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!"
Sunday, January 16, 2011
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
Monday, November 22, 2010
Delta 4 Heavy
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
My husband has been in the rocket launch business for years. He has launched almost everything that goes into outer space and he's got hands-on experience as a member of the last all "Blue Suit" launch team. "Blue Suit" meaning all U.S. Air Force. He has launched Thors, Atlases, Deltas, etc., mated a few satellites into the Space Shuttle; basically, done it all. This particular rocket he was a back-up guy for Danny. A little technical problem prevented it from launching on Friday evening, but they got that straightened out.
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
For the first time, we left our backyard and went to watch the launch within six or seven miles (as the crow flies) of the actual launch pad. We were there for the first try on Friday, but to no avail. We went back on Sunday and watched as it lit up, and took a slow crawl into the sky. It went up without a hitch (as far as I know), but not quietly. The sound made some of us whoop and it just rumbled. It rumbles at our house, too, but not like this. As we watched it go up I hoped things worked properly, because I have seen enough not make it to know that it would not be a good thing if something happened.
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Nothing matches the feel of watching something that big and lumbering go into the sky. It makes one proud of being American to see that thing go up, to know that we made that happen. We have the technology to do such a thing, to make the satellites that fly on these lumbering behemoths, and the ability to do what few others can. My husband is part of that team. America's in safe hands.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Environmentalism: Establishing a Hereditary Theocracy
Environmentalists worldwide believe that the earth is either “warming” or “cooling”. Depending, of course, upon to whom you are speaking, you may hear either answer. They also believe that man – specifically Americans – are having drastically deleterious effects on the earth’s environment and that we are responsible for some “really bad” stuff that’s either happened, happening, or shall definitely happen in the future. It’s all our fault, especially America’s, and the responsibility falls directly at our feet when it comes to making the earth so polluted, hurting and dangerous. It’s not the earth’s fault. It’s us. We are the demons. We are to blame.
Not only do they believe this, but they are teaching their offspring to believe the same thing as well. It’s Mommy and Daddy teaching Junior and Sally that if they do “X” that it’s bad for the planet. A deep guilt complex lays on the children’s breasts as they exhale and as they poop and pee; adding bad things to the atmosphere, the water, the earth. It’s wrong to throw things away, to drive an SUV or anything other than a little scooter car that has as much power as a roller skate. Deep sighs of regret break through as they fly over to Europe on their sixth European vacation in as many years; but it is not all guilt and regret. They shall be heading to Ethiopia after their European spa vacation to help feed the hungry, dig a new ditch for them to get dirty water to the village instead of the villagers walking six miles a day and to feel better about their travel because – after all – it is helping people. That makes it all okay.
Never mind that the children are exposed to disease, exposed to dangerous ideas that, if implemented at home, will endanger the welfare of their own children and grandchildren as well as the rest of the country. Never mind that even though they are “helping” people, there are organizations that are already there that – if given the proper support of the corrupt government the environmentalists support – would be able to solve the problems in that country with their own efforts without outside “help”. Never mind that – twenty-five years from now, the children of the environmentalists will be doing the same work, with the same groups, but with more power if we do not stand up to their parents now.
Fact of the matter is that environmentalists are building a power structure based upon their singular belief that the environment is part of their “god” and part of their god must be served, protected, obeyed and worshipped. If we do not do thus, we shall forever be screwed. The earth will fight back and we shall all perish because “we did it to ourselves.” That belief – as parents are wont to do – is passed on to their children, as is the parents’ positions in a lot of the organizations that support the environmentalists’ ideas. Junior becomes Chairman of the Board of “The Natural Conservatory Organization” after Dad has passed on. It means continuity of the pattern, continuity of the leadership ideal, continuity of the vision: Junior is more trustworthy than the VP because Junior has the same genes, was brought up with it, has it not just in his teaching, but in his blood. A birthright has been established and it shall not be denied.
I say “theocracy” because it’s a belief system that is based purely upon faith and the ideal that the environment is “god”. Faith that there is “global warming” or “global cooling”; man can have a lasting impact on the environment; that if we tried, we could equal God’s creation as to how destructive we can be, how much damage we can do to the earth (as compared to how much damage the earth can do to us), etc. Faith has it that the Exxon Valdez has so damaged the planet that it will never be the same (is that always such a bad thing?) and that if we don’t change now, we will never have the chance to make things right. Faith has it that it was our pollution that made the deserts bigger, hotter and more arid. Faith has it that man has to be responsible for every bad thing the earth has experienced since its creation. That’s true faith to think all of that. Faith takes things that one cannot see, cannot prove, cannot show physical evidence of and says it is true anyways. Such is environmentalism therefore a “theocracy” is established.
What harm can this “Hereditary Theocracy” of environmentalism do? If we do not resist environmentalism now, we can kiss our children’s futures goodbye. If we do not fight environmentalist teachings, laws (incandescent light bulbs are going away after 2011), school systems to indoctrinate our children, then we sign our own warrants.
Not only will there be more laws establishing “the environment” as the first and foremost consideration for everything, but it will also mean that we will be limited as to what types of jobs we can have, what types of appliances we can have, what building materials we can use for our personal property (homes and office buildings; sheds even), what kinds of cars we will drive, the fuel we put into them, the airplanes we can ride on and what types of fuel they can use, perhaps how often we can fly without special permission, or tracking our mileage as we use our personal vehicles and company cars. Those who are not “environmental wackos” will be made to kowtow to those who are because those who have been taught the mantra, the faith, will be those who have the power. That power will come via having more influence in D.C., having friends in the business, knowing the right folks to contact about “X”.
This will enable the noose that used to fit loosely around the necks of the American people to be slowly, steadily tightened and before they know it, Americans everywhere will be using a set number of electricity watts per day as prescribed by the federal government under the EPA, after studies done by the environmental group, “Citizens United for Environmental Freedom” (or some such nonsense) find that “it’s the only sustainable way.”
Junior’s legacy will be a single child’s adoption from a foreign country with too many live births per capita (deemed unsustainable via the U.N.) and that child’s parents were lucky to get rid of the child prior to their being punished severely with food rations cut in half because they had a pregnancy that was not approved beforehand. Junior’s single child will have the inherited position within the environmental groups that his adoptive daddy has prepared him to inherit. All those policies Junior discussed implementing, the child – heir – will now put into effect because it will honor his adoptive father. It’s like Obama trying to make sure his daddy’s hatred of America and England, those dreams of destruction, come true; with Junior’s child trying to please daddy just as Obama is trying. This shall be seen in the environmental circles as a laudable thing; while to the nonbelievers, it shall just be more pain, less freedom and fewer constitutional rights for us and our progeny.
As the environmentalists get more power, as their heirs get more power, we lose more of our freedoms, more of our choices, more of our futures and of our children’s futures. Yet, that is what the environmentalists wish: power at all costs, even freedom’s. Your future, your beliefs matter not, nor does your desire to “live long and prosper” in America. If you do that, you may drop a piece of paper down a drainage pipe and that piece of paper is going to end us all. Freedom’s loss will be the environmentalist’s gain; as seen with legislated washing machines, toilets, light bulbs and gas millage.
If environmentalists are not stopped here and now, and our freedom restored, then when and where will they be? What will it take to make sure that your children or grandchildren have as much freedom as you and I? Or will it happen that they go all the way and our children’s children shall be paying the price for our desire to ignore it, to get along, to not make waves? If so, what shall their futures look like besides so very limited?
Environmentalism screams that we are the cause of all bad things. Environmentalism has faith that we are harming the earth with our deeds. Theocratic beliefs or not, environmentalists have no right – constitutional or otherwise – to impose upon the rest of us their beliefs. Legislating environmentalism is just as wrong as legislating that the Baptist Church become the “official religion” of America. Yet, with environmentalism, because there is no god specified (although everyone knows what is being worshipped), it is hunky-dory with those who would scream bloody murder otherwise. As long as it’s not the God of the Christian Bible, than any other god is okay; environmental earth worship included. Without due diligence on our part, their children will have power to place limits over our children and thereby doom our children to be less than what they could be, to do less than what they could have done, to be less of who they could have been. Environmentalism needs to be stopped now, sanity and common sense smacked into the people who have been brainwashed into it, and a return to the Founding Father’s principles of freedom restored. Otherwise, the hereditary theocracy will rule and our children’s children are doomed.
Not only do they believe this, but they are teaching their offspring to believe the same thing as well. It’s Mommy and Daddy teaching Junior and Sally that if they do “X” that it’s bad for the planet. A deep guilt complex lays on the children’s breasts as they exhale and as they poop and pee; adding bad things to the atmosphere, the water, the earth. It’s wrong to throw things away, to drive an SUV or anything other than a little scooter car that has as much power as a roller skate. Deep sighs of regret break through as they fly over to Europe on their sixth European vacation in as many years; but it is not all guilt and regret. They shall be heading to Ethiopia after their European spa vacation to help feed the hungry, dig a new ditch for them to get dirty water to the village instead of the villagers walking six miles a day and to feel better about their travel because – after all – it is helping people. That makes it all okay.
Never mind that the children are exposed to disease, exposed to dangerous ideas that, if implemented at home, will endanger the welfare of their own children and grandchildren as well as the rest of the country. Never mind that even though they are “helping” people, there are organizations that are already there that – if given the proper support of the corrupt government the environmentalists support – would be able to solve the problems in that country with their own efforts without outside “help”. Never mind that – twenty-five years from now, the children of the environmentalists will be doing the same work, with the same groups, but with more power if we do not stand up to their parents now.
Fact of the matter is that environmentalists are building a power structure based upon their singular belief that the environment is part of their “god” and part of their god must be served, protected, obeyed and worshipped. If we do not do thus, we shall forever be screwed. The earth will fight back and we shall all perish because “we did it to ourselves.” That belief – as parents are wont to do – is passed on to their children, as is the parents’ positions in a lot of the organizations that support the environmentalists’ ideas. Junior becomes Chairman of the Board of “The Natural Conservatory Organization” after Dad has passed on. It means continuity of the pattern, continuity of the leadership ideal, continuity of the vision: Junior is more trustworthy than the VP because Junior has the same genes, was brought up with it, has it not just in his teaching, but in his blood. A birthright has been established and it shall not be denied.
I say “theocracy” because it’s a belief system that is based purely upon faith and the ideal that the environment is “god”. Faith that there is “global warming” or “global cooling”; man can have a lasting impact on the environment; that if we tried, we could equal God’s creation as to how destructive we can be, how much damage we can do to the earth (as compared to how much damage the earth can do to us), etc. Faith has it that the Exxon Valdez has so damaged the planet that it will never be the same (is that always such a bad thing?) and that if we don’t change now, we will never have the chance to make things right. Faith has it that it was our pollution that made the deserts bigger, hotter and more arid. Faith has it that man has to be responsible for every bad thing the earth has experienced since its creation. That’s true faith to think all of that. Faith takes things that one cannot see, cannot prove, cannot show physical evidence of and says it is true anyways. Such is environmentalism therefore a “theocracy” is established.
What harm can this “Hereditary Theocracy” of environmentalism do? If we do not resist environmentalism now, we can kiss our children’s futures goodbye. If we do not fight environmentalist teachings, laws (incandescent light bulbs are going away after 2011), school systems to indoctrinate our children, then we sign our own warrants.
Not only will there be more laws establishing “the environment” as the first and foremost consideration for everything, but it will also mean that we will be limited as to what types of jobs we can have, what types of appliances we can have, what building materials we can use for our personal property (homes and office buildings; sheds even), what kinds of cars we will drive, the fuel we put into them, the airplanes we can ride on and what types of fuel they can use, perhaps how often we can fly without special permission, or tracking our mileage as we use our personal vehicles and company cars. Those who are not “environmental wackos” will be made to kowtow to those who are because those who have been taught the mantra, the faith, will be those who have the power. That power will come via having more influence in D.C., having friends in the business, knowing the right folks to contact about “X”.
This will enable the noose that used to fit loosely around the necks of the American people to be slowly, steadily tightened and before they know it, Americans everywhere will be using a set number of electricity watts per day as prescribed by the federal government under the EPA, after studies done by the environmental group, “Citizens United for Environmental Freedom” (or some such nonsense) find that “it’s the only sustainable way.”
Junior’s legacy will be a single child’s adoption from a foreign country with too many live births per capita (deemed unsustainable via the U.N.) and that child’s parents were lucky to get rid of the child prior to their being punished severely with food rations cut in half because they had a pregnancy that was not approved beforehand. Junior’s single child will have the inherited position within the environmental groups that his adoptive daddy has prepared him to inherit. All those policies Junior discussed implementing, the child – heir – will now put into effect because it will honor his adoptive father. It’s like Obama trying to make sure his daddy’s hatred of America and England, those dreams of destruction, come true; with Junior’s child trying to please daddy just as Obama is trying. This shall be seen in the environmental circles as a laudable thing; while to the nonbelievers, it shall just be more pain, less freedom and fewer constitutional rights for us and our progeny.
As the environmentalists get more power, as their heirs get more power, we lose more of our freedoms, more of our choices, more of our futures and of our children’s futures. Yet, that is what the environmentalists wish: power at all costs, even freedom’s. Your future, your beliefs matter not, nor does your desire to “live long and prosper” in America. If you do that, you may drop a piece of paper down a drainage pipe and that piece of paper is going to end us all. Freedom’s loss will be the environmentalist’s gain; as seen with legislated washing machines, toilets, light bulbs and gas millage.
If environmentalists are not stopped here and now, and our freedom restored, then when and where will they be? What will it take to make sure that your children or grandchildren have as much freedom as you and I? Or will it happen that they go all the way and our children’s children shall be paying the price for our desire to ignore it, to get along, to not make waves? If so, what shall their futures look like besides so very limited?
Environmentalism screams that we are the cause of all bad things. Environmentalism has faith that we are harming the earth with our deeds. Theocratic beliefs or not, environmentalists have no right – constitutional or otherwise – to impose upon the rest of us their beliefs. Legislating environmentalism is just as wrong as legislating that the Baptist Church become the “official religion” of America. Yet, with environmentalism, because there is no god specified (although everyone knows what is being worshipped), it is hunky-dory with those who would scream bloody murder otherwise. As long as it’s not the God of the Christian Bible, than any other god is okay; environmental earth worship included. Without due diligence on our part, their children will have power to place limits over our children and thereby doom our children to be less than what they could be, to do less than what they could have done, to be less of who they could have been. Environmentalism needs to be stopped now, sanity and common sense smacked into the people who have been brainwashed into it, and a return to the Founding Father’s principles of freedom restored. Otherwise, the hereditary theocracy will rule and our children’s children are doomed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)