(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
Monday, February 21, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
No More Discrimination at Taxpayer Expense!
I found a .pdf file that led to a website (http://www.brevardcounty.us/csw/) the other day that promoted something that I hate. I hate discrimination at taxpayer expense. No, not that kind of discrimination. The kind that is PC. I hate it so much I wrote to the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, to Rick Scott, and posted a blurb on my website about it. This is a copy of what Rick Scott received and what is on my website:
"February 11, 2011 I just sent this e-mail to the Brevard County Commissioners. I'm so irritated with this that I can hardly see straight:
"Commissioners,
"I found this astonishing brochure (http://citagibson.com/images/Woman_of_the_Year_Newsletter_April2009.pdf) (in .pdf format) on the internet and I was wondering: DO WE ACTUALLY SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON THIS CLAPTRAP?!!!! If so, DEFUND it. Save us some money. Let women make their own way if they want to really make it. After all, we are as strong, smart, creative, driven, resourceful and well educated as men. Why should we need TAXPAYER dollars to give us a hand? IF there are ANY TAXPAYER DOLLARS being spent on this stupidity, DEFUND this atrocity immediately. Women do not need a hand out, hand up, hand over, or any other "hand...." besides a handbag. If they do, let them be creative enough to find a way to get the money they need, the RECOGNITION they desire, the CONGRATULATIONS they crave all by themselves. To spend taxpayer dollars on this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to say the least!"
"I think you should also write to the BOCC and send the same message. We are women; not invalids. Whatever happened to the old Helen Reddy song, "I am woman, hear me roar"? Nowadays, if a woman roars, it's because she needs a handout or special recognition from a special board/panel/commission? I don't think so! If this is feminism, who wants it? Lilly-livered idiots and wimps it makes of women. Whatever happened to that frontier spirit? The spirit of WWII where women hung up their dresses and took off their heels and became welders, machinery operators, "Rosie the Riveter" is now gone. (My Great Aunt was in the Women's Air Corp, flying newly finished airplanes from the factory to the airfields.) Now women have to be coddled and have "special" treatment that men don't get because of what's between their legs? Come on! We are WOMEN! We are stronger than men (Ever see a man with a cold? I rest my case!), we have more stamina than men (they go to bed earlier than we and sleep in later than we on the weekends), and we are more determined than men. To have to have a stupid "Commission on the Status of Women" is patently absurd and ridiculous. Women across America should be outraged."
Gov. Scott, ANY taxpayer dollars being spent on this is Unconstitutional because if it can't benefit ALL taxpayers, you are playing favorites and discriminating against someone due to their gender. I call on you to stop this discrimination and to stop any funding that goes to a specific gender, race, creed, or nationality. If you do not, you are breaking the Constitution you swore to uphold. Defund all discriminatory Commissions, Panels, Boards, etc. or break the law. It's your choice and I'm holding you accountable."
I some of you will agree with me and contact both the BOCC and Gov. Scott and tell them to defund all discriminatory items that taxpayers pay for. It is unconstitutional and it is wrong.
Linda McKinney
"February 11, 2011 I just sent this e-mail to the Brevard County Commissioners. I'm so irritated with this that I can hardly see straight:
"Commissioners,
"I found this astonishing brochure (http://citagibson.com/images/Woman_of_the_Year_Newsletter_April2009.pdf) (in .pdf format) on the internet and I was wondering: DO WE ACTUALLY SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON THIS CLAPTRAP?!!!! If so, DEFUND it. Save us some money. Let women make their own way if they want to really make it. After all, we are as strong, smart, creative, driven, resourceful and well educated as men. Why should we need TAXPAYER dollars to give us a hand? IF there are ANY TAXPAYER DOLLARS being spent on this stupidity, DEFUND this atrocity immediately. Women do not need a hand out, hand up, hand over, or any other "hand...." besides a handbag. If they do, let them be creative enough to find a way to get the money they need, the RECOGNITION they desire, the CONGRATULATIONS they crave all by themselves. To spend taxpayer dollars on this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to say the least!"
"I think you should also write to the BOCC and send the same message. We are women; not invalids. Whatever happened to the old Helen Reddy song, "I am woman, hear me roar"? Nowadays, if a woman roars, it's because she needs a handout or special recognition from a special board/panel/commission? I don't think so! If this is feminism, who wants it? Lilly-livered idiots and wimps it makes of women. Whatever happened to that frontier spirit? The spirit of WWII where women hung up their dresses and took off their heels and became welders, machinery operators, "Rosie the Riveter" is now gone. (My Great Aunt was in the Women's Air Corp, flying newly finished airplanes from the factory to the airfields.) Now women have to be coddled and have "special" treatment that men don't get because of what's between their legs? Come on! We are WOMEN! We are stronger than men (Ever see a man with a cold? I rest my case!), we have more stamina than men (they go to bed earlier than we and sleep in later than we on the weekends), and we are more determined than men. To have to have a stupid "Commission on the Status of Women" is patently absurd and ridiculous. Women across America should be outraged."
Gov. Scott, ANY taxpayer dollars being spent on this is Unconstitutional because if it can't benefit ALL taxpayers, you are playing favorites and discriminating against someone due to their gender. I call on you to stop this discrimination and to stop any funding that goes to a specific gender, race, creed, or nationality. If you do not, you are breaking the Constitution you swore to uphold. Defund all discriminatory Commissions, Panels, Boards, etc. or break the law. It's your choice and I'm holding you accountable."
I some of you will agree with me and contact both the BOCC and Gov. Scott and tell them to defund all discriminatory items that taxpayers pay for. It is unconstitutional and it is wrong.
Linda McKinney
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Don't Put Your Christianity Away
Today I started taking down my Christmas decorations (well, besides the live Christmas tree: we took it down already); usually, a two day process. I have a difficult time taking my Christmas decorations down. It’s a sad thing to me. I really don’t enjoy it. I have a lot of Christmas decorations and putting them up takes about three or four days on average. This year, with my health problems, it took longer. We didn’t get everything done that I wanted done this year until Christmas Eve. Now I am taking it all down.
All the decorated garlands, the ceramics I made over the years, the wooden decorations I made years ago, the table decorations, the Santa decorations, the ribbon of vintage to antique ornaments I hang down the hall and back annually: all coming down. It is the saddest day of the year for me.
As I started the process today, for whatever reason, I started remembering the times in my life when people have asked me to put my Christianity away. Those aren’t the words they have actually said, but it’s the same thing.
While I had my own desktop publishing business, I had a client who wanted me to produce and print his resume and to put info into it that was a lie. I refused to do so. He kept trying to cajole me into lying for him, but I refused and resigned. He was shocked, flabbergasted even. He couldn’t believe that I refused to lie for him. He even went so far as to say, "Huh. And you're a Christian." He thought – for whatever reason, after whatever contact he had with other Christians he knew – that I would cave. He thought that because I was a Christian I had to be compliant. I had to be nice and do whatever he wanted me to do because Christians are that way. They’re sweet and goody-two-shoes. They do as anyone wishes. They’re pushovers and they don’t argue with anyone. If someone demands something, that’s what the Christian shall do because God tells them to be nice. They're candy-coated Christians and will melt at the touch of anyone's hand.
The multiple attempts of a local Brit to get me to sit down, shut up and let her do as she wished without opposition because she was attacking my Christianity and Christians are not supposed to put up opposition to anything is another example. Christians are not supposed to state the facts, even though they can be verified and links are given to them. Christians are not supposed to worry about -- or be involved in -- politics. Christians are supposed to stay out of politics because they’re supposed to “render unto Caesar” and all of that. Christianity is not Caesar’s: and politics, well, that’s not God’s (or that’s what they think). So we are supposed to keep out of politics and make that a “no go zone” because it’s not within our purview. When the Brit writes, she writes to attack my Christianity. She tries to make me “stand down” by implying that because I am involved in politics and I am a strong opponent, unafraid to call her on anything she says, I must not be a Christian. Christians are supposed to be compliant and wimpy. I’m too mean to be a Christian.
The latest person to think that “Christian” equals “cave in” and “compliant” was a teenage boy who came around door to door to sell me some magazines I did not need, and even though I have a “No Soliciting” sign on my screen porch door. I talked to him and his female companion for a while, got them something cold to drink (it was a warmer November day) and then said “No” to their sales pitch. I didn’t want to buy any magazines for over-inflated prices, didn’t want to help them get money to start their own business (I need money for my family’s futures, not their future). I wanted them to understand what “No Soliciting” means and if they didn’t (public schooled, I’m sure), then they were going to spend some time here and not get a dime. When I told him “No” he asked how he was supposed to get money for his business. I said, “Work harder”. As they left, he said, “I thought you said you were a Christian.”
So, according to the people I have encountered in my life –- and apparently the Christians they had previously encountered in their lives -- Christians are supposed to be willing to let lies stand; even help a liar. Christians are supposed to be willing to let politician-want-to-bes say and do whatever they want to say and do, but not stand against it. Christians are supposed to be pushovers, spending whatever it takes to help anyone who comes to the door for whatever purpose. Christians are supposed to be sickly sweet and stand for nothing, fall for anything and be willing to do whatever it takes to make people love them. We have no moral code, no commandments from God, no delineation of right and wrong that we live by, according to what these people have apparently seen of other Christians.
I don’t know about those other Christians, those who roll over and want to be liked and will do whatever it takes for someone to have a good opinion of them; let a lie stand, stay out of politics in order to be liked, be unwise with the money God has given us. I only know about myself. I shall never want to be liked by people more than I shall want to be liked by God. That’s what the Christians who roll over are doing; wanting to be liked by humans more than they want to be liked by God. It’s the old “No man can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24) thing. Christians who wish to be liked by people more than liked by God are trying to serve two masters: God and man. It’s not going to work (read all of Matthew 6:24), because people will not like you after they use you, chew you up and spit you out. God loves you all the time, even when you disobey Him.
“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” the Bible states in Joshua 24:15 and that is what I do, I shall do, and what I will never cease doing. When I read the Bible, I see Christ as a strong man, both in spirit and in obedience. Since Jesus Christ is our model of what we should be like, I see no problem in being like Him. (How strong was He to go to the cross although He was sweating drops of blood while asking if He could avoid it, "Yet not my will but thine."? [Luke 22:42]) Standing strong and standing my ground is what I am supposed to do. I am supposed to be “the salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13) and if I lose my flavor, how shall the earth have any flavor? That’s the thing. How is it supposed to help the earth – the people of the earth – if Christians roll over and cave in just to be “liked” by people? What good will it be to anyone – other people, other Christians, the whole earth – if Christians stop acting like the Christians God intends us to be?
Answer: It won’t do anyone any good. It also won’t please God.
Any time a Christian decides to roll over, to play “Christianity dead” in order to be liked by others, you do God a disservice. You displease Him and you make Him ashamed of you. God expects you to stand tall for Him, to be strong, to focus on pleasing Him, not them. Yet, Christians all over the world roll over and do whatever it takes to be liked by people. Christians play at Christianity, talking the talk, but not walking the walk. They want to be liked, to be well thought of, to be considered “in”, part of “the gang”, one of “them.” It’s not that Christians intend to do so; they just like fitting in. They don’t want to be considered a hard-liner, hard-nosed, “more religious than thou” type. So they fit in. They work at being liked. They do what needs to be done in order to make people like them.
“Huh. And you’re a Christian” is what my ex-client said to me when I wouldn’t agree to allow him to lie to potential employers on the resume I was designing for him. To have people surprised by a Christian who takes a stand and won’t do the wrong thing that the non-Christian wishes to do tells you about the state of Christianity in the world today. A “one of” among Christians: someone telling the truth, taking a stand, not giving money away foolishly. The world apparently has so very little experience with that. Why?
When was the last time you, as a Christian, took a stand and didn’t give in – not to friends, relatives, coworkers, strangers – to their pressure, their requests, their whining? When was the last time you, as a Christian, made it a point to stand strong and not give in, not roll over? When was the last time you, as a Christian, didn’t kowtow to the demands of a non-Christian (or, yes, even a Christian) in order to be liked? If you did so, if you made it a point to do so, today, tomorrow, or this week sometime, would the world end? Would your friend, relative, coworker, the stranger on the street or at your door, hate you forever? What if they did? Would it hurt? What if it does? “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13) means that you can handle the pain, the embarrassment, the shunning. You can handle it because He is with you, “The Lord is with me” (Psalm 118:6 & 7, etc.) and He will help you get through it. Besides, when God is pleased with you, who cares if people are unhappy with you? Don’t you think His pleasure is so much better, so much more, than having some person angry, disappointed, upset with you?
Christians need to be strong, adamant, belligerent even in order to please God, the One who has their eternity in hand. Pleasing people and not God – making God angry at you, ashamed of you – is so much easier here on earth, but it isn’t going to bode well for your future. God loves you more than those people who want to compromise your Christianity in order to please them and not have them angry at you. God’s love for you is endless, boundless, tireless, but that doesn’t mean that He cannot be disappointed in you. When you have taken the easy way out and you have made man happy, what does it do to your soul, your relationship with God, your self-respect?
Have you ever noticed that the word “compromise” is not in the Bible? The word doesn’t exist in the Bible because God does not compromise. God says it’s His way or damnation. Compromise is not to be made in order to have man’s pleasure. God’s Word is “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and I think that the truth is what God wishes. God does not wish Christians to compromise on the truth. God does not want Christians to lose their way. God does not wish Christians to lose their life because they choose not to follow Him.
God loves all of us: everyone ever conceived (even those aborted), God loves. He wants all of us to follow Him, to love Him, to serve Him. The “salt” comes in when we show others that our “salt” flavor is a good flavor. We cannot share that flavor when it is gone because it’s more important to have them happy with our answer, our compromise, our kowtowing. We can no more witness Christ when we do those things than we can tell them about God having a set of rules for people to follow if we compromise on those rules to start with.
I have a family member who was a professing Christian raised by Christian parents in a small town. Upon graduation this family member moved out of her parents’ house and moved in with a male without being married to him. On that day, she lost her Christian witness within that town. Whether the relationship was completely platonic or not, her Christian witness was totally worthless in that town, amongst those who knew her, among those who knew of her. The assumption was that sexual relations were happening, whether they were happening or not. After that, she lived with at least two other guys without the benefit of wedlock (although she married the last one). Christians do not do that sort of thing. That’s not something God would condone. Therefore, her Christian witness was worth as much as a wooden half-penny and she could no longer tell someone that being a Christian meant turning away from sin and toward God. No one would believe her while she was in that town and everyone knew of her lifestyle.
That’s what happens when Christians compromise on what God tells us to do, to be, to say. We are not supposed to help someone lie (nor lie ourselves) to be accepted, kowtow in order to be liked, nor waste our money in order to please someone. We are supposed to be like Christ, all aspects of Christ (driving out the money-changers to telling his own disciples that they shall not be great in heaven unless they are least [Mark 10:41-45]), not just the “sweet” part of Him.
Yes, He did forgive sins, heal the sick, raise the dead and prevent a woman being stoned. However, as we all know, He was strong, determined, obedient, acted upon His convictions (as does His Father) and He never, ever compromised. As Christians, if we are truly following Him, we should be willing and able to do the same.
As for me, I shall never compromise. I shall never put my Christianity away from me: not to be liked by someone, to fit in, to make life easier for someone else. I refuse to put my Christianity into a box, put it away and hide it from others so that their lives will be a little more comfortable. I won’t allow them to make me change my standards and accept theirs when theirs are lower than my own. My standards are those God has convicted me to set and I refuse to lower them for anyone. For a client, politician-want-to-be, or kid trying to get money out of me to expect me to change my standards (my principles) to make their lives easier is like expecting to see Hitler in heaven. It’s not going to happen.
How about you? As a Christian are you willing to compromise with man in order to be liked by him, accepted, to please them, even if they are family, friend, or coworker? Or is Christ your standard and you live to please Him? When was the last time you put your Christianity away as you do your Christmas decorations? I sincerely hope the answer is, "Never!"
All the decorated garlands, the ceramics I made over the years, the wooden decorations I made years ago, the table decorations, the Santa decorations, the ribbon of vintage to antique ornaments I hang down the hall and back annually: all coming down. It is the saddest day of the year for me.
As I started the process today, for whatever reason, I started remembering the times in my life when people have asked me to put my Christianity away. Those aren’t the words they have actually said, but it’s the same thing.
While I had my own desktop publishing business, I had a client who wanted me to produce and print his resume and to put info into it that was a lie. I refused to do so. He kept trying to cajole me into lying for him, but I refused and resigned. He was shocked, flabbergasted even. He couldn’t believe that I refused to lie for him. He even went so far as to say, "Huh. And you're a Christian." He thought – for whatever reason, after whatever contact he had with other Christians he knew – that I would cave. He thought that because I was a Christian I had to be compliant. I had to be nice and do whatever he wanted me to do because Christians are that way. They’re sweet and goody-two-shoes. They do as anyone wishes. They’re pushovers and they don’t argue with anyone. If someone demands something, that’s what the Christian shall do because God tells them to be nice. They're candy-coated Christians and will melt at the touch of anyone's hand.
The multiple attempts of a local Brit to get me to sit down, shut up and let her do as she wished without opposition because she was attacking my Christianity and Christians are not supposed to put up opposition to anything is another example. Christians are not supposed to state the facts, even though they can be verified and links are given to them. Christians are not supposed to worry about -- or be involved in -- politics. Christians are supposed to stay out of politics because they’re supposed to “render unto Caesar” and all of that. Christianity is not Caesar’s: and politics, well, that’s not God’s (or that’s what they think). So we are supposed to keep out of politics and make that a “no go zone” because it’s not within our purview. When the Brit writes, she writes to attack my Christianity. She tries to make me “stand down” by implying that because I am involved in politics and I am a strong opponent, unafraid to call her on anything she says, I must not be a Christian. Christians are supposed to be compliant and wimpy. I’m too mean to be a Christian.
The latest person to think that “Christian” equals “cave in” and “compliant” was a teenage boy who came around door to door to sell me some magazines I did not need, and even though I have a “No Soliciting” sign on my screen porch door. I talked to him and his female companion for a while, got them something cold to drink (it was a warmer November day) and then said “No” to their sales pitch. I didn’t want to buy any magazines for over-inflated prices, didn’t want to help them get money to start their own business (I need money for my family’s futures, not their future). I wanted them to understand what “No Soliciting” means and if they didn’t (public schooled, I’m sure), then they were going to spend some time here and not get a dime. When I told him “No” he asked how he was supposed to get money for his business. I said, “Work harder”. As they left, he said, “I thought you said you were a Christian.”
So, according to the people I have encountered in my life –- and apparently the Christians they had previously encountered in their lives -- Christians are supposed to be willing to let lies stand; even help a liar. Christians are supposed to be willing to let politician-want-to-bes say and do whatever they want to say and do, but not stand against it. Christians are supposed to be pushovers, spending whatever it takes to help anyone who comes to the door for whatever purpose. Christians are supposed to be sickly sweet and stand for nothing, fall for anything and be willing to do whatever it takes to make people love them. We have no moral code, no commandments from God, no delineation of right and wrong that we live by, according to what these people have apparently seen of other Christians.
I don’t know about those other Christians, those who roll over and want to be liked and will do whatever it takes for someone to have a good opinion of them; let a lie stand, stay out of politics in order to be liked, be unwise with the money God has given us. I only know about myself. I shall never want to be liked by people more than I shall want to be liked by God. That’s what the Christians who roll over are doing; wanting to be liked by humans more than they want to be liked by God. It’s the old “No man can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24) thing. Christians who wish to be liked by people more than liked by God are trying to serve two masters: God and man. It’s not going to work (read all of Matthew 6:24), because people will not like you after they use you, chew you up and spit you out. God loves you all the time, even when you disobey Him.
“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” the Bible states in Joshua 24:15 and that is what I do, I shall do, and what I will never cease doing. When I read the Bible, I see Christ as a strong man, both in spirit and in obedience. Since Jesus Christ is our model of what we should be like, I see no problem in being like Him. (How strong was He to go to the cross although He was sweating drops of blood while asking if He could avoid it, "Yet not my will but thine."? [Luke 22:42]) Standing strong and standing my ground is what I am supposed to do. I am supposed to be “the salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13) and if I lose my flavor, how shall the earth have any flavor? That’s the thing. How is it supposed to help the earth – the people of the earth – if Christians roll over and cave in just to be “liked” by people? What good will it be to anyone – other people, other Christians, the whole earth – if Christians stop acting like the Christians God intends us to be?
Answer: It won’t do anyone any good. It also won’t please God.
Any time a Christian decides to roll over, to play “Christianity dead” in order to be liked by others, you do God a disservice. You displease Him and you make Him ashamed of you. God expects you to stand tall for Him, to be strong, to focus on pleasing Him, not them. Yet, Christians all over the world roll over and do whatever it takes to be liked by people. Christians play at Christianity, talking the talk, but not walking the walk. They want to be liked, to be well thought of, to be considered “in”, part of “the gang”, one of “them.” It’s not that Christians intend to do so; they just like fitting in. They don’t want to be considered a hard-liner, hard-nosed, “more religious than thou” type. So they fit in. They work at being liked. They do what needs to be done in order to make people like them.
“Huh. And you’re a Christian” is what my ex-client said to me when I wouldn’t agree to allow him to lie to potential employers on the resume I was designing for him. To have people surprised by a Christian who takes a stand and won’t do the wrong thing that the non-Christian wishes to do tells you about the state of Christianity in the world today. A “one of” among Christians: someone telling the truth, taking a stand, not giving money away foolishly. The world apparently has so very little experience with that. Why?
When was the last time you, as a Christian, took a stand and didn’t give in – not to friends, relatives, coworkers, strangers – to their pressure, their requests, their whining? When was the last time you, as a Christian, made it a point to stand strong and not give in, not roll over? When was the last time you, as a Christian, didn’t kowtow to the demands of a non-Christian (or, yes, even a Christian) in order to be liked? If you did so, if you made it a point to do so, today, tomorrow, or this week sometime, would the world end? Would your friend, relative, coworker, the stranger on the street or at your door, hate you forever? What if they did? Would it hurt? What if it does? “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13) means that you can handle the pain, the embarrassment, the shunning. You can handle it because He is with you, “The Lord is with me” (Psalm 118:6 & 7, etc.) and He will help you get through it. Besides, when God is pleased with you, who cares if people are unhappy with you? Don’t you think His pleasure is so much better, so much more, than having some person angry, disappointed, upset with you?
Christians need to be strong, adamant, belligerent even in order to please God, the One who has their eternity in hand. Pleasing people and not God – making God angry at you, ashamed of you – is so much easier here on earth, but it isn’t going to bode well for your future. God loves you more than those people who want to compromise your Christianity in order to please them and not have them angry at you. God’s love for you is endless, boundless, tireless, but that doesn’t mean that He cannot be disappointed in you. When you have taken the easy way out and you have made man happy, what does it do to your soul, your relationship with God, your self-respect?
Have you ever noticed that the word “compromise” is not in the Bible? The word doesn’t exist in the Bible because God does not compromise. God says it’s His way or damnation. Compromise is not to be made in order to have man’s pleasure. God’s Word is “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and I think that the truth is what God wishes. God does not wish Christians to compromise on the truth. God does not want Christians to lose their way. God does not wish Christians to lose their life because they choose not to follow Him.
God loves all of us: everyone ever conceived (even those aborted), God loves. He wants all of us to follow Him, to love Him, to serve Him. The “salt” comes in when we show others that our “salt” flavor is a good flavor. We cannot share that flavor when it is gone because it’s more important to have them happy with our answer, our compromise, our kowtowing. We can no more witness Christ when we do those things than we can tell them about God having a set of rules for people to follow if we compromise on those rules to start with.
I have a family member who was a professing Christian raised by Christian parents in a small town. Upon graduation this family member moved out of her parents’ house and moved in with a male without being married to him. On that day, she lost her Christian witness within that town. Whether the relationship was completely platonic or not, her Christian witness was totally worthless in that town, amongst those who knew her, among those who knew of her. The assumption was that sexual relations were happening, whether they were happening or not. After that, she lived with at least two other guys without the benefit of wedlock (although she married the last one). Christians do not do that sort of thing. That’s not something God would condone. Therefore, her Christian witness was worth as much as a wooden half-penny and she could no longer tell someone that being a Christian meant turning away from sin and toward God. No one would believe her while she was in that town and everyone knew of her lifestyle.
That’s what happens when Christians compromise on what God tells us to do, to be, to say. We are not supposed to help someone lie (nor lie ourselves) to be accepted, kowtow in order to be liked, nor waste our money in order to please someone. We are supposed to be like Christ, all aspects of Christ (driving out the money-changers to telling his own disciples that they shall not be great in heaven unless they are least [Mark 10:41-45]), not just the “sweet” part of Him.
Yes, He did forgive sins, heal the sick, raise the dead and prevent a woman being stoned. However, as we all know, He was strong, determined, obedient, acted upon His convictions (as does His Father) and He never, ever compromised. As Christians, if we are truly following Him, we should be willing and able to do the same.
As for me, I shall never compromise. I shall never put my Christianity away from me: not to be liked by someone, to fit in, to make life easier for someone else. I refuse to put my Christianity into a box, put it away and hide it from others so that their lives will be a little more comfortable. I won’t allow them to make me change my standards and accept theirs when theirs are lower than my own. My standards are those God has convicted me to set and I refuse to lower them for anyone. For a client, politician-want-to-be, or kid trying to get money out of me to expect me to change my standards (my principles) to make their lives easier is like expecting to see Hitler in heaven. It’s not going to happen.
How about you? As a Christian are you willing to compromise with man in order to be liked by him, accepted, to please them, even if they are family, friend, or coworker? Or is Christ your standard and you live to please Him? When was the last time you put your Christianity away as you do your Christmas decorations? I sincerely hope the answer is, "Never!"
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Happy New Year!
Just a note to say, "Happy New Year!" My wish for you this year is a very CONSERVATIVE New Year; the resignations of pelsoi, reid, rangle and obamination; a CONSERVATIVE Tea Party House and Senate and a bright, constant smile on your face because CONSERVATISM is best for America!
God bless you and yours this New Year and good health to you!
God bless you and yours this New Year and good health to you!
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours...
And when the season 'tis full past,
and all the eggnog is gone at last,
and sugary sweet, cookies, cakes,
have gone and all their vengeance take,
may your New Year's Resolutions hold,
and make of resolutions truth you told.
Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours...
Of family time and memories
to be recalled, and "jollily"
renew your laughter and lend a smile,
tying hearts together all the while,
as time flies by and leaves a sigh,
of contented thoughts of times gone by.
Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours.
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
and may true joy fill the hours...
And when the season 'tis full past,
and all the eggnog is gone at last,
and sugary sweet, cookies, cakes,
have gone and all their vengeance take,
may your New Year's Resolutions hold,
and make of resolutions truth you told.
Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours...
Of family time and memories
to be recalled, and "jollily"
renew your laughter and lend a smile,
tying hearts together all the while,
as time flies by and leaves a sigh,
of contented thoughts of times gone by.
Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours.
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Monday, December 6, 2010
E Pluribus Unum
"E Pluribus Unum"
And so on they say,
"Out of many, one"
And believe what you may
It won’t be one from many,
It’s not built that way
Its shape changed years ago
When power corrupted, blinded, swayed.
"E Pluribus Unum"
The intent of the Fathers
No longer a factor,
Considered but not obeyed.
Discarded by those who wished,
Planned to take what they may.
And "Unum" no longer existed:
Dreams from the Fathers dismayed.
"E Pluribus" turned away
From what the Founders did say.
"Unum" lost, pulled apart, torn,
Ripped from the future as well as the past,
"Unum" trampled upon by those
Who rewrite history,
Destroy the future for their want:
Power is their drug.
And addiction rules those who have it too long;
Gathering possessions, influence,
In hope to belong,
They betray grandchildren’s hopes, rights --
Prosperity stumbles -- and grandma was in power.
"E Pluribus" and "Unum" no longer talk.
Freedom for "Pluribus" just a word,
"Unum" took it all away,
Ground it into dust, soft, silky powder,
Light, floating, blowing:
Disappeared in the wind of "Unum’s" rule.
"E Pluribus Unum" escapes the lips of rulers
(As they laugh behind their eyes) and speak
Of what they will do to help all,
Favoring only their voters, helpers,
Friends, supporters, and lie to "Pluribus" again.
"E Pluribus Unum" had its blood spilled
Long ago, slow trickle at first, then
Over the wooden benches of the House
And Senate, pumped steadily onto the sidewalk,
Down the pavement, Congress’s twinkling eyes,
Laughing, as they wrote more laws,
Favored more their own,
Making "Unum" of themselves;
The rest to be the servants of the one.
Fiefdom, serfdom, servitude:
Citizens shall obey.
Or face the wrath
Of government’s path
And of "E Pluribus Unum"
Our lives shall go the same way.
"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"
"E Pluribus Unum" has gone that way.
Forever our future determined by "Unum" --
Until, sackcloth wrapped, "E Pluribus" discovers
Its voice again and stands against "Unum’s" full sway.
Consider the future and look to the past
For all things depend upon this:
Independence was won, not just with muskets --
‘Twas words first shot that fired --
When – if ever – our story shall change
And "E Pluribus Unum" takes long lost breath,
No blood need be let,
Nor bodies to bury,
But "wounds" shall be plenty;
And words start the story
Of "E Pluribus Unum’s" return!
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
And so on they say,
"Out of many, one"
And believe what you may
It won’t be one from many,
It’s not built that way
Its shape changed years ago
When power corrupted, blinded, swayed.
"E Pluribus Unum"
The intent of the Fathers
No longer a factor,
Considered but not obeyed.
Discarded by those who wished,
Planned to take what they may.
And "Unum" no longer existed:
Dreams from the Fathers dismayed.
"E Pluribus" turned away
From what the Founders did say.
"Unum" lost, pulled apart, torn,
Ripped from the future as well as the past,
"Unum" trampled upon by those
Who rewrite history,
Destroy the future for their want:
Power is their drug.
And addiction rules those who have it too long;
Gathering possessions, influence,
In hope to belong,
They betray grandchildren’s hopes, rights --
Prosperity stumbles -- and grandma was in power.
"E Pluribus" and "Unum" no longer talk.
Freedom for "Pluribus" just a word,
"Unum" took it all away,
Ground it into dust, soft, silky powder,
Light, floating, blowing:
Disappeared in the wind of "Unum’s" rule.
"E Pluribus Unum" escapes the lips of rulers
(As they laugh behind their eyes) and speak
Of what they will do to help all,
Favoring only their voters, helpers,
Friends, supporters, and lie to "Pluribus" again.
"E Pluribus Unum" had its blood spilled
Long ago, slow trickle at first, then
Over the wooden benches of the House
And Senate, pumped steadily onto the sidewalk,
Down the pavement, Congress’s twinkling eyes,
Laughing, as they wrote more laws,
Favored more their own,
Making "Unum" of themselves;
The rest to be the servants of the one.
Fiefdom, serfdom, servitude:
Citizens shall obey.
Or face the wrath
Of government’s path
And of "E Pluribus Unum"
Our lives shall go the same way.
"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"
"E Pluribus Unum" has gone that way.
Forever our future determined by "Unum" --
Until, sackcloth wrapped, "E Pluribus" discovers
Its voice again and stands against "Unum’s" full sway.
Consider the future and look to the past
For all things depend upon this:
Independence was won, not just with muskets --
‘Twas words first shot that fired --
When – if ever – our story shall change
And "E Pluribus Unum" takes long lost breath,
No blood need be let,
Nor bodies to bury,
But "wounds" shall be plenty;
And words start the story
Of "E Pluribus Unum’s" return!
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Saturday, November 27, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)