results of those choices will be, and HE knows what the results would have been IF we had followed HIS perfect will. <br><br>
That's not predestination, that's free will, but GOD knows the results of whatever you do before you do it, but HE doesn't make you do it. HE lets you choose, HE lets you make your mistakes, HE lets you do what you want to do, but HE knows what your life is going to be like because of those choices. HE knows what your life COULD HAVE been like if you had followed HIS path. But HE doesn't force you. <br><br>
HE allows you to make your mistakes. HE allows you to be wrong. HE allows you to decide to love HIM or not. That's how much HE loves you. HE wants you to choose HIM, but HE loves you enough to let you have your own will, your own choices. Even if you suffer the consequences of those choices. <br><br>
GOD loves you enough to NOT make you do the right thing. HE loves you enough to let you CHOOSE to do the right thing.<br><br>
_____________<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Question #4 is inspired by Rush Limbaugh. Some of you may have noticed that Rush Limbaugh says that Revelations does not fit into the Bible and should not be part of it. Some scholars and preachers agree with that, and that's probably where Rush got the idea. <br><br>
<b>4) "Does The Book of Revelations agree with and belong in the Bible?"</b><br><br>
My Answer:<br><br>
Does "The Book of Revelation" belong in the Bible, despite what Rush Limbaugh says? <br><br>
I don't know where Rush got info about that. I have looked online for information against "The Book of Revelation" being in the Bible and I cannot find anything that would make me think he's got good info. I can't find anything that would support that idea. I looked, but maybe I didn't go to page 1,203 of the search engine results (don't count on that number being accurate, it's made up) to find the info Rush may have found and based his belief upon. I have no idea where he got that belief.<br><br>
However, my info is that "The Book of Revelation" supports the other books of the Bible, stating similar things (wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, etc., when it comes to the physical world), Jesus is the Son of GOD, alive today and sitting at the Right hand of the Father, is beloved by GOD, etc. It supports the teachings of the other books of the Bible where it concerns the "Lambs Book of Life", where it concerns the return of Christ, where it concerns judgment. All of this and more are supported by the other books of the Bible, reiterated in "The Book of Revelation", and therefore, to the best of my knowledge, "The Book of Revelation" fits and belongs in the Bible. <br><br>
Why Rush would say otherwise, I just don't know.<br><br>
__________________<br><br><br><br><br><br>
<b>5) How can a loving GOD send anyone to eternal punishment?</b><br><br>
My Answer:<br><br>
Answer: He DOESN'T.<br><br>
Now, before you get your knickers in a twist, let me finish. He doesn't. People CHOOSE to be sent there. <br><br>
How's that? <br><br>
Well, GOD set the rules up a long time ago, <br><br>
"In the beginning was the Word 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. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:1-5) <br><br>
Jesus Christ is the "Word" and he has been with his Father since before time and helped GOD create the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1-31). So the rules have been in place since before time began because GOD knew the plan, thus Jesus knew the plan. It was GOD's plan all along to offer a savior and the only one capable of being the sacrifice was Jesus Christ in human form (all the rest of us would have sinned and negated our own offering). <br><br>
Remember how often he told his disciples that he would be crucified? (See Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22, Mark 14:8, et al) Christ knew he was to die for man's sins. <br><br>
Now, remember that there are rules set in place. When you play a game of soccer and someone tells you the rules, you must obey those rules to win the game. There are refs who say when someone gets penalized and when someone scores. Assuming the refs are impartial, then the team who scores the most wins. Correct? Imagine if the refs scored Team A even if they didn't really score, and if the refs penalized Team B for no reason whatsoever. That would not be fair, would it? <br><br>
Same holds true with going to heaven or hades. GOD set the rules in place a long time before you and I got here. We have to play by the rules in order to win the game. (Crude comparison, I know.) GOD sent His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for you and for me and for everyone who has ever been born. If GOD were going to change the rules midstream and say, "Well, I've changed my mind. Anyone can come in, and it doesn't matter if they know Jesus or not." Don't you think that would be unfair? Rules are rules, right? Otherwise soccer, cards, polo, sudoku would be something you would never play again because rules mean something. <br><br>
Also, if GOD changed the rules midstream, it would mean negating His Son's sacrifice -- Christ's suffering on the cross would be for naught. GOD is not going to do that. All the sins of the world rested on His Son for a moment and at that moment GOD turned His eyes away from His Son for the first time ever (Jesus cried out, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). <br><br>
Can't you imagine how much that hurt the Father of a suffering Son? GOD had to look away because He couldn't look upon all that sin. Separation for an instant, and then death. Jesus took your sins and died for them and GOD looked away and didn't help His Son in that moment of critical pain, agony, filth and separation. If GOD changed the rules and let us all into heaven because He loves us all, He would be undoing what Jesus Christ did for us and no one would be in heaven. Because without that sacrifice of a pure, sinless man there can be no eternity of forgiveness of sins.<br><br>
Now, it is your choice to not accept Jesus. The Bible says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of GOD" (Romans 3:23) and that "For GOD so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) It's your choice to accept Jesus or reject him. Accept him and you get to go to heaven and you get to be in heaven with GOD and Jesus. Reject him -- your choice -- and you go to eternal condemnation. <br><br>
GOD does not force you to do either. That's why we have free will. GOD calls you (you're reading this, aren't you?) and He wants you -- everyone -- to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, but He won't force you to do so. If GOD doesn't force you to do so, then it's your choice to choose heaven or hades. Either way, it is eternity, so choose carefully.<br><br>
I'll post more in the following posting.<br><br>
Now for more of my posting:<br><br>
What about things like Mormon <a href="http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/mormon/baptism/">"Baptism for the Dead"</a>, will that save anyone? <br><br>
No. If you read that page, it says that "those who accept the gospel in the spirit world may qualify for entrance into God's kingdom". <br><br>
First, "may qualify for entrance"? May? If baptism saves, and they're doing a baptism for the dead, then that's a guarantee, is it not? What's with this "may" business? If baptism does not save, thus guaranteeing entrance, then why bother?<br><br>
Second, it doesn't say WHERE those folks are who are being offered baptism after they have been dead for however many years. Are they in hades already? If so, there's no escape. Are they somewhere else: purgatory or something similar? Where, and how does anyone escape the judgment of GOD and where He sends you, for that is what would be happening there.<br><br>
Third, it doesn't say if how they're offered the gospel. It just says "those who accept the gospel" and I have never heard of a Mormon going to wherever those dead folks are on a mission trip and staying there long enough to win them over to Mormonism! So how do they hear the gospel?<br><br>
Fourth, it says that, "each deceased soul has the personal choice to accept or reject it." How do they know here on earth when they're doing the "Baptisms for the Dead" which dead person accepted the teachings? Walkie talkies? Channeling? Who tells them which dead person said, "Okay. Yeah. I'll take you up on that offer?" Is it the Mormon missionary who is down there, and if so, what did the missionary do that was bad enough to condemn him as those folks are and will someone stand in for him or are his Mormon credentials enough to get him back out of there? If it's a Mormon missionary, can a house divided stand against itself (see Matthew 12:25 and Mark 3:25)? If he has sinned enough to be condemned, why would he be able to preach the gospel wherever those dead folks are, and who says he'd be good enough preacher to get them out of there since he's the same place for similar sins? Christ had no sin. When he preached to the dead in Paradise he was not in hades, he was in a place between heaven and hell that is no longer available because the pathway to heaven is now complete. (Paradise was a waiting place for those in the Old Testament times who believed in God but had no way to get to heaven because the pathway was not completed yet, via Christ's crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension.) It could not hold Christ because he was the Son of GOD and had no sin, therefore his voluntary attendance to the folks in Paradise (the waiting place) was not condemnation and he left when GOD had planned for him to leave and completed the pathway. A sinful man could not do that; only Christ could.<br><br>
Fifth, if they are baptizing dead people without knowing for certain that the dead person they are baptizing in absentia actually accepted the teachings, and they baptize even one person without knowing for certain that the dead person "accepted the gospel", does that not throw doubt on every person's post-death baptism? After all, that would let a bad person into their heaven, thus negating Christ's sacrifice, negating the whole Mormon teaching of having to accept their teachings, of having to do the works they teach. <br><br>
Sixth, they quote 1 Corinthians 15:29: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" to justify their teachings, but admit that it is a "rhetorical question". We all know that "rhetorical questions" are not to be answered. Also, given the context of the chapter, there were apparently some sects that were baptizing for the dead at the time that Paul was addressing and mocking. Paul was teaching that the resurrection happens, but not because anyone was baptized while dead, but because of that person accepting Jesus Christ while they were alive. Big difference.<br><br>
Seventh, some studies also suggest about 1 Corinthians 15:29 that there was a word substitution in that verse, but if you look at the context of the verse in the chapter, it doesn't need to be a mistake to make the concept of baptizing for the dead an unacceptable, illogical doctrine. After all, would Paul mock something that was of GOD?<br><br>
More in my next posting.<br><br>
I've already touched on this but I must write a short response to the section Elder Petersen wrote. <br><br>
To wit:<br><br>
1) He states, "Jesus was a Personage of both spirit and flesh, like all of us." Elder Petersen forgets "SINLESS" personage UNLIKE the rest of us.<br><br>
2) "When Jesus went to the realm of the dead, he was still himself, an individual...." Yes, BUT Jesus was also the SON OF GOD, not like us. He was there to do a job, not to wait for a way out.<br><br>
3) "The dead—even those who died in the flood—also were intelligent persons..." Yes, but it isn't intelligence that saves anyone. A high IQ gets you nowhere. And it wasn't just those who died in the flood of Noah's day who were there: it was everyone from the Old Testament times who believed in GOD and GOD counted it for righteousness and gave them a chance to hear Christ preach to them so that they may believe in him and go to heaven after he had completed the path. "I am the resurrection and the life, NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME" (John 11:25) Christ said. It isn't via baptism after death that anyone gets there.<br><br>
4) "These dead were so much in possession of their reason and their faculties that they could hear the gospel like men in the flesh although they lived in a world of spirits..." Yes, but they were listening to JESUS CHRIST, the SON OF GOD, not a mere mortal who wound up down there somehow, or not to someone alive on earth. Again: how would anyone on earth know who accepted the offer?<br><br>
5) "Jesus taught them the gospel..." FINALLY! We agree on something!<br><br>
6) "Having heard the gospel, they might accept it or reject it..." Yes, but JESUS was there preaching to them so he knew who accepted or rejected his offer of salvation. Any Mormons down there? Anyone with a walkie talkie? No? Then there is no way to know who said yes.<br><br>
"Mormons are therefore very zealous about collecting and submitting the names of their ancestors..." They collect and submit more than the names of their ancestors. They do everyone's ancestors: including Jewish folks who don't want to be changed from their Judaism to Mormonism against their will. <br><br>
What do they do about that? Do they ask the relatives of those they have on their next baptismal list if they think that their great-grandma would mind becoming a Mormon? No? They don't have the walkie talkies, so could they be acting against someone's wishes? Yes? I'm sorry, would that be considered a sin? <br><br>
So their doctrine teaches them that they should do this as part of their works to get into heaven, but in doing so, they're forcing a conversion against someone else's will -- selfishness -- and that's a sin, so obeying their doctrine is a sin? Hmmm...<br><br>
Caught in a Catch 22 in the Mormon religion. Condemned if you do, condemned if you don't. Can't win.<br><br>
Now, who's going to heaven in Mormonism?<br><br>
_________________<br><br><br><br><br><br>
<b>6) We know that Jesus died so that everyone's sins can be forgiven. Everyone who asks and accepts Him as Lord and Savior has the promise in John 3:16, "that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" (KJV). (Yes, Mormons to Muslims, Hindus to Atheists, Catholics to Pentacostals: everyone who asks and receives goes to heaven.) We know that He is the only one who could have died for our sins because He lived a sinless life and was the Son of God: fully qualified, unlike any of us.</b> <br><br>
<b>My question is, <b>when did the way to heaven get completed? This one is easy when you think about it.</b> <br><br>
</b>
My Answer:
The path to heaven, if you recall, was started before God created the heavens and the earth (Ephesians 1:3-10 and elsewhere) because it was GOD's plan all along to do this for us. Then when Jesus and GOD were creating the earth (John 1:1-5) it was also ordained. It was prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) that Jesus Christ would come to die for us. Christ's virgin birth (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-80) and his sinless life (Hebrews 9:13-14) made Him the only one capable of dying for us because He was the only person ever born who had never sinned (Romans 3:23). <br><br>
His spotless (sinless) life was a daily walk with GOD, His Father and it paved part of the pathway for us. Then His crucifixion on the cross (Isaiah 52:13-53:12, Matthew 27:1-66, Mark 15:1-47, Luke 23:1-56, John 19:1-42) to take away our sins and His three days dead preaching to those in "Paradise" (a waiting place for those in the Old Testament times who believed in the coming Messiah) (see Luke 23:43, AKA "Abraham's bosom"; also Ephesians 4:9-10, Mark 16:19-31) and His resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-20, Luke 24:1-53, John 20:1-21:25) were part of the pathway, too. <br><br>
All of those steps allowed Christ to be the Redeemer, but the pathway to heaven was not completed -- not even for those He preached to in Paradise (AKA "Abraham's bosom") -- until He ascended into heaven, untouched by hands of anyone who had sinned (John 20:17) because it was only after Christ's first ascension into heaven that the pathway was completed. After His first ascension into heaven, where He completed the pathway for us, where He was received of His Father, where He established the right for our forgiven eternal souls to be allowed into heaven via the pathway He completed (planned before the earth was formed) then He could come back down and be touched by His followers (Matthew 28:9) and go back and forth for a while until His final ascension recorded in Luke 24:49-53.<br><br>
Thus the pathway is completed not just by His death, or resurrection, but because He went as a sinless man, cleansed after taking all of our sins upon Himself, to the grave and rose again, but it was the first ascension that completed the pathway for us. <br><br>
IF Christ had been touched prior to his first ascension by a person who had sinned, it would have all been cancelled out. Sin cannot travel to heaven. Sin would have contaminated Christ and He would have died in vain. <br><br>
That's something to think about, is it not?<br><br>
________________<br><br><br><br><br><br>
<b>In the New Testament, we see that Jesus Christ had a crowd of people who followed Him and went to where He was to see and ask Him to do miracles, to hear Him preach, to just see what all the fuss was about. He was reviled by the Sadducees and Pharisees for eating with "publicans and sinners" (Mark 2:16). A "publican" is not an early REpublican; he's a tax collector (an early Democrat). So, considering that "sinners and publicans" were good enough for Jesus, should you be friends with and "hang with" "sinners and publicans"?</b><br><br>
My Answer:
If you read the Psalms of David, the Book of Proverbs and elsewhere in the Bible, you can see that it is not a wise thing to hang with liars. You should choose your friends carefully and you should be rigid in your standards as to who you regard as your friends.<br><br>
Friends should be people of godly character, not drunks, neither liars nor deceivers, steadfast and strong in the LORD. This is biblical and should be a guideline for accepting someone into your life as a friend.<br><br>
Acquaintances, on the other hand, you may have because if you don't you cannot witness to them. But do not hang out with people who won't be good influences over you, or whose reputation will besmirch your own. "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold." (Proverbs 22:1)<br><br>
______________<br><br><br><br><br><br>
So that's the start of the "Difficult Questions" series. What thinks you? Agree? Disagree? We'll see what happens here.<br><br>
Until the next Difficult Question, GOD Bless!<br><br>
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-4034839767513726902013-09-20T05:40:00.000-04:002013-09-20T05:40:10.391-04:00From the Ashes Comes the Phoenix! A 9/11 Memorial Poem
<b>© 2013 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved</b><br><br>
The sky was blue and cheerful and the birds sang sweet in trees.<br>
The travelers' destinations varied: some business, some families.<br>
Boarding the plane they thought of things of every day;<br>
Of wedding plans, of keeping kids quiet, of bills they had to pay.<br><br>
Then sky blue terror, terror, terror, as men stood up and screamed,<br>
and the men attacked and killed, killed and killed again, <br>
to bring America to its knees <br>
and buildings became targets, although one plane fought back,<br>
they screamed of their god's greatness, forgetting his mercy*.<br><br>
And in the buildings there was nothing to warn them of the day<br>
of the day that would bring horror, agony and pain,<br>
until they looked from Tower One and saw the too-close plane.<br>
Closer, closer, closer it came until...<br><br>
Flame and crash and burn and fumes and stench of burning flesh<br>
And can't breathe and running blind, no lights, no air, no escape<br>
and heart's pounding, running, running, running, <br>
hearing the screams, terror and pain and smelling <br>
the smells of what is the same of the fear in your own heart.<br><br>
Voices calling, calling, calling, begging "Help me!" or <br>
calling "This way!" in the flame, flame and smoke, <br>
of the burning, burning, burning; eyes, throat burning <br>
and the building's frame melting down.<br><br>
And death surrounds them and fear drives them and all around them <br>
the flames, the flames, the flames. And the roaring of <br>
the burning and the oxygen leaves the building <br>
as the people scream and fall and fall and fall <br>
and they wonder if they should join them.<br><br>
While on the ground and all around the world is <br>
watching, watching, watching, and although our minds <br>
refuse to find a reason worth this action, our hearts stood still <br>
and breath failed to find escape or inhalation <br>
astonishment took away all function except the watching.<br><br>
Soon building two felt the impact, the impact of the plane, <br>
the plane of their failing, failing of the tower, failing of the safety<br>
the safety of America. The change had begun with the impact <br>
of the tower, the impact of the death, of the death of the thousands<br>
the thousands of the people.<br><br>
As people came down, down, down to the ground to escape <br>
the flaming buildings, to breathe a breath not burning, <br>
the heroes there helped others down and saved lives and <br>
heart ache for many. And the police, fire department and <br>
ambulances, risked lives to save those still waiting. Then <br>
they looked up as tower two was struck and tears fell throughout the nation.<br><br>
Somewhere in the sky, two planes flying by were headed for targets <br>
of their own. The Pentagon, with its walls so strong, was <br>
target three that day. And with similar rage the third page <br>
of the plan of terror was writ. Inside that plane, as in the others, <br>
phone calls told loved ones of their doom, doom, doom.<br><br>
And the towers fell, two buildings down, down, down, <br>
hitting the ground and the rumble, rumble, rumble, <br>
forever in the hearts, shaking our hearts, breaking our hearts,<br>
Shocked and terrified, our hearts cried out, breaking, but <br>
already rising from the ashes, the rolling, rolling ashes.<br><br>
And the smoke came billowing, billowing, billowing,<br>
blowing down the street, rushing down the street and filling in the blanks, <br>
the blanks of the city, the City of New York, City of the terror, the terror of the moment, <br>
of the shock, of the death, of the hatred killing innocents and the innocents knowing <br>
nothing, nothing of the reason, the reason of their deaths.<br><br>
People were running, running, running as the ashes and the dust <br>
billowed through the streets and the ashes covered, covered, covered, <br>
choked and hid, blew and slid into each crevice and opening. Eyes <br>
burned, couldn't breathe and the towers were no more... nor were the people.<br><br>
The search soon began and the reality sunk in and the truth of the day's <br>
deeds were known. Four planes were down, down without landing, and <br>
the death toll was enormous. As people streamed in to help with the search <br>
for living and help needing; or those beyond the help of the dawn <br>
and the task was so overwhelming.<br><br>
But take it up, we did, no reality hid, as the search was on for <br>
who did this. We found the names of eleven "to blames" and then <br>
the names of those gone. Strange to think it took less time to find <br>
the guilty, than lives of innocence taken. Three thousand gone, <br>
to never see dawn, and their families' lives truly shaken.<br><br>
And the broken, broken, broken hearts ache still with the loss<br>
and the memorials won't replace the day of tragic cost <br>
and when the anniversary comes 'round again, again, again <br>
the day we all commemorate the day the earth stood still <br>
and none of us could breathe as in unison we grieved and <br>
we watched as the world changed around us.<br><br>
As years, years, years pass by, and each year we cry and <br>
we try to make sense of it still. It's no easier to understand the men <br>
who chose to destroy for a god who employs hatred to draw men to him. <br>
If a god of fear wants you to draw near, his tactics are truly unruly. <br>
And when his men, under orders from him, kill innocents to obey his orders <br>
then who wants to serve a god who deserves our distrust and our loathing?<br><br>
Ruling through fear won't work for us here; America the free and the brave.<br>
For attacking our loved ones on soil of our own puts steel in our <br>
spines and resolve. We'll stand hand in hand and of them demand <br>
an accounting for their actions. And we'll do what we can to prevent it <br>
again and we'll not let another act of destruction <br>
make us again victims of men who want to make us subservient!<br><br>
Terror did reign for through the shock and the pain and <br>
the truth of the enemy's hatred. But hit us one time and we call<br>
back to mind the words of Patrick Henry's resolve; <br>
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains <br>
and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, <br>
but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"<br><br>
E'en through terror and fear, life so dear, it's clear is worthy of living, <br>
So stand stronger we now, have shoulder to plough and we push on <br>
through brokenness, heartache and loss. When looking ahead we <br>
remember our loss and we plan to prevent it again. But more than that <br>
loss we remember the cost of not knowing the enemy well. Now we're aware <br>
of the depths of despair they're willing to dare bring those they attack. <br><br>
No more do the towers, those pillars of awe, reflect the sun, moon and <br>
stars. But remember we them in our hearts with the men, women and children <br>
we lost. Replaced are the heights of the towers of lights with the hole left in the ground <br>
and stamped on our hearts. Sacred place engraved with Lady Liberty's flame, <br>
its presence gives us strength, courage and resolve. So those who look for a chance <br>
to repeat the performance. Remember the day that our hearts did pay the price of <br>
lessons we regret. But also recall, one and all, that for from ashes comes the Phoenix!<br><br><br>
.
* Merciful is ninth word in the actual text of the Koran (as opposed to the introduction).<br><br><br>
<b>© 2013 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved</b>Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-42955054228117375992013-08-02T00:45:00.001-04:002013-08-02T14:07:34.684-04:00A Gun Caked With BloodA Tribute To Tyrone Woods
<br><br>
© 2013 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
<br><br>
Through the mortar fire's bursts, and the crowd's blood-thirst <br>
Through the danger waiting there, and the smoke-filled air<br>
Through the terror of the known fact of being left alone <br>
To fight for his life and others, he fought until death<br>
took him to his brothers.
<br><br>
He'd promised her he'd come back home, raise their child, ne'er again roam,<br>
And kissed her tenderly "Goodbye", he'd said, not knowing for eternity.<br>
Yet he went, and stood his ground, hoped his country would be around<br>
Sooner than later, and signaled he, "There's the danger" with laser light<br>
lit it like a tree.
<br><br>
They called for help, for anything, to help them through this, future bring<br>
And, fighting tooth and nail, through the bullets' hail <br>
They waited, called, and hoped and called again, not knowing if or when<br>
The help would come, the Brass would see, it wasn't just him,<br>
'twas "We".
<br><br>
Returning home he brought salutes, a flag-draped coffin's due<br>
called a "Hero" left alone, a wife, a child, his last hours ne'er to be known<br>
America's gratitude words can't express, because words aren't its fullness<br>
But thank we he, Tyrone Woods, for all he did in trying --<br>
he did good.
<br><br>
A flag-draped coffin, a hero's tome, isn't enough for those at home<br>
Who wanted more than flag's decor, and empty pillow behind bedroom's door<br>
A broken heart -- not one, but more -- and all because you're filled with honor<br>
And obeyed your calling, obeyed your GOD, and with three others<br>
we mourn your falling.
<br><br>
"A gun caked with blood": fitting epitaph for one upon whose heart was graphed <br>
The righteousness of America's truth, and to her you gave your youth<br>
And when America failed you, you stood tall, and answered e'en then the call<br>
Against the enemy's bullet-flood, you stood your ground until<br>
a gun caked with your blood.
<br><br>
GOD bless the loved ones of the Benghazi Four.<br><br>
(NOTE: Based upon a quote from the <a href="http://t.co/gPFdw3rDMS">Washington Times</a>)
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-66144167463774188232013-05-26T18:53:00.000-04:002013-05-26T20:46:57.450-04:00The Marble There Said Nothing-- My 2013 Memorial Day Tribute<br><br><br>
© 2013 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved<br><br><br>
The marble there said nothing we hadn’t seen before,<br>
Words like “Died in Battle”, “Son of”, “Mi Amor”.<br>
In sunrise, it shines softly, glows upon the hill, <br>
In darkness, it reflects sorrow: so silent and so still.<br><br>
In rows and rows of marble, we see the price they paid, <br>
For freedom’s greatest harvest: liberty has stayed.<br>
But is the price of freedom, worth all they gave to us? <br>
Or do we stop the struggle, give in and others trust?<br><br>
Lives that could’ve been saved, their futures lived in full, <br>
Their loved ones must have wondered, “What if…”, “Is it possible?”<br>
Would those who cannot answer give the nod to what <br>
The price of freedom took from them, without a pause or thought?<br><br>
And there beneath that marble, upon which names endure, <br>
Would those who paid the total price, now be so sure?<br>
Of their sacrificial service as when they signed up?<br>
Or of their country’s value to give their own life’s cup?<br><br>
To drink from the fount, of n’er ending grief, <br>
For wife, husband, child, parent, and delay the turning leaf?<br>
Or would their answer stand the test of time’s unfailing tock, <br>
Resounding through the ages, and eternity’s ne’r failing clock?<br><br>
For marble’s future gloaming, for freedom’s future fight,<br>
Their answer lives upon the rock that shines in fading light.<br>
John, Gary, Emanuel… Harry, Favre’, Sam*: <br>
Answered question with stout heart’s resounding, “Here I am!<br><br>
Moon glows upon the marble that lists the names of all <br>
Who answered with their lives the bell of freedom’s call.<br>
In Vietnam, WWI or Two, or Afghanistan, Iraq,<br>
Liberty tugged their heartstrings; refused they to turn back.<br><br>
Memorial Day upon us, I want to thank you again <br>
For giving of all you had for America to win.<br>
The marble there said nothing we hadn’t seen before,<br>
Words like “Died in Battle”, “Son of”, “Mi Amor”.<br><br><br>
*Sam = Samantha
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-46119626035154841792013-05-14T17:18:00.000-04:002013-05-14T17:18:18.177-04:00The Truth of Light© 2013 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved<br><br>
Benghazi's shadow casts its gloom,<br>
The IRS scandal looms,<br>
Fast and Furious and Eric Holder,<br>
A truer wrong -- could it be bolder?<br>
And other things not yet known<br>
Await discovery, to cast their gloam.<br>
This administration's disgrace,<br>
The president shouldn't show his face.<br><br>
Our country -- great once it was --<br>
Now in tatters, its glory does<br>
Shine no brighter than scandal's dark,<br>
And "free" health care was just a lark,<br>
As lies and division created by his hand,<br>
A darker version of Triumph's stand,<br>
Against the foes of foreign shores,<br>
Instead, our enemy's Michelle's paramour.<br><br>
Destroying all he can by day,<br>
Into the night he slips away,<br>
Benghazi? Nah, he'll sleep through,<br>
As four die under red, white and blue.<br>
It matters not to him who rules,<br>
He goes golfing (he has the tools).<br>
It's not important what we think,<br>
For him it's just a fart and blink.<br><br>
America was a thing of the past,<br>
He'll have his dream, longing at last!<br>
Destroy her quickly, unless they learn<br>
What the plan is and on him turn,<br>
Taxes, lies, stimulus,<br>
They all combine 'till we go bust,<br>
And America that was, goes down in flames,<br>
Him? No. He'll take no blame.<br><br>
It will be us, or Bush's fault,<br>
His plans will march on, will not halt,<br>
Until She's dead, this land of dreams,<br>
It won't be him, nor his foul schemes,<br>
George Soros won't be part of it,<br>
E'en though he'll smell of _______.<br>
Sharia Law, the goal to gain<br>
The Constitution is just a pain.<br><br>
But remember...<br><br>
A spark is lit by one man's breast<br>
In whom the light still shines, and lest<br>
We all forget the truth of light,<br>
It shines the brightest in the night,<br>
And when one person answers the call<br>
Of freedom's voice so sweet, recall,<br>
That it is then the flame revives<br>
And spreads anew into other lives.<br><br>
Don't count freedom out, call "Strike Three!"<br>
Until you're certain of dead it be.<br>
For in the hearts and in the minds<br>
Of just a few freedom finds<br>
A place of refuge, the light still burns<br>
'Tis to that place where liberty turns<br>
And finds a leader to call men home<br>
To once again ascend the "throne"<br>
Of Freedom's call, of our true rights,<br>
Of GOD's gift, FREEDOM, still burns in the night.<br><br><br>
© 2013 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-51914391092875241802013-04-30T14:50:00.001-04:002013-04-30T14:51:09.593-04:00In Whose Hands Is YOUR Freedom?
There is a <a href="http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/">growing list </a>(currently) 400 U.S. Sheriffs who have publicly stated that they will not be enforcing unconstitutional gun laws. They support the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution:
<blockquote>"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."</blockquote>
I thank and applaud every one of the Sheriffs who have chosen to publicly support our Second Amendment rights.<br><br>
According to <a href="http://www.sheriffs.org/content/office-sheriff">The National Sheriff's Association</a>, the office of Sheriff started circa the 9th century in England and much later, when America was being formed, the Magna Carta delineated some of the responsibilities of -- and restrictions upon -- the Sheriffs of the day. In fact, of the sixty-three items in the Magna Carta, twenty-seven of them dealt with the Sheriff and his duties. The first appointed Sheriff in America was appointed in 1634; first elected Sheriff was in 1652. Early Sheriffs in America also collected taxes (aren't you glad that part has changed?).<br><br>
The traditional Sheriff's oath of office, shared by at least 43 of the 47 states that have Sheriffs, <a href="http://sheriff.berkeleywv.org/index.php/2012/12/what-is-the-legal-meaning-of-a-sheriffs-oath-of-office/">goes like this</a>:
<blockquote>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of __________; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of Sheriff of ________ County, ________ (state), on which I am now about to enter, so help me God."</blockquote>
With only three states (Hawaii, Alaska and Connecticut) not having Sheriffs, there were 3,083 Sheriffs across America as of September 1, 2010. That makes the 400 (and growing) Sheriffs only about 13% of the nation's Sheriff population. That's scary; especially considering that 98% of those 3,083 Sheriffs are elected officers who can deputize people they wish to participate in the law enforcement efforts of their counties. Which begs the statement on the Association's website:
<blockquote>"The Office of Sheriff is not a department of county government, it is the independent office through which the Sheriff exercises the powers of the public trust. No individual or small group hires or fires the Sheriff, or has the authority to interfere with the operations of the office. Elected sheriffs are accountable directly to the constitution of their state, the United States Constitution, statutes, and the citizens of their county."</blockquote>
Where are the other 87% of the Sheriffs across the nation? Where is there representation of and accountability to the people? Why have they not signed onto the <a href="http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/">Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officer's Association gun rights statement</a>? Does their NON-signature mean that 87% of the people cannot yet rely on the Sheriffs they elected to protect them to do just that?<br><br>
Let's not jump to conclusions. The National Sheriff's Association held a press conference on February 1, 2013 and <a href="http://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/uploads/NSA_Resolution_2013-1_0.pdf">released a statement</a> that says in part:
<blockquote>"<b>WHEREAS</b>, sheriffs strongly support our citizens' protected right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and the National Sheriffs' Association does not support any laws that deprive any citizen of the rights provided under the Constitution and Bill of Rights; and<br><br>
...<br><br>
"<b>NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED</b>, the National Sheriffs' Association supports the rights conferred by the Second Amendment and further recognizes the ultimate authority of the courts in interpreting the scope of those constitutional rights."</blockquote>
In other words, they'll stand by whatever the courts decide. With the current president appointing judges that are those of his liking, what can that tell us about upcoming court decisions? (That's why electing a leftist/Marxist president is never a good idea.)<br><br>
Remember the SCOTUS's health care ruling? Justice Roberts suddenly decided that the health care bill was a TAX instead of a law stating that you had to buy what the government said you had to buy (a la low flush toilets, CFL light bulbs, high efficiency washing machines, etc.)? Can we count on the SCOTUS or any other courts to do what is constitutional?<br><br>
Second chance for their stance: the <a href="http://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/uploads/EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY%20FIREARMS_0.pdf">Sheriff's Association's Executive Summary</a> in which they state in part:
<blockquote>"1. Rule of Law. Our nation's Sheriffs recognize the rule of law in the United States in which the Supreme Court and lower courts are the ultimate authority in determining the constitutionality of any law."</blockquote>
Oh. They started with the courts get to decide it. Well, I think that confirms the point. The Sheriffs of America will let the courts decide, <i>as is Constitutional and they are sworn to uphold the Constitution</i>.<br><br>
The problem with that stance is that it leaves our Second Amendment unprotected <b>from the courts</b>. In fact, the Sheriffs Association's statement leaves us totally unprotected from usurpation via the president's cronies in the court system. It leaves our Second Amendment in jeopardy and balanced precariously on the ledge of judicial activism.<br><br>
It was judicial activism that <a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/060109a.aspx">took prayer out of schools, established "separation of church and state"</a> as the rule of law; under the newly found "right to privacy" gave us Roe v. Wade and paying for abortion via taxpayer dollars became legal. Judicial activism also gave us an <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/feb/9/20050209-082410-9837r/">alleged "right to sexual privacy, which encompasses a right to possess and view sexually explicit material in the privacy of one's own home."</a> This included "films - which depict rape, torture, and murder" with the actresses in the films being literally beaten, etc. Some would argue that judicial activism also <a href="http://voices.yahoo.com/judicial-activism-restraint-role-supreme-23898.html">gave us the Dred Scott decision</a>.<br><br>
Judicial activism being what it is, and the president's appointments being who they are (<a href="http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/">his Czars</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama">his judicial appointments</a> -- including Sotomayor and Kagan), how can we count on the courts to interpret laws in favor of our Second Amendment rights?<br><br>
So many of us tout the Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers' Association's list of Sheriffs who will support and defend our Second Amendment right, considering their own statements and press releases about it, who are they saying will be the ultimate judge?<br><br>
That leaves it up to us, "We, The People" who will have to defend our Second Amendment rights, does it not? Is that not the way it should be: <b>"We, The People" never leaving our freedoms in someone else's hands?</b> The question is:<i> Are you ready to stand where others will leave it to the courts?</i>
<br><br>
© 2013 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.com0