Last month I proved that maureen rupe lied about SC HB 277, the Fetal Pain Bill, in the March edition of the pooper-paper. She said that the bill gave a rapist rights to a child conceived during the rape. Not only was that a lie, it was proven to her and to the owner of the pooper-paper that it was a lie. I sent the bill, in its entirety, to both of them and had an iota of an expectation of seeing a correction or retraction in this month’s paper. If not a correction or retraction, I thought an addendum of further comment was necessary. You know, like Congress gets to “Reserve the right to revise and extend” their remarks? Yeah. Something like that. It wouldn’t mean that the rupester would have had to admit that she had done anything wrong, it would have been further comment on the issue.
Too bad I have higher expectations of rupester than apparently she does of herself. In this month’s pooper-paper (at the time of this writing, not yet available online), there is no correction, no apology, no effort to “revise and extend” (not even to blame the source of her erroneous information whose link she gave). She totally ignores last month’s LIE, writing as though it never happened. No mention. No “in retrospect”. Nada.
If the rupester would not write an apology for the error, I wondered if the owner of the pooper-paper would do so. Him? Nope. Although he knew that rupester had lied. Although I sent the bill to him and proved to him – if he took the time and made the effort to read it or even do a word search on it – that rupester lied, he chose to ignore the lie and let the lie stand.
To me, that tells you what the truth means to those two: rupester and the owner of the pooper-paper. It means nothing. It holds no sacredness. It matters less than a dot. It has no meaning and no honor. The truth is worthless to them if it does not serve their progressive purposes.
What alarms me most about all of this is the fact that there are those out there who took as fact the lie that rupester wrote. Some people bothered to look up the truth, finding the lie on their own. Others, fortunate enough to have a friend who reads my site, found out the truth via a friend and my site. Others, unfortunately, had nothing but the rupester’s words to consider as the truth. Of course, being in a supposed “newspaper”, some people believe that – of course – it must be the truth. Newspapers don’t publish lies. They only deal in the truth. Of course, that’s if they consider the pooper-paper a “newspaper”.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists’ website, journalists should:
“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.”
If you read the website, you find out that the truth matters to real newspapers and to real journalists (apparently that leaves out a very wide swatch of currently employed “reporters”). They state that, “Deliberate distortion is never permissible.” Unless you’re working for the pooper-paper, or some other progressive rag, the truth is supposed to matter. Deliberate distortions -- or anything short of the diligent, full, absolute truth -- are outside of the journalistic realm of possibility.
Well, so much for that idea.
In this month’s pooper-paper, rupester takes on both Rush Limbaugh and I and fails at both.
She writes that Rush Limbaugh should have “kept his mouth shut” regarding his reaction to the Sandra Fluke statements. Rush said that Ms Fluke was a “prostitute and a slut”. rupester says that now Rush is losing advertisers, big time.
Well, she’s not just stupid, she’s wrong. She could have checked the facts prior to posting her opinion on the issue, but she doesn’t care about the facts. Fact is, Rush is not hurting from his words, according to this Washington Post article. It states, “Contrary to the wishful thinking of the professional special interest groups, reports of sponsors fleeing the ‘Rush Limbaugh Show’ are grossly exaggerated. In fact, the program retains virtually of all its long-term sponsors who continue to have great success”. So when rupester says that Rush “wishes he had kept his mouth shut”, she’s not just wrong, she’s very wrong. Rush’s ratings are up, way up in many markets. Too bad rupester hadn’t checked her facts prior to writing her silliness. She could have prevented herself from looking foolish regarding her “kept his mouth shut” idea.
When she mentions the “blog that said this was free speech, and the old adage ‘sticks & stones’ applies and the young lady in question should not be offended as it will make her stronger”, that’s moi. She misquotes me a little, but that’s not to be a surprise. What I actually said was,
“March 7, 2012 Bill Maher has reasons for supporting Rush. I just support Rush. It's called "Free Speech" First Amendment protected. He's allowed to call names because they "will never hurt" her. He's not using "sticks and stones" so what is the problem? Rush is allowed to say, "slut and prostitute". What doesn't kill her makes her stronger, right? I think so. Besides, Rush getting involved is getting ms "pay for our birth control" fluke more attention than otherwise. It's free publicity for her cause. She's not unhappy with it. She knew he'd have to comment on the issue, she just didn't know it could be milked this long. The Wrongies went home and celebrated, partied and e-mailed back and forth all night for two nights because they were so excited. Trust me. Do a FOIA request for that and you bet your sweet bottom dollar that the e-mails will prove me correct.”
So where in there do I say that ”the young lady in question should not be offended”? I didn’t. rupester, of course, takes a little “poetic license” and writes whatever she thinks will do me the most damage. Too bad she fails in that, too.
Then there’s the hypocrisy of her last paragraph in which she laments, “The fact is, words do matter. They can be lethal as a knife stab in the body.” She then goes on with, “In discussions, in my opinion, when it goes from a debate to personal insults, then the attacker has lost the argument, and the discussion is over.”
Oh?
Does she have any recollection at all of her parting-shot article from her D1 Commie campaign? If not, let’s refresh your memory. rupester wrote:
"The Primary Election
"Thank you to all my friends and neighbors who voted for me in the primary. As for the nasty little group of former PSJ Civic League that found it necessary to have two websites opposing me, I could forgive them if they had argued the facts. To use twisted logic and downright lies to control an election is shameful and deceitful. One site was like a Nazi or Skinhead hate site, unbelievably malicious and vindictive, but the woman in question has harassed me for 14 years and I have kept the proof. Every time I worked for the benefit of the community, her hatred of me grew. She opposed the referendum for the ball fields, community center, Fay Lake Wilderness Park, as well as the Community Police Unit. She has attacked almost every community leader in Port St. John. Her name is Linda McKinney. Now, even after I lost the primary, I am receiving hate mail, the content and phrases of which are the same rhetoric as her site, which shows how dangerous hate sites can be.
"What concerns me most is the owner of the other website, Pete Costello, has now taken out a Political Action Committee on another person running for office who has worked for many years for the PSJ Community. So does this mean that all a radical group has to do is work against any candidate with smear campaigns, and they can control an election? Freedom of speech does not mean you can lie, harass and maliciously slander and libel.
"I have been threatened that I had better stop appearing before the county commission or any other entity, along with a barrage of personal insults, as well as being told to go back to England and leave everyone in PSJ the hell alone. Whoever you are, take time to read the U.S. Constitution. I am an American. You will never take away my rights because I will never hand them over. Cheerio!
"- Maureen Rupe"
So rupester herself resorted to “personal insults” in her post primary article. I was “like a Nazi or Skinhead hate site, unbelievably malicious and vindictive”. I “harassed [her] for 14 years and [rupester has] kept the proof.” Right. I am a Nazi Skinhead, malicious, vindictive harasser. Trying to hold someone to a set of standards in the public discourse is bad according to the rupester. It’s not something she likes. Whenever anyone proves something negative about rupester, she has to fight back with a personal mention in the pooper-paper. Accordingly, this month rupester had to write something bad about me.
I e-mailed rupester and the pooper-paper’s owner/publisher the truth about the article rupester outright LIED about in last month’s bird cage liner in plenty of time for them to get the correction or retraction into the April edition ahead of their 18th of the month deadline. Both refused to write the truth or publish the truth, or even correct or retract the BLATANT LIE that rupester told. That was their choice.
If the truth doesn’t matter to the pooper-paper then, as with Rush and his paying the price for his words, why should anyone bother reading the pooper-paper? If no one is reading it because they want the truth, not just the Wrongie agenda, why would anyone advertise in it? If, according to rupester’s gleeful tidbit, Rush should be losing advertisers because of his choice of words, shouldn’t the pooper-paper also lose advertisers because of theirs?
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Something Suspicious This Way Comes
On May 2, 2011, the death of Osama bin Laden was reported. Those responsible for the death of the terrorist were hailed as heroes. Seal Team Six was the group that entered bin Laden’s complex and made the final call.
Three months later, Seal Team Six was decimated by the death of almost a dozen of the Team members as their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan. God rest their souls, comfort their loved ones and we will never forget them. Semper Fi!
Since that date, Aug. 6, 2011, I have had the uneasy feeling that I’ve heard that story before; as did my husband.
According to Christopher Ruddy, Bill Clintoon’s Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, was killed on an airplane in Croatia. According to the official reports, the plane Brown was on slammed into a mountainside as they approached the airport of Dubrovnik. One “survivor” was found by the Croatian rescuers first on scene, but later American reports said that all died on impact. That’s a bit suspicious. But, if you read the report at the link, there’s so much more.
Consider also the Aviation Weekly stories that raise questions as to the veracity of the stories released by the MSM and the Clintoon administration. Considering this – and considering that the Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton – what are the chances that since we didn’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it?
The obamination administration refuses to release the pictures of a dead Osama bin Laden. Although being sued by Judicial Watch for the pictures, obamination steadfastly refuses to release the alleged pictures.
After allegedly killing bin Laden, obamination ordered bin Laden’s body buried at sea – supposedly in accord with the dictates of the Koran/Quran. If you read the book, it says nothing of burial at sea and according to Islamic scholars, it is not “respectful”.
A death whose pictures will not be released: a burial whose witnesses have never come forward; a burial of a body whose DNA could never be tested; and soon thereafter, the death of the elite forces who allegedly brought bin Laden to his just desserts. No one can either confirm or deny that Seal Team Six actually killed bin Laden, nor that they were ordered to take him alive.
There’s the rub.
What if?
What if Seal Team Six was ordered to capture bin Laden and bring him to a designated place so that the administration may try to get information out of him? Or, contrariwise, the administration would congratulate him on his following of the Koran/Quran and keep bin Laden comfortably provided for in a French chalet somewhere, with servants and good food and wine; all that he wants at American taxpayer expense? All under the guise of using his information for defense purposes, but in actuality, using our money to thank him for a job well done?
Consider: If you have the ability to find your biggest enemy, order his death and actually carry it out, wouldn’t you release all information possible – including pictures – in order to plant the feather firmly into your cap and ensure the public’s good opinion and hero-worship of you? With an ego as big as obamination’s would he not be the one person in all the world who would do exactly that: pictures, details, speeches by the Seal Team that made it all happen? Yet none of that has happened. Extremes of egotism such as obamination’s would dictate the actions if at all possible. Have you seen any of those things? Yet with everything else obamination does – or pretends to do (religion, health care, gas prices, “lower” unemployment, a “better economy”, etc., etc.), -- he relishes the admiration, the praise, the belief in the Almighty One. With the death of bin Laden, nothing. No admiration. No songs. No celebratory parties at the Red House (and we all know how much the obaminations love to party!).
Why?
Ever hear anyone on the ship that allegedly dumped – I mean buried -- the body at sea say anything about it? Is there a story anywhere that the shipmates have reported on the burial? Any of the people on the ship ever say anything on Facebook, Twitter, or hinted at it in a blog? Or is there something that the Captain has ordered to keep them quiet about it? Even with orders, though, something that big happening must soon slip somewhere into a sly little comment, a backwards reference, a nod to the fact that bin Laden’s body let air escape as it slid down the board. There should be something in the air, some little buzz: at the very least immediately following the burial it should have been a little lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). Reality: nothing.
The death of Seal Team Six conveniently prevented any of the Team from denying or confirming the claim. With their deaths, bin Laden’s alleged death details were obliterated. All chances of anyone refuting the story that the administration has put out is gone. Their death is a little too convenient and a little too cushy for my taste.
The fact is, other sources say that my theory is possible.
Remember how many of the Clintoon’s previous associates died suspiciously? Now we have a Clintoon as Secretary of State. Who deals with the Foreign Policy of the United States of America? Who handles the relationship with the Middle East? Where was Osama bin Laden? Where was bin Laden allegedly killed? Where was Seal Team Six killed? Where is the proof (pictures, etc.) that bin Laden was killed as alleged? Where are the slips of the tongue incidents that follow a major development of that sort?
Why is the obamination administration fighting in court to prevent those pictures from being released – at the very least to an independent organization, Judicial Watch, who can confirm or deny the accuracy of the administration’s assertions?
Why has the Middle East gone silent on the subject as well? Considering how “beloved” bin Laden was in the Al Qaeda network, how rich he was, how respected and adored he allegedly was within the Muslim community due to the fact that he successfully attacked “the Great Satan” several times, why are they not still mourning his death in public and still voicing their disapproval?
One final thing to ponder: I think that’s the most telling thing. It’s election time. When was the last time you heard obamination crowing – yodeling even – the reminder that he killed Osama bin Laden? With an ego as big as obamination’s, doesn’t that silence speak volumes?
Three months later, Seal Team Six was decimated by the death of almost a dozen of the Team members as their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan. God rest their souls, comfort their loved ones and we will never forget them. Semper Fi!
Since that date, Aug. 6, 2011, I have had the uneasy feeling that I’ve heard that story before; as did my husband.
According to Christopher Ruddy, Bill Clintoon’s Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, was killed on an airplane in Croatia. According to the official reports, the plane Brown was on slammed into a mountainside as they approached the airport of Dubrovnik. One “survivor” was found by the Croatian rescuers first on scene, but later American reports said that all died on impact. That’s a bit suspicious. But, if you read the report at the link, there’s so much more.
Consider also the Aviation Weekly stories that raise questions as to the veracity of the stories released by the MSM and the Clintoon administration. Considering this – and considering that the Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton – what are the chances that since we didn’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it?
The obamination administration refuses to release the pictures of a dead Osama bin Laden. Although being sued by Judicial Watch for the pictures, obamination steadfastly refuses to release the alleged pictures.
After allegedly killing bin Laden, obamination ordered bin Laden’s body buried at sea – supposedly in accord with the dictates of the Koran/Quran. If you read the book, it says nothing of burial at sea and according to Islamic scholars, it is not “respectful”.
A death whose pictures will not be released: a burial whose witnesses have never come forward; a burial of a body whose DNA could never be tested; and soon thereafter, the death of the elite forces who allegedly brought bin Laden to his just desserts. No one can either confirm or deny that Seal Team Six actually killed bin Laden, nor that they were ordered to take him alive.
There’s the rub.
What if?
What if Seal Team Six was ordered to capture bin Laden and bring him to a designated place so that the administration may try to get information out of him? Or, contrariwise, the administration would congratulate him on his following of the Koran/Quran and keep bin Laden comfortably provided for in a French chalet somewhere, with servants and good food and wine; all that he wants at American taxpayer expense? All under the guise of using his information for defense purposes, but in actuality, using our money to thank him for a job well done?
Consider: If you have the ability to find your biggest enemy, order his death and actually carry it out, wouldn’t you release all information possible – including pictures – in order to plant the feather firmly into your cap and ensure the public’s good opinion and hero-worship of you? With an ego as big as obamination’s would he not be the one person in all the world who would do exactly that: pictures, details, speeches by the Seal Team that made it all happen? Yet none of that has happened. Extremes of egotism such as obamination’s would dictate the actions if at all possible. Have you seen any of those things? Yet with everything else obamination does – or pretends to do (religion, health care, gas prices, “lower” unemployment, a “better economy”, etc., etc.), -- he relishes the admiration, the praise, the belief in the Almighty One. With the death of bin Laden, nothing. No admiration. No songs. No celebratory parties at the Red House (and we all know how much the obaminations love to party!).
Why?
Ever hear anyone on the ship that allegedly dumped – I mean buried -- the body at sea say anything about it? Is there a story anywhere that the shipmates have reported on the burial? Any of the people on the ship ever say anything on Facebook, Twitter, or hinted at it in a blog? Or is there something that the Captain has ordered to keep them quiet about it? Even with orders, though, something that big happening must soon slip somewhere into a sly little comment, a backwards reference, a nod to the fact that bin Laden’s body let air escape as it slid down the board. There should be something in the air, some little buzz: at the very least immediately following the burial it should have been a little lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). Reality: nothing.
The death of Seal Team Six conveniently prevented any of the Team from denying or confirming the claim. With their deaths, bin Laden’s alleged death details were obliterated. All chances of anyone refuting the story that the administration has put out is gone. Their death is a little too convenient and a little too cushy for my taste.
The fact is, other sources say that my theory is possible.
Remember how many of the Clintoon’s previous associates died suspiciously? Now we have a Clintoon as Secretary of State. Who deals with the Foreign Policy of the United States of America? Who handles the relationship with the Middle East? Where was Osama bin Laden? Where was bin Laden allegedly killed? Where was Seal Team Six killed? Where is the proof (pictures, etc.) that bin Laden was killed as alleged? Where are the slips of the tongue incidents that follow a major development of that sort?
Why is the obamination administration fighting in court to prevent those pictures from being released – at the very least to an independent organization, Judicial Watch, who can confirm or deny the accuracy of the administration’s assertions?
Why has the Middle East gone silent on the subject as well? Considering how “beloved” bin Laden was in the Al Qaeda network, how rich he was, how respected and adored he allegedly was within the Muslim community due to the fact that he successfully attacked “the Great Satan” several times, why are they not still mourning his death in public and still voicing their disapproval?
One final thing to ponder: I think that’s the most telling thing. It’s election time. When was the last time you heard obamination crowing – yodeling even – the reminder that he killed Osama bin Laden? With an ego as big as obamination’s, doesn’t that silence speak volumes?
Monday, January 30, 2012
Another Song of "Liberty"
Another song of “liberty”
Raised its voice today
Lifting high its banner
It bids us, “Come, this way!”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
Yet in this song of “liberty”
There’s no mention of Freedom’s Rights
Its only words are “Take it!
You want it! Use force! Use might!”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
In Freedom’s words – though fleeting –
Are history’s greatest themes
Though history’s taken a beating
And there is no “wrong” in “right”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
Another song of “liberty”
Raised up its voice today.
Some heard a Marxist echo
Some heard, “I’ve got my way!”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
How much of Freedom’s TRUTH
Will we allow to disappear
Before we – courage righted –
Stand up in face of fear?
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Raised its voice today
Lifting high its banner
It bids us, “Come, this way!”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
Yet in this song of “liberty”
There’s no mention of Freedom’s Rights
Its only words are “Take it!
You want it! Use force! Use might!”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
In Freedom’s words – though fleeting –
Are history’s greatest themes
Though history’s taken a beating
And there is no “wrong” in “right”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
Another song of “liberty”
Raised up its voice today.
Some heard a Marxist echo
Some heard, “I’ve got my way!”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
How much of Freedom’s TRUTH
Will we allow to disappear
Before we – courage righted –
Stand up in face of fear?
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Friday, January 20, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
A Christmas Tribute to Our Troops
Christmas Tree Boots
© 2011 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Filled with dirt,
Frozen through,
It started there,
In WW two.
Tradition: it starts somewhere.
A friend had died,
Though not alone,
And given up
His boots to Jones.
Christmas: it started there.
Rhoades took the boots
And dug the dirt,
And carried it
Wrapped in his shirt.
Stacking: starting with Jones’.
And from there
It all began,
Tradition passed
From Man to Man.
Trees: from shoes one owns.
In the circle,
Toes pointing out,
Recall the names
That it’s about.
Filling: support to give.
Ten to eight,
Eight to six,
Six to four,
Soon it’s fixed.
Single: from one who lives.
A soldier’s boot
Now stands tall
For Christmas-time
Has come to all.
Tree: dirt-filled soldiers’ boots.
In frozen snow,
Or sandy desert,
It helps to ease
A soldier’s hurt
Normalcy: our own roots.
When next you see
A soldier brave
Remember thank them,
Salute their grave.
Freedom: won day by day.
Even on Christmas
They gave their all,
Served our country,
Answered the call.
Sacrifice: the price they pay.
Imagine now
The soldiers’ boots,
Stacked up tall,
First owners mute.
Blood: red and green contrast.
© 2011 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Filled with dirt,
Frozen through,
It started there,
In WW two.
Tradition: it starts somewhere.
A friend had died,
Though not alone,
And given up
His boots to Jones.
Christmas: it started there.
Rhoades took the boots
And dug the dirt,
And carried it
Wrapped in his shirt.
Stacking: starting with Jones’.
And from there
It all began,
Tradition passed
From Man to Man.
Trees: from shoes one owns.
In the circle,
Toes pointing out,
Recall the names
That it’s about.
Filling: support to give.
Ten to eight,
Eight to six,
Six to four,
Soon it’s fixed.
Single: from one who lives.
A soldier’s boot
Now stands tall
For Christmas-time
Has come to all.
Tree: dirt-filled soldiers’ boots.
In frozen snow,
Or sandy desert,
It helps to ease
A soldier’s hurt
Normalcy: our own roots.
When next you see
A soldier brave
Remember thank them,
Salute their grave.
Freedom: won day by day.
Even on Christmas
They gave their all,
Served our country,
Answered the call.
Sacrifice: the price they pay.
Imagine now
The soldiers’ boots,
Stacked up tall,
First owners mute.
Blood: red and green contrast.
Monday, December 19, 2011
American Community Survey: AN UPDATE
The doorbell rang about thirty minutes ago. My hubby went to find out what the man at the door wanted. Turns out he worked for the Census Bureau. The guy asked if we had received the ACS and hubby said that we had. Hubby told the Census worker why we had not returned the questionnaire: too invasive. Hubby also asked the Census worker if the Census worker had ever read the questions and the answer was no. The Census worker had a computer that showed how many times they had called us and all of that information. Census worker said that if you don't want to answer the questions you don't have to all they needed was our name.
Excuse me?! What about the written threat that is printed ON the ACS that it is required by law that we respond? What happened to that? Back in 1962, a guy named Rickenbacker was convicted of not answering the questions. But nowadays, with the Tea Party and people becoming more aware of the liberties they have been losing over the last forty years, people have started standing up to the government and refusing to cooperate with the government's invasion of our privacy, property rights and religious freedoms. In other words, the people learning their rights and the U.S. Constitution is doing the people some good! That frightens the government.
I also think that it's very telling that the Census worker told hubby that he's also working a government survey that asks the citizens how much they spend on groceries!! Can you imagine the government actually needing that information? I won't respond to that one, either!
I'll let you know if there is any further action taken by the Census Bureau. I don't trust them.
Excuse me?! What about the written threat that is printed ON the ACS that it is required by law that we respond? What happened to that? Back in 1962, a guy named Rickenbacker was convicted of not answering the questions. But nowadays, with the Tea Party and people becoming more aware of the liberties they have been losing over the last forty years, people have started standing up to the government and refusing to cooperate with the government's invasion of our privacy, property rights and religious freedoms. In other words, the people learning their rights and the U.S. Constitution is doing the people some good! That frightens the government.
I also think that it's very telling that the Census worker told hubby that he's also working a government survey that asks the citizens how much they spend on groceries!! Can you imagine the government actually needing that information? I won't respond to that one, either!
I'll let you know if there is any further action taken by the Census Bureau. I don't trust them.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Biblically Speaking, Women CAN Be President!
During the John “Reach Across the Aisle” McCain/Sarah Palin candidacy I heard many reasons why people would not vote for the ticket, but mainly would not vote for her. Some didn’t like the fact that she was so sure of herself (lame excuse). Some didn’t like the fact that she was so Conservative (lame). Some didn’t like the fact that she was “inexperienced” (want “inexperienced” look at who is president now). But of all the lame excuses I heard – on election night, no less – was when my friend told me that he – or some men he knew – could not make themselves vote for McCain/Palin because of the Bible.
Excuse me?
The Bible, they said. The Bible!
What was explained to me, utterly to my surprise and disgust, was that men could not vote for Sarah Palin because women should not “have authority over men”. That was their argument. That was their defense. That was the part of the Bible they threw out there for me to pounce upon. I say “pounce upon” advisedly. All they did was to throw me a ball to knock out of the park.
In I Timothy, Chapter 2: “9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
“10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
“12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
“13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
“14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression.
“15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
In my Bible, “The Holy Bible” KJV, Reference Edition by Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1989 Thomas Nelson, Inc., the above passage appears on page 993 in the second column and is headed, “Women in Public Worship”. I want you to pay attention to that heading.
The book is written by Paul to Timothy and it covers everything from the conduct of a minister to the correct way to do prayer in a public worship. It talks about how we should not “give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith”. It talks about qualifications for Bishops, Deacons and how to treat your elders, what a false teacher is, how to treat widows and it talks about how to behave yourself in the House of GOD. Oh, yes. It also has the above statements about women.
Now, I ask you to recall the subject header over the section starting with verse nine: “Women in Public Worship”. I ask that you keep that in mind; “public worship”. For it is in Judges 4, we see that GOD ordained a woman to be a Judge over all the people. See Judges 4:3-5:
4:3 “And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
4:4 “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
4:5 “And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in mount Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. [my bolding]”
Deborah was a judge! She made decisions for the people based upon the Word of GOD. She had no restrictions on her about whether she was supposed to have “authority” over men. Why? There were no restrictions because she was not making her judgments in the temple, but rather, in the gates. She took GOD’s word outside of the temple where the priests were, and she decided what was what. We are allowed to do that, even in the Old Testament, and yet nowadays some people – men and women – believe that women should not be in any position of authority over any man. I beg to differ.
Deborah’s judgments were apparently fair and even-handed because she was a judge of the people until they were carried away into slavery in Midian.
Let us also not forget that she was a prophetess, and as such, used by GOD to tell Israel what was going to happen. She was consulted by regular people as well as by the king, Barak, and even went into battle with him because he was afraid of his enemy.
Sound to you as if GOD thought women should not have any authority over men? Was she not the one who decided issues that men brought to her as well as women? It does say she judged “Israel” and Israel is made up of more than just women.
Look at Proverbs 31:10-31: “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.” That’s how it starts. In this segment, it says that woman “seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands” (13), so we know she is involved in making their clothes and the buying of the supplies for such things. She cooks (15), she buys land with what she makes and plants vineyards (16), she is strong (17), she knows the worth of her merchandise so that she doesn’t get ripped off by unscrupulous people and she works through the night (18). A virtuous woman also gives to the poor and needy (20), has made sure that her household is clothed in warmth during the winter (21), she wears nice clothes (22) and all of this allows her husband to sit among the elders and relax (23). She participates in other business deals (24), is honorable (25), and wise and kind (26), is not idle (27), her children and husband call her blessed (28), she fears the Lord (30), and her works shall “praise her in the gates” (31).
In the Old Testament it’s okay for a woman to be a judge and prophetess, and it’s apparently expected that “virtuous” women be involved in all kinds of business. This sounds to me as if a woman is considered the equal to a man outside of the temple.
Women are a big part of the Bible (Eve, Hannah, Ruth, Esther, Rachel, Mary, Mary Magdalene and others), and are given major parts to play, not just in the roles of mother and wife, but also in the protection of and saving of the people of GOD, the Nation of Israel. If women were considered second rate citizens by GOD, why would He use them for so much of His work? Why even bother allowing them to be mentioned in the Bible? Why would Jesus Christ’s female followers have been mentioned so frequently and used so much in His ministry? Females were the first to see Him after His resurrection and they told the male members of the group of followers: even the eleven main male disciples that were left (remember Judas Iscariot hanged himself).
In the New Testament, women are treated as equals outside of the temple. Women are prophetesses (see note 1) and they are used by GOD to set forth His will. In the case of Anna, in Luke 2:36-38, she is mentioned as being in the temple and “departed not from the temple, but served GOD with fastings and prayers night and day.” She is mentioned as being in the temple serving GOD, but it does not say that she was anyone with authority over anyone else. She is said to have recognized Christ when she saw him and of witnessing of Him thereafter (38). It never states that Anna had any kind of authority over anyone within the temple. She fasted and prayed.
Now back to that heading: “Women in Public Worship”.
When Paul writes in I Timothy of the role of women in the church, he writes (2:12), “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Notice that word, “usurp”. In the Easton Bible Dictionary definition of “usurp” we have the definition: “1. (v. t.) To seize, and hold by force, or without right; as, to usurp a throne; to usurp power; to usurp the right of a patron is to oust or dispossess him.” Paul is writing that women in the church should not be teaching nor usurping – seizing – authority over men. Women should not teach men nor boss them around in the church!
Paul was not saying that women outside the church cannot have authority (witness Deborah, the prophetesses and the “virtuous woman” defined in Proverbs 31). He was saying that inside the church – as GOD set up in the family – the men should be the head and not the tail (31:13-14). Women are allowed to be a big part of the church. Women are allowed to teach inside the church, just not teach men. Women are used by GOD all the time and throughout history. Paul was just saying that inside a church they are to be modestly arrayed (I think it helps prevent others from coveting and being jealous, cutting back on cattiness), they are to do good works (playing the piano, singing in choir, helping clean the church, etc.), should learn from men instead of teaching men (they can teach children and other women, just not men), and that’s all. Women should not be bossy female dogs in church. That’s what Paul was saying.
As to a female president? According to the Bible – witness Deborah and others – women are on equal footing throughout the Bible as political leaders, in business, in ability, strength, wisdom, integrity, courage (Esther), kindness (Ruth), favor (Mary, mother of Christ), and all other ways. For men to not vote for Sarah Palin because of her gender is not just wrong, it’s wrong in GOD’s eyes, too! Sarah Palin was not asking you to allow her to teach you your religion, to be your pastor, she was asking you if you would trust her to govern – as did Deborah – the country fairly, justly and wisely, with strength and courage, with discernment and with guidance from GOD as the prophetesses of the Bible demonstrated women can have. That’s what Sarah Palin was asking. She was not asking to be your intercessor with GOD, she was asking simply if you would trust the next four years of the leadership of this country – not your souls – to her care.
The same is being asked of you by Michele Bachman. Do not allow one very small section in the Bible – seven verses only – that speak of what a woman’s place is (according to the heading and Paul’s own words) in public worship prevent you from voting for someone in whose hands the country would be better off. Sarah Palin and John McCain (although I am no fan of McCain) would have been better than obamination, yes? Those men and women who would not vote for the ticket because of Sarah Palin’s gender distorted the teachings of the Holy Bible in order to justify their vote for someone else – and their helping obamination get into office.
Public worship is not public office. Public office rules the land; public worship has to do with GOD’s house and the two are not to be compared nor are they to be used as excuses for twisting GOD’s word. Do not be deceived this election. If Michele Bachman is the best person, she’s the best person, period. If she won’t be teaching in your church and usurping – seizing power from – men, then don’t worry about her gender! Vote for her – or if Sarah Palin gets back into the race, Sarah – based upon your views of her politics, her steadfastness, her integrity, her plans for the future of the country. This is truly the one place where “separation of Church and State” is correct!
(1.) For “prophetess” see also Miriam in Exodus 15:20-21; Huldah in II Kings 22:14, Isaiah 8:3; Anna in Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8-9.
Excuse me?
The Bible, they said. The Bible!
What was explained to me, utterly to my surprise and disgust, was that men could not vote for Sarah Palin because women should not “have authority over men”. That was their argument. That was their defense. That was the part of the Bible they threw out there for me to pounce upon. I say “pounce upon” advisedly. All they did was to throw me a ball to knock out of the park.
In I Timothy, Chapter 2: “9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
“10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
“12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
“13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
“14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression.
“15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
In my Bible, “The Holy Bible” KJV, Reference Edition by Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1989 Thomas Nelson, Inc., the above passage appears on page 993 in the second column and is headed, “Women in Public Worship”. I want you to pay attention to that heading.
The book is written by Paul to Timothy and it covers everything from the conduct of a minister to the correct way to do prayer in a public worship. It talks about how we should not “give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith”. It talks about qualifications for Bishops, Deacons and how to treat your elders, what a false teacher is, how to treat widows and it talks about how to behave yourself in the House of GOD. Oh, yes. It also has the above statements about women.
Now, I ask you to recall the subject header over the section starting with verse nine: “Women in Public Worship”. I ask that you keep that in mind; “public worship”. For it is in Judges 4, we see that GOD ordained a woman to be a Judge over all the people. See Judges 4:3-5:
4:3 “And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
4:4 “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
4:5 “And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in mount Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. [my bolding]”
Deborah was a judge! She made decisions for the people based upon the Word of GOD. She had no restrictions on her about whether she was supposed to have “authority” over men. Why? There were no restrictions because she was not making her judgments in the temple, but rather, in the gates. She took GOD’s word outside of the temple where the priests were, and she decided what was what. We are allowed to do that, even in the Old Testament, and yet nowadays some people – men and women – believe that women should not be in any position of authority over any man. I beg to differ.
Deborah’s judgments were apparently fair and even-handed because she was a judge of the people until they were carried away into slavery in Midian.
Let us also not forget that she was a prophetess, and as such, used by GOD to tell Israel what was going to happen. She was consulted by regular people as well as by the king, Barak, and even went into battle with him because he was afraid of his enemy.
Sound to you as if GOD thought women should not have any authority over men? Was she not the one who decided issues that men brought to her as well as women? It does say she judged “Israel” and Israel is made up of more than just women.
Look at Proverbs 31:10-31: “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.” That’s how it starts. In this segment, it says that woman “seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands” (13), so we know she is involved in making their clothes and the buying of the supplies for such things. She cooks (15), she buys land with what she makes and plants vineyards (16), she is strong (17), she knows the worth of her merchandise so that she doesn’t get ripped off by unscrupulous people and she works through the night (18). A virtuous woman also gives to the poor and needy (20), has made sure that her household is clothed in warmth during the winter (21), she wears nice clothes (22) and all of this allows her husband to sit among the elders and relax (23). She participates in other business deals (24), is honorable (25), and wise and kind (26), is not idle (27), her children and husband call her blessed (28), she fears the Lord (30), and her works shall “praise her in the gates” (31).
In the Old Testament it’s okay for a woman to be a judge and prophetess, and it’s apparently expected that “virtuous” women be involved in all kinds of business. This sounds to me as if a woman is considered the equal to a man outside of the temple.
Women are a big part of the Bible (Eve, Hannah, Ruth, Esther, Rachel, Mary, Mary Magdalene and others), and are given major parts to play, not just in the roles of mother and wife, but also in the protection of and saving of the people of GOD, the Nation of Israel. If women were considered second rate citizens by GOD, why would He use them for so much of His work? Why even bother allowing them to be mentioned in the Bible? Why would Jesus Christ’s female followers have been mentioned so frequently and used so much in His ministry? Females were the first to see Him after His resurrection and they told the male members of the group of followers: even the eleven main male disciples that were left (remember Judas Iscariot hanged himself).
In the New Testament, women are treated as equals outside of the temple. Women are prophetesses (see note 1) and they are used by GOD to set forth His will. In the case of Anna, in Luke 2:36-38, she is mentioned as being in the temple and “departed not from the temple, but served GOD with fastings and prayers night and day.” She is mentioned as being in the temple serving GOD, but it does not say that she was anyone with authority over anyone else. She is said to have recognized Christ when she saw him and of witnessing of Him thereafter (38). It never states that Anna had any kind of authority over anyone within the temple. She fasted and prayed.
Now back to that heading: “Women in Public Worship”.
When Paul writes in I Timothy of the role of women in the church, he writes (2:12), “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Notice that word, “usurp”. In the Easton Bible Dictionary definition of “usurp” we have the definition: “1. (v. t.) To seize, and hold by force, or without right; as, to usurp a throne; to usurp power; to usurp the right of a patron is to oust or dispossess him.” Paul is writing that women in the church should not be teaching nor usurping – seizing – authority over men. Women should not teach men nor boss them around in the church!
Paul was not saying that women outside the church cannot have authority (witness Deborah, the prophetesses and the “virtuous woman” defined in Proverbs 31). He was saying that inside the church – as GOD set up in the family – the men should be the head and not the tail (31:13-14). Women are allowed to be a big part of the church. Women are allowed to teach inside the church, just not teach men. Women are used by GOD all the time and throughout history. Paul was just saying that inside a church they are to be modestly arrayed (I think it helps prevent others from coveting and being jealous, cutting back on cattiness), they are to do good works (playing the piano, singing in choir, helping clean the church, etc.), should learn from men instead of teaching men (they can teach children and other women, just not men), and that’s all. Women should not be bossy female dogs in church. That’s what Paul was saying.
As to a female president? According to the Bible – witness Deborah and others – women are on equal footing throughout the Bible as political leaders, in business, in ability, strength, wisdom, integrity, courage (Esther), kindness (Ruth), favor (Mary, mother of Christ), and all other ways. For men to not vote for Sarah Palin because of her gender is not just wrong, it’s wrong in GOD’s eyes, too! Sarah Palin was not asking you to allow her to teach you your religion, to be your pastor, she was asking you if you would trust her to govern – as did Deborah – the country fairly, justly and wisely, with strength and courage, with discernment and with guidance from GOD as the prophetesses of the Bible demonstrated women can have. That’s what Sarah Palin was asking. She was not asking to be your intercessor with GOD, she was asking simply if you would trust the next four years of the leadership of this country – not your souls – to her care.
The same is being asked of you by Michele Bachman. Do not allow one very small section in the Bible – seven verses only – that speak of what a woman’s place is (according to the heading and Paul’s own words) in public worship prevent you from voting for someone in whose hands the country would be better off. Sarah Palin and John McCain (although I am no fan of McCain) would have been better than obamination, yes? Those men and women who would not vote for the ticket because of Sarah Palin’s gender distorted the teachings of the Holy Bible in order to justify their vote for someone else – and their helping obamination get into office.
Public worship is not public office. Public office rules the land; public worship has to do with GOD’s house and the two are not to be compared nor are they to be used as excuses for twisting GOD’s word. Do not be deceived this election. If Michele Bachman is the best person, she’s the best person, period. If she won’t be teaching in your church and usurping – seizing power from – men, then don’t worry about her gender! Vote for her – or if Sarah Palin gets back into the race, Sarah – based upon your views of her politics, her steadfastness, her integrity, her plans for the future of the country. This is truly the one place where “separation of Church and State” is correct!
(1.) For “prophetess” see also Miriam in Exodus 15:20-21; Huldah in II Kings 22:14, Isaiah 8:3; Anna in Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8-9.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)