This idea of the separation of Church and State is an idea that is routinely gotten wrong by Christians, non Christians and the worst politicians.
Not that I’m a civics scholar but I believe government cannot sponsor a particular religion, or doctrine or ethically influence one that was the whole point of separation of Church and State by our framers.
Religion can influence government and if it’s morally good has a duty to do so. Before America was founded religion and doctrine had influenced local government and this continued through the founding of our states and federal government. Natural law was vaguely attempted yet not fully institutionalized as part of our constitution.
We elect men and women in our government on the pretense of being a good statesman. We expect our elected officials to rule with good ethics and biblical morality although some would argue that I’m sure but that is a testament of our current government how many good statesmen do you know?
I have read blogs and ideas from not only atheist but from Christians as well that we should not have Christians or Godly persons in Government but only atheist and secularist feeling they would rule with complete impartiality.
Moronic idea at best, if we say only secularist or atheist should only be in government then we lose the notion of politicians to be elected with the intent of being a good statesman. The intent will count for nothing and we can expect the government body to move from trying to rule with Biblical good ethics and moral law to no ethics and moral relativism.
Atheist will refute this idea but if you have no reference point of good ethics and morality then how can you rule in favor of good ethics and morality, it becomes relative to the politicians own definition.
The separation of church and state should have a one way door, allowing good moral influence whether it be religious or not to effect government but not allowing government to influence religion.
Tough to regulate but if it can be done then society receives a government that rules with good biblical moral intentions and not with ambiguous ethics and moral relativism.
For those of us who grew up from the mid 90’s and beyond most had a funny face in their heart when actor/comedian Bill Cosby came on the TV.
Cosby once an icon of humor and family values could do no wrong.
When the accusations started that Cosby had drugged and assaulted people I can only imagine what crossed everyone’s mind.
Some thought it was an attack of the Left by liberals that were trying to sabotage Cosby for speaking out against President Obama others just thought no way and finally the truth comes out.
So how do we explain this, as a conservative it tears at you that a once family values man was half a lie. As a Christian I don’t see disgust but I do see disappointment, but with God’s grace can good come out of this?
The atheist might view Cosby as basic human corruption, nothing new here we would maybe expect this from all humans some will act and some will refrain that is just the way some of us turn out.
The Hindu or Easter philosophy enacts the uncontrollable act of karma in which the offender will have no real knowledge or understanding of their punishment just that their death will possibly reincarnate something vile, no chance to escape no forgiveness in sight.
How do we explain this to the person that sees this as a total loss in humanity? I’m sure there are some out there that have been hurt by this news.
Cosby’s family for one has been majorly impacted and there are those that would view this as a complete devastation, why would somebody do this? How can we turn this around for God?
Well for one this shows us we are all fallible without God.
Without Jesus hypocrisy is the norm and it becomes you.
Mr. Cosby showed the world that people are not always what they seem to be,we advertise one thing and do another. But with Jesus this is not so, Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
Romans 16:18 defines the Cosby situation well the problem is how can a person acquires these negative attributes? “For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own [a]appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.”
If we were to put our faith and trust in God could this be the remedy? When people ask or say where is this going who can we trust? Deuteronomy 31:8 “The Lord is the one who goes ahead of you; He will be with you. He will not fail you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed.”
As much as the Cosby situation is alarming and disturbing we can use this to tell others that trusting in humans will always lead to disappointment while trusting in God will never disappoint.
The national Review released a nice article more or less better defining Pope Francis’s stance on climate change and economical equality leaving the Leftist environmental, economic extremist and the Pope in somewhat of a conundrum if you ask me.
Pope Francis over the last few years had made statements that have been surly noted as communist in notion, climate change is the new communism if you don’t feel that way look at the old communism or in that fact both China, North Korea and Vietnam and see the defining attributes they have in common with climate change. Note that climate change is nothing new to the Left, when the Berlin wall fell western communism just found a new place to hide.
Economic Equality has been a topic as well by Francis, from the National Catholic Reporter Carol Glatz reports that the Popes idea of faith and giving go hand in hand something we would all like to see people like Joel Osteen and TD Jakes read and practice.
The issue with this concept is it does not fully understand or fix the poor just that we need to become poor to have faith. I’m always quick to go back on Matthew chapter 26 verse 11.
Now Jesus was explaining more than just the poor to his disciples but it does tells us an undeniable truth, that we will never rid the poor nor the sick they will always be with us. No giving until it hurts will change that, we are not to hoard our money but I don’t think Jesus expects us to go broke trying to fix something that cannot be fixed.
This lays the conundrum for both the Pope and the Left; how fare will they take each other before they are forced to abandon each another on difference of ideology and yes their ideology splits.
Now mind you this is just opinion and conviction from Pope Francis, whether he sees it or not he is embracing communism with his economic and environmental ideology. In my opinion the Pope does see it but wants to change the concept of socialism to his brand or what I would say the true brand of socialism.
Socialism was tried once and it failed when Adam and Eve sinned and God threw them out of the garden. After that socialism has tried and tried as it might, it has even employed the government aka communism and that still has not worked and will never work because of mans inherent will to sin.
I get what Pope Francis is wanting, he and I would make great neighbors but no way in heaven would I vote for him to office.
The conundrum that Pope Francis faces is that yes the Left is all for this, they love what Francis is preaching until he said that being economically equal and environmentally conscious means we must be Pro Life and not with just newborns but with everyone one and thing on this earth and that is where the ideology splits
This is a must and the Pope knows this and has to push this otherwise he loses his Christian credibility. Equality means everyone, young and old regardless of how weak or strong, ignorant or inelegant we must have Pro Life otherwise all this is a lie.
The conundrum for the Left is they know this is a lie and they themselves don’t necessarily live this lie. Don’t get me wrong there are a few uneducated leftist hippies out there that attempt it but few will live it to the end. The educated Left truly does not have equality in mind just power and ignorance and Pro Life cannot be a part of this social experiment.
To the Left Pro Life cannot gel with communism because if makes not only the individual but a government accountable for their misgivings. Yes the government could mandate no abortion, it is not an option, make it illegal and it will care for the unwanted child and the elderly but that opens up a can of who will pay for this and again accountability becomes in play, judgment, sin there is no irrelevance in a world that embraces life.
I believe the Pope would say we the people and the churches of the people will take care of these children and take care of the elderly that have served our society something that use to be and has been lost with an ever intrusive government. So one can see if we allow the government to take care or enforce private organizations to do their bidding the society looses freedom and free will.
The Pope’s communism demands that not only people be accountable but the government is as well and that won’t happen because again we are inherently evil and seek the best way out not God’s way in which is always best but is only from a free will based on a freedom he gives us not the government.
Yes while the Popes communism seems like a wonderful utopia where everybody loves everything it is not only impossible but it no longer allows for freedom and free will. A government cannot enforce free will and freedom it can only protect it.
Again socialism in the Garden of Eden would have worked if sin was not committed, there would be no need for communism because people would be responsible themselves and not seek to cause their neighbor to stumble. Government would have never been in need because with no sin people will not seek to kill, steal and destroy.
Pope Francis’s utopia requires communism because he knows the heart of man, and government is needed to police that heart. Where he fails is his understanding mans inherent nature and he forgets the heart of man. He forgets its man that is the government that will police the heart and actions of man; see the problem it just spins leaving a devastation of corruption, payoffs, crony capitalism, and abuse of power.
The conundrum is this, will Pope Francis’s remarks on Pro Life turn off the Leftist that is needed to enact this communism he dreams of. Will the Left leave the Pope because his communism is not their communism?
Regardless of his social and political clout I believe the Left will sneakingly distance themselves from Pope Francis because of this one disagreement being too great to sacrifice their ideology of relativism.
This is a dangerous path for Pope Francis to travel on, time will only tell if the snares of liberalism will be too much for society to handle even Pope Francis.
Welcome back for another day of my thoughts based on my question of the day. A few days ago I asked “Is it the judgment or the brutal honesty that makes us uncomfortable” everyone that answered that question said yes and why not expect an answer like yes; I think it’s true.
But what separates judgment and honesty no matter how brutal it is or is not? My friend Brian makes a great statement “Many take honesty as judgment. People often don’t like to know the truth.”
This is very true and you will see this quite often, my FB friend Brenda expands on this saying “I say the brutal honesty that we ourselves refuse to accept about ourselves! Sometimes our friend’s family and co- workers are good mirrors for life.”
We don’t like to hear brutal honesty so we cry judgment in the hopes that perpetrator will turn and run based on the Biblical saying judge not least you be judged Matthew 7:1but most tend to forget the purpose for this quote is in Matthew 7:2. It’s not to stop people from judging ever but to remind people if your prepared to judge be prepared to be judged.
But what is brutal honesty, my thoughts are brutal honesty is telling the truth knowing it can cause division or strife. For some we hope to stop the offender using this tactic and for others they just enjoying seeing others fail.
Should we use brutal honesty, not all the time but sometimes when truth is the up most important then it must be said no matter how brutal it may be.
Judgment is not always honesty; judgment may be just that a call based on your judgment it may or may not be correct.
I have always thought I had the right to judge if it was for a righteous cause. That would be to stop something or somebody from doing bad or becoming bad or wrong the debate becomes who defines what is bad, wrong or right.
Leftist love relativism so they cry foul when you define something right or wrong that they are not comfortable, they view that as judgment. While conservatives will use hypocrisy to cry foul feeling judgment is being used over honesty two different believes but effective none the less no one wants to be called out for judging and no one wants to be called a hypocrite.
I think my question proves right, we as people don’t like judgment or brutal honesty. I have to tell you I would rather be judged than have someone tell me the brutal honest truth of my mistake.
I don’t mind being judged because the way I see it I’m either doing it right or I’m doing it wrong and depending on who is doing the judgment allows me to see if I’m right or wrong on my terms.
Brutal honesty is hard, it means I was really in my heart trying to do something right and I failed and nobody enjoys failing.
The difference is how that brutal honesty is delivered and a lot of the time it can make or break somebody’s heart.
This is the first of what I hope to be many thoughts based on my Question of the day. Facebook is a fun place to play, some get serious as all and some keep it light. I personally play the middle I guess, I love to have fun and share things but I also have convictions that I believe in and I’m not shy to express those convictions or opinions.
This is what I call Thoughts of the day answering my Question of the day, mind you it’s a few days off so as to give everyone a chance to view and express their opinion of the question of the day.
If you have missed any of my questions of the day feel free to go to myFB pageand scroll down and give your opinion, I don’t add my opinion, I’m not there to argue my opinion at that point it’s your chance to express your opinion and thoughts, go ahead and argue away the goal for me is just to collect data from everyone to see what people think out there in reality land.
My first question I posted had no replies and that might have been based on the day and the subject of the question. Some of my news or lot of my news comes from conservative outlets like BreitbartCharisma, BarbWire and the Washington Times much of that news is never covered by the main stream media like NBC, CBS and Fox so I suspect this is why no one bothered to answer the question and it was rather written in way so as to have a twist agenda.
My question was“Is the fact Tim McGraw playing at a gun control concert similar to having him say I’m not for socialized economic equality but I think minimum wage should be $20.00?”
For those of you not understanding what has been going on is McGraw has been called out for his decision for playing at the Sandy Hook Promise gun control fundraiser. McGraw says he’s not for gun control but is singing to raise money for the families of Sandy Hook but he’s raising money for the group Sandy Hook Promise which is a gun control group.
McGraw wants it both ways, he wants to help by jumping in with a gun control group but does not want to be labeled as associated with gun control.
A twitter post that I viewed brought up a good point, most conservatives own guns or are for non gun control and most conservatives enjoy and buy country music so you can see McGraw would want to make a distinction of what his intentions are. I feel McGraw has been Holywoodized and falls for leftist causes.
So my other question added to the first was is this not the same as if McGraw was saying he is not for socialized economic equality but thinks minimum wage should be $20.00. On one end you say no I’m not for socialism but I think we need to make everyone’s pay more equal.
Both questions are hot beds right now, gun control is always a hot topic with leftist and conservatives and my opinion is it’s based on freedom. The second amendment says we have a right to carry, no control we have a right to bear arms. Leftist say they want choice but won’t give us real choice unless it fits their needs.
Minimum wage is for entry level jobs, the idea of setting a minimum for wage is not freedom its regulation and bondage. Should not I determine what my value is and if I hire somebody should not that somebody have their right to determine their value as well?
The idea of increasing minimum wage based on the fact that one cannot make a living on it is not a smart idea at all. Most entry level jobs pay less and are mainly consumed by high school and some collage they were never meant for a person to make a living on that job but just to makes small ends meet or as they say pocket change or spending money.
We see more and more retirees working in fast food and retail stores but that is mainly to supplement their retirement since commodities that need to be purchased to live from day to day are becoming over priced based on what. Based on high pay for low skilled work, it’s hypocritical for the folks that want to raise minimum wage based on “you can’t live on it” and then expect to increased taxes on people that they feel make too much money.
We are not equal people we are valued differently some are better than others otherwise we all would be wearing Super Bowl rings like Joe Montana.
If the current minimum wage is not enough then what is the magic number? Why not raise it to $50.00 an hour or maybe $60K a year, is that enough or do we need more. Why not 100K a year for everyone, no more no less; now what kind of country do think we would be living in then?
Few days ago I read a blog about how James Dobson of focus on the familywarned of a civil war that could happen if the Church and Christians kept compromising on Biblical morality and worldly relativism he was a bit more precise in words but this is the gist of it.
The writer of the blog cited this from a leftist emag rightwingwatch.org and generally believed Dobson really meant a war with guns and bombs maybe like the war Ireland had.
After reading both articles I felt that Dobson may have been talking about a real civil war but I think Dobson was talking about a civil war within the church that if happens could it destroy the church as we know it. He may have meant both, if our leaders will not stand up for the rights of the church and Christians we could see dark days ahead.
My reply to the blogger was this “I’m not sure Mr. Dobson’s civil war means actual killing of people but the killing and injuring of souls. I believe what he maybe referring to is a war that will break the church, pitting two sides against each other.
The Conservative Christian who feels Christians need to follow Gods Natural and Moral law, their intent is not to judge people into submission but to point out what happens to a society that refuses to follow these laws most of what can be found Biblically.
The Liberal Christian that accepts the person for who they are regardless of the sin. They never try to judge behavior that is based in sin feeling that loving the person and showing the example of love will be enough and let God be the Judge of that heart.
The problem arises when Christians and churches attached themselves to sinful behavior that God has condemned and or asks us not to condone or be a part of. No one is saying don’t let the sinner in the sinner is already in but the sinner must repent and do the best to sin no more.
This is where the civil war can begin and it will be started by outside forces mainly political and media driven forces that want to see the church die and Christians be thrown in utter chaos”. The blogger didn’t even acknowledge anything I said but stated Dobson’s remarks sounded like a war to her.
At this time I see Christians already engaging in a civil war, churches are still on the sidelines but soon I suspect this will change with court rulings and new laws past. Again if our political and judicial leaders do not protect the Church and Christian rights dark days are ahead.
There already is a division between active Christians that feel Gods natural and moral law is being challenged and Christians that feel those types of Christians are too judgmental and need to allow God to be the judge and Christians need to love. The problem with the latter Christian is they give no boundaries to how far Biblical immorality can be taken before one takes a stand and many excuses will you give to laws that condone Biblical immorality.
There are three types of Christians to this civil war that I believe is in its infancy. 1st type are Christians that defend Gods natural and moral law, his commandments and they refuse to compromise on these issues.
2nd type are Christians of the liberal nature that feel love is first and foremost and we should not judge if we are to lead people to Christ.
These Christians are willing to bend the rules or reinterpret them to make everyone feel comfortable.
Like the conservative Christian they condemn the other for the way they go about their business. They do not take Gods natural law and moral as serious because those can be always changing much like relativism there is not always a right and wrong way, some even believe all gods lead to heaven.
Mind you not all believe this some just see others as judgmental and thus take the opposite side.
3rd type are Christians are the ones sitting on the sidelines not wanting to be labeled either. They go to church or not, donate to charities or a church but do not get evolved with politics or social issues they have a family to raise mind you they don’t have time for this.
In some ways they are correct, they don’t have time due to everyday issues, issues due to some part politics and some parts social that can be very powerful and labeling
Money, time and family weigh down on them and those come first, they will sometimes support issues with money but will don’t take a stand the question is are you this Christian because this is the biggest type of Christian.
There might be a time when everyone will have to take that stand, I believe the civil war has begun and Christians are starting to take sides. Its sad this has to happen but I believe God demands us to follow him and to obey his commandments and uphold his moral law while others feel this is too strong and it needs to be crushed.
This division might destroy the church I believe or it will certainly divide the church and it is already starting to happen.
We know of several church denominations that have compromised on Biblical moral issues while others have stayed true to traditional Biblical moral issues. I suspect this civil war will slowly get bigger and eventually it will demand all church denominations to take a stand and when that happens division will start and in some cases it already has.
What are the stands that will fuel this civil war? 1: Compromising on atheism and natural science the intermingling of the two to make everyone happy or at least some happy.
2: Compromising on sex and how the church views moral and immoral activity (this is one issue that will bring the church into a civil war it spits churches all the time).
3: Allow relativism to be apart church doctrine, no right and wrong just whatever fits your way of life.
4: Allowing or changing the act of homosexuality to be a non sin issue, this I believe will be the catalyst of allowing all sexual behaviors a right to exist in our society you may laugh but it all starts somewhere.
5: Condoning abortion to the point we no longer speak out against this atrocity.
6: Reinterpret the scriptures of the Bible or saying the writers of the New Testament are no longer relevant in today’s world thus saying the Holy Spirit is irrelevant.
So what will you do, what side will you take or have you taken. Typing this up its obvious I lean a certain way and I believe this way to be true.
I believe God spoke and continues to speak and to not listen and try and reinterpret what God has said in order to water down our faith is dangerous for us and our society.
All six fuels I listed are dividing Christians now except for the ones sitting on the fence who have no time to know what is going on.
Prayer is good it is always good but I believe we will need to take this further and prayer with action will be needed.
Understand what God says (read your Bible and ask questions), know him and pray to him (church and Bible studies). Repent from our sins and ask for forgiveness and do our best not to sin again. Uphold Gods natural and moral law but also forgive and love your neighbor.
This is the second in a series of four defining the four denominations of atheism, last week I went over the 1st denomination the non acting or detached atheist, this blog goes over the 2nd denomination, how they view and live in their doctrine known as Atheism
The 2nd denomination is what I call the Reaching out or Seeking Atheist. They view their atheism more like humanism without this view they would have a meaningless belief.
They can have migration from the 1st denomination but more often not. Normally the children of the 1st denomination will seek the 2nd denomination because of lack of a foundation of belief that the 1st denomination did not give. The 3rd denomination will too sometimes migrate to the second and mainly again looking for something that they have not found in the core atheism belief or sometimes just to distance themselves from the underling ideology of the 3rd denomination.
The 2nd denomination again knows there is a God but rebukes God in the name of man hoping someday humans will evolve into a god of its own. They are humanist in nature much like the vision Gene Rodenberry the creator of the Star Trek franchise. Man does not need a God he can evolve in such a way he will either become a little god or have no need for any God.
Most of these 2nd denominational atheist are liberal in nature and don’t view their country to be the great savor of the world but view the multiculturalism evolutionary thought to be the savor of the world or worlds.
Their liberal ideology allows them to disregard God, moral law and natural law thus allowing them a lifestyle that cannot be in judgment. Since there is no God then everyone can make their own moral ideas, ethics are your own ethics its all relative and no one dare judge because after all why are your moral ides and ethics more important than mine.
The 2nd atheist see’s religion as a weakness or hindrance to progress. The view a person is better off believing in themselves than God because the belief in God requires self sacrifice, obeying, faith, trust and accountability in something that sometimes cannot be seen or touched.
The 2nd or seeking atheist feels faith and trust have to be something that is seen or touched but disregards the hypocrisy of theory’s such as evolution and the big bang.
Science is not always their first belief but man himself can be the god of this atheist. This 2nd denomination takes people down the wrong path, a path of disobedience from the God of the Bible, most feel a belief in God is bondage and with no God is freedom.
They try and take faith and trust of God away and convince you that you are your only way contrary to what Jesus said in John 14:6.
The path is full of non judgmental immorality and relativism, creating rules that fit your life and if you disagree of my rules you certainly cannot judge or condemn regardless of who it hurts and how it affects the society.
When dealing with the 2nd denominational atheist know that many are not grounded in their doctrine and make a hodge podge of believe out of humanism, secularism and new age philosophy. This is the main reason why the 4th denomination atheist hates or despises the 2nd or seeking atheist. The pure atheist labels them as secular Christians and they would be correct on this label.
The idea of moral and ethics and right and wrong have to come from somewhere, the 2nd or seeking atheist would like us to believe it evolved but knows it could not have evolved because they cannot explain conscience and why no other creature has had this evolutionary process as well.
The 2nd denomination atheist requires one to know not only the atheist doctrine but humanism, and the secularist ideas as well in order to witness. These atheists again sometimes have many ideas of why they won’t seek the God of the Bible as the one true God.
They are not to be feared but to have patients with. Cutting through their liberal ideology can be the first obstacle, there are a few conservative seekers but most are just economically conservative not socially conservative.
Prayer, patients and friendship is the up most important. Be clear on what you believe and be clear on what God states morally and ethically do not waiver on these issues otherwise you risk getting accused of being hypocritical something the second atheist is well aware and most likely deals with being a part of this doctrine.
Looking at the Indiana issue over the last few days I see the issues of importance for both side of the ideological and political isle the question is do individuals and states have freedom and rights of their own or is the federal government the final word when it interprets cases and are they always correct.
I look at Indiana as this is a states’ rights issue upholding the personal freedom issues of an individual’s moral or ethical objections and the federal government should stay out of the way.
Now the RFRA was enacted in 1993 and endorsed by then president Clinton, Congressman Chuck Schumer and Senator Ted Kennedy all three leftist.
It’s my guess this was an act to try and sure up the Clinton religious voting base to show America democrats that states had this right also I believe this was to sure up the American Indian vote because the bill affected Native American religious liberties as well this was nothing but a vote grab bill and had nothing to do with religious freedom.
In 1997 part of the bill was overturned and in 2003 the act was amended Different states do use this law and can enact it based on their interpretation of the bill.
To me states have these rights and have the right to enact them the governor and the state representatives are by the way representing the people of that state.
It is a libertarian idea but individuals both owners and customers reserve the right to sell or buy from a individual based on creed or belief which is more of an ideology not always religion but a creed.
The federal government in the 1964 civil rights act made it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex and national order and I guess one can make a argument that creed can be religious but one can make the same argument that creed is not.
I believe our florist and bakers that have refused to give services to what they feel are morally objectionable on the bases of their idea of what is moral what is right and wrong to them.
The individual is refusing to give services based or doing business with somebody they do not agree with whether it be their belief, lifestyle or what they are participating in and the state is upholding this right to do so feeling there is no discrimination going on just a disagreement in belief or creed.
Should that person who has the business and is refusing to serve just coexist, get along and let cooler heads prevail. Should the customer do the same, go somewhere else like Costco or a supermarket or just have a wedding cake made then add on their own creed or belief after they have purchased the item, getting along and letting cooler heads prevail?
Should we force private people to create something that they feel is morally religiously wrong? If they refuse to serve or create do you call it discrimination.
Can you change the color of your skin, can you change your race, you can change your religion but should you have to?
Should you be so bold to advertise your religion for the sole purpose to cause strife? What about belief, do you have the right to refuse based on what another person views of what is right and wrong and should you be so bold to advertise that belief on the sole purpose to cause strife?
Would this be the same argument if Anton Laveyfrom the church of Satan or two people that practice Wiccan came to a baker and asked them to make a cake with a broken cross and derogatory terms about God or Jesus? Would you insist the bakery make this cake for this celebration of marriage?
On the same issue what if a bride and groom asked a homosexual florist to arrange flowers with a tag on them proclaiming Matthew 19: 4-6, does the florist have the right to refuse service based on they have an objection to that scripture?
Overlooking the RFRA and not allowing states to enact a provision takes away from the sovereignty of each state something I believe our framers wanted each state to have. If we can’t uphold states rights that try and uphold individual rights then why have individual states?
THE FOUR DENOMINATIONS OF ATHEISM: 1st DENOMINATION
Over the past few weeks I have compiled what I view are the 4 denominations of atheism. Probably at one time atheism was just more of a thought and a concept associated with science and Darwinism but through the years it has grown into a religion and like all religions or beliefs it too can have break offs or fractures within the faith so I have classified them as denominations within the religion of atheism.
Since this can be a long and descriptive note I have decided to bring it out in small sections one denomination at a time so as to proof read all four before making a final publish this is the first notes of what I call the 1st denomination of the religion of atheism.
Now an atheist might disagree that they belong to a religion like a devout Christian considers themselves in a relationship not a religion but face facts Christianity is a religion it is how we classify ourselves and atheist have inadvertently done same but I am not sure they see the different denominations they have created and maybe to be fair I should use the word evolve I’m sure they would like that wording better.
The first denomination is what I call the non acting atheist or detached atheist. The non acting atheist is your neighbor, maybe the owner of the local gas station. They are conservative in nature. These people know there is a God but choose for whatever reason not to follow or believe in God.
Most will except and acknowledge that Christianity is not bad and that morality and ethics are based on a Christian template. They do not get in the way of Christian progress most don’t care. These are not the people that call the local supervisors or the governor’s office to have a nativity scene or a cross removed from the local fire or police department property they are non active and sometimes detach themselves from the atheist religion and want no part of being labeled as such for the most part.
Some will deny they are atheist but just do not want to get involved with organized religion, there are those who have this scattered opinion but I went ahead and put them in this denomination in a sense they are on the fence of who they want to be.
These people believe in the American way and strive to be better and deserve not to be judged by Christians based on 1 Corinthians 5:12.
I personally knew a man like this and called him a friend, he never disrespected my belief in God, never disrupted a prayer, he may of thought my belief system was stupid or meaningless but never told me to my face. He respected people enough to let them do or worship what they believed. My friend held these beliefs until he died and whether or not he accepted Jesus in the end only God knows the heart.
What can set the 1st denomination apart from the other denominations is their non willingness to continue to teach their children about atheism, maybe due to the fact they are detached from the religion. Most will state they want to allow their children to find their own identity.
More often than not the 1st denomination will have an unequally yoked spouse. One might believe in God while the other chooses not to express a belief. These denomination children will sometimes likely split on beliefs and some will suffer in not having a foundation to understand not only God but life in general.
It is because of this exact nature that as a Christian we pray for the families that belong or have a family member that belongs to this denomination
Do not fear a 1st denomination atheist but keep them in your prayers, be kind show the love Jesus teaches.
Let them ask the questions if they have any. Any question they have is a step in the right direction. Be there for them but don’t force your will on them they have to want to know God and more often than not will resist a forceful person. Just be kind and let the Love of Jesus do most of the talking.
ROMANS 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
I was Browsing through Facebook and came across this blog on Christian Bloggers about the 10 most influential people and books in Christianity. Not really sure how the list was made or tallied and it must have been people and books of this century but I figured the persons on the list at some time or another influenced or impacted somebody’s life and it got me to think who influenced me.
I decided to make my own list of people and books that have impacted or influenced me in not only my spiritual Christianity but in my everyday life in general.
Minus the first set people and the last book and person the list is in no particular order but more in the way of how they flew out of my brain. At the bottom I leave a list of the most absurd people that deserve not to influence anyone and in my opinion should be avoided.
People and books that have influenced or impacted me the most
My parents: I have to consider myself very blessed to have had mother and father that led me in the right direction to seek out God.
My parents gave me the foundation that established who and what I am today and where I go from here. Without my parents I wouldn’t be here today typing this up now, and probably would have had a very different world, one I would not be proud of. God bless all those parents that have given their children the truth.
Billy Graham: No matter what is being said or done in the last 40 years in Christianity whether it is good bad or controversial you can always count on the words and actions of Billy Graham. He is the gold standard when it comes to evangelical speakers, movers and shakers of the modern Christian world.
Graham’s message is simple “Salvation” in my opinion salvation is the most important part of Christianity. It is what binds us together whether you are Catholic, Baptists or Assembly of God salvation is what we all agree on and that has been Graham’s message from the beginning.
If you never got a chance to see and hear Mr. Graham speak live you really missed out on something special.
Gary North: Few will know this economics professoror even know he wrote the book entitled Unholy Spirits in my opinion the definitive guide to the occult and supernatural studies on a Christian perspective in the modern era of the 1970’s through the 2000’s.
Many Christian books of the occult or Biblical supernatural phenomenon have been written but none attack the subject in the way the reader now becomes responsible for knowing. I feel this is a must read for any seminary student and for anyone interested in intellectual conversation of the occult, liberal ideology and how both can combine and effectively change society.
North has written two books on this subject the first written in the 1970’s “None Dare Call it Witchcraft” and it was revised in the early 1980’s and retitled “Unholy Spirits”. Although the book is historically out of date on events that preceded the 1980’s mainly communism the concept and subject are as relevant today as they were in the 1980’s.
The book changed my view on how the occult and liberal ideology is approached and how I attack the subjects in written and in conversation.
Hollywood Vs. America: Written by Michael Medvedknown as a film critic later a conservative radio talk show host and also an orthodox Jew. The book Hollywood Vs. America showed me how the liberalization of Hollywood is corrupting America.
When I read this book in the 1990’s it had impacted my ideas and approach on how the media and entertainment in general can and is influencing society and why we as Christians and conservatives are responsible in doing something about it.
Maewyn Succat: Later known as Patrick you and I know him as St. Patrick. Most know little of St. Patrick and yes this man was a Saint and deserves the title.
St. Patrick was born around 375 AD and his life as a pastor and later a Bishop was in the 400 century AD. Most people just know that March 17th is a day to dress in green drink green beer and celebrate something they know nothing of.
St. Patrick at age 15 was kidnapped by Irish pirate and sold into slavery to pagans in Ireland. He was a Sheppard for 6 years before he escaped. In those 6 years St. Patrick who was raised in a Catholic Christian home considered himself more of a non believer but converted during his years as a slave. He credits God freeing him from slavery and protecting him as he escaped back to Britain.
St. Patrick then when to seminary school became a pastor and decided to return to Ireland to missionary to the same people that enslaved him. Folklore has St. Patrick driving out all the snakes from Ireland in which people know there are no snakes in Ireland but St. Patrick did not drive out the reptile snake but the pagan and druids whose symbol was of the snakes that St. Patrick converted to Christianity.
The fact a man could be stolen and placed in to slavery, escape, forgive his captives and go back to convert them is beyond what many would do. If you have never studied St. Patrick I highly recommend you do it might changed your idea of what March 17th should be about.
CRI Christian Research Institute: Not without some controversy both Hank Hanegraaff and the folks of CRI have built a great organization for people to find information on all things Christianity, Occult, religion and current events.
CRI has stood the test of time they are in my opinion are one of the best places to go for Biblical backed information on Christian doctrine, churches, men and women of God, cults and religions. If you can’t find what you are looking for then feel free to call or emailthey do respond well.
What I like about CRI is yes they can seem to be straight shooters and accused of judging at times but they back everything up scriptural. Most everything is backed by the word of God some information may be debate and opinion but those are mainly things that are always in debate and are not salvation issues but more of questions that can never truly be answered in definition.
The Bible answer man and CRI helped me personally understand religions other than Christianity and helped define Christian doctrines of today.
Patrick Madrid: If your Catholic or need Catholic based answers then Patrick Madrid is your man. Patrick use to head the Right Here Right Now radio show now done by Chris Aubert. Patrick is kind of the Catholic Bible Answer Man that fully backs every answer and statement with scripture and Biblical fact.
When I found his radio program one day while driving home I was hooked, a bit skeptical at first being protestant I quickly learned a Christian who is saved by grace in the Name of Jesus is a Christian it matters not if they are Baptist, Catholic or Assembly of God. Patrick taught me not to fear Catholics or Catholic doctrine but to embrace their knowledge understand the doctrine and adapt it to mine for what I hope can be a better complete person.
J. Budziszewski: Budziszewski is one of the best on the authority of Natural Law and his book “What we can’t not know” is to one of the best guides written on Natural law. If you don’t know what natural law is your shorting yourself in knowledge and Budziszewski is long on knowledge so much so this book alone should be a required read for every seminary student.
I personally had no clue what natural law was until one day listening to Patrick Madrid radio program he mentioned it, being new to the Right Here Right Now show and again suspect of Catholic understanding I asked CRI to recommend a author on the subject of Natural Law and they recommended Budziszewski.
Thinking CRI would recommend a Protestant writer I was later to find out Budziszewski was born and raised as a Baptist and later converted over to Catholic. He told me personally when he was Baptist he looked more at the Catholic concepts of Christianity and now that he moved to Catholic he now looks at Protestants as having many ideas that are ahead of the Catholic concepts I guess a man of both worlds.
Natural law is my newest study and it has changed my life and ideas on how to approach Christianity. If you can read natural law and grasp it and trust me it can be hard to grasp, I’m still hanging on it will change your life and concepts of God. It won’t change God, his grace and salvation but the way you view how society has pulled away from the ideas of morality, and the way God has set up his love, morality, ethics and the way God expects us to live. The subject has made me better.
This is my list of people and books that have impacted my life personally I write these down in hopes you the reader can think and list your own books and or persons that impact or have impacted your life and if you lack any you might try and give these books or sites a read or a listen.
Ultimately God has to be the one that influences and impacts your life but sometimes we need other people or another set of eyes to put things into perspective.
Ones to avoid: The list is long so I’m just putting a few down that at this time are the most popular in our culture.
Rob Bell: Not only has he sold out to the Oprah doctrine he is currently leading people astray with remarks like “I think culture is already there and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense, when you have in front of you flesh-and-blood people who are your brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles, and co-workers and neighbors, and they love each other and just want to go through life with someone.”
The remark was from when Oprah asked if Bell thought Christians are ready to compromise with homosexuality, the letters from 2000 years ago are the letters of the saints, in the New Testament Bible basically Bell is saying Peter, Paul, Jude, James, John and Luke are irrelevant.
Bell has abandoned the Bible and has made a new doctrine of love yourself as you would want others to love you. Forget the saints of the New Testament is to say the Holy Spirit is irrelevant to today’s world. Don’t even get mixed up with this kind of talk stay away and seek God and a healthy church.
Oprah and OWN: Oprah and her doctrine are nothing short of social and spiritual poison, if you are looking for peace and inspiration try the Bible or a good healthy church.
Joel Osteen: God is not an ATM and you are not being punished for not having a million dollars. I’m not saying Joel is leading people from God but I am saying nothing the Osteen’s say is worth your time unless it’s a choice between Oprah, Rob Bell and Osteen I then would choose Osteen but first I think turning off the TV would be a better choice.