Life / Religion / Philosophy / Science / Polictics

Category: Life

Discussions of LIFE – as in living life to the fullest. But also LIFE as in purpose, meaning, wisdom, and understanding. This category is all about things that interest me in LIFE.

  • ARE YOU INTO SEX, DRUGS, & ROCK-N-ROLL?

    There is a perception out there that Religion wants to limit people.  That is Religion puts people into a box, takes away their freedoms, and keeps them from having fun.  In plain terms, Religion is anti sex, anti drugs, and anti rock-n-roll.  Which leads me to todays preponderance of the evidence.  Because I personally believe that nothing could be further from the truth.

    So much of Religion is perceived as wanting to take all your fun away.  However these perceptions come from either incorrectly conceived notions of what Religions actually teach, or from the correctly conceived notions that there are people all over the world that want to control your life.  We have been historically led to believe that Religion was a creation of humankind  (partially true) in order to control the behavior of society (perhaps true). However the historians that have recorded this history have recorded it from a human perspective, that is without a theological basis.  It is certainly true that some religions want to control the behavior of societies.  But if you consider the basis of religion, your world view becomes a personal thing, not something that can be, or should be, used to control other people’s behavior.  My world view certainly governs my behavior in life.  That is my religion influences my thoughts and my actions, and my interactions with others. But I shouldn’t be using it to try to control those around me.

    Consider the fact that Governments try to control (limit) people all the time.  But Governments should be totally divorced from religions.  That is Governments should not try to tell me what my world view is.  Governments do enact laws that attempt to influence and control my behavior however.  Some of those laws fall within my world view, and some do not.  In the cases where they do, one cannot rightfully claim that it is religion that is limiting people, but rather it is Government that is controlling society.  In these circumstances I may be compelled to accept a certain reality in society, but I am not forced to alter my world view (my religion) because of it.

    Such a case occurred in Scripture.  The tale is recounted in Daniel Chapter 3 and involved three men we know as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.  The story recounts that the King (the Government of the land) made a degree that all in the land should bow down to a golden idol created by the Government.  These three men would not bow down.  Because their world view, their religion, held (and still holds today) that they should not worship idols made by man but should rather worship the one true God and him alone.  As a result of their refusal to obey the Government of the land, they were sentenced to death by being thrown into a fiery furnace.  In the case of these three men, God chose to protect them and did not allow them to die.  But I love their response found in Daniel Chapter 3:16-18.  They told the king that even if God were to choose not to protect them, they still would not violate their world view (their religion) and bow down to the golden idol.

    There have been other instances in history where people have refused to follow the edicts of Governments of the land.  Such a case in United States history resulted in the American Civil War.  Because certain people of the day held within their world view that all people were created equal and deserved to be treated as equals.  In this case the actions of Government aligned with my religion (my world view).

    There are many actions of Governments today that do not align with my world view.  Abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and even slavery and oppression in some countries.  All do not align with my world view.  However my world is not the limiting factor.  Obviously it is not as is evident by the laws of the land.  In the same way those that claim my religion limits them, I may claim that their world view (their religion) limits myself (and others).  But if we continue to have a battle over who’s world view is going to win, then the more dominant world view will win.  And that neither serves me well, nor the rest of the world well.

    It is much more effective to have the argument (in the words of Rush Limbaugh) “in the arena of ideas”.  If my goal is to persuade you in the consideration of your world view, then hopefully, over time, the actions of people around me will align with my world view.  This, of course, gives no guarantee on the actions of Governments.  There will always be those that wish to impress their control on others and establish their kingdoms here on earth.  But that is regardless of what religions may or may not teach.  This might seem like a trivial distinction to you. But I assure you, in my mind it is not.  The difference is in those that try to enact laws in order to force others to comply with a certain behavior versus those that try to teach truth in order that people may be free.

    There are those that believe I just want to scare people with the threat of Hell.  And that simply is not the case.  I hope you take Hell seriously, because it is real.  Is Hell eternal?  Of course it is.  An eternal captivity balances an eternal freedom.  But I do not desire to threaten you with it.  Rather I hope you will come to understand the danger of it.  Just like with drugs.  Few of us would dismiss the danger of uncontrolled drug use.  We see evidence of it all the time.  But I don’t want to threaten you with it, I want you to understand the impacts of it and to make wise choices in your life.

    So are you into Sex, Drugs, and Rock-N-Roll?  Fine by me.  I’m not here to take your fun away.  Truth be known, I think The Beatles are the greatest band of all time.  But they don’t govern my world view and just because I enjoy their music doesn’t mean I expect you too.  Christianity doesn’t want to govern your life, Christianity wants to grant you life.  Once you’ve obtained that Life (eternal life), you will want Jesus Christ to govern your life.  And in the end, that is up to each and every one of us individually.

  • Do You Deserve The Best?

    Well here we are in a brand new year and people are wondering what 2016 will hold for their lives. If you invest in the stock markets or have any part of your retirement portfolio in them, you might be wondering what is going to happen with your money (Wall Street News).  As we enter into a new year people all over the world have many things to be thankful for and yet many have much to be fearful of.

    It is an interesting dynamic between thankfulness and fearfulness.  The balance between thankfulness and fearfulness is part of the equation that drives our expectations in life.  This is because if I allow fear to rule my life I will be driven into either desperation or despondence.  Meaning I will either be driven to take bold actions that I would not normally be inclined to take in my life or I will simply shrink into a shell and shun the world and not take actions that I should be taking in my life.  On the other hand if I allow thankfulness to rule my life, I risk an abnormal state of euphoria or I risk a state of constant disappointment in my life.  And what drives our expectations in life, is what brings us to a state of entitlement.

    I overheard a mother and daughter talking on New Year’s Eve and the mother was wishing the daughter the best year in her life in 2016.  This seemed normal to me as most of us wish each other the best in life.  But then the mother added something alarming onto the statement.  She said “Because you deserve the best.”  And I immediately thought “Why?”  Why do we, any of us, deserve the best?  What have any of us done to merit the highest quality of anything in our lives?  When we start believing that we deserve the best in our lives we enter dangerous territory on a path to developing an entitlement attitude towards life.

    This is an epidemic that is sweeping America and I believe most Western European counties as well as parts of Asia.  Many conservative commentators have exposed this on talk radio and in their books.  We have even had it creep into our legal system as is evidenced by the Affluenza Teen (see any of these news article here).  Even within theistic realms we have developed the ideal that we somehow deserve the best in all that life has to offer.  And note that there is a very sharp contrast between God wanting the best for our lives and us deserving the best in life.  We, the people of the world, have come to establish within our minds that we should get the very best that life has to offer.

    This is simply astounding to me.  First of all it is totally unrealistic.  It presumes that there is enough of the best to go around in the first place.  However you define what is best, if you do happen to acquire it, then more of it would have to be found in order for others to have it as well.  Liberals have been attempting to achieve this happy utopia for decades and they have never even come close.  And note that those who have achieved any level of success in life hardly ever want to give up that level of success in order for the rest of us to enjoy some of the benefits they have acquired.  And yet they would typically be the first to demand that we do more.  The logic is confusing to me.  It would seem to me that if they really wanted an equal playing field they would first address their own affluent states before requiring the rest of us to do something with ours.  And please note that I (personnaly) have no desire nor expectation of them to do so.

    Secondly it makes no sense from any point of your world view.  For the atheist it is always astonishing to me that they would take up any world cause.  To what end would an atheist want the best for either themselves or anyone else?  The atheistic view point, by definition ascribes no meaning in life.  Nor can it.  There is no order, no design, no grand purpose in life.  It is simply all random and without definition.  They cannot do anything about it.  Events were prescribed from the absolute beginning from the occurrence of the Big Bang. Even their attempts at ascribing some change in their own lives or the lives of other is the result of completely random events that follow the laws of the universe.  For the agnostic any type of ambition on their part would seem contrary to their world view.  As long as you are not affecting their particular station in life, the agnostic should not care about whether or not you obtain the best in life.  Neither should they ascribe to any particular state of affluence on their own.  They are, after all, agnostic in their point of view.

    For the theist however, it is confusing to me as to how they could have any expectation as to what they deserve in life.  As a theist I understand that what I deserve and what I obtain is ordained by the plan and purpose of the creator.  And if I am a Christian I understand that the best is not what I expect but what God provides in my life.

    As a Christian I understand that what I deserve in life is a cross, eternal separation from the Creator, a Holy and Righteous God.  But I also understand that what the Creator has provided us is His Grace, complete and unmerited favor in the very act of taking that cross away from me (and you) and providing restoration to his family and his goodness in our lives.  And by doing so, Jesus Christ, on His Cross, has already provided the very best that life has to offer.  There is no greater gift, there is no greater prize to be achieved.  He has done it all and it is by His Grace that it has been made available to us and not some some entitlement we should expect.

    So this New Year I wish for each and every one of you the BEST life has to offer.  My hope and desire is that you will find God’s Grace in your life.  That you will come to understand and enjoy a personal relationship with the Creator of all we survey, and that this new found relationship will come to change your expectations in life, as well as mine.

    Happy New Year to ALL.

  • Do You Have Wisdom to Share?

    There are a few types of knowledge in this world.  There is the scholarly knowledge that is taught and gained in schools.  Some of it may be correct, accurate, and true.  While some of it may be questionable.

    Take for example the study of mathematics.  In every culture and in every land we have an understanding of at least simple math.  Everyone understands (or should understand) that 1 plus 1 is equal to 2.  That is if you have 1 apple and then I give you another apple, you have just had your total quantity of apples grow.  And your new total of apples is now 2.

    But then you have those that are wise in math and they will tell you that 1 plus 1 is equal to 10.  IF you use base 2 (binary) math.  In other words for a mathematician, it is important to state exactly which math you are talking about.  They want to represent the correct number base and ensure everyone is following the same set of rules.  There is a level of knowledge displayed that goes beyond the every day use of most people counting their apples, BUT it does not alter their understanding of the number of apples they may (or may not) possess.

    Then there are studies that are not quite as concrete.  Take for example the study of evolution.  There are those that want to teach biological evolution concerning the alteration or transformation of one species into another as fact.  When they know (and actually have full knowledge) that it is simply a theory and is not repeatable and indeed is unprovable.

    The science of evolution is constantly changing, constantly growing, and constantly evolving as people perceive to gain new insights and knowledge and thus alter their thinking on the subject.

    I’ve mentioned a book written by an acquaintance of mine in past blog posts.  The book is: “The Word of God A Logical and Moral Dilemma“.  In chapter 5 of his book, titled “The Reality Of God”, my friend writes:

    “During my early conversations with creationists, I often presented the scientific viewpoint during our creation vs. evolution discussions.  That is, I used small scientific facts, such as the existence of pelvises in ancient whales and the existence of gill slits and tails in embryonic humans, as evidence that God didn’t create the world beginning with an evolved state of nature.  I made very little headway in my debates, and usually departed from my encounters cursing the “blindness” of my opponent.”

    (Eric Brownlee, The Word of God A Logical and Moral Dilemma, Writers Club Press, 2001, Lincoln, NE, ISBN: 0-595-19417-6, pg. 85)

    The problem is, we now know that the ‘gill slits‘ in embryonic humans (and I would argue the ‘tails’ as well) are not what we used to think they were.  As a matter of fact, it has now been proven that the scientist, Ernst Haeckel, who is sometimes credited with this “discovery” (it is more an observation), actually faked his drawings and misrepresented the truth (Human Gill Slits).  In other words, we’ve come to a new understanding and know that the statement that human embryos have gill slits is just wrong (Evolutionary Point of View).  An Answers In Genesis article on the subject may be found here.

    So here we have wisdom (it was originally represented as scientific fact) that is neither wise nor very long lived.  Certainly not like the mathematical fact given in my first example.

    Thus our wisdom grows and gains new insights.

    But what about spiritual wisdom?  Surely something so critical as to bringing understanding to the creator and guidance in our own lives, we don’t want to take chances with, right?  We want to make sure we have the right understanding, or at least the best understanding from as early a point in time as possible.

    Spiritual wisdom is not too unlike earthly wisdom, it comes by learning, and learning comes by asking questions.  The difference is, knowing who and how to ask.  When our earthly wisdom is challenged, such as in the case of human embryos having gills, a little bit of research and asking the right questions reveals the answer.  Now there may be those that colloquially make reference to my blindness (see definition # 2) however I am going to claim that it is their own blindness since main stream evolutionist don’t even have that understanding anymore.  The point is, if I am willing to challenge the understanding and ask the right questions of the right resources, I am able to learn an answer and grow my understanding.

    The same is true with Spiritual wisdom, but you have to know who to ask.  Fortunately there is an answer within the Bible.  It is found in James 1:5-8.  James tells us that if we lack wisdom (Spiritual wisdom) we simply need to ask of God, and God will provide us with wisdom liberally (see the origin of the word.  Here it means generously).

    And I love the fact that the verse tells us that God gives to ALL MEN, without regard for Christian, or Atheist, or Agnostic, or any other Religion or world view.  Why would God do that?  Wouldn’t God just reserve wisdom for those that know him and are his children?  Of course not!  Otherwise, how are we even to discover him in the first place?  God wants us to know him.  He wants us to be curious about him.  And he wants us to discover him, to learn about him, and to have knowledge and understanding of him.  And this comes through wisdom from him.  He gives to all who ask him, and he gives with great abundance, BECAUSE he wants us to discover him.

    But note the condition.  You have to truly ask in Faith believing that God will answer your request and will grant you the wisdom you seek.  In other words, you had better believe that God is there and capable of providing an answer.  If your predisposition is that science has given you all the facts of evolution and there is no God, you cannot be running to God asking him to provide you wisdom of himself.  That is not truly seeking after God.  That is simply convincing yourself that the lie you believe is justified.

    I sincerely hope that no one believes I have any great wisdom to share.  Rather I hope that for earthly wisdom you will do due diligence and seek out the right answers.  And for Spiritual wisdom that you will ask of God, in Faith, believing he will answer you and provide the wisdom that you seek.

  • An Update on Lance & Laura …

    I wanted to take a brief moment and provide you an update on my Missionary Friends Lance & Laura Ostman.

    A few weeks ago I told you about Lance & Laura.  Missionary friends of mine who have dedicated their lives to scripture translation and teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Philippines.

    I told you how at this chapter in their lives they were splitting their time between the Philippines and the U.S.A. and how they were looking to be near family and their grandson.  And I told you about their need for a house and the challenges faced by missionaries whose sole support comes from churches and individuals who support their cause.

    And I am not the sole voice in the wilderness champamioning their support.  Others are as well.  You can read one here at: Half Full And Overflowing.

    Today, I am happy to say that Lance & Laura are in their home about a mile from their son and grandson.

    And thanks to the efforts of ordinary folks, some they don’t even know, they were able to put down more than 25% on thier home at closing.

    But the effort is not done.  Lance & Laura now have a house payment (as well as all the bills that go with it).  And for missionaries who rely on the support of others for their income, this is not the best situation for them to be in.

    I would still like to see them be able to pay off the balance of their home within a year if possible.

    The best way for you, the readers of this blog, to help in that endeavor is to share the message with everyone you know and encourage them to do the same.  There are people out there who have the resources and the desire to help.  It is just a matter of getting the message to them.

    Please help me get the message to them.  Please share the story and let them know that they can donate here: Help Lance & Laura Get a Home.

    Also please pray for Lance’s health as he has some current concerns.

    I appreciate your sharing this message and helping get the word out.

  • Do You Have A Right To Die?

    The world is officially losing its mind.  At least we are here in the United States of America (and probably most other Western cultures as well).

    California became the fifth State this week to pass a Right To Die law.  For some reason there are those that seem rather gleeful about this.  This law supposedly gives those that are terminally ill the choice to end their own lives through doctor supplied drugs.

    What it does, in reality, is cheapens life.  Forty-three years ago there were those here in the U.S.A. that decried the legalization of abortion predicting that it would lead to new forms of legalized, state sponsored deaths.  And here we have their predictions coming true.

    Rush Limbaugh made this very case in his1992 book The Way Things Ought To Be.  Rush writes:

    “But I am also pro-life because I am a human being who feels a sense of duty to civilization.  I think it is incumbent upon us all to be concerned about the values we transfer to succeeding generations.  When we take actions that cheapen life, we are contributing to the overall decline in society’s moral values.”

    (Limbaugh, Rush, “The Way Things Ought To Be“,  New York, Pocket Books, 1992, ISBN: 0-671-75145-X, pg. 50)

    Rush goes on to write:

     “It’s not just abortion that is eroding our respect for human life.  There’s also death at the other end of the spectrum.  Look at the right-to-die movement.  They’re not calling for a right to die, they’re mostly calling for a right to kill.”

    (Limbaugh, Rush, “The Way Things Ought To Be“, New York, Pocket Books, 1992, ISBN: 0-671-75145-X, pg. 59)

    At the time Rush wrote those words, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was practicing his physician assisted suicides in Michigan.  Rush addresses his work in the chapter of his book I have referenced.  Dr. Kevorkian actually was convicted in 1999 of Second Degree Homicide and served 8 years in prison for that conviction.

    It is amazing that just 16 short years ago, States were prosecuting and convicting those engaged in this type of behavior and yet today they are signing that very behavior into law.  How quickly a society can change.

    These laws presume to offer you a right (definition #19).  A right to die.  My first question would be: Why in the world would you want such a right?  I have never wanted a right to die.  I want a right to live.  And to live free with the pursuit of happiness.  To be all that God has made me to be.  It used to be that we made SciFi movies about people who were terminally ill and how they would freeze themselves or have their bodies put into some type of stasis so that years into the future when medicine had advanced they could be revived and cured.  Today we simply tell them they have the right to take some life ending drugs.

    But my second question is: Where in the world did this right come from?  I’ve talked about rights on this Blog in the past (see my posts on: Where Do YOUR Rights Come From? as well as: Chasing After Rights).  Rights come from somewhere.  That is they are granted by some entity.  The founding fathers of this country believed there were certain inalienable rights that were granted by God.  And among those were Life.  I don’t think that God, who has granted each and every human an inalienable right to life,  has suddenly granted everyone a right to die.  So where did this right come from, if not from God?

    And the only possible answer is it came from society.  It came from us.  And if society is in the business of granting rights, we have gone down a very slippery slope indeed.  Why do those in physical pain and suffering get to be granted a special right and those in emotional pain and suffering do not?  I’m going to cry foul here and tell you all about my anguish over the financial disparity between myself and Bill Gates.  I demand the right of financial equality.  It is germane to my sanity and good health.  But there is no such right.  Because God never granted it, and society could never achieve it even if it wanted to grant it.

    The people that “granted” this (so-called) right never had the authority to grant such a right to begin with.  They are playing god and are only feeding their own warped egotistical existence.

    My biggest problem with the (so-called) Right To Die is the same thing Rush Limbaugh identified 23 years ago.  It cheapens life.  And this is because I actually do have a Theology (something most of the world lacks).

    If you are a Creationist, then you have to believe that life was created.  Depending on your particular theology, you might even go so far as to say that life is a gift from God.

    My particular religion teaches that God intended for life to be abundant and joyful.  However because sin entered into the world it brought death and destruction.  Death as a consequence of sin, is the very antithesis of life.  The former is a gift, the latter is a curse.

    Because of my Theology, I actually cringe whenever I encounter any type of mercy killing or humane killing.  Even with animals or pets.  My problem is that even putting an animal out of its suffering (as if that animal doesn’t want to live) is a hardening of our hearts.  It is a practice that makes it easier for us to then see our way to extending the same practice to our fellow humans.

    This is not going to sit well with most of you (actually the vast majority of the world) – but the pain and suffering of death actually AMPLIFIES the great sacrifice that Jesus Christ made upon the Cross.  It is because I abhor death with such great disdain that I appreciate the Cross all the more.  It is because I understand the great sin curse of death that I come to understand Grace all the more.  It is in the pain and suffering that we learn just how much as been overcome.

    “Oh, the love that drew salvation’s plan!
    Oh, the grace that brought it down to man!
    Oh, the mighty gulf that God did span at Calvary!”

    Paul of Tarsus understood this when he wrote:

    “54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.  55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?  56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.” (1 Corinthians 15″54-56)

    Paul understood the sting of death.  And Paul understood the great price that had been paid.  He understood death was the consequence of sin and that Jesus Christ had defeated it once and for all and had walked out of the grave victorious in Life!

    So do you have a right to die?  I sincerely hope not.  I hope you have a hope to live!  And I trust that hope is found in the one who was victorious over the grave.  My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

  • Which Side of The Cross Are You On?

    When I started this blog I thought that I would treat issues from the Philosophies, Sciences, Politics, Life, and Religion equally.  All of them are interesting to me and all of them are equally important in defining who we are as a person, as a nation, and as people of this world.

    As it turns out though, I have gravitated more towards religion than any of the other studies.  There are a few reasons for this, not the least of which is you, the people I perceive that actually take the time to read my musings.  When I look at the stats for this blog, the readership is heavily slanted towards foreign visits.  United States of America visits do not even comprise half of the readership here.  At least according to the WEB statistics.

    And while I find politics immensely interesting, I am only exposed to a couple of political factions in the world.  Those here in the U.S. and those of the Philippines.  Perhaps to some small extent those of Great Britain, but only because of the close history shared between them and the U.S. and definitely not from an understanding of the political culture in the country on a day-to-day basis.

    I am not sure I could adequately represent U.S. politics in such a way as to gain interest or engagement from such a diverse international readership as the stats of this blog indicate.

    We do all share a common ground however.  And that is Religion.  And it is only natural that I would weight my discussions towards religion.  Because our religion is what will set our biases and our beliefs towards our purpose, as humans here on this planet, and how we establish a moral and ethical code of conduct, both to ourselves, our God (if we believe in one), and to each other.  We ALL have a religion.  Even if you are atheist, it is still your religion.  Atheism influences your set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.  All the religions of the world influence people in their understanding of life, their purpose, and their obligations to themselves and one another.  Agnostics practice a religion, as do people of great faith.  We all are bound to one religion or another whether we recognize it or not.

    One religion however has a seminal event that had a great impact on the entire world and stood the test of time and spanned the ages and continues to guide the course of human events even today.

    That religion is Christianity and the event is the Cross.  We’ve marked time by it.  We’ve defined faiths by it.  We’ve ostensibly fought wars because of it.  And we’ve tortured and created martyrs over it.  It is a symbolism that is recognized the world over and brings a controversy and impact with it wherever it goes like no other event in history.

    What is amazing to me is that those who would stamp out the controversy of the Cross are not amazed by the impact it has made the world over.  How is it that one man, the person of Jesus Christ, and one death upon the Cross has brought us to the point we are at in the world today?  How is it that the more the world tries to erase its very existence from human history, the more those that cling to it strengthen their grip?  How is it that a seemingly insignificant event, that of a man being executed upon a Cross could make such an impact upon the entire world?

    There have been many executions throughout human history.  Many of them famous ones.  I could surely name some that the vast majority of people the world over would be familiar with.  But none of them would compare to one event, some two thousand years ago, that has defined the course of human history.  How is that?  And how are people not amazed and in wonderment of that?  How is it the very executioners of Jesus Christ themselves thought his claim of being the Son of God must be true (Matthew 27:54)?  How is it this one event has reverberated through the annuals of time unless Jesus Christ were true to his claim and he really is the Son of the Most High God?

    But the point I want to get to today is that there were at least three crosses upon that hill (that we are told about).  There was a cross to the left and a cross to the right of Jesus (Mathew 27:38).  Three individuals were crucified that day.  And history records all three.  The other two are known as malefactors or thieves.  Today, in most western cultures, and quite a few eastern cultures as well, we would hardly execute someone for the crime of stealing.  Here in the U.S.A. it is not uncommon for thieves to receive a monetary fine and a few years in jail (Source: FindLaw.com and Laws.com).  Certainly a far cry from execution, let alone execution upon a Cross.

    The interesting thing to me is that both of the individuals are identified as thieves.  They were both guilty of the exact same crime.  Kind of like you and me.  We are all guilty of violating God’s law (Romans 3:23).  We have all stolen from God the glory that is rightfully His.  We have all stolen the sovereignty that He and He alone deserves.  We have all stolen the allegiance that the creation owes the creator from an Almighty God.  And like the two thieves that hung on their cross on either side of Jesus Christ, we hang in the balance on one side of the Cross or the other.

    Each of the two thieves had a different mindset towards Jesus Christ as he hung on the Cross (Luke 23:39-43).  One of them feared God.  One did not.  One of them was responded to.  One was not.  One of them recognized that they were both in a common conviction (justly) of their sins while Jesus Christ was not.  The other simply mocked and ridiculed him.

    There are two sides of the Cross.  And the dividing line is the outstretched arms of Jesus Christ.  There is no middle ground.  Jesus Christ himself, and He alone occupies the middle ground.  And we are all (every man, woman, child, every human being that ever has, ever will, and who today exists upon the face of this earth) on one side of that Cross or the other.

    My question is: Which side of the Cross are YOU on?  I’m on the side of the thief who begged that Jesus Christ, Lord, would remember me in the Heavenly Kingdom (Luke 23:42).  I pray that you would come to stand on the same side as well.

  • What Are You Addicted To?

    You may have noticed that the vast majority of my blog posts are titled with, or start out with, a question.  This is simply because when you study the pillars of Religion, Politics, Science, Philosophy, etc. you generally start with a premise which you then seek to disprove or prove.   When you state your premise (your proposition) it is usually best to phrase it in the form of a question (see definition #2) in order to generate interactive thought.  It also invites a response from your audience asking them to participate in the debate with you.

    I start out with this bit of rather obvious understanding because sometimes, despite ones best intentions, some questions may still come across as offensive to your audience which, in some cases, will immediately put them on the defensive.  And that is the last thing I wish to have happen with this particular post because I would, literally, like to challenge (almost) all of the conventional wisdom out there on addiction and would urge you to consider it carefully.

    Your first response to my title question might be “Why nothing!  I have no addictions!”  And I certainly understand why you might answer this way.  Given how we have come to define, understand, and treat addictions the world over.  But I’d like to propose a different world view, one that just might get you to rethink whether you are addicted to something or not.

    Addictions come in all forms, shapes, and sizes.  We typically think of the “top five” and tend to lump everything together with them and exclude everything else.  Probably the number one or number two thought that comes to everyone’s mind when I say addiction is either alcohol or drugs.  And certainly no one should disagree that these substances are addictive.  Alcoholism has been around almost since the beginning of time.  According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism nearly 16.6 million people in the United States suffer from Alcohol Use Disorders (AUD).

    I trust you will grant me the fact that I could come up with statistics on most (or all) of the common addictions and several of the ones you might believe are questionable as well.  For drug abuse statistics in the U.S., you might check the National Institute on Drug Abuse.  I am not discussing alcohol or drugs, but rather addictions.  These are just common and well known addictions.

    We might also think of tobacco (listed on the NIH site), food, or gambling addictions to round out our top five.

    We could even get into more esoteric addictions such as sex, compulsive spending, Internet, or even video gaming addictions.  But what if I were to propose Christianity?  Have you ever known anyone addicted to Christianity?  I have.  And let’s be clear here, what we’re really talking about is a Religious disorder, someone acting in a manner they perceive their religion would prescribe or require.  Recall our definition of addiction would include anything that would cause us to habitually practice something that is repetitious to the extent to cause anxiety upon withdrawal.

    What about prayer?  Could one be addicted to prayer?  And if you were, what would be so bad about that?  After all, shouldn’t we pray all the time (I Thessalonians 5:17)?  I would submit that one can be addicted to prayer.  And that it is not a good thing.  I would even contend that we have been specifically warned against it (Matthew 6:6-8).  Praying with “vain repetitions” is a clear sign of “prayer addiction“.

    My point here is that there are addictions far more reaching and more subtle than the vast majority of the world would ever give credence to.  And not only that, they also affect every single person who walks upon this Earth.  Given enough time and effort, I would guarantee you that I could find your addiction.  And addictions are not universal either.  Whatever you find addicting, may not phase me in the least.  And my addictions may be completely boring and unfathomable to you.  Addictions, physical and psychological, are a part of all of our lives and affect all us either directly or indirectly.

    And yet with all of the self-help efforts out there, with all of the clinics, and the rehabilitation centers, and the support groups, I never hear anyone address or define addictions correctly.  It just doesn’t happen, or rarely happens such that it is hidden in the noise.

    My explanation for addictions is: that compulsive behavior that takes over our lives when we allow our lusts to surge out of control.

    Please allow me to establish a bit of a foundation here.  Because this is counter to popular thinking, and I would contend that what we have been taught most of our lives (if you are contemporary) is wrong.

    First of all let’s examine love.  Why?  Because it is going to become very important in just a moment.  If you look at the definition of love I’ve linked to, it would seem to cover Eros very well.  It is how the ancient Greeks represented sexual or erotic love.  The definition might border on Philo (Philos-adelphia), or brotherly love.  What the ancient Greeks ascribed to family bonds and close friendships.  But it certainly does not even come close to Agape (see under Origin) which is a sacrificial love as only God himself can love.

    When we think of love, we tend to believe that the opposite of love is hate.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  Where this falsehood started, I’ve been unable to determine, but somewhere in human history we came up with the idea that you either loved, or you hated, and that the two were mutually exclusive.  But this is not the case.  If you don’t believe me, simply think of someone you love (that you really, really love.  A with all your heart type of love).  Now tell me, in all honesty, that there is nothing that you hate about that person.  Some quirk, or action, some little nuance about them that just rubs you the wrong way and just drives you crazy.  You hate it (go back and look at the definition again if you have to).  And yet you just love the person.  But there are things you hate.  At exactly the same time.  Ergo, the two are not exclusive.  I can take this a step further with God.  God hates sin (Proverbs 6:16-19), and we are a sinful and wicked people (Romans 3:23), and yet God loves us (John 3:16).  God loves, and God hates, at exactly the same time.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

    But there is something that is.  And that is lust.  God does not lust.  Neither can he lust (He is, after all, God).  And isn’t it interesting the words used in the definition of lust?  Words like uncontrolled, passionate, overmastering desire, and craving.  The exact same words one might use to describe the effects of an addiction.

    God loves, but God does not lust.  The opposite of love is not hate, the opposite of love is lust.  And uncontrolled lust leads to addictions in our lives.  They are fueled by sin in the world and they are powerful and overwhelming forces.

    And there is one sure fire way to deal with addictions in your life.  Replace the lust with love.  You see, when God’s love begins to permeate your life, it pushes out the lusts which curbs the addictions.

    So, what are you addicted to?  Because I guarantee you whatever it is, (1) it is fueled by lust.  And (2) it can be overcome with love.  My prayer for you today is that you will allow God’s love to come into your life in order to drive out the lusts that fuel your addictions and in turn, make you a more balanced person for his service.

  • DO YOU HAVE A NEED?

    I must confess that before I started this blog I actually had a vision of heading off in another direction.  What I wanted to do, and still want to do, is to meet those in need.

    There are many, many needs in the world today.  And yet there are great resources available to meet those needs as well.  Usually those with needs have no ability to connect with those with resources.  And those with resources are usually overwhelmed by those in need and do not know which needs should be met or which ones would be most worthwhile to them.

    Meeting needs is something we are all familiar with.  We all have those special loves that we want to do anything within our capabilities to see their needs met.  Mothers and Fathers want the best for their children.  We all want to see a better world.  We all want to champion our cause and advance that which is good and right in our own eyes.

    But how do you do that?  How do you bring together needs and resources at just the right moment in time such as to fulfill the need and to make the world a little better off while doing it?

    That was the genesis of my idea.  I wanted to start a not-for-profit that would marry needs and resources together.  Now I know that there are many organizations out there that purport to do this.  They all want our donations and they all try and take those donations to meet needs the world over.  However, they usually take those donations and meet the needs of those things that they believe are important and they do so while funding themselves with a portion of the donations received.

    That is where my vision departed slightly from what already exists.  The problem, as I see it, is those with the resources are never quite sure that their resources are going to the needs they want them to, while those with the needs are never vetted as needy for those wanting to provide the resources.

    What I would like to build one day, is a corporate group that takes those that are in need, vets their needs, providing legitimacy to their needs and then helps them market those needs to those with resources and allows those with resources to select the needs they want their resources to meet and supplies those resources directly to the need.  The corporate group that performs this work would be totally, completely, and separately funded by advertising and/or its own fund raising efforts.

    That is my vision, and one day I hope to achieve it, but I am not sharing this with the rest of the world by chance.  It just so happens that there is a need I would like to see met.

    Allow me to introduce to you dear and close friends of mine, Lance and Laura Ostman.  Lance and Laura have been missionaries of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Philippines for more than 30 years of their lives.  They have worked diligently with indigenous people groups to translate the Bible into their native language.  Lance and Laura have spent their entire adult lives in the service of our Lord Jesus Christ through New Tribes Missions working alongside of other missionaries from England, Australia, the Philippines, and other countries around the world.  They have raised children who carry on that legacy today working as missionaries in foreign countries around the world.

    And Lance and Laura have a need.  A couple of years ago they transitioned to splitting their time between the Philippines and their family here in the United States.  Which has resulted in a need for a home.

    And indeed, Lance and Laura Ostman currently have a contract down on a home in Oklahoma, U.S.A. where they can be near their son and grandchild and where they may continue their missionary work.  This home will cost them the contract price of $140,000.00 U.S. of which they have currently raised some $30,000.00 U.S. towards.

    In keeping with my original vision, I can personally assure any potential giver that Lance and Laura have dedicated their lives to the people groups of the Philippines and have lived alongside them in the tropical jungles of the Philippines where Lance has  worked as a translator of the Bible into the native language of those people groups.

    I have personally known Lance and Laura since Jr. High School.  Lance and Laura have been in my home on many occasions in the past and will be again in the future.  I have traveled with them in the Philippines, they have been with me when I have preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ in various churches, and I have had them speak at the Church I pastored in Hawaii as well as others.  One of my most prized possessions is a copy of the New Testament Bible in the Higaunon language, I believe the very first book ever printed in that people’s group language.  Lance is working today to finish the Old Testament within the Higaunon language and will probably work on many other texts and guides to bring new light and learning to a people that would otherwise never hear the word of God.

    I know that the vast majority of those that read this blog cannot, and would not make a donation to Lance and Laura.  However I have a goal of reaching more than 1,200 people that would be able to, and see fit to, donate $100.00 U.S. each to Lance and Laura for the home they are attempting to buy.

    And you can help me in that goal by doing one simple thing.  Sharing.  If I could impose on each of you to Tweet, Link, repost on Facebook, Email, text, or simply get the word out to as many of your circle of friends as possible, and then ask them to do the same, I am confident that we will be able to reach those that can meet the need and bring it to fruition.

    If you would like to personally donate $100.00 U.S. to Lance and Laura, please go to their WEB site at: http://blogs.ntm.org/lance-ostman/  and click on the GIVE button at the top of the page.  Please annotate your gift with “New Oklahoma Home” so that they will know why you are donating and where you would like the funds directed.

    If you are unable to give, or simply not inclined or feel led to give, I (and they) understand completely.  I ask that you would help by sharing, and if you know Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, by praying.  Your support is greatly appreciated no matter what form it takes.

    Thank you for your time in considering this matter.  May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you greatly.

  • WHAT CAN GOD DO?

    One of the more interesting debates within the philosophies asks the question “Can God make a rock that God cannot lift?” and thus in one fell swoop claims to shatter peoples belief in God, a god, or any supreme being.

    My answer to this rather childish and ridiculous question is “He already has.”.  You see, in the person of God the Father, as described by the Bible, God has created all the rocks, not only on planet earth, but in the entire universe.  And he holds them in the palm of his hand (singular).  God, being God, holds all of creation together at once in the palm of his great hand.  However, God, in the person of Jesus Christ, also as described in the Bible, chose to limit himself to the form of a man and as a man, chose to limit himself to that human form which could not, and did not, lift the great mountains and hills that He created.

    The rather childish question that the philosophers ask fails to recognize and understand the very nature and being of God.

    But it does raise an interesting line of reasoning, that of “What can God do?”  You see, God, being God, is supreme in everything He does.  And He is limitless, and nothing is beyond his reach or his capability.  Whether or not he would (or could) chose to violate his very nature is another matter all together.

    A much more interesting question the philosophers might ask (if they were actually serious about theology that is) is “Can God tell a lie?”  I would contend that the answer to that question is “No” (rather emphatically).  You see, God as the very embodiment of truth is incapable of misrepresenting that truth.  Because anything that proceeds out of God is truth by its very definition.  He is, after all, God.  And who can disprove God?  No one can, ergo, God is truth.

    However, God can (and as a matter of fact did) create the father of all lies, Satan.  God, knowing full well that lies and mistruths would enter His creation (both spiritual and physical) still chose to create the angel Satan and thus allowed lies to come into being.

    Why would God do this?  Why would the very embodiment of truth allow that which is not true to come into being?  You have read many times on this blog my references to Dr. Ravi Zacharias.  I had the great pleasure of hearing Dr. Zacharias speak on one occasion where he told a story of a lady in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. who suffered from a rare disorder that resulted in all of her nerve endings being dead.  She literally felt no pain.  At all.  Of any type.  And he told of the extremely careful and protected life she had to live.  She had to be careful in sports because she had no mechanism of distinguishing an injury.  She had to be careful when she cooked a meal because if she got close to a stove or a hot cooking utensil she had no warning mechanism to alert her if she was about to be burned (or if she had accidently burned herself).  When most people get to close to a hot flame, they have a tendency to pull away before they are burned.  Not so with this young lady.  Dr. Zacharias told of speaking with her mother and how she had told him that she prayed to God that her daughter would experience even one day of pain.  A very strange prayer for any mother.

    Think about all the mothers in the world who pray that their sons and daughters would have their pain taken away.  And yet here was a mother whose daughter had no pain and still she prayed that God would give her pain.

    I believe that God knows he could create any utopia he wanted to.  But without pain, how would we ever appreciate joy?  Without lies, how would we ever strive for the truth?  Without death, how would we ever appreciate life?

    The fact that God did choose to create things that are the antithesis  of his very nature allows us to explore and learn his true nature like would never be possible without it.

    Another more interesting question philosophers might ask is “Can God create another God greater than himself?”  And once again I would say “No” rather emphatically.  However, Jesus Christ himself said “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34-36).  Indeed, scripture tells us that one day the elect of the Lord will rule with him, alongside him.  We will be like him, but we will not be him.  God, by his very nature is God, how can he then go back and undo himself by creating something greater than himself?  He cannot.  Yet, God is infinite in all that he does.  He has created an infinite universe (something the evolutionists struggle with), and he has created family, us, mankind, and would allow us to take our place alongside him created in his own image.

    Philosophers who ask silly questions about what God can and cannot do are not in pursuit of a Holy, Supreme, All Knowing, all Present, All Powerful, God.  Rather they are playing games within the very creation itself that God made and holds in the palm of his hand.  The true theologian will seek out God on terms that bring meaning and understanding to the very nature of God and to understand our relationship to him.

    The next time you consider what God can or cannot do, may I suggest you ask yourself two questions in light of God’s capabilities (or lack thereof)?

    The first would be “What can God do for me?”  That is a much more reasonable and personable question to ask.  I hope you find that God can love you as only God can love and that God can save you and keep you for all of eternity in his precious hand.

    The second question would be “What can I do for God?”  And that is a very pointed and personal question that may very well lead to your own personal understanding of God.  Because I hope that you find you can seek after him, learn of him, know him, and give yourself to him.  For all of eternity.  Worship him.  Love him.  Allow him to sustain you.  Believe in him in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.  Those are the pursuits that bring understanding to the question the philosophers ask and seek to mock the very existence of God with.

    WHAT CAN GOD DO?  Anything God wants to do for His Honor, and for His Glory, and for His Praise, forever, and ever, and ever, amen.

  • WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE?

    WARNING: Today’s post IS NOT for young children or those easily offended (and most whom are difficult to offend).  It is graphic in nature, controversial in subject, and will be divisive to most.

     

     

    Several readers here have asked me if I intended to address the recent United States Supreme Court decision that strikes down the U.S. Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) on June 26, 2015.  I have intended to, however I wanted to think about the response for a period of time before commenting on it.

    In a nutshell, the U.S. Supreme Court decision makes same sex marriage legal in all 50 states of the United States, compelling the individual states to recognize, and indeed, to authorize and codify marriages between individuals of the same sex.

    This has been viewed as rather divisive here in the U.S.  A number of the proponents of same-sex marriage have hailed the victory and called any opposition to the cause as hateful.  Opponents to the view have been rather vocal in their opposition stating that the ruling erodes the traditional family.

    From the atheistic point of view this might seem like a good thing.  After all, if you are not hurting anyone else, why not pursue happiness however you see fit?  But is this really a valid view point?  The question here is: ‘are we witnessing a change in both cultural and biological evolution?’  Of course one might consider as the more relevant question how homosexuality even survives natural selection to begin with, as is found here.  Of this myriad discussion, the one that catches my eye is the answer from Dr. Richard Dawkins found here.  But prior to even getting to Dr. Dawkins answer, Ms. Clara Santa Maria gives us this brilliant piece of logic:

    From a modern perspective, I am very cautious to apply Darwinian natural selection to the human population, since we have decommissioned evolution in so many ways (medicine, technology, etc.).

    Huh!?!  We’ve decommissioned evolution in so many ways?  So we’ve actually shut down segments of evolution?  Really?  And could someone explain to me how that is not, in and of itself, evolution?  The problem the evolutionist has is they must acknowledge there is no free will.  Everything was determined at the point of the Big Bang and the vast plethora of molecules out there bumping around in the universe are on some set course determined by the natural laws (which we may, or may not, understand) and everything is being played out on that grand stage.  Once on the evolutionary course, there is no getting off of it and there is certainly no “decommissioning” pieces of it.

    The idea that we’ve co-opted evolution in any way, shape, or form is pure balderdash.  You either believe in evolutionary theory (and are a slave to it), or you do not.

    Dr. Dawkins’ answer on the survivability of homosexuality is fairly typical.  The gene (if there even is such a gene) survived through bi-sexual individuals; homosexual individuals who participated in the unthinkable abomination (heterosexual sex); or more recently through contaminated products (milk, baby food, etc.).  This is fairly ludicrous even for Dr. Dawkins who knows full well that genetic material is built at the time of conception and is not passed into a host organism through other means.  Dr. Dawkins even admits, when asked point blank, that should modern homosexuals refrain from heterosexual activity, the homosexual gene would (or could, he supposes) become dormant and die out.  Homosexuals beware!  Dr. Richard Dawkins, arguably the worlds leading evolutionary expert, at least speculates there is a possible path to your eventual distinction.

    For the agnostic the answer is “Who cares?”  After all, that is generally the answer to any question for the agnostic.  As long as the fight on either side of an issue doesn’t spill over to their own discomfort or change their comfort zone, then why should they care one way or the other?

    For the theist however, the answer is a little more grounded.  It derives directly from the Creator and one must decide whether the Creator would choose to make one segment of the population one way, and another set another way.  And in answering that question, the theist must answer the question as to why?  What is the purpose behind the Creator’s intent in creating homosexual behavior?  In answering any question, the theist must try and discern the intent of the Creator and understand the forces of the creation around them.

    For the Christian however the matter is much more succinct in that the Creator has already stated his intent on the matter.  And his intent is rather clear.  One blogger, Whitney Kay Bacon (who identifies herself to be a Christian)  questions the Christian perspective on gay marriage this way:

    What I don’t understand is quite simply, this: why does gay marriage bother people so much? If you are making an unnecessary palava because you’re offended by gay marriage then you seriously need to look at your own life and educate yourselves a bit. If the sole reason you feel that gay marriage is wrong because it’s a sin, and the Bible tells you this is wrong, then I sure as hell hope you don’t have bacon with your eggs or indulge in shrimp. Oh, or better yet, do you have any tattoos? Ever been drunk, told a white lie or been divorced? Yep, whoops. Those are all sins, too. And all sins are equal, right? I don’t see anyone going off the handle because of any of these ‘sins’ and I most certainly don’t see protests or hurtful propaganda against those. Just because you disagree with something — and we all have the right to do so — it is an absolute disgrace to treat the LGBT community the way you do. What if we treated all sins in this way? Bacon eaters would be doomed.

    Despite Whitney Kay Bacon’s warped theology (apparently she never got to the New Testament, at least not the part where Paul said it was OK to eat the meat off the alter I Corinthians 8:3-8, nor Peter’s vision of the unclean food Acts 10:9-15) as eating unclean foods was a commandment given to the nation of Israel in order to keep them pure and set apart, a white lie (as she puts it) is clearly a sin and is denoted in the 10 Commandments.  I suppose given this point of view we should all lobby for the abolishment of perjury laws, as clearly there isn’t a person here on earth that has not lied.

    Whitney Kay Bacon builds other weak arguments in her blog as well.  Such as this one here:

    As a Christian, I wholeheartedly believe that God does not make mistakes and he would not have accidentally made millions of people (and animals) gay by chance.

    As a Christian, and fortunately as a Theologian, I can assure Whitney Kay Bacon (and I can assure you) that God did neither accidently nor mistakenly make gay humans (or animals).  However he did (and has) given them over to their own reprobate minds to commit un-natural acts (Romans 1:27-32).  Furthermore, the idea that we see such a representative population of gay animal behavior is a sheer fallacy and a propagation of bad science.  There has been no credible study that shows this case and certainly none that can quantify the numbers and cross different animals kinds.

    My uncle used to raise poodles when I was younger.  He had a couple of particular poodles that were really glad to see you.  And when I say really glad, I mean these male poodles would become excited.  And yes, for those that just don’t want to go there, I specifically mean they were sexually excited.  Those dogs would run up and wrap themselves around your leg and get the happiest look on their face I ever seen on any animal ever.  Am I to conclude from this that those dogs were both gay (or perhaps bisexual) and that they desired a relationship with humans?  And hey, who are we to deny them their happiness?

    I know you find that greatly offensive today, but I assure you beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the same sex lobby has taken us down that path.  They, like Whitney Kay Bacon, want to point to nature as an example to be followed.  However only THEY are wise enough and discerning enough to state which acts in nature are acceptable and are to be followed.  One day their one arguments will break down against them and a Holy God will literally give us over to our own complete destruction.

    However, at the risk of running quite long on this particular post, none of these issues are what I wanted to address about the U.S. Supreme Court decision.  What I wanted to do is: I would like personally (for myself) answer Whitney Kay Bacon’s question:

    What I don’t understand is quite simply, this: why does gay marriage bother people so much?

    The reason gay marriage offends me is for the same reason that abortion offends me.  It is because a group of people have taken a piece of God’s design and co-opted it for their own purposes.  In the case of abortion they refuse to acknowledge that life comes from God’s own hand (and his alone) and they presume to be wise and discerning and able to state when and where life begins (and therefore justify in their own minds that it is OK to terminate a nine month old baby as yet unborn, yet it is murder to terminate a nine hour old baby that has just been delivered).  And yes, this is offensive and contrary to what my religion would teach.  In the case of gay marriage they have co-opted the God given union of a man and woman and twisted it for their own purposes to mean what pleases them.

    In the case of abortion, I’ve had to live with it as the law of the land in the United States since 1972, but they have never forced the Church to actually support or perform abortions.

    But I am not so sure about gay marriage.  Where do the vast majority of weddings take place?  In Churches across the land.  Because marriage has never been the purview of the Government, the Government co-opted it from the Church.  It has always been within the domain of the Church, which first gave it rise.

    The Government stepped in and legislated marriage when it became clear that legal disputes through joined properties would come about.  The Government had a need to regulate how certain equities were treated between husbands and wives, and between parents and children with-respect-to common family property.  These situations arise due to divorce, death, infidelity, and other reasons.  But the institution of marriage always was the holding of the Church.

    In the case of same sex marriage the court had a perfectly reasonable alternative, that of civil union.  Civil unions could have addressed all of the legal ramifications within society faced by both heterosexual and homosexual couples.  Civil unions could have addressed all legal and social issues and concerns and left the entity of marriage itself to the Church, a religious ceremony, one practiced by religious and God fearing individuals.

    However, the community would not accept that answer.  They had to co-opt the religious ceremony for their own.  They persisted until they had perverted the very religious freedoms we feign to protect in this country.  Indeed, Associate Justice Kennedy, during oral arguments, acknowledged when asked, that he supposed an individual refusing to perform a wedding ceremony for same sex couples could be found to be in violation of those individuals Constitutional rights.  Quite a serious charge.

    So why am I offended by so called “gay marriage“?  Because it is a sin and the most offensive of all sins?  Not exactly.  It offends me because we are headed down a path of lost religious freedoms.  Oh, I support most all other arguments one way or the other; it hastens the destruction of the family; It hastens other un-natural and sinful behavior; It forever alters our society from one of “In Whom God we Trust” to one of “I don’t care about God, I’ll do whatever I please”.  But the biggest reason is because it threatens (greatly) our religious freedoms, compromises our Churches, and redefines what is consider lawful for debate or opinion.  It sets us on a path, for the first time in recent history, of compelling the Church to act in a way contrary to the religious teachings the Church may follow.  In other words it forces a world view upon the Church that the Church does not accept and neither allows it to tolerate that world view, but rather compels it to actually participate in that world view.

    And that is why, as an Ordained Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and as one licensed to perform wedding ceremonies, no Church I am ever associated with in the future will undertake “wedding ceremonies“.  Wedding ceremonies are now the ward of the State and the Church does not have to participate in them.  Any union ceremony I officiate over will now be a “Godly Union Ceremony“.  And a Godly Union is as defined within the Bible and is between one man and one woman.  I will encourage any young couple to follow Christian teachings and to be joined together before God and company within the Church, and then to immediately follow all legally prescribed sanctions of the State.  I’ll even sign an affidavit of their Godly Union ceremony, but not a marriage certificate.  That is now the purview of the State which co-opted it.

    And should any same sex couples seek to be married under my tenure, in the Church, well I am sorry, the Church (any Church I officiate at) does not perform marriages.  Only Godly Unions, and those are strictly reserved for members of the Church in good standing, and as Biblically defined.  And any Church I officiate at any time in the future, will be strongly encouraged to adopt this practice and state it within the Church constitution and by-laws.

    Yes, I take offense at same sex marriage, but not because people want to live their own sinful lives.  God himself knows I live with my own burden of sin (perhaps more than the rest of the world – see my earlier post – I AM CHIEF AMONGST SINNERS).  No, I take offense at the U.S. Supreme Court ruling because now, within my lifetime, they have threatened my own religious freedoms and co-opted that which was never theirs to begin with.  And that my friends, takes us into very, very dangerous territory.