Who is Loretta Lynch?

Blog-Icon---Political

INTERESTING!!

More dots connected in Obama admin.

And the beat goes on …..been planned for a long time!

Curious circumstances. Hmmmm! They have started investigating Loretta Lynch, Obama’s pick for Attorney-General, and immediately they could see an interesting and unnerving connection. It appears that when Loretta Lynch started Harvard, she co-founded an African-American only sorority. There was only one other girl in this sorority, Sharon Malone. The name rings a bell… The name of the wife of the current, corrupt AG, Eric Holder, is Sharon Malone; and she is the sister of a known civil rights activist leader Vivien Malone –Jones (one of 2 black students who enrolled in the all white University of Alabama). They checked the age: both were born in 1959 and both went to Harvard at the same time. There were very few African-American students in Harvard in 1977-1981, so it is rather certain that Loretta Lynch is an old college friend of Sharon Malone, the wife of the current AG, Eric Holder!!

Why is this connection important? Holder will inevitably be investigated by Congress for totally lawless gun-trafficking to Mexican drug cartels in Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, the VA scandal, the DOJ, NSA, EPA, FEC and other scandals. Most importantly, AG Holder covered up Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social Security number (Harrison J. Bounel 042-68-4425) and Obama’s use of several different bogus IDs.

It seems that a long time college friend of Holder’s wife was picked up as a gate-keeper by Obama to continue all of the cover up actions by Holder and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, to shield Holder and Obama from criminal prosecution.

Remember — Loretta Lynch, Obama’s pick for Attorney-General.

Like-mindedness; Is it really a bad thing?

Blog-Icon---Social

I’ve noticed throughout the years that on social media, especially on Facebook, blogs, and other personal walls, that there are always the inevitable trolls who show up and want to throw a monkey wrench into an otherwise pleasant conversation.  And inevitably once the pleasant conversation/turned debate becomes heated the troll will accuse the original poster of “surrounding themselves with like-minded people” and follow it up with something to the effect of “you just like being around people who agree with you and pat you on the back BECAUSE they agree with you on something you said.”

To all those trolls, I would like to say this; Why, YES, as a matter of fact I DO.  That’s kind of the point of having FRIENDS!!!

Seriously, when did “surrounding yourself with like-minded people” become an offensive thing and more importantly something to be condescended to?   And when did this become synonymous with being close minded? Because that is what is being insinuated when the comment is made.

I have a LOT of friends, from ALL walks of life.  As you may have gathered from my posts, I am Christian, and I am Conservative (not to be confused with Republican.)

“Oh yeah? Well how many of your friends are Christian and Conservative?”

I have friends, close friends, that identify as all of the following: Liberal, Atheist, Agnostic, Republican, Christian (Catholic, Lutheran, Mormon, Methodist, and Non-denominational)  Wiccan, and deist.  That I know of.  I’m sure there are aspects of some of my friends’ personal lives of which I’m unaware.

And I find it interesting, as deep rooted in my own faith as I am, most of my friends of different religious beliefs pretty much just respect me for what I believe and leave it alone.

Furthermore, I have a handful of Liberal friends with whom I disagree with and we more often than not just agree to disagree on topics.

However…

that being said, I have noticed that MOST, not all, but MOST of my Liberal friends, (and even some of my conservative friends) are the ones that seem to enjoy throwing this proverbial monkey wrench into an otherwise pleasant conversation.   These Liberal friends are people I’ve known since high school, and whom I have added on Facebook.  I’ve tried to communicate with them on a number of occasions, about their lives, congratulate them on engagements, ask about their military experiences, etc.  But from my vantage point, it seems like the only time, and I LITERALLY mean the ONLY time they WANT to communicate is when they are bashing my political views.  It got to the point where I was spending so much time defending my views from their venom on social media that i just had to delete them because I have better things to do, like…I don’t know, live my life!

So seriously, what is wrong with wanting to surround yourself with “like-minded people?” What is wrong with wanting to have friends, and have your viewpoints validated?

Furthermore, if you want to get scientific about it, does anybody remember a little thing called “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs?”

If not, let me break it down for you.

Psychologically we have five basic levels of needs.   These needs are so fundamental in nature that each one of these levels of Needs needs to be met before we can move on to the next level.

The bottom tier is “Physiological Needs”, such as food, shelter, AIR, sleep, basic physical needs in order to live.

The next level is “Safety Needs,” meaning do you feel safe within your shelter, do you have employment  to provide for physiological needs, do you have access to health care, should you need it, etc?

The very NEXT level on this hierarchy is “Social Needs” the need to belong, the need for love, and affection and acceptance.   The NEED for friends,  (also known as like minded people who care about you) is so important it’s number 3 on a list of 5!

The fourth tier is “Esteem Needs.” Basically your self-esteem, personal worth, and social recognition are not as important as your need to belong. (AKA surround yourself with like-minded people.)

And lastly, is “Self-Actualization,” which is truly interesting because it’s the only need that changes.  Once you have reached this tier, self-actualization means you have a specific personal goal and once you have reached that goal it changes, because you’ve accomplished it.  Furthermore, this has gone beyond Social Needs, and Esteem Needs, because you no longer care about what others think.  But paradoxically, you cannot GET to this point without having first fulfilled the other two.

Furthermore, I personally feel like this life is meant to be lived and to be enjoyed.  Who WANTS to spend ALL of their time arguing?  It’s exhausting and depressing.  Who WANTS to be exhausted and depressed all the time just for the sake of an argument? For the sake of proving a point?  Or to be “right?”

Also it should be noted, I’m married.  I married my BEST FRIEND.   We spent a significant time while we were dating making sure that we ARE very “like-minded.”  In our many years of being married, we have watched relationships develop, people marry, and subsequently fail/ get divorced because they did NOT have enough “like-mindedness” and assumed they could get by on chemistry alone.   When it came right down to it, though they were more worried about winning an argument.  The most common reason I’ve heard of for divorce are “irreconcilable DIFFERENCES!”

I’d much rather surround myself with people who I agree with for the sake of happiness and peace.  And for those whom I consider friends with whom I disagree, it’s SO easy to say, “Well, let’s just agree to disagree, and bury the hatchet on that point,” and move on to enjoying life!

What is so important about beating the proverbial dead horse to the point that you are pissing people off, even AFTER THEY have told you several times they want to move beyond the topic to maintain civility?

I’ll give you a hint…

NOTHING!

And if you find yourself being one of these people, let me give you a word of advice:

Get OVER yourself.

-Joseph Forefathers

Mountain Top Experiences

Blog-Icon---Religion

Mountaintop Experiences

By TNSr5r@unseen.is, October, 2013

 

I am tired of them. I don’t want to go to them anymore. I won’t participate in them again. I don’t even want to hear from anyone else about them.

What am I talking about? Some people enjoy them as worship experiences. Others value them as mountaintop experiences. I call them Christian pep rallies; the pep rallies that so many churches and Christian groups hold in the name of God.

You know what I am talking about.

These pep rallies often center around top name Christian singing groups, all of which have a strong high tenor or a strong high soprano, or both, whose voices are always very powerful. A song starts out in a normal key so most of the audience can sing along. But each verse transitions into a higher key so that, after four or five verses, only a handful of tenors and sopranos in the country can sing that high and that strong. And then the final chord of the final verse is held so high and so strong and so long that it raises the hair on your arms and gives you goose bumps. When the song breaks, it leaves you so excited that you absolutely MUST shout something. So you shout something spiritual like everyone else around you. And just then the group starts another verse in an even higher key.

After a few of these songs, everyone is so emotionally jacked up that shouting spiritual words and phrases is almost impossible to resist.

And then the worship leader starts a slow, soft song, accompanied by some sort of announcement that “the Holy Spirit is in this place.” The Holy Spirit apparently waits for a slow song before he shows up to these things… At this point, the leader often says something like, “Raise your hands if you can feel the presence of God.” Of course, nearly everyone can feel SOMETHING, so nearly everyone raises their hands. And the worship leader leads the audience through several verses of that slow song so that everyone gets the chance to feel God even more.

And often this whole process is repeated two or three times more, so everyone can go home claiming to have participated in such an awesome worship experience.

But was this truly a valid worship experience?

And if this was a valid worship experience, was it a good thing

And if it was a good thing, was it a biblical experience?

Before I get burned at the stake for asking such questions and raising such doubts, let me make this clear: I LOVE THESE WORSHIP EXPERIENCES!!

I have attended them; I have sought them out on the radio; I own them on CDs and DVDs; I have even led these experiences myself.

But I have come to realize that they are often nothing more than an old-fashioned high school football pep rally with a spiritual emphasis. Pep rallies have a purpose; they aren’t bad in and of themselves. But they are pep rallies. And their purpose, be it at a football game or at a Christian concert, is to get people excited.

I can, and HAVE, reproduced the same sort of feelings in myself and in others by using the same psychological gimmicks, but without any mention of Jesus.

During the fall of each year, the same level of emotional euphoria and near-hysteria is accomplished hundreds of times each week on high school and college campuses all over America.

Okay, I admit, I probably just made it impossible to avoid being burned at that stake by a mob of angry but sincere Christians.

But before I meet that stake, before you strike that match, I really need to ask the question few people ever want to answer: WHY?

Why do we need these emotionally manipulative Christian pep rallies?

Does God need them in order for the Holy Spirit to visit our worship experiences?

Or do these pep rallies primarily benefit the spiritual junkies who need still another “mountain-top experience?”

And is a “mountain-top experience” good for our spiritual lives?

As I said before, I LOVE these mountain-top experiences. I am, to some extent, a spiritual junkie myself. But I have to ask of myself and of others, “Exactly what benefit do we receive from being emotionally jacked-up, even when it is done in a spiritual environment?”

Maybe we should have started this article with a look at the mountain top experience that Jesus shared with some of his disciples. Perhaps we can get some clues as to the value of that type of high by looking at and listening to Jesus

We can find the account of this mountaintop experience in Matthew 17:1-13, Mark 9:1-13, and Luke 9:27-36. All three accounts are virtually identical and all three accounts tell us of the same events preceding this experience: Jesus taught of his coming death; Jesus taught about us taking up our crosses and following him; and Jesus and his disciples took a week off. Then Jesus took Peter, James, and John up a mountain.

There he was transfigured before them. [Matthew 17:2, New International Version]

While transfigured, Jesus walked around with Moses and Elijah for a while. And God put his seal of approval on this particular mountaintop experience by doing his Exodus cloud thing and saying,

“This is my beloved Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”  [Matthew 17:5, NIV]

Can you imagine anything more exciting than this? Think about it! You have witnessed Jesus healing people and casting out demons more times than you can remember. You were hand-picked by Jesus to be in his core group of disciples. And over the past few weeks and months, your role has developed into the primary disciple, Christ’s main man! Then you get to see Jesus transfigured. You get to see Moses and Elijah alive and talking with Jesus. God shows up in a cloud like he did almost 2,000 years ago. THEN GOD SPEAKS TO YOU!

And what do you do?

You propose doing something that Jesus does not want!

Peter may have been well-intentioned but his agenda was NOT Christ’s agenda. In fact, it was so far from Christ’s agenda that Jesus told them not to tell anyone about the entire experience; not even the other disciples!

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” [Matthew 17:9, NIV]

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. [Mark 9:9, NIV]

The greatest mountaintop experience in Scripture led the greatest disciple on record to suggest the wrong thing to do!

Or let’s look at what might be the second greatest mountaintop experience in Scripture; this one in the Old Testament and in this one Elijah was not a secondary character.

In I Kings, we can read the story of the first time Elijah was on earth. Starting in chapter seventeen, we see Elijah introduced and given his first assignment – he was called by God to denounce the most evil king the Jews ever had.

And Ahab son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord above all before him. As if it had been a light thing for Ahab to walk in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, he took for a wife Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal King of the Sidonians, and served Baal and worshipped him. [I Kings 16:30-31, Amplified Bible]

Not only was Ahab the most evil king the Jews ever had, he married the most evil woman the Jews had ever known! And they both worshipped the most evil god the world had ever seen!

And God called Elijah to denounce Ahab and tell him that God was sending a drought to Israel because of what Ahab was doing. And Elijah did exactly what God asked and actually survived it!

Talk about a rush!

Then God told Elijah to hide in a cave by the brook called Cherith east of Jordan.

After many months, the brook dried up. After all, there was a drought going on, right? So God gave him a new address and Elijah moved to a small town called Zerepath. There he met a woman who was a widow, who had a child and who was starving to death because of the drought Elijah had called down. Elijah asked for some food and she told him she had almost nothing for herself and her son. Elijah told her that if she fed him God would make sure she would not starve. She could have said, “Right!” and walked away. But she decided to trust God and did what Elijah asked. As a result of her faith, God fed her and her son “for many days” until the rains came and everyone had food, as it says in chapter 17.

Then something horrible happened: the woman’s son got sick and died. You know she had to be thinking, “Oh yes, God promised that my son and I would not starve, so he let my son die of a fever.” But Elijah was still walking in the excitement and knowledge of God, and he took the son away to the attic room where Elijah slept. There Elijah prayed and the son lived again. And Elijah lived in peace with the widow and her son until the rains came.

Sometime after raising the boy from the dead, on toward the end of the third year of the drought, God told Elijah to go back to Ahab and tell him it was about to rain. So Elijah and Ahab met, and Ahab was not at all in a good mood.

When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, “Are you he who troubles Israel?”  [I Kings 18:17, AMP]

I am certain that Elijah responded with, “You haven’t seen trouble yet. But trouble sure is coming!” I haven’t found any translation which includes that comment, but I am sure Elijah said it. Be that as it may (or may not), we do know that Elijah said the following:

Elijah replied, “I have not troubled Israel, but you have, and your father’s house, by forsaking the commandments of the Lord and by following the Baals.” [I Kings 18:18, AMP]

And Elijah issued a challenge. He told Ahab to gather 450 prophets of Baal (who Ahab followed) and the 400 prophets of the sex goddess Asherah (who Jezebel followed), along with all the people, and bring them all to Mount Carmel.

Once there, Elijah put together a rigged demonstration; rigged against Elijah and his God. The 450 prophets of Baal, assisted by the 400 prophets of Asherah, set up an altar of stone with wood on it and a bull, fully cut up and prepared, placed on top. And then this 850 prophets of foreign gods were given hours, from early morning to late afternoon, to pray down fire on the sacrifice.

And nothing happened.

Then Elijah built his altar and prepared his sacrifice. Further, he asked that four large water jars be emptied on the altar; and again; and a third time. After twelve large water jars had been emptied on his altar, Elijah prayed 63 words. Not twelve hours, but less than one minute. And then fire came down from heaven and consumed everything: the sacrifice, the wood, the stones, the dust, even the water that had drained off the alter and into the trench surrounding the alter.

When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and they said, “The Lord, he is God! The Lord, he is God!” [I Kings 18:39, AMP]

I mean, ya think?

With the people properly motivated (and intimidated!), Elijah had them kill all the false prophets of Baal and Asherah.

And then Elijah prayed for rain, and it rained.

Something that is seldom mentioned in sermons and teachings on this event involves everyone leaving Mount Carmel before it rained. Elijah said something like, “King Ahab, I am about to ask God to empty the clouds and have it rain all over us. You better get down the mountainside before the roads get so wet that your chariots won’t be able to make it down the roads.” So Ahab headed down the mountain while Elijah prayed. After praying, but before the rain started, Elijah headed down the mountain himself. But Elijah was so excited and so motivated by his “mountaintop experience” that he ran all twenty miles back to town and got there before Ahab and his chariot.

How was that for mountaintop excitement?

But no sooner than Ahab told Jezebel about everything, including the loss of 400 prophets of her god that she used as personal servants, than Jezebel sent a message to Elijah: “I am going to make you as dead as you made my prophets, and by this time tomorrow.” See I Kings 19:2.

And no matter what his mountaintop experience, and no matter how excited he was about serving God under miraculous circumstances, Elijah allowed his emotions to continue in control, and…

Elijah was afraid, and ran for his life. [I Kings 19:3, NIV]

So what can we take away from a short review of two important, even awesome, mountaintop experiences? There are perhaps any number of lessons, or conclusions, we can draw from these two experiences, but I suspect that most would make for poor theology. However, I do believe we can draw two valid and valuable principles from these two Scriptural events.

First, mountaintop experiences do not impart spiritual maturity or spiritual wisdom.

Second, mountaintop experiences feed our emotions, and emotions are seldom logical or wise.

I do not believe that I err when I suggest that a mountaintop experience will often lead to a significant spiritual challenge, even a spiritual setback. Think about it.

In both of these biblical experiences, we see the people’s emotions in control of them and unwise, even wrong, decisions that come out of these emotions. Peter wanted to build three temples so he could continue, or repeat continuously whenever he wanted, that wonderful experience. And Jesus not only wouldn’t let him do it, Jesus wouldn’t even let him talk about it. And Elijah was so excited about God’s victories that after seeing God’s fire consume his sacrifice, after facing 850 enemy prophets and killing them all, even after outrunning Ahab’s chariot for twenty miles, he runs and hides from one woman’s threat.

When our emotions are running high, our emotions often make our decisions for us. And emotional decisions are seldom based on the Word of God. When we react to what we see and hear and FEEL, it is our emotions that are in control of us and not the Spirit of God.

We live by faith, not by sight. [II Corinthians 5:7, NIV]

Or even more clearly translated:

For we walk by faith [we regulate our lives and conduct ourselves by our conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, with trust and holy fervor; thus we walk] not by sight or appearance. [I Corinthians 5:7, AMP]

So, are mountaintop experiences, are Christian pep rallies, wrong?

Absolutely not!

But if we NEED them, if we COUNT on these experiences to maintain a walk with God, if the emotional high is necessary for us to feel close to God and stay committed to following Jesus, then we need to recognize the FACT that we are Soil Type Two, from the parable in Mark chapter four. We need to admit that we receive the Word of God with joy and excitement, but it doesn’t take much to stifle our walk with God, or sidetrack our walk entirely. We need to take steps to strengthen our faith and our commitment so we can survive these simple and frequent challenges to our life in Christ. We need to develop the discipline inherent in the word “disciple” and from which the word is derived.

How?

For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge – that you be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. [Ephesians 3:14-1 9, NIV]

In other words, USE those emotions.

Use those emotions to drive you into God’s Word, to make you want his Word, to make you thrill at the things his Holy Spirit leads you to learn and apply. Feed and strengthen your heart so that your love is more stable and more consistent. Allow God to turn your feelings into a new creation, a never before existing love for Jesus that is as strong and predictable as God’s love for us.

We need to exchange our natural love for the love that comes from God and is focused on God and points us continuously and forever toward God.

More specifically, we need to move our eyes from our love for Jesus and put our eyes on his love for us. As long as our eyes are on our love for Jesus, we will look for opportunities to feel that love and to express that love. When we cannot FEEL love for Jesus, we will lose sight of the FACT of his love for us. If we don’t FEEL our love for Jesus, we will tend to question his love for us, and to feel distant from him. And then we will tend to seek out mountaintop experiences to help us FEEL our love for God. This will tend to make us dependent on those mountaintop experiences.

But if we keep our eyes on his love for us, then our love for him will be a natural response to his love for us. And a natural response to his constant love for us will be a more consistent love for him.

It is natural for us to be aware of and to experience our emotions. But it is spiritually immature for us to allow our emotions to drive our relationship with God. We MUST keep in the forefront of our minds God’s love for us, and the constant and eternal nature of that love, or we will waver and fluctuate in our love for him. It MUST be his nature that provides the foundation for our relationship with him, and NOT our natures.

A mountaintop experience tends to move our eyes from God’s love for us to our love for him; from his constant and eternal love for us to our fluctuating and temporal love for him. And if our eyes are on our fluctuating and emotional feelings for him, as soon as that mountaintop experience is over, we are particularly exposed to Satan’s deceptions. That makes our mountaintop experiences a danger to our walks with God. Remember, the higher we get, the farther we can fall.

But when God’s love permeates and saturates our hearts, we will see wisdom come from our emotions. When God’s constant and consistent love for us is the “solid as a rock” foundation of our walk with him, we will see stronger and more stable walks with God after all our mountaintop experiences. We will see God change our lives and the lives of others around us. And we will watch God change us from Soil Type Two to Soil Type Four in that parable.

And then we can totally enjoy and benefit from our Christian pep rallies.

Now, when is the next Carman concert?

 

 


 

WARNING!!!

Mountaintop Experience Ahead!

Mountaintop Experiences produce high levels of excitement. High levels of excitement reduce our natural sense of caution. Walking on the edge of a sheer cliff does not seem so scary when on a spiritual high. If you believe you can fly, you are not so concerned about falling.

Keeping your spiritual guard up is most important when coming off a spiritual high or a mountaintop experience. Keep your eyes on God and allow the Holy Spirit to guide your steps. Only in this way can you avoid tumbling off the cliff.

Enjoy your mountaintop experiences, but always recognize them for what they are – an opportunity for you to make unwise and emotional decisions or to rely on your feelings in order to walk with God.

Don’t be a spiritual junkie where your feelings need constant feeding. Instead, feed your spirit with the Word of God and the fellowship of the Saints.


 

We have so much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s Word all over again. You need milk, not solid food. Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. Therefore, let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity [Hebrews 5:11-6:1, NIV]

Religious Delusions

Blog-Icon---Religion

Religious Delusions

By TNSr5r@unseen.is, November, 2013

 

One of the many possible examples of Soil Type One in the Parable of the Soils, as recorded in Chapter 4 of Mark, is the intellectual person who is just too open-minded and inclusive to believe in the impossibly confining views and demands expressed in the Bible. And these so-called Intellectuals all tend to look and sound the same.

In psychological circles, one is often labeled as paranoid schizophrenic when one builds one or more delusions, or fictional worlds, within which one likes to dwell, or continually dwells, to the exclusion of what the rest of us call “reality.”

In religious circles, we can see that exact same situation.

Some of the symptoms, or traits, of a strong paranoid delusion include: a clear “we versus they” duality; an obvious but usually undefined set of rules for this delusional world; a tendency to quickly judge those who do not spontaneously obey these rules without explanation, who do not know the rules without being told them, as being deficient or inferior in some way; a developing or evolving story line; few, if any, are on the “we” side and almost everyone is on the “they” side”; “facts” to support the delusion are taken from many sources, even diametrically opposed sources, but nearly always taken out of context so they can be misconstrued or misrepresented easily; underlying assumptions and presumptions – sometimes even the primary beliefs are unconscious beliefs, with the delusional individual often unaware of them.

Unfortunately, a strong religious delusion shares almost all the same symptoms.

The purpose for this essay is not to outline a strategy to change or “convert” these people. The people who maintain these religious delusions are usually quite firm in their beliefs, and seldom open to changing them. Any discussion or debate of the issues is fun for the intellectual exercise, but normally become frustrating all individuals who are involved. In other words, argument is probably a waste of time. Further, argument will almost always degrade to personal insults and subjective perspectives.

Allow me to offer some definitions for the purpose of our discussion:

Christianone who perceives oneself to be a follower of Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, to the exclusion of all other religious leaders; one who perceives the Bible as the primary religious text concerning Jesus

Evangelical Christiana Christian who perceives himself or herself to be on the conservative side of the collection of individuals claiming to be Christians; one who believes that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are established historical and spiritual facts; one who believes that the Bible is inspired by God in the original texts and TRUTH for all Christians; one who believes that the purpose of all Believers is to live like Jesus as closely as possible

Biblea collection of writings involving dozens of writers over thousands of years compiled into a document that was and is inspired by God and accurate in the original texts; a “book” that exists today only in translation, which is just that: the result of sincere people performing a careful and detailed translation using what they believed to be the best texts available to them at the time; the major translations today being so similar in text that the differences are more in the depths and nuances of meaning than in actual meaning of the words; does not include some later attempts to “translate” based on a clear and usually stated attempt to change the meaning of earlier translations in order to conform more to the current social and religious beliefs of a minority of people who may not even call themselves Christians (e.g. a certain “modern translation” by a well-known science fiction author to render God either female or gender neutral)

Over the years, I have found myself put in the position of dialoging, even debating, with quite a number of people who refer to themselves as Christians in their earlier lives but later tended to pull back from that description. They have all been quite intelligent and well-read. And they have all tended to embrace the fairly common belief that all major religions teach the same core “truths” and worship the same God by one name or another. Within their ranks, they are not unique but often believe they are.

I have always treasured these discussions, not so much because I saw any victory in pushing or pulling the other individual in any given spiritual direction, but because I valued the refreshing and stimulating thought processes involved in these often intense discussions. One must be an original thinker in order to swim upstream against the current, and I will always appreciate an original thinker. But from these discussions, I have observed some similarities in those thought processes that I thought I might put forth, evidence that not ALL this thinking is original. And I have decided to write about why I believe at least some of those thought processes are inherently wrong, internally inconsistent, and even intellectually dishonest. And these beliefs are all a closed world, are all self-reinforcing, and are all accountable to ONLY their own subjective realities.

I am not saying that any of the individuals were dishonest, but that certain similarities in the thought processes of these people tended toward internal inconsistency and even intellectual dishonesty. In truth, I believe that each of these people were engaged in a spiritual delusion of monumental importance, and most were not aware of this fact.

Allow me to describe and to build a delusion of my own for you to review and comment.

Naturally, there are some ground rules that we must accept for our discussions, or we can go no further. This condition of mandated ground rules is, of course, the norm for all spiritual delusions I have encountered, although normally left unspoken until it was needed to defend the delusion.

First, there is a God, and there is only one God, but this God is NOT like any God or god worshiped in any of the well-known religious traditions; similar to all of them, but different from any of them. Instead, my God is more an amalgam of a number of these traditions. God is, after all, a representation of a particular religious perspective, but in reality the same God is worshiped by all. What you call your God is merely your view of God from the position where you stand. Others are standing in different positions and see a slightly different view. It is pompous and prideful for you to claim that your view from your perspective is correct to the exclusion of all other views and perspectives. God is too great to be limited by any man’s vision and understanding.

Second, God has chosen to reveal himself in many ways and to many groups of people. I accept the Bible and the words of Jesus as authoritative. I also accept other religious writings and other religious figures as authoritative. But we must accept the proviso that the Bible we have today was written by many authors over thousands of years. We must accept that no effort of man is without flaws. We must accept that almost all biblical authors had little or no knowledge of the other authors, or of the other texts, and so had no opportunity to coordinate and cooperate with the messages of other writers. As a result, the collection of stories and letters that is today accepted as the Bible must also be understood to be both incomplete and embellished. Incomplete because there is no reason to believe that God is finished inspiring authors to write; embellished because newer writers and translators over time have added snippets, perhaps entire sections, in order to clarify what they believed was the intent and meaning of the original authors and the original texts.

Third, I accept a long list of authors and teachers as authoritative about God: who and what he is, what he is like, what he wants, and how to get to know him. I quote these authorities often in discussions of God and religious issues, and I expect you to have read these authorities and understand what they believe when we discuss these issues. If you cannot, then we both must accept that you can have very little of importance to add to our discussion or to my beliefs. We both must accept that you are intellectually limited for purposes of our discussion. I will USUALLY listen to what you have to say with some patience, but only with that proviso. I am, after all, a Christian, and Christians are if nothing else loving and open to others of a different belief.

Fourth, the only restriction to our discussion, and this is a major point that cannot be debated or negotiated, is the fact that no author or teacher viewed as a conservative Christian is accepted as authoritative unless only certain claims are allowed and other claims can be dismissed, at my discretion. Any author or teacher who once held a conservative Christian view of God and who has more recently modified his views to be more open and inclusive, is naturally considered to be more authoritative in his more recent views. All honest thinkers must be open to further enlightenment, and those who are not, those who have remained unchanging in their views over time, have limited content to add to our discussions.

Fifth, the actual context of any biblical reference is insignificant. What any biblical author or character has said is at issue; who it was said to, what those listening believed, how they responded, what was going on before or during what was said – all are unimportant factors when it comes to interpreting what was said and what we should “hear” from what was said. What those people intended is never as important as what we conclude. Included in this ground rule is the fact that there is no TRUTH, no absolute, no “fact” that is true under any and all circumstances and for any and all people. Everything in this life is subject to interpretation and to personal application in ways that might vary from individual to individual. In other words, you can never tell me that I am wrong.

And last, it is stipulated by all parties in any discussion that sources and claims which are contrary to those offered by Evangelical Christians are to be accepted as equally authoritative, and are acceptable as a complete and effective rebuttal to any claim or quote made by an Evangelical Christian, regardless of the source or of the beliefs of the source.

So what will our discussion sound like?

Like every conversation I have had with a knowledgeable cynic who had the above perspectives on these issues. Like almost every discussion I have had with a Soil Type One individual.

No matter what is stated, one or more of the ground rules allows for a counter that can pretty much stop the conversation.

And what really is the purpose of those ground rules? It allows me to pick and choose what I believe and who I believe, and does not allow you to offer any argument that I cannot easily dismiss.

In fact, my favorite tactic is to counter a conservative argument with some quote from someone famous, usually someone with strongly stated spiritual views. He or she doesn’t have to have any particular educational qualifications, just strongly stated views that are contrary to some conservative view stated by you. For example, you can make some claim about God and I could rebut your claim by quoting some politician or some scientist, ANY politician or scientist, who disagrees with your claim. And since any claim by anyone is considered a credible claim when it is counter to any claim offered by a conservative Christian, then my claim trumps your claim and you cannot win.

My delusion is self-validating and self-reinforcing. No one can win any argument against me because I am in control of what is and what is not authoritative.

And the real issue is that I am in control. I decide what is right and wrong, who is right and wrong, what is acceptable and not acceptable. And often I do so by claiming that there IS no right and wrong. I get to control the argument. And because I control the argument, I cannot lose the argument. Ever.

AND I GET TO DEFINE GOD!

While I will NEVER admit it, I have become my own idol. I have taken the position of God. I have defined what is TRUTH. My intellect has become the most important and most powerful force in the universe. I can quote more authorities than you. I can reference more books and authors and theologians than you. I can assume without proof that I MUST be right because I CAN reference more books and authors and theologians than you.

He who knows, wins.

And since I control who and what God is, I don’t have to FEAR taking any authority away from him. I don’t have to FEAR making God a creation of mine.

I don’t have to FEAR God!

The ONLY thing I have to fear is for you to understand the presuppositions and the stipulations of our discussion. I cannot admit to them, and you cannot delineate them. All the presuppositions and stipulations MUST remain unspoken. And if anyone points them out, I will deny them. No matter how much I have used any particular item above, I will deny believing that item or using that item.

I KNOW that the presuppositions and stipulations are totally unreasonable, totally illogical, and totally unfair. But my entire peace and confidence, my entire life, depends on those views. And it depends on those views remaining unspoken, so I never have to confront how unreasonable and illogical and unfair are the foundations of my belief system and my life.

As long as you and I remain within the confines of those presuppositions and those stipulations, we can have a profitable and fruitful conversation.

After all, I am open-minded, right?

 

God, Logic & Understanding

Blog-Icon---Religion

I was raised in a Christian home.   All my life I have been taught that God created all things.  I was also taught that Jesus Christ was His son, and it is through Christ alone that we are able to return to Heaven someday.

God, in all His wisdom, created not only the world, galaxy, and universe, and everything in and on them, but also the laws governing all these realms of existence.  If God created laws to govern the physical world, then it stands to reason that these laws are absolute, and cannot be broken.  We may have only given names to a few of these laws (Law of Gravity, Laws of Thermodynamics, Ideal Gas Law, etc.) but there are other laws God has set into motion such as natural law, as mentioned in the very astute posts “What I Believe,” and “So Called Gay Marriage.”

Another law I would consider to be a “natural law” would be mathematical law.  (1+1=2,  anything that opposes that goes against that natural law.)

I have also been taught, and fully believe that God cannot lie.  He tells the truth, regardless of how that makes us feel.  He tells us what is right.   Isaiah 65:16 tells us that God is a God of truth.

I also believe that because of the numerous references of God, as “Heavenly Father” that we are His  children.  1 John 3:10 tells us we are his children. And that He knows and loves each one of us as any loving father loves his children.  Completely and unconditionally.  And as a Father, God wants to teach us, and wants us to grow, and learn, and succeed.

So if God is our Father, and we are His children, and He only tells us truth, and as children He would want to explain things so we can understand them, and we have scriptures like Acts 7: 55 that describe prophets literally seeing God and Jesus Christ as two separate and distinct individuals, why does so much of Christianity tell us that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are one being in three bodies? In fact he even re-iterates himself in the very next verse 56 as if to say, “LOOK! This is what I saw, don’t misunderstand what I’m saying!”

Matthew 3:16 documents when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and even describes Jesus being in the water, the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove, and in verse 17 God speaking saying, “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Three separate beings.

John 20:17, after Christ’s resurrection He tells Mary, “touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father.” Why would Jesus talk in third person about “himself” if he is also God the Father?  furthermore why would he have to “ascend to” Him? If He is the being that He needed to visit, talk to, confer with, etc, why would He HAVE to leave in order to do what needed to be done?

When Jesus was a child and he was teaching the elders in the temple Luke 2:49 Jesus directly refers to God as “my Father,” when Mary asked his where he had been.

Why would there be so many references BY Christ himself, to “The Father,” if they were one person?  I know some of you may quote John 10:30  “I and my Father are one.” But I don’t think he meant this physically.   But if he meant that they were in fact ONE BEING, why didn’t he just say it?   Mark 10:8 states “And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.”  But here Jesus is specifically talking about a husband and wife being “one flesh.”  So if he was able to articulate “one flesh” about a husband and a wife, but he only ever spoke about He and his Father as “one,” but constantly talked about the Father in the third person, then to me, that says they are two distinct, individual beings.  Like when my wife and I talk to our kids, if they ask one of us for something, it’s as good as asking both of us.  We are “one in purpose” and as Mark 10:8 says, even “one in flesh,” but that does not mean we are the same person.  I am my own person, just as my wife is her own person, so although we are two individuals, our marriage makes us “one.” Just as The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are “one” it is in purpose, not “one being.”

All this leads me back to Acts 7:55 & 56

55But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”

From all this, I know that God is our Heavenly Father.  We are his children.  Jesus Christ is His son. Children from the same father are siblings, so I think it would be fair to conclude that Jesus is our brother.  What an AWESOME thought! And the Holy Spirit is God’s messenger, who speaks to us and gives us guidance.

And that’s what I believe.

-Joseph Forefathers

Christian Fatalism

Blog-Icon---Religion

Christian Fatalism

By TNSr5r@unseen.is, January, 2014

I hear the question/issue almost every day: “What is God trying to teach me by putting me through these circumstances?” Or maybe, “…by sending me to prison?”

First, personally, I don’t believe that God sent me to prison. Second, personally, I don’t think that God sent me to prison because he couldn’t teach me some specific lesson in any other way. Third, generally, I really don’t believe that Scripture teaches that God sends bad things or hard times to teach people lessons. Fourth, generally, God often sends believers into circumstances (good AND bad) to be in place for someone else’s need or benefit.

First, I don’t believe that God sent me to prison. I believe that I started on a path back in 1990 which had the risk of getting negative attention from the IRS. As soon as I started helping others fight the IRS, I was in danger. I thought about that a lot before launching. My wife and I prayed about it a lot. And we both concluded certain facts: that we must follow this course of action; that it was to benefit others who could not help themselves; that it was legal and lawful; and that it was our only option if we wanted to maintain our integrity after studying the issues as much as we studied them. At that time, I believed that the greatest risk was a felony conviction resulting in 5-8 years in prison for me, but no prison time for Bonnie. We decided to move ahead and run that risk back in 1990. It was our decision, and my actions, that resulted in me being in prison. God did not send me there; a dishonest prosecutor and an ineffective defense sent me there.

Second, I don’t think God sent me (or anyone) to prison to teach me (or us) something that he could not have taught me (or us) on the outside. It is an easy thing to predict in advance or perceive after the fact certain actions or behaviors that will result from prison influences, and it would be an easy thing to cling to one or more of them in explanation for my going to prison. It would probably be impossible to choose one of those actions or results and claim with confidence and spiritual authority that THIS is why God sent me to prison, but I could select several of the perceived benefits, or even all of them, and claim that they were why God sent me here. Most people would make a list of all positive results of being in prison, and refer to that list as answer to the above question.

Most people HAVE to have a logical explanation for their bad circumstances in life to which they can point in order to maintain their faith in the love and goodness of God.

But think about it, folks. Job was going through life enjoying EVERYTHING because EVERYTHING was awesome. Then God bumped into Satan at the mall and bragged about Job to Satan. And then Satan set about destroying Job’s life. When Satan was

finished taking Job’s health and everything good away from him, and Job asked God “Why?” God NEVER answered Job and NEVER justified allowing Satan to destroy Job.

Look again at Scripture. There was NOTHING Job needed to learn, yet his life was destroyed anyway. Perhaps the only thing Job learned by going through his horrible circumstances was the fact that God had the right to do anything he darn well pleases with and to any of us. But anyone who points that out to us scares the crap out of all of us, and paints God as being a mean and vicious God.

Of course, we like to remember the last part of Job’s life where things were better than they ever were before. We like that because it allows us to hope that if we go through anything like Job did, well, at least things would be better after all the dust settled and the blood dried.

But there was no lesson for Job to learn; there was nothing God wanted to teach Job that required such destruction and pain. I mean, read the first 3 verses of Job again:

“This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil… He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.” [Job 1:1-3, in part, NIV]

Job was blameless before God, and then Job went through hell.

Most people claim that Job had too much pride and needed to learn a lesson. I believe that such claims are based in ignorance and the NEED TO FIND A REASON. Please notice that it was not Job who claimed “he was the greatest man among all the people of the earth,” which has been falsely claimed by many — it was the narrator of the story who made that claim as he was describing Job. Scripture gives no evidence at all of any sin in Job’s life, and no evidence at all of any need to be taught any lessons.

Third, I don’t believe Scripture teaches that God sends bad things or bad circumstances into the lives of believers to teach them spiritual truths. There may be many good things that believers learn when they experience bad events and bad circumstances, but I see no passage that teaches this as one of God’s teaching tools.

In fact, I see just the opposite. Bad things happen. Period.

“He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” [Matthew 5:45, NIV]

“…for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” [Matthew 5:45, KJV]

“…for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” [Matthew 5:45, NASB]

Bad things happen!

Sometimes those bad things come from God. And no amount of positive thinking or self-help is going to remove a really bad day when that really bad day is sent by God. Further, no amount of lessons learned will take that bad day away.

But most Christians NEED to see a reason for bad things or bad circumstances!

Most Christians NEED to believe that God has a reason behind the horrors of their lives in order to for them to continue in faith, believing in a loving and gracious God! Most Christians today would NEVER survive Job’s experience! Most Christians today would follow the advice of one of Job’s friends to “Curse God and die!”

It is hard, or even impossible, for most Christians to believe that God would allow bad things to happen without making them better. It is even more difficult for them to believe that God just might SEND bad things.

Fourth, God sometimes sends believers into bad circumstances to have them in place for the benefit of someone else. Remember, Paul commented once that it would be better for him to go home to heaven, but it would be better for others that he remain on this earth in bad circumstances. So Paul chose to remain. Remember also, in the Garden, Jesus just plain didn’t want to go through the whole crucifixion thing, including being separated from his Father. Yet he submitted to it because of the unbelievable benefit to the entire world.

I have learned to say each morning as I awake: “I am but a pawn in God’s Great Chess game. I wonder what move he has for me today!” I have learned that living this way allows for each day to be exciting and fulfilling, regardless of being in prison; regardless of ANY circumstances! And I have also learned that sometimes pawns get sacrificed.

But, as Paul said in Romans:

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” [Romans 8:28, NIV]

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. [Romans 8:28, KJV]

It does not say that God CAUSES ALL THINGS; it says that God causes all things to work together for our good and his glory. Sometimes that means the Father causes my circumstances to work together for my good. Sometimes that means he causes my circumstances to work together for someone else’s good. No matter what, SOMEONE gains eternal benefits from my circumstances. And I can live with that!

The question here is not “What should I learn here?” but “How can I be used here?”

And God has used me greatly in prison in ways that are very exciting, and I will always treasure my time spent here.

No, I will NEVER like prison! No, I will NEVER believe that I deserved coming here or my prison sentence. No, I will NEVER believe that prison was a good thing for me.

But I will always treasure the opportunities I have had to touch the lives of men who are hurting and struggling and trying to see God in all of this.

And there are a lot of believers here; some preachers, some Bible College professors, some sincere Christians who just don’t know how God could allow them to go to prison when they believe they were innocent, and ESPECIALLY many men who believe that God no longer has a use for them and has discarded them.

And I have the privilege and the thrill and the honor of talking with these men and of helping them to see how God still wants to use them, and of helping them grow in ALL their lives’ circumstances.

There are too many examples in Scripture to mention all of them; of good people going through bad experiences with no clear explanation from God. If we go back to Daniel, we see that he believed God COULD keep him alive, but NOT that God WOULD keep him alive. I believe that Scripture indicates that Daniel expected to die that day, and he was at peace with it. When God finally DID keep him alive, Daniel gave God the credit for his miracle and received a job promotion! Undoubtedly, God keeping Daniel alive got people’s attention. But if you read the entire story again carefully, you will see that it was Daniel’s attitude all through the process (as well as all through his captivity) that so impressed the Chaldean ruler that Daniel was promoted after he partied with some lions and angels.

Something similar happened to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. They suffered a death sentence and survived, and that got them attention. I believe Scripture indicates the men believed they were going to die that day, and they faced it with godly attitudes. And a careful reading of the passage shows that it was their attitudes, that day and all through their captivity, which got them promotions and made their lives better.

They were (all 4 of them) in cast in very bad circumstances, and they were (all 4 of them) manifesting an attitude of loving and serving and worshipping God through it all.

And they were (all 4 of them) NEVER given an explanation by God!

God wanted that attitude more than anything. And when they survived their death sentences, did God free them and allow them to go home? No. But God did give them promotions and other benefits.

And God used their hearts, shown by their attitudes, to touch other people’s lives!

I am convinced that God is not situational in his perspective, but attitudinal. What I mean is, God is less concerned about our circumstances than he is about our attitudes IN our circumstances. It takes the supernatural grace of God to face bad circumstances with the right attitudes. And it is those right attitudes that affect the hearts and lives of those around us.

Yes, surviving a death sentence gets attention. But that only sells tickets. It is the heartfelt attitude of “Yet though he slay me, I will still serve him” which Job showed that touches hearts and brings people to God.

God is more concerned that I face each day as his Ambassador, ready for his use, than he is that I am in prison serving an unjustified sentence. I may have to deal with being in prison, but it is in being in prison that I get the joy of touching the lives of these men.

WHERE I am is merely SO THAT God can use me in the life of someone here!

Christian’s Guide to Political Activism

Blog-Icon---Political

The Christian’s Response to Political Activism

by TNSr5r@unseen.is

January, 1999

 

 

Introduction:

Our current political climate has presented Americans with issues not faced for at least the first 200 years of our Great Nation. The very foundations of our national identity and what America was created to be have been changed and modified over the past one hundred years, leaving millions of Americans feeling that these united States (not a typo) are heading in the wrong direction. A mounting set of global philosophies and policies are being put into place in America which control our nation’s future. Many Americans believe these policies have gone beyond what the Constitution allows, and some believe things have gone much too far to reverse.

Further, many conservative Christian churches and denominations see the new millennium as the initial stages of the biblical events surrounding the end of time as we know it. “End Times” messages are the norm in our Sunday services. The Tribulation is suggested as beginning either January 1st, 2000 or shortly thereafter. It has been suggested that the Rapture of the Church will relieve Believers of the chore of planning and attending New Years Eve parties. Essentially, it is believed, these apocalyptic events do not allow for conservative Christians to involve themselves in political pursuits, and that these Believers should not be pre-occupied with any matters that are not spiritual because the “time is so short.”

In the 1980’s, we saw the rise and fall of the Moral Majority. In the 1990’s, we saw the rise and fall of the Christian Coalition. Both groups are still around, at least to some extent, but their effectiveness has dramatically diminished. Both groups have been accused by conservative Christians as being outside the will of God for Believers because of their political views and activities. Both groups have been disavowed by many Christians as way too political and too involved in the worldly nature of modern existence. In addition, many Christian leaders have taken the position that political involvement has little or no spiritual validity, and absolutely no spiritual validity if that involvement brings out criticism, or worse, condemnation, of our current political leaders. Some of these spiritual leaders and their Christian followers take these views based on their understanding of what it means to be “salt and light” in this world. And some have taken these positions because they believe the Christian’s duty is to submit to our political leaders. This is usually interpreted to include submission to their plans, the laws they pass for us to obey, even their political philosophies and where those philosophies are taking this great nation.

On the other hand, there is a growing group of Believers who are facing their political leaders and calling them accountable to the Constitution and to the Bible. This group is vocal about the beginnings of this nation, its foundational beliefs and philosophies, and how far America has strayed from its intended form of government. This group is calling our political leaders to take America back to what the Founding Fathers envisioned. This new movement within conservative Christianity, which is really not a new movement at all but a resurgence of what most Christians believed more than a hundred years ago, claims that America was planned and blessed by God to be a unique nation, one which would be able to take the Christian gospel to all the world with a greater effect than ever before in history. In addition, these Christians hold that God blessed America with a greater sense of freedom than any nation in history, which was intended by God to allow Christianity to grow and Christians to mature in ways simply not possible with other less free nations.

These politically active Christians believe the Bible calls all Believers to preserve God’s intentions for this nation, or face His wrath.

In this essay, we will examine political activism in light of Biblical mandates on the conservative Christian. As previously stated, many people in the conservative Christian community have, over recent years, embraced a philosophy that allows minimal or no political views, or at least minimal or no resistance to political events and eventualities. This philosophy is usually expressed with claims that submission is the biblically mandated response to our federal government, its administrations and agencies. Further, it is claimed, those groups and individuals who espouse any form of resistance to and even negative expressions toward the government, especially the federal government, are contrary to the Biblical mandates of submission to and support of the government, and are condemned by much of this group within the Body of Christ. Even Ghandi’s and King’s passive resistance is condemned by these Christians as not being in submission to our leaders. In this essay, we will discuss both groups of Christians, the politically submissive and politically active, and examine what the Bible has to say about both views.

A Call to Submission:

There are too many articles, and even books, written on this issue of submission to our rulers that have been much more exhaustive in their research and their presentation than is possible in this short discussion. We won’t attempt to repeat all of their views and assertions in this short essay. Instead, we will attempt to summarize some of the various arguments for and against political activism within the Body of Christ. In this essay, we will discuss, among other issues: submission to our governing authorities, support for our governing authorities, the Christian’s responsibilities concerning stewardship, and finally the Christian’s responsibilities for self-determinism and even self-reliance. And we will try to do so in just a few short pages.

The first issue that seems to need examination is the concept of submission, with all its connotative and denotative meanings. If we perform a word search within the New International Version of the Bible, we find twenty-four references for the word “submit,” six references for the word “submission,” and forty-two references for the word “subject (v).” Not all of these seventy-two references are specifically germane to the issues we are discussing here, but many of them are. Of greater importance, however, are the Hebrew or Greek words used which have been translated into the English words mentioned. Let us take a closer look at what is perhaps the most common of Biblical passages used in this type of discussion. The reference is in Romans 13, and includes several verses. We will quote the first five verses of that chapter to give a more complete context.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.  For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.  Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. [Romans 13:1-5, New International Version]

The common dictionaries tell us the English word submit means to yield to governance or authority. It can further mean to yield to any authority. The word subject means to bring under (sometimes by force), or to make amenable to, the control, dominion or discipline of a superior.

Further, these same dictionaries tell us the word authority means power to influence or command thought, opinion or behavior, or a government agency or corporation to administer a revenue producing public enterprise.

To get a more complete understanding of the words used here and their meanings, let’s look beyond the common dictionaries of today and examine the actual Greek words used and what they meant to those reading the above passage in the first century.

The Authorized Version (also known as the King James Version) uses the words “subject yourselves.” The Greek word is hupotasso, and if we combine Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance with Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, we discover that the Greek word means to subordinate, be obedient to, put under, make subject to, to obey.

These words and their definitions seem to leave little “wiggle room” but instead seem to demand total and complete obedience. The submission to which the Bible calls Believers is apparently unconditional. In addition, the passage carries an implied call to not only submit to but defend the authorities (the government) that God established. Some would say that if God established the authority in control, then we as Believers are called upon to support and even defend that authority, assuming we want to be within the will of God.

So, at first glance, we can only conclude that those who resist the federal (or any) government are outside the clearly established intentions of God. But to truly understand what Paul is telling us in this passage, we need to take a second, deeper look.

Submission to What?

The above words are strong words, suggesting that one must submit regardless of issues involved. But is that really what God is saying in these verses, and in other verses that say basically the same thing? Does God really demand total submission to the governing authorities and their actions and activities? If there are any possible reservations to this apparent total demand, what are those reservations, and under what conditions may the thinking Christian feel free to resist authority?

If we were to stop with the conclusion stated above, we would be correct, but we would be terribly incomplete. While we have examined the dictionary meanings of the words submit and subject, and have discovered the meanings of those words to be clear and mandatory, we have not yet established the exact nature of that to which we are called to submit. Specifically, what did Paul actually mean when he called us to submit to our governing authorities?

The NIV used the phrase governing authorities; the Authorized Version used the phrase higher power or power. We need to examine the actual Greek words used and the meanings intended in order to understand that to which we are called to submit.

The Greek word used in the Romans 13 passage is exousia, which means an authority, jurisdiction or power. The words used here imply the authority behind the structure.  Specifically, Paul is calling Christians to submit to the authority that God established. But does this passage call us to submit to the actual individual or individuals temporarily in the position of power? This is an extremely important question, and I suggest that Romans 13, and other similar passages, call Believers to submit to the authority, or the system of government, that God established, and not to the actual individuals temporarily in power or to their actions and activities.

This is an important claim, in light of the reality that some political leaders twist and pervert the system of government in effect when they take power. This is a powerful claim, in that it calls into question the beliefs of some spiritual leaders who would exhort us to support whatever the current political leaders state and enact. And this is a radical claim, and requires substantial supporting evidence to be believed.

There are two sources of proof to this claim. First, we have a number of Biblical examples of individuals going against the established people temporarily in power, examples which carry no apparent condemnation in Scripture. Second, the foundational beliefs under which America was created establish this same principle very clearly.

Biblical examples of individuals going against authority, with no apparent Biblical condemnation, include:

  1. the midwife who delivered Moses disobeyed Pharaoh and the law
    2. the servant of Pharaoh’s wife lied to her mistress
    3. Rachael disobeyed the law and lied to those in authority
    4. Rahab’s very life disobeyed all moral laws and her actions in support of Joshua’s spies broke existing political laws
    5. Peter and John disobeyed the authorities and preached about Jesus anyway
    6. Paul disobeyed the authorities, Greek and Roman, many times in his efforts to preach the gospel, for which he was often punished
  2. Jesus showed disobedience of the established religious leaders and their beliefs for three years and was crucified for it

The above examples do not carry with them any Biblical condemnation. In fact, most of these actions are praised later in Scripture. In addition, there are many more examples of disobedience that are contained in Scripture, both Old and New Testament, and few if any of them carry any condemnation. So, does this really mean that Paul is demanding something which many Biblical characters, including Paul himself, felt free to disobey when they found it inconvenient? Or does this mean that Paul is demanding submission to the authority established by God, the authority which certain individuals seemed to hold at any point in time? I suggest this means that Paul was demanding absolute submission to the authority established by God, and not to any given individual who claimed to be in charge. Let’s look at America, and what God ordained and established in the late 1700’s. Let me start out with a story from history. Then we will come back to the Bible again.

 

A New World:

Once upon a time, a long time ago, there were thirteen colonies that were created and “owned” by a nation far away. These colonies were inhabited by many of the most industrious individuals who formerly lived in that far-away nation. Truthfully, who would abandon that great society established over hundreds of years just to go to a far away land inhabited by dangerous animals and bloodthirsty natives? Who would leave their comfort and security to struggle in a land with few comforts and no security? Surely, only the most ambitious and the most dissatisfied would.

The people left their comfort and security, survived a difficult voyage, established a tough life, worked hard, and saw their labor produce much fruit. Over the years, animal skins, meat, vegetables and grain were abundantly available, with much left over to ship back to the mother country. But some business leaders in control in that mother country were very greedy, and they decided to get the governing leaders to pass laws that would create strong limitations on and requirements of those ambitious (or dissatisfied) settlers. So laws were passed which required that all goods and products produced in this difficult land had to be sold to large companies owned by these business leaders at a price fixed by these business leaders. These large companies would then ship the products back to the mother country to give the people at home first crack at buying these goods. What was left over could be shipped back to this new land to be purchased by the settlers at a much inflated price (to cover the costs of shipping and only a small corporate profit, you understand). Over time, more and more of these laws were passed requiring the settlers to not sell or barter anything with their friends and neighbors but rather sell everything they did not consume themselves to the big businesses owned by these rich business owners. As time went on, the politicians wanted their fair share of the money being produced in that productive land, so they passed new tax laws. Everything that was shipped to the mother country was already taxed as they were imported and as they were sold, but these new laws required taxes to be paid on all goods and services shipped back to and purchased in that new world by the settlers.

As you might imagine, the settlers would often ignore these new and difficult laws, and sell to or trade with their neighbors without first selling things to the big businesses and then buying things back from those businesses at an inflated and taxed price. The more there was trading between friends and neighbors, the higher became the fixed prices and the more taxes that were applied. Finally, there was virtually no product or service that could be traded in this new world without first being sold to the big businesses, shipped back to the home country, taxed, shipped back to the New World, and then resold to the settlers at a high fixed price and subject to additional taxes.

These ambitious and courageous individuals, the only types of people who would risk everything, including death, just for an opportunity to succeed; these people finally did what any thinking person would predict: they rebelled. The rebellion started with a tea party and ended after eight years of war.

At first, this was just a disagreement over pricing and taxes. But as soon as the business leaders saw the possibility of their profits disappearing and the political leaders saw disobedience and insurrection, things escalated into a full scale war.

At the beginning of the protest (for that was all it started out to be!), some of the more learned men in these colonies got together and tried to provide at least some wisdom and insight for the colonies. As things grew worse, these men got together again and discussed “Where do we go from here?” They decided things had progressed to where further relations with the mother country were simply intolerable. So these men decided to create a new nation. And they wrote their Declaration of Independence.

As these men considered what the new nation would look like and function like, they reviewed virtually every type of government in history. One point in common with almost every type of government known to man was the strong belief or assumption that all rights and authority rested in the leadership or rulership or kingship, and certain limited rights, or none at all, were granted to the people. As these men considered this new insight, they decided to try something that had never been attempted before in the history of mankind. The decided to create a nation based on the beliefs that:

  1. all rights came from God, not from the government; and
    2. all rights were given by God to individuals, not to governments; and
    3. certain responsibilities and authorities were delegated to government, and over only those delegated responsibilities did the government have jurisdiction; and
    4. all other rights not specifically delegated to the government were totally outside the authority or jurisdiction of that government

No such government had ever been created in the history of mankind. Ever. No government ever believed that rights came from God and rested in mankind. No government ever faced the limitation that anything not explicitly delegated to the government was explicitly withheld from the government. No government ever allowed such total and unlimited freedom for its people, individual freedom that was limited only by God or by another individual’s freedom. This was truly a new world!

These men who created this new nation, these Founding Fathers, all believed in these new concepts. They believed to the extent that almost all of them lost their entire fortunes, and most died, to give birth to this new nation. All of them truly believed that God was behind the creation of this new nation, although not all of them agreed totally with each other on the specific definition of that God. But they generally recognized that the God of the Bible was the author and creator of this new nation. And they all agreed that this God was leading the rebellion, the war, and the birth of the new nation.

An interesting note as to the rebellion: at the beginning, before war actually broke out, while it was only a rebellion against unreasonable commercial controls and intolerable taxation, only about five per cent of the population was actually behind the rebellion. About five per cent considered the rebellion itself to be treason. And about ninety per cent of the people were on the fence, wanting peace, and accepting the status quo.

Those sitting on the fence condemned those they considered “activists” and claimed they were rebelling against God. Many sermons were delivered stating that these “activists” were not in submission to the government as God required and demanded in Romans 13 and other passages. America has always had its pacifists. America has always had its sincere Believers who either quietly or loudly condemned political activism. America has always had its group of spiritual leaders who asked, “Can’t we just get along?” And America has always had its leaders who did not appreciate those who did not follow their leadership.

One man in the mid-1700s who was against the “activists” was a well-known preacher. He used his pulpit to condemn many of these so-called rebels and became a powerful historical figure. He had no real church, but traveled from town to town looking for pulpits to preach from for a week or two at a time. He came into a small town one day and saw some men in the middle of the town square who had been beaten and tortured. When he inquired as to the reason for the torture, he was informed that these men were preachers who did not preach what the Church of England demanded. Since they preached other beliefs, they were punished. This man explored more fully, and was so stirred in his heart by what he discovered that he took up their defense in the established court. As an attorney under the authority of the British king, he had almost total freedom as to what he could say. And as a preacher, he gave a tremendous sermon, inciting the entire town to rebel against the tyranny of the British government. In his sermon delivered in court to the judge, this man uttered words which would later become one of the most quoted phrases in our nation’s history. He first delivered his comments in court in defense of those preachers, but later he would deliver the same words to the leadership of what was to become our new nation. In his condemnation of the judge, the troops and the British government, this lawyer and preacher claimed that man must always be free to believe and to preach what he felt God gave him to preach, and should never be faced with the threat of violence or death for preaching those words to their flocks. And when faced with the possibility of changing what God wanted a man to preach in order to live, this man, this lawyer, this preacher, this Patrick Henry, uttered his soon to be famous quote: “Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” The words of the sermon delivered before the British judge was to become the rallying cry for a new nation. When faced with submission to the British church, Patrick Henry knew what his Biblical response must be. Months later, he delivered what was probably the most powerful speech the new nation’s leadership ever heard, which included his now famous quote. His speech, delivered to a wavering and undecided political leadership, directly resulted in the declaration of war against England.

Patrick Henry knew about submission to the governing authorities, and he knew when to resist.

The point of this history lesson, aside from reviewing facts that most Americans have forgotten or never learned, is to clearly establish exactly what “governing authority” God actually put in place over Americans. The governing authority that God put in place was a Constitutional Republic of limited government and maximum individual freedom, NOT a specific leader or a specific elected representative, and certainly not what we have in Washington, D.C. today. In fact, according to most of the Founding Fathers, God authored the Constitution. According to all the Founding Fathers, God gave all those rights to mankind, and mankind, by way of the Constitution, delegated certain powers and limited authority to the federal government. In case some didn’t understand the concept of limited delegation, the Founding Fathers stated it more clearly in the Bill of Rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Amendment 10, Constitution for the United States of America.

The government has only a few specifically delegated responsibilities in the Constitution, and outside of those limited responsibilities the federal government has absolutely nothing lawful to do. It cannot create for itself new powers or new responsibilities. It cannot create for Americans new programs that are based in powers or authorities not explicitly delegated to it by the Constitution. It cannot exceed its Constitutional limitations without losing its Constitutional authority and the legal justification for existence. Once the government exceeds its lawful and Constitutional authority and limitations, it becomes unlawful and unconstitutional; a rogue government, outside of the control of the Document that created it and gives it authority to exist.

More importantly, for every new power the government takes on, the rights of the people are reduced, usurped, or wrongfully taken away. The government usurps what was given by God to the people every time it creates for itself a new role or a new responsibility. The Founding Fathers believed that no government which wrongfully takes God-given rights from the people to whom God gave those rights can be viewed as being within the will of God. They believed that no government that wrongfully takes authority or responsibility upon itself that God did not write into the Constitution can consider itself to be anything but a rebellious and unlawful government. They believed that no government official, elected or appointed, who continues to participate in this process of wrongfully takes on authorities and responsibilities that rightfully and Constitutionally belong to We The People can call himself or herself anything other than treasonous.

If God designed America to be run in a certain specific manner, and the government evolves into something else by usurping authority from the people, then that government MUST be brought back into conformity with what God intended.

And We The People are the only ones who can do that. It was to We The People that God granted all those rights. It was to We The People that God gave this great nation. It was to We The People that God gave this unique form of Government. And it was We The People that allowed the government to expand beyond its restrictions and become unconstitutional.

Therefore, it must be We The People who are charged with bringing America back to its roots, back within its limitations, back to what God created.

A Biblical Mandate:

Those of us who call ourselves Christian have allowed those who we appointed to guard our freedoms to instead usurp those freedoms. That which God gave to us, our rights and freedoms, have been wrongfully taken from us. And God has charged all Believers to be good stewards of everything he gives us. God gave us those rights and freedoms for specific reasons, to accomplish specific tasks for his Kingdom. God calls us to protect and defend the authority he delegated to us and that we wrote into the Constitution. Can we then ignore this process of usurpation by our government and still call ourselves good stewards? Can we accomplish for God the tasks he designed and intended for us unless we are good stewards of the tools which he expressly gave us? Can we allow this Great Nation, creation of God for this world and a gift from God to us, to be changed and modified to such an extent that it barely resembles what God intended? Do we have any Biblical justification for allowing a small number of ambitious and greedy and unlawful people to continue to pervert what God created? Can we sit still and keep our mouths shut while all this is going on and still think we are following God? Can we continue to submit to this unconstitutional and ungodly federal government with no protest?

I think not!

I believe any Biblical understanding of the concept of stewardship requires all Believers to rise up and support a call to our government that it return to the Constitutional Republic created by God and by Godly men. We cannot do otherwise. We MUST submit to the authority given to us by God and demand that our government do the same. If we do not, history will condemn us, our Founding Fathers will condemn us, the Scriptures will condemn us, and God will condemn us.

Does God Send People To Hell?

Blog-Icon---Religion

Does God Sentence People To An Eternity Of Punishment In Hell?

By TNSr5r@unseen.is, February, 2014

 

Many people ask this question. In fact, millions have asked this question over the past 2,000 years, and even longer. Some have asked out of fear; some because they do not know. Many have asked because they would seek to condemn, or at least reject, a God who would torture people for an eternity FOR ANY REASON at all, but especially those people refused to kneel down and worship him.

So how about it? Does God sentence people to eternal torture just because they would not do exactly what he demands?

The first thing that must be settled is the fact that we are dealing with a Biblical concept so we will look for the answers in the Bible. It would be a little foolish, and MORE than a little dishonest, if we ask a biblical question and then look for the answer in the Koran or the Encyclopedia Britannica or in some autobiography of a famous actor or some other writing. If we ask a question about a Biblical concept, then we are intellectually and philosophically limited to the Bible for an answer to the question.

In other words, let’s say the Bible DOES claim that God will send anyone who doesn’t totally obey him to spend an eternity in torture. If we can find an acceptable explanation in ANY OTHER WRITING, we can claim we have the option of embracing that answer and putting the matter to rest.

But would the matter STAY at rest? I mean, really? For most people, there would always be questions; like, “If God really meant THAT, then why didn’t he put it in the Bible?” or, “If God really meant THAT, then why did it take thousands of years to let us know? Isn’t that torture in itself? Letting millions of people die in fear of their eternity, yet knowing all the time that the answer would get written in the Twentieth Century: only a cruel God would do that!”

ADMIT IT! No matter what answer you come up with, no matter how much sense it makes to you, ANY ANSWER to this question that does not come from the Bible will bring up many more questions. Face it: only God can come up with an acceptable answer to this question, and the Bible is the only acceptable place to put that answer. If God is going to put that THREAT in the Bible, then God must put the EXPLANATION in the Bible, too.

So feel free to look anywhere else you want for the answer to this question, but I will take the time to look at only the Bible for the answer and nowhere else. In other words, you can read anyone’s conjecture ABOUT the Bible, or you can read the Bible.

And the answer is not a simple or short response. If you ask a deep question about an eternal issue, one about which many thousands of pages of text has been written over thousands of years, and you want a short yes/no answer… Well, don’t you think that is kind of stupid? You asked a serious question about a serious issue, and you will get a serious answer. Deal with it! After all, one way or another, this is YOUR eternity we are talking about!

But first let me clear up two errors that have been propagated, perhaps even invented, by the Christian Church.

First, you don’t go to hell because of things you do. No one goes to hell because he or she commits sins, or does bad things, or makes mistakes. No one goes to hell for lying or stealing or committing adultery. You can go to hell for one reason and ONLY one reason – you have chosen to not believe the God of the Bible and the claims of Christ.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [Romans 1:18-21, NASB]

Second, you don’t go to heaven because of the things you do. Anyone and everyone can go to heaven regardless of your religious background and beliefs. Scripture tells us that people can go to heaven if they choose to go to heaven. The only requirement is to believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus – believe that in his life, death, and resurrection there is a power and a plan to erase sin and render you acceptable to God for an eternity. And Scripture indicates that “believe” is more than a simple intellectual collection of facts; it is instead a process of accepting by faith that this life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is the only sacrifice for your sins that is acceptable to God and relying on that sacrifice as your only means of being invited to heaven by God. This “believe” results in being adopted into the Family of God and in being an adopted brother to Jesus.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. [Roman 3:21-26, NIV]

You don’t go to hell for what you do – you go to hell because of who you are.

If you are adopted into God’s family, you go with him to heaven for an eternity. If you aren’t adopted into God’s family, you get left behind. It’s as simple as that!

Now, back to the question of hell…

The concept of hell was ambiguously present in what Christians call the Old Testament, the first two-thirds of the Christian Bible. The Jews would refer to these writings as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, or sometimes the Torah. The libraries of Christians and Jews alike have many, many books and essays and theological papers on hell, but both have very little Scripture on it. [SEE NOTE #1]

The Christian New Testament has more on the topic, and it is more specific, but most of the individual references, both Old and New Testament, are still somewhat incomplete. In other words, it takes putting them all together into a composite description before you can actually get a picture of hell. But first, we need to tell a story in order to get the “big picture” so the smaller snapshots will make more sense.

So, let’s start way back at the beginning; and the beginning was way back before the universe was created.

Before God created anything, he had a PLAN. He wanted a being, perhaps many beings, besides himself for fellowship and companionship for the rest of eternity. We don’t know how long he waited to implement this PLAN, because we don’t have any calendar to measure the first part of eternity, eternity past. Or the second part of eternity, eternity future, for that matter. Anyway, it was a long time ago, if we can even use the word “time” in this part of the discussion. Also, I don’t intend to say that God NEEDED our fellowship, or that he WANTED our fellowship; there are many books of theology to address that question. You are on your own for that. I merely want to say that God DECIDED to have our fellowship. God DECIDED to create a being that had an eternal part, an eternal aspect of his being, which would last for eternity. Stick with me here; this is important.

According to the Bible, only God, angelic beings, and mankind, will be around for the rest of eternity. [SEE NOTE #2]

Of course, many people want to think that their dogs will be in heaven for eternity, too, and I kind of like that idea. But those who talk about “doggie heaven” with everyone don’t talk about “doggie hell” with anyone. So we are going to restrict our discussion to just God, angelic beings, and mankind.

So God DECIDED to create mankind. And he decided to create an entire universe as mankind’s playground, and a beautiful planet for mankind to live on.   And then he created his masterpiece: mankind. Note that God created mankind in two models – male and female. There were probably many reasons why God created a male and female version of mankind, but the first reason given in the Bible was so that mankind would reflect the image of God. Apparently it took a male and a female version of mankind in order to get enough of God reflected to satisfy him. Maybe that means that Adam by himself was not God’s image, contrary to what so many people have taught for so many years; maybe creating mankind in God’s image required creating a male and female in fellowship. But again, you can argue about that on your own time.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let THEM rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he THEM. [Genesis 1:26-27, NIV]

Some people have suggested it was a little wasteful for God to create an entire universe just for a single planet of people. But when you can do ANYTHING you want to do, does it really matter?

And some people believe God created such a huge universe because he wanted to create more than one planet full of people. But when you can do anything you want, does it really matter?

So, to get back to the issue, God created mankind with an eternal spirit, and he placed mankind in a beautiful garden full of good things to eat, plenty of sunshine, a VERY limited wardrobe, and HBO.

Hold it! Don’t interrupt me! I can tell just by looking at you that you are about to claim Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are just a story and you don’t believe it. But I would say that the Bible presents the story as if it is true, and key figures all through the Bible, including Jesus, all speak of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden as if they existed. So I have a question for you: If you are going to cut out part of the Bible just because you don’t believe that part, then why don’t you cut out the parts about hell and save me a lot of trouble here?

Still here? Good. And you have just uncovered our second ground rule. The first rule is that we limit the material for our answers to the facts and material in the Bible. The second rule is that we accept ALL of the Bible and we don’t cut out parts just because we don’t or can’t believe in those parts. If we start down that trail, we finish only when we run out of White-Out!

And the third rule is WE DON’T INTERRUPT THE STORY! All righty, then; let’s move on.

But first let me comment on what you were about to bring up. Do you think you are the first to claim there is a part of the Bible you can’t believe? Come on, man, think about it! We are talking about eternity here; infinity in every way possible. And we are talking about God. GOD! That means we HAVE to talk about the impossible! Do you think IMPOSSIBLE is a problem with an infinite God?

Seriously, do you think an eternal hell is even POSSIBLE?

If you think an eternal hell is impossible, and you don’t believe in the impossible, then why are we wasting time here? Let’s blow this discussion and go watch something that is the perfect example of possible: like all the unbelievably stupid people on these “He did my girlfriend so I am going to do his mom” talk shows. I mean, is it possible that there are REALLY that many people stupid enough to fill so many episodes? And do you think there are REALLY that many people stupid enough to WATCH all those shows?

Or, if you want impossible that we can all “see,” let’s look at light. If you can look at light, that is. Scientists tell us that light is a wave of energy in a particular series of wavelengths. Yet they admit that light is also a particle of matter they call a photon. So light is at the same time BOTH a wave of energy AND a particle of matter. And, YES, scientists tell us that is impossible. But impossible doesn’t stop them from soaking up millions of dollars of tax money each year to study impossible.

So DO YOU REALLY THINK IMPOSSIBLE STOPS GOD?

We are talking about a supernatural God and an eternal hell, and you want to tell me you don’t believe in Adam and Eve and a special garden because it is IMPOSSIBLE?

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” [Matthew 19:26, NIV]

Now, I told you about interrupting the story!

So God created mankind in his own image by creating a male and a female. And being in his image means, IN PART, that mankind will live forever with God. And God put mankind in a special garden facing a river, a couple of trees, and endless possibilities. All God asked was one tiny thing.

And mankind blew it! Eve said, “The devil made me do it!” and Adam said, “May I remind you, God, that it was your idea to bring Eve into the game. I was doing just fine without her.” And God said, “ENOUGH!” and there was silence for a moment. “I gave you a fantastic playground where you could do anything you wanted. I put the most handsome man in the world with the most beautiful woman on the planet. And I gave you everything you needed to eat so you would never have to work for your dinner, and never have to wash the dishes. And I gave you ONE RULE! Only one thing in all the world were you told to not do! And as soon as I turned my back, what did you do?

YOU BROKE MY ONE RULE!

“Adam, you have no idea the repercussions, the ripple effect, your decision is going to have. You have made a horrible impact on all of creation! I created mankind so that ALL MANKIND would enjoy an eternity in heaven with me. EVERYONE who came from your union would have spent an eternity where there was nothing but perfection. EVERY GENERATION of mankind until I stop the clock would have spent a small amount of time on this perfect planet, and then would have gone to spend eternity with me in a perfect heaven.

“But you blew it for everyone, Adam. No, you didn’t surprise me. No, your decision was not unexpected. But you DID disappoint me, Adam. I had intended for ALL mankind to spend eternity in heaven with me. YOU just made that impossible! Someday, you will understand what your decision to disobey me will do to the rest of mankind.”

So God kicked Adam and Eve out of that special garden into a world where they would have to struggle and experience all sorts of problems. And wash a lot of dishes. And it was a VERY imperfect world from that point forward.

But God continued to follow his PLAN to spend eternity with as many of mankind as possible.

You see, God had already dealt with some of his angelic beings. They broke God’s Rules, too. [SEE NOTE #3]

So God had created what we call heaven, a place of perfection where absolutely nothing imperfect can enter. And God sealed heaven against imperfection for all eternity. Nothing imperfect will EVER be able to go to heaven. God will be in heaven for eternity, and as many people as God can gather will be there with him.

But everyone and everything that God CANNOT gather to himself and take to heaven will have to remain in an imperfect universe, forever separated from God, forever separated from everything wonderful and good and perfect. [SEE NOTE #4]

But back to the PLAN…

So God chose a particular group of people, a tribe directly descended from a man he liked, named Abraham, as the people he would honor and bless in ways no other people in all of history would be honored and blessed. The catch? Again, all they had to do was obey the rules. But this time there were ten of them. And what happened? The people blew it.

When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us a god who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.” [Exodus 32:1, NIV]

So God created a new and much larger set of rules. This time the set of rules had two purposes. One purpose was to show mankind just how serious disobedience was to God. God created a spiritual law that required a blood sacrifice for every sin. Someone sinned and something had to die. Then he set up a series of feast days, holy days that the people had to observe, to make the sacrifices more endurable by the people. The second purpose was to show the people how to live. Or more specifically, how God’s Chosen People should live in order to demonstrate: 1) their love for God, 2) their love toward the rest of God’s Chosen People, and 3) God’s love for all people everywhere.

This was a sort of “First and foremost, LOVE ME. And then follow the rest of the rules as if they were normal actions springing out of that love. In addition, there are things you will need to do, sacrifices, that will make amends for messing up. If you LOVE me, and if you LIVE like you love me, and if you FOLLOW these simple steps to maintain the fellowship that I wanted all along, then everything will be fine.”

After all, God wanted to make it clear that he loved his chosen people in a special way. And if he made it clear how he wanted them to live in response to his love, then they would naturally want to please him, and they would live just exactly how he wanted them to live. Right?

And what was this system of rules? It was very simple. In order to repair the damage that Adam caused to all of creation, and in order to spend an eternity in heaven with God, YOU HAD TO BE PERFECT! That’s all there was to it! [SEE NOTE #5]

“But,” you exclaim, “NO ONE is perfect!” And you are exactly right. But God had a PLAN for that, too. So stop interrupting!

As I was saying, the people exercised their self-will anyway. Obedience became limited to certain actions God demanded and the love of God was all but ignored. They cut some corners. They bent some rules. Other rules they just plain broke. The rules about a blood sacrifice became so twisted that many people lived like they wanted to live and counted on those sacrifices to make them acceptable in God’s eyes anyway. It got so bad that they had a group of people, a sort of religious police force they called the Pharisees, whose primary function was to wander around and watch for people ignoring or breaking the rules. In other words, the people just didn’t measure up to the simple rules that God wanted for them. Jesus himself pointed out the problem of that time: the Pharisees may have been the most OBEDIENT of the people, but even they weren’t good enough to spend eternity in heaven with God.

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 5:20, NIV]

God’s spiritual rules were put in place to show people how to be righteous, how to be in right standing before God. But instead, the people slid into a sort of mindless and soulless obedience of the rules. And they just plain forgot about loving God.

But God was waiting for just the right time to open the next part of his PLAN. This part involved a Perfect Sacrifice, a sacrifice that didn’t just cover up the sins of the people who were committed since the last sacrifice. This was a Perfect Sacrifice that paid for all sins, that actually MADE RIGHTEOUS the people who had sinned. This Perfect Sacrifice would change the people back into what mankind started out to be – perfect and without sin.

This Perfect Sacrifice MADE the people perfect in God’s eyes. [SEE NOTE #6]

But this Perfect Sacrifice was going to be the most PAINFUL sacrifice in all eternity. A Perfect Sacrifice was going to take more than just a lamb without blemish. It would take a Lamb that was, well, PERFECT!   This Perfect Sacrifice would take nothing less than the sinless Son of God.

This blood sacrifice that would be a perfect and eternal sacrifice, a sacrifice that would not need to be repeated at feast after feast, that would NEVER need to be repeated again – EVER – would have to be Jesus.

And this Perfect Sacrifice wouldn’t just COVER UP sin, but actually PAY the penalty required, the blood sacrifice required, for sins so those same sins could be forgiven.

FORGIVEN! You see, forgiven is the flip side of perfect. Forgiven is where God no longer sees your sins. You have heard it said, “Love is blind!” This is how God turns FORGIVEN into something practical:

When you have been forgiven and God looks at you, he doesn’t see your sins.

When you have been forgiven and God looks at you, he sees a sinless and a righteous and a PERFECT person.

When you have been forgiven and God looks at you, he sees Jesus!

And because of that, God can invite you into his heaven for eternity.

And what is the catch? All you have to do is accept that Perfect Sacrifice as the one and only sacrifice necessary for your sins. Nothing else is necessary and nothing else is allowed. Believe it and accept it. Of course, you can’t really believe it and keep on living the way you had been living. But that was part of God’s PLAN, too. If you truly believe this Perfect Sacrifice can deal with sin in a way that mankind cannot deal with it, and if you accept this Perfect Sacrifice to pay for the all of the sins you personally have committed over your life, then God agrees to overlook your sins, agrees to let love blind him concerning your sins, and he will invite you to spend eternity with him in heaven after you die.

That’s all there was to it.

Perhaps there is one more issue we should address.

Technically, hell is not eternal.

Yes, I know, everyone says it is. If you have heard any sermons on the issue, I suspect the preacher told you that hell was eternal. But hell is a holding place until the Second Coming of Jesus and his Final Judgment. Then Satan and demons and hell and all the people who rejected Jesus will be thrown into what the Bible calls the “lake of fire,” and God will take the rest of home to Heaven with him.

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. [Revelation 20:10-15, NASB]

In all of Scripture, there are only two eternal places; two places where everything that was created in Genesis will remain forever; two places where created beings can spend eternity. One is heaven, and one is the lake of fire. And make no mistake about it: you will be in one place or the other for all eternity. One place we will have love and joy and excitement for all eternity. The other place “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

So let’s ask the question again:

DOES GOD SEND PEOPLE TO SPEND AN ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT IN HELL?

And this is God’s answer:

I gave mankind one simple rule. You blew it!

Then I gave you ten simple rules. You blew it!

Then I gave you detailed rules so clear that even an idiot studying to be a moron could follow them. You blew it!

Then I gave you a system of sacrifices that would cover all your sins committed since the last sacrifice just to show you how serious this sin business really is, so you could make sure you were in right standing before God. You still blew it!

I gave my own Perfect Son as a once and for all sacrifice with only one requirement: that you believe it and accept by faith that this Perfect Sacrifice will pay the penalty for all of your sin and rebellion. And you blew it once again!

I have done EVERYTHING I CAN FOR YOU! All you have to do is make a choice.

And you still blow it!

Yet you blame me! You claim I SEND people to hell for an eternity because of some silly mistakes on their part.

SORRY, MAN! IT’S YOUR CHOICE! I say again: IT’S YOUR CHOICE! I DON’T SEND ANYONE TO HELL!

You can choose to put your faith in my Perfect Sacrifice as payment for your sins, and stop depending on your own efforts and your own goodness for that payment, and you can spend an eternity in heaven with me.

Or you can choose to go your own way.

In other words, it is my way or the Highway to Hell!

BUT NO ONE GOES TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT UNLESS THEY CHOOSE TO GO TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT! SO DON’T BLAME ME!

 This is God’s answer to the question. So let me ask, are you going to blow it, too?


 

NOTE #1:

The Old Testament uses several Hebrew words that apparently mean what we now call HELL. The subject is sort of “danced around” with many vague comments that seem to MEAN hell. SHEOL and GAHENNA are the most commonly used Hebrew words before the time of Jesus. By the time the New Testament writers came along, the Greek word HADES had become the standard or “catch-all” word, from which we derive our English word hell. But Old Testament or New Testament, Hebrew words or Greek, hell ALWAYS signified a place you REALLY DID NOT WANT TO GO!

The wicked return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God. [Psalm 9:17, NIV]

Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to Sheol, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. [Psalm 16:9-10, NIV]

The cords of death entangle me, the anguish of Sheol came upon me; I was overcome by trouble and sorrow. [Psalm 116:3, NIV]

In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus at his side. [Luke 16:23, NIV]


NOTE #2:

God needs no explanation, but Angelic Beings might need a few words. This is a general term for created beings who have supernatural powers and will live from their creation until “eternity future.” Within this general term is a whole host of different categories. We have absolutely no clue as to how many different categories there are, or the numbers in each category, but some Scriptures seem to suggest thousands of each exist. Among the Angelic Beings in Scripture are angels, cherubim, seraphim, military forces, and even a group called council members. No, don’t ask me to explain any of these beings, but examples in Scripture include:

So the Lord banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. [Genesis 3:23-24, NIV]

Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haraan. When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. [Genesis 28:10-12, NIV]

God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the “gods.” [Psalm 82:12, NIV]

For who in the skies above can compare with the Lord? Who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings? In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. [Psalm 89:6-7, NIV]

But which of them has stood in the council of the Lord to see or to hear his word? [Jeremiah 23:18, NIV]

 Did you listen in on God’s council? [Job 15:8, NIV]

Micaiah continued, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramath Giliad and going to his death there?’ One suggested this and another suggested that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ the Lord asked. ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said. ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’”     [I Kings 22:19-22, NIV]

Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell face down to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?” The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. [Joshua 5:13-15, NIV]

I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. [Ephesians 1:18-23, NIV]


NOTE #3:

Lucifer was a real bigwig in the angelic realm; so big he had his own nickname: Morning Star. He was so powerful he believed that he only needed a little more and he would be equal to God. So he gathered a large group of his fellow angels and staged a rebellion.

Lucifer lost and became renamed as Satan, and he and one-third of the angels, those who sided with him, were tossed out of heaven, because of God’s absolute rule that sin and rebellion cannot abide in heaven.

And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down – that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. [Revelation 12:7-9, NIV]

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. [Isaiah 14:12-15, NIV]


NOTE #4

Again, God created heaven so that he had someplace eternal where he could spend the rest of eternity with the angelic beings and the human beings he had created. When Satan and his followers lost his rebellion, they were thrown out of heaven. When Adam and Eve rebelled, mankind became infected with sin, and it was passed down from one generation to another. Before Adam and Eve disobeyed, all mankind was destined to spend eternity with God in heaven. AFTER Adam and Eve disobeyed, only people who individually chose to have God deal with their sin and who chose to remain in fellowship with God would be allowed in heaven. The rest would be allowed to pursue their choice – apart from God.

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment . . . then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. [II Peter 4 and 9, NIV]

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. [Revelation 20:7-15, NIV]


NOTE #5

Remember that heaven was for God to spend the rest of eternity with mankind, AND that no sin or rebellion was to be allowed in heaven. Satan and his angels rebelled and were thrown out of heaven. So for any man or woman to be invited to heaven, that man or woman had to be without sin, had to be perfect. Heaven has a seal around it that will not allow sin to pass through.

Follow peace with all men, and be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. [Hebrews 12:14, NIV]

May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.  [I Thessalonians 3:13, NIV]

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. [Ephesians 1:4, NIV]

But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do, for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.” [I Peter 4:15-16, NIV]


NOTE #6

You say, and I agree, that no man is PERFECT. Yet God REQUIRES us to be perfect if we are to go to heaven. But the flip side of PERFECT is FORGIVEN, and it is just as good in God’s eyes. And God offers forgiveness to all people, and that forgiveness is ours if we choose it. God is doing his part to reconcile a relationship that was originally intended to be eternal, but has been broken.

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. [II Corinthians 3:18-19, NIV]

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world. [I John 2:2, NIV]

Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation – if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the Gospel.    [Colossians 1:21-23, NIV]

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.  Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. [Romans 8:1-11, NIV

What I believe

Blog-Icon---Personal

What I Believe

By TNSr5r@unseen.is

 

Introduction

This document exists because I wanted to write these things down, and for no other reason. I am not attempting to claim, or even suggest, that those with opposing views are wrong. I truly do not care if you are wrong, and I truly do not care if you believe I am wrong. I go through this exercise only because some have suggested it would be a benefit TO ME.

And please, don’t misunderstand me. I am not being arrogant. Arrogance would claim that I am right and everyone else is wrong. And arrogance would probably demand that everyone else agree with me. This is not at all what I am doing here. In fact, just the opposite. I don’t require anyone to agree with me, nor do I require myself to agree with anyone else. And that makes me free, perhaps more free than you.

I hesitate compiling this document at all, not because I don’t want to go through the potentially excruciating process of delineating my beliefs and views, but because it will make it at least somewhat easier for people to place me in a box and give me a label rather than deal with me as an individual. And most people are far more comfortable dealing with those whom they can put in a box with a label and trust that most of the time that individual will stay within that box and act and react as expected. Any box and label that can more easily be applied to me as a result of this document would be repugnant to me. After all, anyone who would take the time to write down their beliefs certainly must be inflexible and judgmental, right?

Yet, I really conduct this possibly frustrating exercise more because of those who pride themselves on being open-minded and accepting of others. There is a large segment of America who is usually liberal in political views and who is committed to the philosophy that there is very little (and maybe nothing) that is “right” and “wrong” and a whole lot of things (and maybe all things) that are gray. Opinions may vary between individuals, they believe, but no one has the right to tell another that his/her opinion is wrong. It is often claimed by this large group that all opinions are equally correct, equally valid, and equally important.

I find that almost every individual within this group that I have met over the years falls into one of two categories.

The first category, or segment, is composed of very caring people and they just don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. So facts and objectivity are far less important, and quite easily discarded, when engaged in any discussions about anything deemed important. They tend to believe that it is far more important to communicate acceptance and approval and avoid communicating rejection than it is to resolve what is true. These are some of the most caring people I have ever known. These people are more motivated by heart issues than they are by facts.

The other, and perhaps far larger, segment of this group takes the position that all things are gray because there are no absolutes. There is nothing, they believe, that can be established as universally true or universally false. As a result, there is nothing that can be established as more or less accurate and, therefore, all opinions are equally accurate (or inaccurate) guesses about indiscernible and unverifiable “facts.” These people are more motivated by philosophical issues than they are by facts.

These two groups have totally different purposes behind taking the exact same stance. But regardless of the purpose, both groups believe themselves to be more open-minded and accepting of others than people who claim that two disparate views cannot be equally correct and equally valid. In other words, they think they are open-minded because they tell no one they are wrong.

But are they really open-minded and accepting?

I contend not.

Why do I say that? Because if all opinions are equal and all opinions must be accepted without correction or judgment or condemnation, then they could never claim that my opinion is wrong. Specifically, if I were to claim my view is right in front of one of these open-minded and accepting individuals, they always, and I mean always, get upset and tell me I am wrong to claim that I am right. Yet, one wonders, if they claim that all opinions are equally correct and all opinions are equally valid, then what business do they have in telling me I am wrong?

In other words, they view my opinion as equally correct and equally valid as long as I embrace the belief that every opinion is equally correct and equally valid. But as soon as I claim that any specific belief is correct (or incorrect), especially any belief that can be construed as conservative, then they make the claim that the conservative belief is wrong.

Why is it that being open-minded and inclusive ALWAYS requires me to accept as valid your view but it never requires you to accept as valid my view?

So, for those who are caring and open-minded and accepting and understanding, I ask that you extend to me the same grace you would demand of me – leave me to my own view without trying to tell me that I cannot have that view. Only then can you benefit from reviewing this document. If you cannot extend to me the same grace that you demand of me, then it would probably be best if you did not read this document at all. Not because I will in any way be telling you that you are wrong or cannot have your own view, but because in reading this you will violate your own belief about every opinion being equally valid and equally important.

And I don’t want you to have any trouble sleeping tonight because you have just become disillusioned by discovering that you are a hypocrite.

One more thing.

The fact that I state my views does not mean that all other views in disagreement with mine are wrong. It could mean that, but I cannot possibly know that. My view on any given issue may be the result of many hours of thought, prayer, study, more prayer, more study, and more thought, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is the only correct view. Unless I claim omniscience, I must always admit my limitations.

I cannot know all things, so it is always possible that there are facts outside my understanding or even awareness that, if I knew and understood them, would change my view.

This is why there can be no atheist. [Think about it…] My view will almost certainly be a considered position because of my very character and nature, but I must always be aware of and even admit that I may learn something today that would render my view inaccurate. So, no matter what you think you are hearing when reading this document, one thing you are not hearing is the claim that all who disagree with me are wrong. It is not in my heart and will never be in my words.

That having been said, I will never shy away from taking the responsibility of having a view. For any who look to me for input, I am constrained to offer only researched and well-thought input. I will never offer a “lite beer” opinion. If it is only opinion, I will always label it as such and seldom offer it. If I offer a view, I strive to give chapter and verse as to how I came to that conclusion and why.

To offer an opinion that is not researched and well-considered does no service to anyone other than the one expressing it. It is a selfish act. Its only value in this world is how it makes you feel when you tell it, or how it makes you feel when others express appreciation to you for sharing it. But it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Since the listener cannot learn anything of substance from the unresearched and undocumented opinion, that very opinion cannot enhance the listener at all. It offers the listener absolutely nothing of value. If there is no fact behind it, but only claims that are made in shades of gray, then it has value only to the one holding the opinion. If, on the other hand, you have research and fact and thought behind your view, then it just might have value to others. At least, that is my opinion…

Take sides! Have a view! The one who takes sides and has a view might sometimes be wrong. But the one who never takes sides and never has a view will always be wrong.

 

Issues

Absolutes

There ARE absolutes.

There IS a right and wrong. These terms apply to moral and spiritual issues. For me, moral issues are resolved by the Bible and by my application to my life of the principles I learn in the Bible. I cannot believe the Bible is Truth and at the same time accept differing religious views as right. This has absolutely nothing to do with me and everything to do with the Bible. If I take a specific moral or religious stance, it is because the Bible takes that particular moral or religious stance – it is not at all because I am close-minded and judgmental. The Bible claims it is, by itself and all alone, TRUTH. If you don’t like that, you have a problem with the Bible, not with me. So don’t ever ask me, “Who are you to judge?” when we are discussing right and wrong. If you ask me that question, I will almost certainly inform you that I am not judging anyone or anything – I am merely passing along how God has already judged you. When it comes to issues explained in the Bible, I don’t have to judge. It is God who has already done the judging, and I am merely repeating his proclamations.

And please note that no one who holds their religious views strongly can allow for any other religious views to be right. Only those who have shallow beliefs (or no religious beliefs at all) can allow for other religious views to be equally right.

On the other hand, most subjective choices fall into the category of individual taste or personal preference. These subjective choices usually do not fall under any moral, or right versus wrong, criteria. There is no right about blue versus red; there is no wrong about blonde versus brunette. There is no exclusive and universal claim to “BEST TRUCK” for Ford or Chevrolet or GMC.

And subjective choices are often irreconcilable. You might like New York City and I might not. No amount of fact concerning New York City is likely to change either your view or mine. But there is something inherently wrong about either one of us concluding that all New Yorkers are rude and belligerent with the personality of an angry pit bull (or some other equally generalized claim), and then treating them all in a manner consistent with that conclusion.

But there IS an accurate and inaccurate. These terms usually apply to non-moral issues. It is probable that no one can learn and understand everything there is to learn and understand about a particular concept or theory or fact, thereby making each and every other view incomplete and somewhat inaccurate. But if there is an absolutely true and accurate item or concept that we can look at, then your view and my view can be judged. Almost always, your description of New York City will be different from my description. But we can know which description is more accurate because we can see and touch and visit the REAL New York City. Your description of gravity may be more researched and mathematical than mine, and we can know which view of gravity is more accurate simply by observing and measuring gravity itself. Your view of American history may be more accurate than mine because there are original documents and books to review and you have studied them more than I have. So don’t ever ask me, “Who are you to judge?” when we are discussing reality and fact. When it comes to issues that can be observed in reality, this is a question usually based in ignorance, and usually serves to prove my point.

 

Religion

I believe that all religions, Catholic or Protestant or Muslim or Jew or anything else, are nothing more than mankind’s attempt to get to God or to please God or maybe just to describe God. The bigger the religion, the more requirements and restrictions are placed on our opportunities to get to God and to please God, and almost all these requirements and restrictions are placed on people NOT by God but by spiritual leaders.

On the other hand, I believe that Jesus is God’s attempt to reach mankind.

I believe that the God of the Bible is the One True God, and that He has described Himself in the Bible. All other views of God in other religious writings and by other religious leaders are interpretations or incomplete representations or even pollutions of the One True God. If you have a problem with this, your problem is NOT with me – your problem is with the Bible.

And ALWAYS beware of spiritual leaders who claim that God has given them a new truth!

I believe that the Bible (both the Old and New Testaments) interprets itself. The Bible leaves nothing unexplained that is expressed in that Book as being important for us to know. (The Bible never addresses how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, so that is not an issue that is important to God or that God expects us to know.) If you believe that there are many interpretations of these important views or issues, then I believe you have not studied the Bible enough, or at all. And without exception, I have challenged each and every person who has made this claim to me to study the Bible with me and point out several of the many interpretations to me. Without exception, each and every person who told me that has declined to spend any time with me looking at the Bible itself. If you have a problem with this, your problem is NOT with me – your problem is with your own laziness.

I believe that the central message of the Bible is not a religion, with structures and belief systems and philosophical implications, but a relationship between the Creator of the Universe, the One True God, on the one hand, and on the other hand, His prized creation, mankind. His prized creation is not the planet, not all things, not all living things, not all animals, but mankind. Those who have responded to Him in the manner of His choosing have that relationship, and those who have responded in any other manner, or have not responded at all, do not have that relationship. If you have a problem with this, your problem is NOT with me – your problem is with the Bible.

I believe there are only two ways to get to Heaven. One way is to be perfect, and 2,000 years ago we nailed to a cross the last one who was perfect. The other is to be forgiven. God does not grade on a curve. He has little concern as to whether or not you are better or worse than your neighbor or any other individual. He is concerned with your heart attitude toward him. God has one condition as to his forgiveness, and that is a repentant heart. If you have a problem with this, your problem is NOT with me – your problem is with the God of the Bible.

God is not in all things, nor is he in all people, nor is he in all experiences, nor is he in all beliefs. Mankind was created in the image of God, and that image was quickly polluted and deformed by rejecting God. But the “image” of God has little to do with the “dwelling” of God. God dwells in those who have received him in the manner of HIS choosing and does not dwell in those who have not received him in the manner of HIS choosing. This is the central message, the “gospel”, of the New Testament. If you have a problem with this, your problem is NOT with me – your problem is with God.

I do not believe that individuals are predestined for heaven or for hell. But I believe the process or mechanism by which individuals make it to heaven is predestined from the foundations of this world. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus is the predestined path to heaven, and those who accept this path and follow this path are predestined to be like Jesus – more and more so as time passes.

I do not believe that the Bible, Old or New Testament, teaches tithing as most preachers present it. I believe the Old Testament teaches “tithes and offerings” which, if added up, can equal as much as 40% of our assets, and not 10% of our paychecks. I believe the New Testament teaches “giving until it hurts” as the minimum, with examples including but not limited to Jesus giving his life, and the widow who gave everything she had. Most people use “tithe” to mean they get to keep 90% of their net paychecks, which is a selfish and ungodly interpretation, and not based on anything in the Bible.

Those who have responded to Him in the manner of His choosing have received special gifts and abilities with which to accomplish His purposes in their lives. One of my gifts is teaching. Why else would I take the time to write all these things down?

 

Politics

The united States of America (not a typo) is a unique political experiment in all of history. The men who put together certain views and principles and wrote them into our Founding Documents all believed that God played a serious and important role in the founding of this Great Nation. They may have had some minor differences in their opinions of who and what God really is, but they all believed God played a serious and important role in the founding of this Great Nation. Therefore, what God created must be preserved. Yes, I believe it is our moral and spiritual duty to God to preserve the United States of America as God helped to create it, and not as liberal socialists today want it to be!

The Founding Fathers did not create a democracy. Our Constitution did not create a democracy. America was never intended to be a democracy. Those around you, friends or teachers or media talking heads or politicians, who refer to America as a democracy are either deceived themselves or are intentionally deceiving you. The Founding Fathers expressly rejected a democracy in their discussions and in their writings. The Constitution itself requires that America be a republic form of government. Any other structure or form of government is a violation of the Constitution, and I believe that those currently in our government who are committed to creating a socialistic democracy are guilty of treason; and at the very least are guilty of fomenting revolution. And those in the government and in the media and in our educational institutions who are seemingly committed to moving America into a socialist democracy are traitors to the Constitution and enemies of the State. You cannot claim to believe in our Constitution while, at the same time, be engaged in speech or actions or legislation designed to violate or overturn that Constitution.

I believe that there is no such thing as “separation of church and State” as most people perceive or define it. When Benjamin Franklin spoke of the “wall of separation between church and state, he meant nothing like what political pontiffs mean today. The federal government has absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to tell any State or any individual what they can and cannot do in the arena of religious expression, especially outside the federal territories and within the several States. The ONLY restrictions in the Constitution on religious issues or religious expression are directed at the federal government and NOT at the several States or We The People. The Constitution states that “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” First, that restriction applies ONLY TO CONGRESS and NOT to the several States or We The People. Second, no religious view present in America or in this world can possibly be an establishment of religion because it already exists. Third, Congress (and possibly that includes the entire federal government) has absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to interfere with or deny my religious views and expressions. Or anyone else’s religious views or expressions. Or any State or local government’s views or expressions. The restriction here, according to all the Founding Fathers who wrote on the issue, is creating a federal religion – a State-endorsed church – the restriction is not disallowing States the option of having a religious expression on public property. Fourth, virtually every law passed by Congress involving religion in America restricts or prohibits religious expression within the several States, in DIRECT VIOLATION of the Constitution. These laws should be declared as unconstitutional and overthrown by We The People. And by “overthrown” I mean to be ignored and not obeyed until the federal government formally rescinds these traitorous laws which are violative of our Constitution and far beyond the powers granted to the government by it.

The Constitution For the united States of America (not a typo) is the one document that all Americans, especially our politicians and judges, must accept as the sole authority behind America. It is not the President nor the Congress nor the Courts that is the authority. The President and the Congress and the Courts were all CREATED by the Constitution and therefore can have no authority over it. It is ONLY We The People who have any authority over the Constitution, and all we can do is obey it, modify it by the process dictated in the Constitution, or abolish it and write a whole new one, as stated by our Declaration of Independence. No one has the authority or the option to ignore the Constitution, as our Congress and our Presidents have demanded and expected and done for so many years.

All “officers” in all branches of our government (elected or appointed) are required to take an oath of office. All are sworn to uphold and protect our Constitution. Those who attempt to pass laws (Congress) or attempt to create Executive Orders (Presidents) or attempt to twist the Constitution (judges) into their own opinions of what they believe it should say are in violation of their Oaths of Office, and should be immediately dismissed without any benefits. Direct words or actions in violation of the principles in our Constitution by our paid public servants are nothing more than acts of insurrection or treason. I believe that public trials and public flogging and public hangings are the best manner for dealing with treasonous public officials, federal or State.

I believe that at least half of federal spending and federal programs are totally outside of the limits on placed government by our Constitution and, therefore, these programs and expenditures have no business existing on a federal level. I believe that the federal government loses all its authority and powers when it exceeds and violates the clear and explicit limitations written in the Constitution. I believe we have had an unconstitutional federal government since at least 1933, and possibly since Abraham Lincoln threw out the Constitution and declared war on the American people.

I believe that when America again has a Constitutional federal government, the trillions of federal dollars and the thousands of federal programs that would be cancelled can be, if deemed important enough, taken up by the various States, assuming the States and the people in those States WANT to continue them, just as the 10th Amendment to the federal Constitution calls for. The problem is not the program or the expenditures, nor those receiving the benefits of those programs or expenditures, but the fact that the federal government is restricted by the Constitution from being engaged in those programs or expenditures at all. Those rights and responsibilities lawfully belong ONLY to the several States and to We The People, according to the Constitution.

I believe the traditional views of American politics, separated into liberal and conservative, miss the point entirely. I believe that there is a third category which is almost always labeled “extreme” by both liberals and conservatives – that of being Constitutional. As clarification of what I mean, let us take issue of healthcare. A Liberal would create a large federal bureaucracy to oversee the activities and programs, allowing the States to perform some functions, but pretty much run things from Washington, DC, much like Hillary Clinton tried about 15 years ago, and Barack Obama has recently accomplished. A Conservative would create a small federal bureaucracy to monitor things and allow the States to perform the majority of functions and fill the majority of responsibilities. And a Constitutionalist would say, “The Constitution gives the federal government absolutely no authority or jurisdiction over healthcare at all. Why are they even debating the issue?” BOTH Liberals and Conservatives can be unconstitutional in their perspectives, and usually are.

I believe the “general welfare” clause of our federal Constitution has been treasonously polluted into a socialistic belief never intended, in fact specifically disallowed, by our Founding Fathers. The “general welfare” clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is NOT a grant of power but a restriction placed on the use or expenditure of federal tax revenues. The grant of power in that clause is the power to tax, with the restriction being the expenditure of those tax revenues. The grants of power to the government, being specific and limited, are clearly stated in the Constitution. Any legislation based on a power not explicitly granted the federal government in the Constitution is an attempt to overthrow the government created by that Constitution, and an act of treason.

I believe that huge omnibus legislative bills three and four and five inches thick, especially those passed without extensive public examination and debate BEFORE a vote, is a violation of the Oaths of Office sworn to by our elected representatives, and demands the immediate removal from office of those who voted to pass that legislation. And those removed from office by this violation of their Oaths of Office should result in the immediate termination of ALL federal benefits. It is an embarrassment for members of Congress to vote for a bill they have not read, and then complain they were misled when people or groups point out the obvious egregious portions of the bill. Any member of Congress who discovers unacceptable portions of a bill AFTER he/she has voted for that bill and then complains about it should be impeached. Congress approves these huge “omnibus” bills for the specific purpose of allowing plausible deniability when an individual or group points out unacceptable portions of the bill after it is approved. We The People should NEVER participate in this intentional deception.

I believe that any elected representative who votes on any legislative act, yea or nay, without first reading it personally, is in violation of his or her Oath of Office, and that “uninformed” vote should result in his or her immediate removal from office with immediate termination of all federal benefits.

I believe that all benefits of any federal office should never exceed the benefits available to the typical American. I believe that Congress should NOT have a separate health program but should have to purchase commercially available health insurance policies. I believe that Congress should NOT have a separate retirement program, but should be subject to Social Security like all Americans. The current Congressional retirement program is a travesty, and should be terminated immediately.

I believe that Congress should immediately limit itself to ONLY those powers expressly delegated to it by the federal Constitution, and should eliminate in a timely manner all benefits and programs not expressly delegated to Congress by the federal Constitution. I believe that Congress and the President should obey the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution in any and all legislative and executive activities. I believe that any and all elected federal representatives who attempts to draft, put forth, vote for, or support any legislative or executive efforts not consistent with ALL of the Constitution, and in particular the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the federal Constitution, should be immediately put out to pasture, removed from office with immediate termination of all federal benefits.

Conclusion

And I believe that about does it. If you have a problem with this document, or any part of it, please feel free to contact me and express your problem. And I will be happy to tell you what you can do about it.

Gay Marriage

Blog-Icon---Political

So-Called Gay Marriage

By TNSr5r, October, 2014

 

I am going to address all the recent stories on television, on Facebook, and all over the Internet concerning so-called gay marriage. But first, I need to explain why I used the phrase “so-called gay marriage.” I believe that there is no such thing as “gay marriage,” and I am about to tell you why.

I also need to explain that I am not judging homosexuals nor am I saying that they do not have a right to marry. I am merely presenting the legal issues involved, and some of the court cases relative to the topic.

In addition, I cannot write this without also declaring that I am a conservative Christian. By that I mean that I follow the claims of Christ and the teachings of his followers as is contained in the Bible. I believe that, contrary to what many people believe and some teach, the Bible does not condemn homosexuals to hell any more than it condemns liars and cheats and thieves to hell. The Bible does, however, condemn all homosexual activities, just like it does lying and cheating and stealing. In saying this, I realize that many would accuse me of judging, another activity that is condemned in the Bible. But there they would be wrong. I am not judging when I refer to teachings in the Bible; I am merely passing on what God has already decided and announced. And it is clear in Scripture that God has condemned all homosexual activities in the strongest words possible. If you have a problem with me saying this, your problem is not with me – your problem is with God.

I believe that historically, spiritually, and legally, marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, any so-called marriage outside of that is not a marriage at all.

However, what I believe and what the spiritual leaders in the Bible say about homosexuality is totally outside the topic and content of this document. I have written this document to present the legal issues and some of the court cases that involve what many describe as gay marriage, not to criticize homosexuals or condemn so-called gay marriage.

There has been a lot of recent discussion on the recent US Supreme Court decision to NOT hear some lower court federal cases on so-called gay marriage. Some people claim this was a victory for gay marriages and the homosexual political agenda. Others say this was a setback for gay marriage because the Supreme Court has refused to issue a binding decision on gay marriage that would affect all 50 States.

I say they are both wrong.

I say the Constitution gives the federal government absolutely no authority or jurisdiction over marriage, and consequently the Supreme Court simply cannot render a definition of marriage that would or would not include so-called gay marriage, except to acknowledge the definition already in established by We The People.

There are quite a number of US Supreme Court cases that address so-called gay marriages. But the Supreme Court has been quite consistent in its decisions, so I will address only a few of these cases in this document.

Perhaps a short word on the authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is in order here, since so few Americans understand our Constitution and the laws passed under its authority. Please accept my apologies to the people who actually understand these issues – this will be redundant for you. But most Americans do not understand these issues, and this includes most American politicians.

And it is essential that we all have a clear and accurate understanding of the legal issues involved in this discussion, and also of the role of the federal government concerning these issues, or we will misunderstand the drama that is unfolding in our federal courts concerning so-called gay marriages, and the future of that drama.

The Constitution created America as a nation. It’s true that its physical existence was established by the eight long and horrible years of war between the Colonies here on the continent that was called America and the most powerful nation on the planet at that time. We fought, we won, and then we had to define who and what we were. So we wrote the Great Document that established exactly who and what we were as a nation. The Constitution created the central government, its structure and form, and especially its limitations. In doing so, the Constitution created a Republic.

Most of us hear all the time that America is a Democracy. This is a destructive lie intentionally propagated by our politicians and our educational institutions for wrong purposes that I will not get into here. Suffice it to say that the Constitution explicitly refers to America as a Republic, and NOT as a Democracy.

In simple terms, a Democracy is run on popular opinion; whatever the majority of the people want on an issue is what the government must provide on that issue. More simply, Benjamin Franklin defined a Democracy as “three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.” In several publications written and printed by the government in the first half of the 1900s, Democracy was described as “mob rule.” This was before our government began its move away from a Constitutional Republic and toward a socialistic Democracy.

Taken from the American Military Training Manual, 1928:

DEMOCRACY: a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in a mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

On the other hand, a Republic is run on LAWS. If 100% of the people want a particular event or outcome, but it is not allowed by law, then that event or outcome cannot and does not happen. This is often proclaimed by the phrase “the rule of law.” A Republic has the rule of law – a Democracy cannot.

So, the Constitution created a Republic with three branches. And it created a specific set of responsibilities and powers for each of the three branches within that Republic. None of the three branches could legislate or control or even debate anything that was not explicitly delegated to that branch. This principle was underscored by the words of the Tenth Amendment to that Constitution, where the Founding Fathers put into clear and certain words that any power not specifically granted to one of the three branches of the federal government was specifically withheld from all the branches of the federal government because it belonged to the States or to We The People.

As I said, the Constitution created three branches of government: the Executive Branch (which included the president as Chief Executive Officer), the Legislative Branch (which included the authority to craft and pass laws), and the Judicial Branch (which included authority to apply those laws when circumstances made the laws confusing). To each of these three branches of government was delegated explicit responsibilities, along with the powers to carry out those responsibilities. And all three branches were explicitly required in writing to remain within their responsibilities – if they operated outside their responsibilities, those actions were considered renegade and outside the limits of, and in violation of, the Constitution for the United States of America.

Because of the Constitution, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A federal court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter involved (called “subject matter jurisdiction”), and over the persons involved (called “persona jurisdiction”), in a legal action before there can be a case brought before that particular federal court. This is why one of the first issues addressed in the paperwork of all cases filed in all federal courts is the issue of jurisdiction. All the way up to the Supreme Court, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

The federal courts had the responsibility to resolve whether or not a particular federal Statute applied in a specific set of circumstances, as well as exactly how the laws applied in those circumstances, along with the penalties for violating those laws. The Supreme Court had the ultimate authority on any and all issues that were still in conflict after the Lower Courts rendered their decisions. If the courts in several districts handed down different decisions on the same issue, then the Supreme Court might get involved to resolve “the truth” on that issue. But if the federal districts were handing down similar decisions, the Supreme Court will generally not accept an appeal from those courts. And the Supreme Court was not required by the Constitution to hear any and all issues. The Court had the option to pick and choose the cases it would decide or judge based on the conflicts behind those cases and the impact of them. So the Supreme Court had jurisdiction only over specific cases on specific issues for specific reasons. And many would claim the most important issue is where the case pivoted on the violation of a federal statute that exceeded the authority of the federal government.

A perfect example of a Statute going outside of authority and improperly stepping on the rights associated with marriage came from Connecticut. That State passed a criminal statute in the early 1960’s making it illegal for a married couple to use any kind of contraceptives. The case that made its way through the courts challenging the statute was Grizwold v. Connecticut (1965). The statute was well-written and clear enough, and it required a State policing agency to enforce the statute. And in 1965, that statute was overturned by the US Supreme Court on the interesting grounds that the State, “having authorized marriage, was without power to intrude upon the right of privacy inherent in the marital relationship.” Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute “operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife,” and that the very idea of its enforcement by the invasion of “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” This was the first US Supreme Court case concerning marriage and the limits placed on marriage that I have found, and it applied to a specific limitation placed by a specific statute in a specific State. The legal reasoning of the Supreme Court was the FACT that the State had no authority over the marriage bedroom.

The reasoning in Grizwold was carried over to the cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act forty years later, which would overturn DOMA based on several issues, especially the government’s lack of authority over the bedroom. The government would have to invade the bedroom in order to enforce DOMA, and the Supreme Court had already ruled that it had no such authority.

Another State case, this one concerning so-called gay marriage, soon captured national attention. The case was Baker v. Nelson (1972), where a gay couple was attempting to force the State of Minnesota to issue a marriage license to them. The gay couple’s approach was to challenge the Minnesota law specifically because it prohibited the granting of marriage licenses to gay couples on the basis that Minnesota believed only heterosexual couples could marry in that State. The couple alleged that discrimination based on sexual preference was unlawful. Further, the couple claimed that the State statute forbidding gay marriage was unconstitutional because they claimed they had a Constitutional right to right to marry, and to refuse them a marriage license was to deny them their Constitutional rights. The couple lost in the lower court and the appeals court, and appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Minnesota Supreme Court declared them to be wrong, and affirmed the lower State courts in their denial of so-called gay marriage licenses. The couple appealed to the US Supreme Court, hoping to have the Minnesota decision overturned. The US Supreme Court found that the couple made “the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

In declaring the “fundamental right” and the “natural law” status of marriage, and in declaring that there is no inherent protection of marriage or the right to GET married in the Constitution, the US Supreme Court continued to hold that the issue was outside the “subject matter jurisdiction” of the Supreme Court. If marriage or the option to GET married was a right granted by the United States Constitution, or by federal statute, then the Congress could modify that right and the Supreme Court could hear cases concerning the violation of that right. Absent any explicit inclusion in federal statute or in the Constitution, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over marriage, and no authority to hear the case, much less render a decision on the issue of marriage.

A “fundamental right” and an issue of “natural law” was beyond the authority and jurisdiction inherent in statutory law, and the Supreme Court could not overturn what it considered “natural law.”

In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a State statute protecting the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman did not violate the U.S. Constitution: “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis,” and in 1972, the US Supreme Court upheld Baker.

The Baker case became controlling law on so-called gay marriage for all federal courts. And it is important to note that Baker has not been overturned!

Back in the mid-1970’s I received a phone call from the late Dr. D. James Kennedy concerning the pending legislation that ultimately became known as the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA). Dr. Kennedy called me to ask if I would a take a public stand and write a public statement in support of his efforts at increasing public endorsement of DOMA and place it on both of my websites because he seemed to believe that I had quite a large following. I told him I was a great supporter of him and his ministry but that I could not do what he asked. He asked me why. I told him the following, almost word for word: “Dr. Kennedy, I have studied the Constitution and I do not see where the Constitution gives the federal government any authority or jurisdiction over marriage. And I like that. I do not want the federal government to define marriage because as soon as it defines marriage, it controls marriage. From the fantastic book by Frank Herbert, Dune, comes one of my favorite quotes: ‘He who defines a thing controls a thing.’ Further, any definition Congress gives to marriage can be changed tomorrow or next year by a different and more liberal Congress. Still further, if we give Congress the authority to define marriage, then Congress can and will assume it has the authority to enforce that definition. Whether in DOMA, or in some follow-up legislation, or in some federal agency policy, the federal government has always taken things as far as it can. That means some federal policing agency sooner or later can come into my house and into my bedroom to make sure I am doing what I am required or NOT doing what I am prohibited. And I will not stand for that. Consequently, I would expect to go to jail sooner or later because I will not let the government into my bedroom. Dr. Kennedy, I cannot support a bill I believe to be unconstitutional and dangerous.” He hemmed and hawed and finally told me he agreed with me. We talked politely for a few more minutes, and he hung up. This was before the Supreme Court decision underscoring the Court’s position that marriage was not under federal jurisdiction.

Last year, in US v. Windsor (2013) the United States Supreme Court struck down the federal statute known as “The Defense of Marriage Act.” Conservative Christians all over this country have shouted that without DOMA, not only will so-called gay marriage become the norm all across America, but that no one could legally deny polygamy and all sorts of marital perversions. This is simply not true. Even the liberal NY Times caught the reason the Supreme Court struck down the law, when it stated: “Justice Kennedy writes that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the principles of federalism, which allow states to largely chart their own course.” The Times went on to quote Justice Kennedy: “The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism.”

In other words, the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court is that marriage, and especially the definition of marriage, is not a federal issue. This was consistent with the Baker decision and the Griswold decision before that. A “fundamental right” based on “natural law” was outside the authority and jurisdiction of the government, and the Supreme Court had no subject matter jurisdiction allowing it to render a decision on the matter. Specifically, the Constitution grants the federal government absolutely no authority or jurisdiction over marriage. As such, Congress cannot pass a law regarding the definition of marriage. Maybe the States can, but the federal government cannot. As Kennedy claimed, this question goes far beyond federalism, the political doctrine of State’s Rights.

Federalism is the belief shared by the Founding Fathers that each of the States is a sovereign government with full authority and jurisdiction over each and every issue not explicitly delegated to the federal government. Federalism is summed up by the Tenth Amendment, which clearly claims that any power not explicitly delegated to the federal government is explicitly reserved for the States or for We The People. Clearly and importantly, Federalism says the federal government does not have the authority BECAUSE that authority that authority has not been given it. The claim that the issue goes “far beyond federalism” says the States MIGHT have the authority but the central government DEFINITELY DOES NOT.

Recently, on November 6, 2014, the Sixth District Court of Appeals for federal cases rendered a very important decision on the issue of so-called gay marriage by upholding the ban against so-called gay-marriages in several States. The Sixth District stated they are constrained by the Supreme Court case in Baker. “The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves.” The 6th District Appeals Court went on to say: “A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of states.”

The Sixth District Court of Appeals is a federal court. Decisions by the 6th District Court of Appeals are the Law of the Land for only four States, and it controls only the federal courts below it. All their decisions remain in control of the federal courts in those four States unless and until the Supreme Court overrules their decisions. There are federal courts in forty-six other States that are not controlled by the Sixth District. And individual State Courts and State Legislatures are not bound by the decisions of the Sixth District. This is why the Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld the cases in the several States below it – the Sixth District had no authority or jurisdiction to overturn the cases of those States on this issue.

Please understand, ALL federal courts are controlled by the US Supreme Court, and the Sixth District merely pointed out that the Supreme Court has already issued a decision on so-called gay marriage that is currently the Law Of The Land for America. But as you and I both know, some federal courts have rendered decisions on so-called gay marriage that are inconsistent with the controlling law on the issue.

And many people have complained that the Supreme Court has denied hearing the appeals of several lower court federal cases which have issued contrary decisions about so-called gay marriage. They claim that would leave in place different decisions on the legal status of gay marriage. But based on Grizwold and Baker, cases that the Supreme Court already handed down, the issue has been settled. And the settled case law on this issue is binding on ALL federal courts. Those federal judges who handed down decisions contrary to the US Supreme Court have violated their Oaths of Office and their Bar pledges. The only reason these judges are still in office receiving a federal paycheck is because We The People have allowed it to remain unchallenged.

The US Supreme Court seems to be taking America in the proper direction. It has claimed that marriage is a “fundamental right” and not a “federal right” granted by the Constitution or any federal statute. And it has claimed that a fundamental right is beyond – outside – the authority and jurisdiction of the federal government and the federal courts. This means the Supreme Court, if it remains true to its earlier decisions, has no option but to strike down all federal court decisions that allow for or mandate any so-called gay marriage rights.

It is true that this action will leave the issue to the States, but that is where the issue belongs. Further, the States that allow for so-called gay marriage do so only because a federal court in that State either created a right for gays to marry, or else threw out the will of the people of that State, which was to outlaw the possibility of gay people to marry.

In other words, if the US Supreme Court strikes all federal court decisions that create or allow so-called gay marriage, there will be no so-called gay marriages in any State in America.

I believe you will see the US Supreme Court take on this issue and these court cases in the Summer of 2015. And I believe you will see the overturning of every federal case in America that grants or allows so-called gay marriage based on some alleged Constitutional right or “natural law” or “fundamental right” to get married.

I believe that America will see all so-called gay marriages disbanded sometime in late 2015.

 

Cases:

  1. Grizwold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965)
  2. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
  3. U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013)