And The Nails Went In...

© 2013 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved


An innocent man, never lied, cheated, stole;
nothing was there to place the blame on Him,
yet, there it was. In their mouths, in their
eyes, on their skin.

They blamed Him for their fear, the loss of pride,
their growing dissatisfaction with their place
in society and in the grandiosity
of their own minds.

He came in love, peace, with truth on his
lips of laughing kindness, gentleness, healing.
And yet, they couldn't believe, accept, leave
their places of power.

So they accused; falsely, but that didn't matter,
for they were the judges and false judges
with false charges, their own choices make:
right and wrong gone.

Judged, He judged not. Condemned, He condemned not.
Slapped, beaten, mocked, whipped and whipped
and whipped again. Till flesh left bone and blood
dripped, ran down torn flesh.

Crowned and forced to carry the cross of
His own mechanism of torture and death and
stumbling, could not complete that task,
another forced to help.

Golgotha gained, his muscles strained as arms stretched
so wide. And the nails went in, one hammer stroke
at a time. Pounding, pounding, ripping, tearing,
spreading bone, not breaking.

They nailed his feet, his hands and stood the cross
up to hold him, as he struggled through the pain of
torn flesh, nailed hands. And breath came in bursts
of pain and anguish.

"Father, forgive them!" He cried through it all,
no mention of punishment, no cry to damn them
as He struggled to cry out, forgiveness He gave
as they gambled for his clothes.

And as His breath came harder in rasps, He
saw there His mother, and gave her away, to
ensure her future and her care. He saw those who
had put him there.

Still struggling to breathe His last breaths, lift up
and gasp, piercing pain on the nails, the nails that
went in, and He for us paid the price
the price of our sin.

In heaven, GOD the Father looked away, as our sin piled on
the Son He loved so much more, but they both had agreed,
before earth was made and we were here,
that this was the price we were worth.

"Eloi! Eloi! Lama sa-bach thani?" Father, why have you
forsaken me? His heart broke as the separation -- the full price
was paid, and then a whisper, "It is finished." and the only One
without sin, died covered in ours.

Thus is the story of this Eastertide. A story of love
and betrayal, of judgment without truth, of forgiveness
where none was deserved. Three days later,
the story complete,

Christ rose, nail scars still there, as Thomas can attest,
and His resurrection brought us final rest. For now we can
spend eternity in His Father's house, where none of us really
deserve to be.

As you celebrate this Eastertide, remember the Reason,
remember the price. 'Tis not just the death, nor just return
to life. But the thirty-three years, without sin; perfect,
obedient, God's Son.

And the nails went in...


© 2013 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

How Much Are You Worth?

What is it that makes Christians (and others) believe that they have no right to think themselves worthy of GOD’s love and forgiveness and Christ’s sacrifice?

I’ve been wondering about that for some time now. I taught a Sunday School class in which the literature provided by the Sunday School Board of our religion said that we, humans, are unworthy of the price paid for our forgiveness and of GOD’s love. Poppycock.

How is the price – the worth – of something decided? While teaching that Sunday School class, I approached the subject in the following way. I had on a pair of clip-on earrings. I took one off of my ear and held it out as I went from student to student and asked them who would give me a hundred dollars for the one earring. None would. I lowered my price as I asked again. It took a price of twenty-five cents before anyone would say that they might pay that price for the one earring. Thus the price for the single earring was – at that time – twenty-five cents. Whatever someone is willing to pay is what the price is. The value (worth) of the earring was twenty-five cents.

The worthiness of humans, the value of you and I in GOD’s eyes, was decided when the price of our salvation was decided prior to our creation. GOD and His Son decided long before the earth was made that the price for our sin would be the sacrifice of Christ. How do I know that?

When GOD created the earth, Jesus Christ was there, helping Him create the earth (John 1:1-4) and “all that therein is” (Psalm 146:6). According to Ephesians 1:4-6, before the earth was even created, GOD and His Son had decided to give us grace through salvation in Christ (KJV):

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”

According to the Bible (GOD’s Word), it was GOD who set the price for us. He decided that our price – our worth – was Christ’s blood and death. People who say that we are unworthy are not just wrong, they are ill-informed or ignoring (or ignorant of) the Bible.

For us to be unworthy would be for GOD to have decided – before the creation of the earth or at any time afterward -- that the price of our salvation was to be something less than Christ’s sacrifice; or that there would be no price high enough or that He was willing to pay so that we could be saved. If that had happened, then we could have counted ourselves unworthy of Christ’s death on the cross. That didn’t happen. The Bible, GOD’s inerrant Word, says that GOD decided the price prior to creating the earth, and that Christ decided to go to the cross (John 19:11) to pay that price for us. So both GOD and Son decided the price -- our worth -- and carried through with the actions that would be necessary for our salvation: to prove our worthiness. It was their choice.

Considering the pre-planning that GOD and Son did and the fact that they willingly carried through with their plan, that seems to prove to me that we are worthy. At least, GOD’s actions say so.

Remember, GOD could have interfered with the crucifixion of Christ. GOD could have spoken a word and the people who had Christ in custody would have gone to sleep, died, been killed by hellfire and brimstone as were those in Sodom and Gomorrah. Christ could have escaped as He admits “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” Twelve legions of angels (a legion is three- to six-thousand) can accomplish a lot, don’t you think? Couldn’t thirty-six-thousand angels get Christ away from those wishing His death? Couldn’t they at least protect Him long enough for Him to make His escape?

Our worth, then, is based upon the decisions of GOD and Christ and it was they who both chose to do what it took to ensure that Jesus Christ went to the cross in our stead and paid the price for our sins. It was GOD the Father and GOD the Son who chose to pay for you and I, the sinful, messed up, inconstant, lazy, weak humans who can’t seem to get it right for more than a few months at a time. Christ -- who lived a sinless life and did nothing to deserve to die, and not those of us who truly deserved it -- died for our sins.

He "who knew no sin” CHOSE since before creation to go to the cross and bear our sins. The only one on earth who never sinned died for our sins. The “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) CHOSE to go to the cross and be scourged and mocked and to die for us. GOD and Jesus Christ decided long before that day what our worth was.

Next time you are in church, Sunday School, a social gathering, with family and friends and you hear someone say anything about us – or themselves – being “unworthy” set them straight. You’ll be doing them a great service because in realizing their worth in Christ Jesus people also realize that GOD put that value on them. What better way to realize who you are, how much you really are worth, than to know that it was determined by the Lord God Almighty before time began?

Veganism's Political Cause: Part Deux -- God’s Instruction to Eat, Eat, Eat Meat!

As a follow-up to Monday’s posting, Veganism’s Political Cause, I present “Part Deux: God’s Instruction to Eat, Eat, Eat Meat”. Think big, juicy steak…


Some folks think that meat eating didn’t start in the story of the Bible until after the great flood of Noah’s time. In that reference, GOD told Noah and his sons (Genesis 9:2-3),


“And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.


“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”


I, however (as usual), beg to differ. Of course!


Just after the Garden of Eden was vacated and Adam “knew” his wife and she conceived Cain and Abel, Abel grew up and became a shepherd. Now, I have a problem with the idea of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel keeping sheep that they can’t do anything with except being responsible for. Death had already entered the world with Eve’s sin, so I think that the sheep had to have served a purpose. Back then they weren’t really into “conspicuous consumption”. They had only the things they needed and they didn’t think that it was a good thing to keep things that did nothing but take. If you have a flock of sheep that aren’t meant for anything but for the sheep to eat, for you to herd and consume your time, effort and doctoring, then why would the family have them?


My idea is that they had sheep for a reason. That reason was to eat them. They had a resource, not just a burden that they herded to this field and that field and then another field. They had food on the hoof. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that they were NOT eating meat at the time. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that GOD forbid it. It says that prior to sin, the people and the animals all ate veggies. After the “Big No No”, not only was there punishment for the sin, but soon thereafter, you see the first offering to GOD (Genesis 4:4):


“And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:”


If the lamb had not been killed, how could the fat be gotten for the Lord? Hmm? If the lamb is killed, according to the Book of Exodus, the Passover was a lamb, that the Lord instructed killed and eaten (Exodus 12:6-11):


“and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.


“And they shall take of the blood and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the house, wherein they shall eat it.


“And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.


“Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.


“And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.”


So we see that they were instructed to eat the rest of the offering. As with most offerings, at least parts of the offering – dove, heifer, lamb, ram, whatever – is eaten by man. Not all offerings were eaten: the consecration offering was totally dedicated to GOD. Other than that, at least part of the offerings were eaten by man.


Stay with me now, GOD says to eat parts of the offering animals in Exodus, and Jesus is GOD and they are one (John 1:1-4), and, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” Then when GOD says to eat part of the offering during the Passover, and again during the sanctification of the Hebrews who came out of Egypt, is that any indication that GOD intended at least the priests to eat part of the animal offerings all the time, as He commanded in Exodus 29:27-28?


Does that mean that back in Genesis 4:4 when Abel was bringing the “firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof” that they were offering one of the types of offerings defined in Leviticus? Was it a sin, meat, burnt, peace, or trespass offering in which they would be following the laws of Leviticus, in which it says that the priests get a bit of the offering. Was Adam the family priest: especially considering he used to walk and talk in the Garden with GOD Himself?


So we see that GOD commanded Adam to do animal offerings (or why would he be killing a lamb if he wasn’t supposed to?), and GOD commanded the Israelites to do animal offerings. Thousands of animals in the Old Testament were made into offerings to GOD. That means that thousands of animals were at least partially eaten by man throughout the Old Testament. Remember, they were the stand-in for the ultimate stand-in: Jesus Christ. Blood had to be shed and trees, veggies, roots don’t bleed! Therefore, it had to be an animal that died and the offering had to be made of something with blood. It couldn’t be a non-animal – fruit, veggie, stone, wood – it had to have blood running through veins.


“But, wait! That was Old Testament!” you say. Okay. Let’s look at the New Testament standards.


In the New Testament we see that Jesus ate meat in Matthew 9:10, 26:7, Mark 2:15, 14:3, 16:4 and Luke 24:30. If it’s good enough for Christ, who is part GOD, then why should we not eat meat? Remember, also, that when the offerings were made, GOD "ate" parts of the offerings via fire.


We also see that the regular people ate meat in many verses and that Christ used giving people meat to the hungry and that He thought it a good thing: “For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:” (Matthew 25:35). If eating meat was so bad, why did Christ use it as an example of doing something good, something praiseworthy, as something that GOD rewards? For we see in Matthew 25:32-34 that GOD rewarded those who did such a thing:


“And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:


“And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left,


“Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:”


Next is the part about being hungry and given meat. That’s praiseworthy in GOD’s eyes. Throughout the New Testament the eating of animals is an acceptable thing.


You can get a Concordance and look up for yourselves how often the eating of meat is mentioned in the New Testament. Before you scream and shout that “meat” is not always actually animal flesh, it sometimes stands for other foods in the New Testament. I understand that, but that does not destroy the fact that at times – quite often – it DOES mean animal flesh and that it meant that they killed an animal and actually ate it as vegans and vegetarians do not.


What kinds of animal flesh did they eat? We see in the Old Testament that they ate lamb, ram, bullocks, heifers, goats, dove, etc., the animals that met the cleanliness criteria. In the New Testament, they ate those and after the Lamb that Washes Away All Sin was offered for OUR sin, the rules changed.


In Acts 10:9-22, we see the story of the “Great Sheet” that Peter saw. In the story, Peter was on the rooftop praying and was very hungry. Instead of going and getting a snack, he stayed and prayed and fell into a trance. In the trance:


“he saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to earth:


“Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts and creeping things, and fowls of the air.”


These things were the things that did not meet the criteria of cleanliness that was set in the Old Testament. GOD said to Peter, “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.” Unheard of so far in the Jewish world, Peter of course said, “Not so, Lord: for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” But God was persistent (as He still is today) and said it a little stronger (Acts 10:15):


“What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”


According to verse sixteen, this was done three times, GOD felt so strongly about it. When someone says “No way!” to you three times and you are GOD, what do you do? His motives were correct: doing the right thing via obeying the dietary laws. But GOD did not punish Peter, He let Peter absorb, analyze and consider the incident and come to his own conclusion. Peter, it states in verse 17, “doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean”.


Some say that this vision is strictly about men. Well, I happen to half-disagree.


When this was done, the death of Christ made all things clean; even what we eat. Remember, Christ already taught His disciples that, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” His death paid the price for all things to be clean (the vision taught us this) and it is not what we eat that makes us unhealthy or healthy. (Where in the Bible does it say that food makes us healthy? Anyone?)


Here’s the “half-disagree” portion: Yes, it can also talk about the men who came to visit Peter shortly after the vision. There were three men and three times the message was given. Maybe it also applies to them. However, I think that the food part of it was just as important. After all, the dietary laws protected the Jewish people against certain diseases and parasites. So for GOD to lower a sheet of “unclean” animals and to tell Peter to “take and eat” was an outrageous thing for GOD to do! For a Jewish person to even consider eating lobster – a scavenger – was considering sinning. That wasn’t something a disciple of the Lord wanted to do. So it must have been a big shock to Peter for GOD to instruct him to eat pig, lobster, ostrich, etc. But GOD did tell him and told him three times so I think He was serious about it, and I think it applied to both animals and man! Remember, it’s not what “goeth into the mouth” that defiles someone. It doesn’t matter what you eat according to Christ. It’s what you do and say.


There is one thing that I want to add here. If you are a Christian, should you be a vegetarian? Yes, you may be a vegetarian because it’s not “what goeth into the mouth” that defiles us. Do I see it as disobedience to GOD’s word to be a vegetarian/vegan? Yep. I do. He commanded us throughout the Bible – both Old and New Testament – to eat meat. From Genesis 9:2-3 to Acts 10 GOD commanded us to eat meat and Christ, who is GOD, and GOD Himself, set the example and ate meat. So being a vegetarian/vegan as a Christian is, IMHO, being disobedient, n'est-ce pas?


The sharing of an animal’s meat is a rewarded thing. So why would it be considered by those who believe the Bible to be the Word of GOD as a bad thing? Vegetarians think they’ll be healthier than those who eat meat. This is their opinion, but would GOD command us to do something that is bad for us? Consider that “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19) If GOD is going to “make it good” because He has commanded us to “take and eat” then why on earth would anyone want to disobey GOD and be a vegetarian?


Obedience gets us blessed. Disobedience gets us not blessed (to be nice about it). It is your choice, though. Which do you choose?

Freedom Does Not Trump GOD

I have recently been involved in a discussion about “freedom” and what it includes. It didn’t start out that way, it just went that way due to the main sticking point my “opponent” was trying to create against my stance. My opponent was defending his support of homosexual marriage. In his efforts to do so, he tried to assert that, “maybe allowing people to practice homosexuality [i.e. homosexual “marriage”] even though some believe it is sin is a more conservative use of government.”


He went on to say, quote: “Therefore, as I look at the upcoming election and evaluate how I want to vote there is one thing in particular that I hold as an irrefutable value: Freedom may not be free, but it is always worth the price. Even if that price means other people are allowed to do things I think are stupid (like smoke cigarettes). Even if that means other countries are allowed to do things we think are stupid (like have nuclear weapons [even if we only think it’s stupid when they want them]). While granting sovereign rights will always be fraught with potential calamity, taking those rights away will always result in the greater calamity of dictatorship.” Unquote.


His stance in support of homosexual marriage is unique if nothing else. Standing against laws that allow homosexual marriage is less government and therefore something Conservatives should support. Never thought of it that way before. Putting the number of laws on the books ahead of right and wrong is novel to say the least. But more about this later.


I argued against his idea and was astonished at the persistence in my opponent’s defense of such a stance. Smaller government = more freedom = homosexual marriage should be allowed purely on the basis of smaller government, therefore Conservatives should support it! Well, there’s a problem with that line of thinking.


A few for instances: I live on a corner lot. When we first moved into our house the yard was unfenced. Our boys were small and we put the boundary on them that they could not go into the street. The street was not safe for them. We loved them so we set that boundary. Sometimes they pushed the boundary and went into the street, for which they got reprimanded (sometimes a swat on their bottoms), and that helped teach them to stay out of the street.


If we love someone we put boundaries up to protect them. Some of those boundaries are physical, some we set up are spiritual, some emotional. If love includes boundaries then not all boundaries are bad. A boundary that keeps people from walking on the “third rail” of an electric train is going to keep a person alive is a good boundary. The same thing is true with emotional boundaries: don’t give your heart to a married man because it’s going to cause someone to get hurt (the wife, the mistress, the children of the married man, etc.). Don’t get involved in drugs, voodoo, etc., are examples of things that a majority of people think of as “good boundaries” parents set for their children.


Freedom comes from GOD (the Declaration of Independence confirms this) and, even though we are free, with freedom comes certain responsibilities. As Rick Santorum so astutely pointed out at a Lexington, SC, restaurant (the “Flight Deck”)recently,“[W]e were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.” Mr. Santorum’s excellent reminder for folks is that just because you have freedom declared in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, that doesn’t mean that there is a “free for all” and we can run, helter-skelter, to do whatever we wish, whenever we wish, with/to whomever we wish, however we wish.


With freedom – which the Declaration itself states comes from GOD – comes the boundaries GOD believes in and tried to teach us via His relationship with His people (Israel), via His Son, Jesus Christ and via His Word, the Holy Bible. Does that mean that America should be a Baptist country (Baptist is a for instance, it could be Greek Orthodox, Catholic, or Lutheran)? No. It means that if we are going to tout our freedoms that come from GOD as our Founding Fathers reiterated in their writings, the Congressional record (read the earliest Congressional records and you’ll be amazed at how often GOD and His providential guidance are referenced), and elsewhere, then we also must act as though our freedoms come from a moral, loving, wise, Creator who knows us better than we know ourselves.


Freedom means we have the personal rights that come from being intelligent enough to act as though we know right from wrong, good from bad and moral from immoral. We have the right to feel whatever we feel (even feeling homosexual), but we do not have the right to engage in “marriage” (per se) because marriage is a conscript from GOD. He established it and it was He who decided – via establishing Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (cliché but true) – what a marriage was going to be. It is in Genesis Chapter 2:24, that marriage is established as, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” One flesh: one person: one child or children (one flesh) from two people. That is not possible with homosexuality.


When GOD created marriage He created what He wanted us to live. He gave us the rules regarding homosexuality:
• Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
• Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
• I Timothy 1:10 (read the first portion of that in 1:9: “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient,”): “the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,”
• I Corinthians 6:9: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,”

Remember that GOD gave us freedom, but that also means that we must include within that freedom what GOD says is freedom: living by the rules He set down. Otherwise, the law is made for those who are “lawless and disobedient”.


Now I’ll return to the previous paragraph that talked about the number of laws on the books being a reason to not outlaw homosexual marriage: the “too many laws” thing.


Until 1993 it was not even considered a possibility for homosexuals to marry. Not that there were any laws on the books against it, just because the homosexuals who had tried and been refused had decided not to make a fuss about it. There were no laws preventing homosexual marriage in effect in any of our fifty states (fifty-seven in obamination’s America) until 1995. When they started pushing for the “right to marry”, that’s when man’s traditional views on marriage were tested and new laws created. Thus, the biblical reminder that “the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient…”. We cannot fight GOD. If we do, we lose. The laws that are now being created against homosexual marriage are just the laws of GOD coming into effect. So the number of laws on the books is inconsequential in regards to this. (If we can write laws mandating punishment for feelings -- “Hate Crimes” -- then we can have laws based on actions.)


America, as a Christian nation (founded by Christians, GOD mentioned throughout our founding documents, in our earliest Congressional records, prayer being established at our first Congressional meeting and practiced within our Congressional meetings as the starting point of every meeting and effort of Congress’s guiding America, etc., etc., etc. [and like it or not]), is based upon GOD’s Word. We looked for His guidance. We looked for His Providential protection. We looked for – and a majority of us still look for – His truth.


Now, are we as a nation so far from GOD that we will turn our backs on Him for the convenience, the emotions of, the “freedoms” of a very few people who have started down the road toward perdition? Should we not, instead of allowing this and stepping aside to let the slide continue, love homosexuals enough to stand up and say, “No. This far and no further!”? If we, as Christians and a Christian nation, should love our neighbor enough to try to bring them to Christ (GOD’s command in the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28), should we at the same time hate them enough to support them wallowing in and spreading their sin, adopting and raising children in the belief that it is acceptable? What GOD calls an “abomination” we should support in order to prevent there being another law on the books?


Is that what my opponent thinks GOD would condone? Is His Love going to be considered so all-encompassing that He will be seen as accepting every sin instead of just every sinner? GOD judges our actions as well as our hearts. If we are to emulate Jesus Christ, we must stand up for what GOD says is right. In Matthew 21:12 we see Jesus Christ take action against what was considered wrong by GOD. In 15:6) we see the Pharisees using the same idea as my opponent is espousing, “Jesus replied, ‘And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God?’” Jesus then went on to call the Pharisees and scribes “hypocrites” and “blind guides” for doing so! Read Matthew 23 and you’ll see what happens when Jesus sees people who are giving lip service to right, while all the while doing wrong.


Is that what my opponent wants? Should we give lip service to “freedom” so that we can leave man enslaved to sin while touting "fewer laws"? Should we give lip service to GOD’s LOVE while all the while condemning homosexuals to damnation because of their sin? If we are to do nothing contrary to the desires of those in sin because we want to demonstrate our love of the sinner, then are we not enabling the sin? Is that what GOD wants? Is that what Jesus demonstrated with His own actions? If Christ were to do so, the money changers’ tables would never have been overturned and the practice would have continued. If Christ were to do so the “teachers of the law and Pharisees” would never have been called out in Matthew 23. Instead Jesus would have simply loved them into the Kingdom of GOD, and not have called them a “brood of vipers” (vs. 33).


If you see a junkie on the street who says, “Give me ten dollars so I can go get some more meth, man. I’m dying here, man, I need more meth.” Do you give the junkie the money? If you do not, will he like you? If not, will he think you love him? If not, will he be angry at you? If you do not give the junkie money to get more meth, you are demonstrating love. If you do not condone sin, you are demonstrating love.


The bottom line for me is that GOD set boundaries for us when He gave us freedom. Look at the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. There was one rule: “Don’t eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (Genesis 2:17). Only one rule to live by: now that’s freedom! When Eve and Adam (in that order) broke that one rule there was a price to pay. Adam worked for a living, Eve bore children in pain, the serpent crawled on his belly and there was enmity between the serpent and man, and Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden. A preventive measure was also taken in that GOD set a guard at the Tree of Life, just in case (Genesis 3:24).


If we are to be Christ-like and try to “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), then should we not also emulate Christ and His Father and their love of the sinner as much as we can? Remember, loving the sinner is not loving their sin. If it were, there would be no condemnation at all, nor would there have been reason to punish Adam and Eve and no reason for a Redeemer.

Glenn Beck Blows It on a Personal Level

(NOTE: Since I don't know how to do superscripts with this blog system, I put my footnotes in parenthesis at the appropriate spots: (#). Okay?)

Normally speaking, I trust Glenn Beck to be an accurate and reliable person when it comes to relating history, putting the pieces together (George Soros, Open Society, et al), and the dollars and dates. He’s very good at that and he’s almost always – 99% of the time – correct. He’s nearly infallible when it comes to that.

In personal matters, he is not necessarily so.

While reading Glenn Beck & Dr. Keith Ablow’s new book, “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life(1)”, on my Kindle, I came across Locations 1572-1585. This Section relates the story of Glenn going to a Mormon church for the first time. He wound up in a class with other students (some new, some not so new), and he wanted out of there. He found out that questions could be asked and he decided to ask one he thought would get him out of there; one that wouldn’t fit his personal beliefs and give him a reason to leave. So, he asked, “Where’s Gandhi?” (as in is he in heaven, hell or somewhere else?).

To paraphrase the response a student gave (and the teacher did not refute), the answer went something like this:

A dad loves his son and wants him to be a good man. The son graduated high school and his dad told him to go to college. With no colleges in the area, the son applied at colleges outside of the area and no colleges would accept him – “he wasn’t the right ‘sort’”. The explanation went that a loving father would not condemn nor disown the son for not going to college.

When Glenn asked about Jesus being the only way to the Father (to GOD), the answer was, “Yes, that is true,” replied the student, “but…” The answerer expounds upon the subject by asking if it would be fair to condemn someone who never got the chance or opportunity to accept Christ? Would it be fair to send that person to hell?

That’s the first place in the book where Glenn – and the question answerer – blows it.

There are several problems with that answer. First, how can the answer be both “Yes” and “No”? It can’t be both: Jesus is the only way and Jesus isn’t the only way. One has to choose because Jesus can’t be both.

Second, GOD sets the rules, not man. GOD said Jesus is the only way. Man cannot change the standard GOD set.

Third, If GOD is a Holy GOD then He must have certain rules that are intractable. Remember how unfair you thought it was when your parent would set a rule for you and have another rule – or just break the rule – for one of your siblings? Remember how you automatically knew that it wasn’t right? Should GOD treat people who get into heaven in such a manner: one rule for some people and another rule for others? No. He is Holy and He must keep the same rules for everyone. Otherwise, why have rules in the first place?

Fourth, is the source of the answer. This answer is based on – as far as I can figure – a purely Mormon belief and practice: the Baptism for the Dead. In this practice, baptismal services are held for those who are already dead using a stand-in for the dead person. For instance, your great-grandma died in 1942. Mormon doctrine would have her genealogy done, her kin listed and they would baptize your great-grandma and her spouse(s) into their Church and into their heaven without your consent, without the consent of great-grandma and – according to their beliefs – great-grandma would then be in their heaven worshiping their god. This is done even for people who wanted nothing to do with the Mormon Church, who do not believe in their religion, who do not wish to have their own chosen religion “negated” by strangers. This doctrine, a construct of Joseph Smith, was first publicly pronounced at the funeral of Seymour Brunson in Naouvoo in August 1840(2).

This doctrine is supposedly based on I Corinthians 15:29 where it asks “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?(3)” Commentary suggests that a word translation is at fault. Taken in context, the word “for” should instead be “concerning”; since baptism does not save us, and if we do not rise again then any baptism is unnecessary(4).

“The Encyclopedia of Mormonism”, a five volume set of books that contains “The History, Scripture, Doctrine, and Procedure of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, quotes I Peter 4:6 as another source for the belief: “For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."(5) However that was Jesus Christ in “paradise” during the three days he was “dead” after his crucifixion and prior to his rising again. Jesus is the only person in the Bible mentioned as “preaching to” the dead. I must mention this because nowhere in the Mormon doctrine does it state that the dead shall be offered the gospel message prior to being baptized. In fact, in the Doctrines and Covenants (D&C), 128 inclusive(6), nowhere does it say that the dead should be given the choice of being baptized into the Mormon Church, but instead, they are baptized into the Church under the guise of, Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, “whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”(7). In other words, the dead have no say in the matter, which negates Glenn’s whole point of having a free will, a “gut feeling”, the opportunity to choose for ourselves which way to go: even with God. Even though that’s what his whole book is based upon, going with your gut feeling, yet he negates it in the ninth chapter of his book, “Isn’t There Anyone to Hate?” by believing in something that takes away the dead’s right to have chosen what their "gut feeling" told them.

Another problem with the teaching is that the Bible negates this teaching via Ecclesiastes 9:5-6: “For the living know that they will die: But the dead know nothing. And they have no more reward. For the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished: Nevermore will they have a share In anything done under the sun.”(8)

The doctrine of “Baptism for the Dead” is negated by Mormonism’s own teachings as well. For instance:

1) In “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” book two, on page 741 included in the definition of the names of Christ, is the definition of one of His names, the name “Savior”: “Through agony and death suffered for others, Jesus is able to erase imperfections and bestow worthiness, on condition of repentance. Since imperfect beings cannot reside in God’s presence (D&C 1:31), Jesus saves believers from their imperfection, their sins, and their worst selves. [my italics](9)”

2) In the section on “Salvation” in book three of the set, beginning on page 1256, it states, “It is redemption from the bondage of sin and death, through the ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST. [caps in the original](10)”

3) Page 1257 of the third book delineates the steps taken to gain “Salvation” as found in the “gospel of Jesus Christ” these ordinances “must be followed to obtain a fullness of salvation. The first steps are FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ, REPENTANCE, BAPTISM by immersion for the remission of sins, and the LAYONG ON OF HANDS by one who is in authority for the gift of the HOLY GHOST. Additional ordinances are administered in the TEMPLE. And finally, ‘he only is saved who endureth to the end’ (D&C 53:7) [caps in the original](11)”.

In the book, “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young”, the section on Salvation starts in this book on page 49. On page 50, Brigham Young talks about free will (“agency” in Mormonism): “ ‘But,’ says the Father, ‘that will not answer at all. I give each and every individual his agency; all must use that in order to gain exaltation in my kingdom; inasmuch as they have the attributes which you see in me are in my children and they must use their agency. If you undertake to save all, you must save them in unrighteousness and corruption’ [see Abraham 3:23-28; Moses 4:1-4] (BDY, 54-54). [my italics]”(12) They must choose for themselves is what Brigham Young is saying, not those who are doing the baptizing for them choosing.

The “gut feeling” that “inner truth” that Glenn talks about throughout the book is negated by his personal religious beliefs, even though those beliefs are at the same time supported by his religious beliefs. Mormonism has people coming and going, but they don’t have their ducks in a row. They negate their own teachings, and see no conflict in it.

Another place Glenn blew it was in location 2273-2296 in which he gives an example of following your “inner truth” by illustrating it with the story of an imaginary investment banker who decides that instead of wanting to be an investment banker, he wants to follow his boyhood dream of being an architect. His wife did not like the idea and would not support him. She wants the investment banker to continue being an investment banker and to give up this dream. Glenn’s advice: “Then, my friend, you may have to leave. If you were to do so, you would have to do it responsibly with as much love for all concerned – including your wife – as humanly possible. But your love for self would have to be served.(13)”

Excuse me?! Leave your wife, your children, your life as you know it so that “your love for self” would “be served”? I think that’s called selfishness by most people, and most people don’t consider it a good thing. The only Biblical reason to leave your spouse is infidelity (adultery; extra-marital sexual relations). I see nothing in the Bible that says anything about leaving your spouse so that you can be selfish. How about the same excuse being used for a twenty-year-old blonde bombshell who makes you feel twenty-three again? Your attraction to her is an “inner truth”. Mustn’t you love your “inner truth”, honor your “gut feeling” that is your attraction to this Little Miss Muffit, also? Glenn says (location 2291-2296), “Are you surprised to hear me say that? Does that sound like violating a covenant? It isn’t."(14) Excuse me?! Did that man and woman not vow – covenant – before GOD and man to be together “until death do us part”? If that is not a covenant – the second covenant ever given (the first between GOD and Adam and Eve) – then what is a covenant? And who gives Glenn Beck the right to advise people that leaving a spouse is an acceptable thing to do if their career goals are changing? How selfish is that?

In Mark 10:2-9 Jesus is questioned by the Pharisees about divorce. When Christ asked them, “What did Moses command you?” they said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.” But Christ replied that it was from the “hardness of your heart” that it was permitted, but that GOD instituted marriage, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, ‘and the two shall become one flesh’: so they can no longer be two but one flesh. Therefore what GOD has joined together let not man separate."(15) Jesus – GOD’s Son – said “No” to divorce.

Glenn’s religion supposedly obeys and follows Jesus (they’ve even got His name in their name), and yet Glenn is spouting new age, temporarily feel good, claptrapisms about “inner truths” and “gut feelings” and a covenant with yourself? After all, according to Glenn, “Covenants are, by their nature, sacred agreements between two or more parties. If you promised to stay married to someone who would love you forever, then realize you are not loved at all by that person, and that there is no reasonable hope that you ever will be, and that the example of your broken relationship is a burden to your children, then you must accept this reality: There is no covenant. There is only your truth. And in the end, the truth always wins.” Beck is totally ignoring the truth that “The way, the truth and the life(16)” (John 14: 6), Jesus Christ, spoke about divorce while spouting claptrap about TRUTH!

Glenn’s assertion that marriage has to be between two people who have promised to love each other “forever”, then no marriage is based on truth. All marriages have difficult times. All marriages have things they go through. It’s those who honor their covenants, their vows made before GOD and man who stay with their spouses and who spend the rest of their lives together because they wish to honor GOD by doing so. That is what the Bible teaches about marriage, not this new age, claptrap about “inner truths”.

Maybe because Beck was once divorced he feels comfortable espousing divorce to others in order to prevent “your spiritual destruction”(17). Maybe it’s something else. But any “religious person” supporting divorce is not a good thing. Your spiritual life does not depend on your spouse supporting or denying your change of career. Your spiritual life depends on what you do with your relationship with Christ. Going through a tough time in your marriage? Spend more time with your Bible and with GOD. Your spouse isn’t the one who decides what your spiritual position with GOD is. It’s your effort, your dedication, your time with GOD that determines whether “your spiritual destruction” is eminent; not your spouse’s approval or disapproval of your career change. If your spouse says, “No. Let’s not do this,” it’s up to you to make the best of things and to honor your commitment to your spouse because that is what GOD says for you to do. He never says that divorce is okay if your spouse disagrees with you. Has your spouse committed adultery? If so, divorce is okay. If not, then stick with it and work it out and your spiritual life will be blessed if you put the effort into your spiritual life and into your marriage that needs to be put toward both.

In location 2652-57, Beck says that, “When your instincts run counter to common wisdom, then doing God’s work requires patience and compassion and courage and one other essential quality that really deserves a book of its own: endurance.(18)” If ignoring the truth of the Bible that Jesus Christ, by whom “No man cometh unto the Father except through [Him]”, or getting a divorce in order to follow your “inner truth” even though Jesus Christ spoke against it, is “doing God’s work”, then Beck must be following a different GOD than the Bible speaks of, and than I follow.

As I said earlier, when it comes to putting the puzzle pieces together regarding politics and the influences of others on political issues, of political ties, of history and learning from it or repeating it, of watching the events around the world and watching the ties that are made prior to things falling apart, Beck has it all over others. Beck is right most of the time there. Would I follow his teachings there? You bet. Would I follow Beck’s teachings on GOD or my personal life? No way.

(NOTE: There was another thing I saw in the book that I wanted to comment on, but I cannot remember it right now. I’ll post that later, I suppose.)

FOOTNOTES:
1) “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life” Glenn Beck and Dr. Keith Ablow, Threshold Editions – Mercury Radio Arts, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., © 2011 Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., Kindle Version. ISBN 978-1-4516-2564-6 (ebook)
2) “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” Book 1, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, pp. 95-97, Macmillan Publishing Company, © 1992 Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-02-904040-X
3) “The Holy Bible” English Standard Version, Good News Publishers, ©2003 Crossway Bibles, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles, Crossway Bibles a division of Good News Publishers, ISBN 1-58134-436-8
4) “The Believer’s Study Bible” Edited by W.A. Criswell, Ph.D., pg. 1644, Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1991 Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, The Holy Bible New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson, Inc. (No ISBN, No Library of Congress Catalog Number), 606BG
5) Ibid, page 1770
6) “Book of Mormon: Doctrine and Covenants: Pearl of Great Price” Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun., Doctrine and Covenants pp. 231-236, Published 1941 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, © 1920 Heber J. Grant, Trustee-In-Trust, for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, No Library of Congress Catalog Number, No ISBN
7) “The Believer’s Study Bible” Edited by W.A. Criswell, Ph.D., Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1991 Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, The Holy Bible New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson, Inc. (No ISBN, No Library of Congress Catalog Number), 606BG
8) Ibid, pg. 902
9) “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” Book 2, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, pg. 741, Macmillan Publishing Company, © 1992 Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-02-904040-X
10) “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” Book 3, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, “Salvation, pg.1256, Macmillan Publishing Company, © 1992 Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-02-904040-X
11) Ibid, pp. 1257,
12) “The Teachings of the Presidents: Brigham Young” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, © 1997 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (No ISBN No Library of Congress Catalog Number)
13) “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life” Glenn Beck and Dr. Keith Ablow, Threshold Editions – Mercury Radio Arts, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., © 2011 Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., Kindle Version. ISBN 978-1-4516-2564-6 (ebook)
14) Ibid, location 2291-2296
15) “The Believer’s Study Bible” Edited by W.A. Criswell, Ph.D., pg. 1413, Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1991 Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, The Holy Bible New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson, Inc. (No ISBN, No Library of Congress Catalog Number), 606BG
16) Ibid, pg. 1521
17) “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life” Glenn Beck and Dr. Keith Ablow, location 2296-2302, Threshold Editions – Mercury Radio Arts, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., © 2011 Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., Kindle Version. ISBN 978-1-4516-2564-6 (ebook)
18) Ibid, location 2652-57

My Theory: All “Atheists” Believe in God

Could all “atheists” actually believe in God? Could it be that all their posturing, lawsuits, speeches, science, press releases and Madalyn Murray O’Hairs really belie their true beliefs? Startling to think that this could be true, but consider the evidence.

First: their chosen designation: “atheist”. The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god". The “a” from the Greek meaning "without" or "not", and “theos” from God. So, an “a-theist” would be someone who is “not” God or “without” God (that “not” part is a given). If there is no God, then why include the idea of him in their name? Why not just say “pagan” (heathen: a person who does not acknowledge your god), why include the idea of a god within the label of someone who does not believe in nor accept gods? That’s like saying “I am anti-baseball, but my name is Baseball.”

Second: If they don’t believe in God, why do they spend so much effort, time, money and breath denying His existence? After all, you don’t see them fighting the idea of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or the existence of leprechauns, do you? They don’t believe in those entities so they don’t fight the idea of their existence. However, with God, they spend millions of dollars on lawsuits, thousands of man hours, print reams of paper in books and pamphlets, post hundreds of thousands of atheism pages on the internet, and put in appearances on television and radio shows in order to deny the existence of someone they don’t believe in. If they don’t believe in Him, why the effort? Why spend so much money on Him? The more they protest the more they show how much they are worried about Him and the more they prove their belief. Why not ignore the issue as they do with the existence of Sasquatch or Tinkerbell if they do not believe?

Third: If atheists believe in medicine and science (and only medicine and science) why do they not consider that belief in God? After all, they prove His existence, do they not? Consider that medical science is always making discoveries on how things work with our bodies, and how miraculous they really are, and that is a sign of God. Evolution goes simplest to most complex, and tries not to get complex. With our bodies, we can see evidence of God in how they work, what makes them tick and in the ways that – miraculously – we are healed. Medicine cannot account for the kinds of miracles seen in the human body’s recovery, spontaneous remission of diseases, or in other things that human bodies do. They can neither explain them, nor deny them. God in action in the atheist’s belief in medicine.

Fourth: Science – besides medical science -- is constantly making new discoveries, finding the answers to new questions. Quantum physics (as did other fields of study) led to new laws that science’s observation, testing and deducing proved to be there. Did their discovery make those rules’ existence come about? No. Their discovery – their finding – simply proved that they already existed. Somehow, those rules of quantum physics, chaos theory, and fluid dynamics already existed before they were found by scientists. Those rules didn’t just pop into existence out of nothing. Did they “evolve” or were they pre-programmed by an intelligent designer who knew how things work?

Atheists believe that science will disprove God and they believe in science, yet all of science’s work (whether they admit it or not) proves the existence of God. To wit: If the universe, solar system, life, "evolved", then what happened to make it "evolve"? Wouldn’t there be some sort of need for evolution, according to the atheistic ideal of Darwin’s theory of evolution? Survival of the fittest would not suffice in an universe of nothingness, void and without form. What would be the catalyst for evolution? If the universe developed purely out of randomness and these rules were not in play before the process started, then what put the rules into place? Was it the randomness that suddenly found order and the rules followed out of already existing order from randomness? Can that happen that without the rules in place the rules develop themselves? Fact is that chaos (randomness) can develop into some semblance of order, but the rules were there first to make it so, just as scientists finding those rules made the rules already there, and not the discovery of those rules birth the rules’ existence. Therefore, science has proven the rules – rules that make scientific and mathematical sense – were in existence prior to the formation of the universe. Therefore, intelligent design (it must be intelligent design for the rules to make sense) is responsible for the rules and thus, God existed prior to the universe’s existence.

Some of you would argue that last sentence, I know. But watch the videos here and and continued here and tell me that the rules were not there prior to scientific discovery. Science didn’t write the rules. Man didn’t come up with them and enforce them. If they weren’t done by man they had to have been done by God.

"But, wait!" some cry. "Nature could have done it itself!" The belief that there is no God demands the belief that nature had to have made all of the rules itself, but how did that come about? How did nature’s pre-universe (as we know it), pre-earth (as historically represented via Pangaea, etc.) pre-evolution (into humans) decide to write its own rules? Random atoms floating somewhere in darkness and tumult, banging into each other, floating without rules and without purpose, evolved order without outside interference? Random atoms chose of their own free will to cooperate, to lump together, to go in a certain direction at the same time, to change their physical and chemical characteristics and become something that – by chance and by random association – would become a universe, solar system, planet that would not only develop all of this out of nothingness, but also be capable of sustaining life as we know it? It not only sustains life, but it creates life out of non-life: a breathless (in any way, shape or form), non-eating, form without a heartbeat of any sort, without any sign of life whatsoever was created by this randomness and became suddenly alive. Alive in the sense of the scientific sense of the word: Life: (noun) "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." In the atheists’ world, randomness evolved into life, without interference of an intelligent being.

Fifth: Not only that, but all this randomness evolved into homo sapiens, humans as we know them. Just as Darwin described, atheists believe it to have been. Darwinism defies belief in God because we were not created, we evolved. Apes and protozoa and all of that; we came from nothing and to nothing we return. That’s all there is to it. Therefore there can be no God because there is no creation. That sort of thinking proves nothing. Saying that the existence of “X” always disproves the existence of “Y” is erroneous: they could co-exist, could they not? I do not believe in evolution as Darwin set it forth and others expounded upon. There are way too many problems with it and there is within the scientific community still disagreement on it. (Read more on that at Evolution Guy.) That being said, if any sort of evolution did occur, who is to say that God did not make that happen as well? The atheist’s insistence that God is not real because Darwin is, may just as well prove that God exists because things are happening in an orderly, intelligently designed fashion. Therefore, Darwin’s Theory – or a modified version thereof – may very well be a confirmation of God’s design and of His creative hand in the “evolution” of man. Atheists believe in God in that way, too.

Considering all of this, no matter which way you slice it, it seems to me that atheists are not atheists, but theists in disguise. They may profess that they do not believe in the God of the Bible, or the God of Islam, or in any particular god, but everything they profess faith in either proves the God of the Bible or at the very least does not disprove Him. Their own actions – which speak louder than their words – prove they are afraid of and don’t want God to exist. If I am correct and there is a God that we must answer to, then atheists have a lot to answer for as do Christians. The question is: Theists all, or just afraid of God?

© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Obama's Religion: You Will Know Him By His Fruit

The question has recently arisen, "Is Obama a Muslim?" It's a fair and valid question. Knowing someone's religious beliefs -- true religious beliefs -- tells you something about that person.

In Matthew 7:16 we see these words, "You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" We see it elsewhere in the Bible as, "As the old saying goes, 'From evildoers come evil deeds,' so my hand will not touch you." (1 Samuel 24:13), or "My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water." (James 3:12), and, "Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right." (Proverbs 20:11).

Say, for instance, your brother just announced he has recently become a Catholic. You believe he is sincere in his statement because he has been honest with you in every instance of conversation and written communication previously, so you believe his conversion to Catholicism to be genuine. You now know that he has accepted as important and -- hopefully -- factual, the teachings of the Catholic Church. That tells you that he will now be doing some predictable things: using a rosary, praying certain prayers, going to certain church services, eating certain things (or not eating them), etc. You know that he is now going to be crossing himself, wearing a Crucifix instead of an empty cross; he'll be praying to Saints and Martyrs instead of just God via Jesus Christ. You know what to expect. You're familiar with the signs and "symptoms" of being a Catholic. If your brother does not do those things, then you can seriously doubt his conversion statement as being legitimate and sincere.

Same holds true of Obama being a Christian. Obama says he is a Christian. Therefore, according to the Bible, we should see certain things from him as far as his actions and words are concerned. We should see him going to a church that teaches and preaches the Bible as the loving word of God. Instead, he spent twenty years as a member and regular attendee of the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright's, "Not God Bless America, but God d**n America!" and "America's chickens are coming home to roost!" Sitting under tutelage like that for twenty years, having the "Rev." Wright perform your marriage ceremony and baptise your daughters: Christian fruit, or hatred?

Considering that he has left Chicago and is now in the Red House (used to be the White House until a Marxist/Communist occupied it), his church going has changed. He no longer regularly attends any church. In fact, in his first year in office, he attended church only three times. So church attendance is not something that labels him a Christian. Of course, there is no truth to the fact that everyone who attends church is a Christian, nor that anyone who does not attend church is not a Christian. So with that, I will cut him some leeway. However, I must make two observations on the story linked above. 1) We are told that Obama "prays every day." So do Muslims, some Atheists, Druids, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. "[P]ray[ing] every day" proves nothing toward or against Christianity. 2) Obama supposedly gets his daily Christian lessons on his Blackberry (instead of from his Bible, but okay), but that does not mean that he reads them. Ever hear him spontaneously and accurately quote an appropriate Bible verse? Spontaneously, now, not in a scripted speech? No? Nor have I.

Let's look at some other indicators. In Malachi 3:10 we see that we are supposed to bring our tithes "into the storehouse" in obedience to God to further His kingdom. Leviticus 27:30 says for us to tithe of "everything from the land" and we are taught that one tenth of every bit of our income is supposed to go to God -- before deductions and "adjusted income" is figured. We're supposed to tithe our gross income. According to Obama's charitable donations, we see only $250 went to a church or Christian foundation/organization. The rest of his donations -- even the money from his Pulitzer Prize -- went to other kinds of non-Christian organizations. Is that being obedient to God's word? Is that how he demonstrates with the fruit he bears how much he loves the God of the Bible?

Another consideration is the story he tells of his conversion experience. What does he say about that first moment when God knocked on Obama's heart and called Obama to be His son? Where was he? How did it feel? Who else was there? What did God say? Who did Obama tell first? What happened next inside Obama's heart? How did Obama's heart change? How did Obama's actions change? What was Obama's first desire regarding Obama's service to God? How was Obama's life made different? Has anyone ever heard it and did it sound anything at all like the truth? It is in one of his books that "he wrote of it" (I put that in quotes because I am not sure it was he who wrote those books, there is evidence he did not). If it be someone else's words, then this testimony is not necessarily Obama's testimony and considering that it is not elsewhere mentioned within the book, in fact quickly forgotten, and not in evidence today, I think that the fruit of that testimony is lacking in freshness. Many have a "conversion" that lasts but a moment and no more. Many go forward in church and some even go so far as to be baptized (sometimes even to prove something to a girl within the church, or similar non-Christian motives), but unless that conversion experience changes your heart and life so that you are truly different -- and we've seen no evidence of that -- then it is not a conversion, but a show.

Does someone professing Christianity respect the Bible, quote it correctly, and follow its precepts? Or does he quote the Koran and claim it's part of the Bible, and mock the Bible? If the latter, then I would definitely say it's okay to doubt one's supposed Christianity because that person is mocking God. A true Christian does not mock God because a true Christian would be horrified at the idea of doing so, and would be too scared of the consequences. Someone who says they are a Christian would know better than to mock God. The fruit of that tree is total annhiliation via God's wrath, not the growth of God's kingdom. If the good fruit comes from the good tree, then the tree Obama is planting is a tree of death.

Questioning Obama's Christianity is legitimate because of the fact that he is hateful toward Christianity as a whole. Remember his quote, "it's not surprising that they cling to guns or religion"? Sorry, but a Christian would say that? Would a Christian say that it isn't surprising that people would be Christians? He said that it isn't "surprising that they cling to guns or religion". A Christian would down being a Christian? Is that the fruit of a good tree, or is that a thorn from a thorn tree?

Something else to take into consideration as a "fruit" is, if he is a Christian, does he preach what he supposedly practices? Does he tell others that it's good to be a Christian? Does he follow the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 -- is Obama a witness for Christ? Or does Obama say he is still a Muslim and that the Islamic call to prayer is the one of the prettiest sounds on earth? Not every Christian is an evangelist, true, but there are things God calls us to do -- the things mentioned above, amongst others -- that are all witnesses of Christ. It's how we profess our Christianity in our daily walk, as well as with our mouths that speaks to others. If Obama is a Christian, why do so many Americans -- and others throughout the world -- believe him to be otherwise when they consider the way he lives, talks, treats others and governs? Where is the impression that he is a Christian for those who are closest to him, or furthest from him?

Another consideration is the people Obama is appointing as his advisors, czars and cabinet members. Does he appoint Christians, or does he appoint Communists, Marxists and other atheists? Does Obama surround himself with solid Christian counsel, or does he surround himself with those who hate the Lord? If he surrounds himself with those who hate the Lord, where are the converts Obama has made with his Christian witness? Where are the people saying that Obama's Christian leadership and godly counsel helped save their marriage, or that his prayer brought healing to their child's illness? Where is the "cloud of witnesses" to attest to Obama's Christianity? Who does he surround himself with and when do they become his "cloud of witnesses" to Obama's love of Jesus Christ, Obama's Lord and Savior?

When President Bush was in office, he attended a Christian church regularly and few doubted he was a Christian. He spontaneously prayed with people, he was approachable and people knew he cared. He quoted the Bible not just in prepared speeches, but in his everyday language. President Bush was a known entity and hated for being so outspoken a Christian. Do a Google® search for "George W. Bush Christian" and see how many sites come up that spew hatred for Bush and his Christianity. It amazed me. When you look at Obama's supposed Christianity, then it's we who have to take Obama's word for it, and -- even though he mocks us and he scorns us and denies America is a Christian nation -- we are supposed to take Obama's word that he is a Christian.

I beg to differ. When the Bible tells us what to look for, what facts to consider, what obedience is (tithing, praying, fasting, witnessing, etc.), and we see none of the fruit the Bible tells us to take into consideration, then we can make an educated -- and Biblical -- decision that Obama is not a Christian. After all, what true Christian would ever have the "slip up" of saying, "my Muslim faith"? I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

So, is Obama a Christian? I think the Bible makes the final call on that. In Matthew 7:21 it says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." I think "Lord, Lord" is Obama's act: doing the will of God "which is in heaven" is Obama's failing.