Category Archives: relativism

THE GIFT

img_1190

BREAKING DOWN THE VERSE1

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.  Let us explore the verse Romans 6:23

First let us break down this verse to fully get the gist. For the wages of sin is death what exactly is St. Paul through the Holy Spirit conveying to us.

Wages are what we earn from what we labor or to put it plainly I get what I work for or deserve.

As humans we are fallible, we make mistakes, we do wrong, we sin daily that is our labor and it is daily. We are born into sin we are sin and our wage what we earn for that sin is death.

God measures equates this sin as death, from day one when humanity disobeyed God Adam and Eve earned death and such that labor and wage was passed on to us and we can do nothing to earn more or less to reverse this wage because we fail to obey God daily.

Now that I have depressed everyone let us continue on with the rest of the verse.

But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus or Lord. Here St. Paul points out that eternal life (something we can never qualify or earn) is given to us for free. We cannot afford this gift, we can never work hard enough or do enough to have eternal life because that requires a sinless life.

The gift is free thus the word (Grace) only through Jesus or Lord, nothing else on earth or in us can equal what Jesus has done for us. Romans 3:20-24 ( For by works of the law no human being[a] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus)

What does this mean for you and me in this day and time especially in a world that wraps itself in relative notions of what only applies to myself.

St. Paul through the inspired word of the Holy Spirit and I say this so you know this is not just opinions written by a mere man but by a man inspired by the words of God. Paul is saying only Jesus can give you eternal life, only Jesus can justify this grace and that is what we can apply to our lives; only through Jesus alone can we can be saved. It is the Holy Spirit that draws us near to Christ (Jesus) and it is only through him alone that we can know and receive this Grace his free gift.

Now a note from our commentary deters us from thinking that a free gift of Grace given to a person who is a sinner that does not deserve salvation is not a free pass to continue to sin.

A truly saved individual loathes sin and desires to obey God and to follow his commandments. By no means is the doctrine of Grace a reason to continue to sin in small ways or big ways 1 John 3:9 (No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.).

Repentance is always needed, we will always sin but that does not give us the justification to sweep sin aside knowing that God will give us a pass Romans 6:12-13 (Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.).

Final thoughts we should never forget who we are (sinners) even though God has saved through his son Jesus we should not forget we did not nothing to earn this salvation, it was a debt paid, it was Jesus taking our place in death so we would not have to. Our bodies will someday end but our soul is forever and forever we will be with our Lord Jesus.

Advertisements

MIXING TWO WORLD VIEWS

The reason why I write this blog is based on that I believe the idea of God creating the universe based in millions and billions of years only compromises with the secular world view and it has implications that are far more reaching than just difference of opinion.

If you have the time here is a nice little debate or conversation between the idea of young earth and old earth via Ken Ham and Hugh Ross. Ken Ham is young earth and backs his theology by scripture while Ross is old earth that is trying to interpret scripture and the Bible with the idea of fitting millions of years into the Biblical historical picture.

Most secularists will say both proponents Ham and Ross are wrong because the universe is billions of years old.

What I find as the problem with the old earth belief is there is not good evidence and you have to add to scripture to make the point while the young earth is better equipped to follow scripture.

Interesting out of a panel of six on this show, five of the guest believed in a young earth and one (Ross) believes in an old earth that included the big bang.

Out of that 5 only three so it was split evenly (with Ross being the 6th), but only three Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and Eric Hovid believed the scripture was more clear on the idea of each day as it was created by God (day being 24 hours) and that this statement of scripture was very important, not only understanding Biblical creation but it aided in the understanding of Biblical knowledge for everyone.

The interpretation of each creation day being one day (24 hour day) is important to teach people based on if we demand that people believe in the parting of the red seas, a virgin woman getting pregnant by the Holy Spirit and a man dying and coming back to life. How then can we tell people that in Genesis God was not talking about 24 hour day but he meant millions of years and that the passages of Genesis aids itself more to how modern science interprets the age of the earth via millions and billions of years.

On one end we demand people believe in supernatural events but in Genesis we compromise and say there is nothing supernatural how God created the universe. That statement maybe a bit over the top due to that Christians believing in a creation of a million years still view it as supernatural but the idea of God creating the world in 6 days has to be agreed as a bit more of a supernatural event than using a naturalistic way to explain creation.

Sean McDowell and John Bloom from Biola University were more on the fence of Biblical interpretation, McDowell even so far as to going there and saying so much as can we really know the true interpretation from Greek, Hebrew to English. I chalk McDowell statement to his youth; this statement is what secularist use to kill the conversation on Christians that don’t know there Biblical history or believe in actual words of our Biblical authors and we cannot accept such a statement.

Bloom and McDowell were willing to question interpretation while Comfort, Ham and Hovid felt that the Bible was God’s breathed word that all can know, people could know then (thousands of years ago) we can know now. 1 Timothy 3:16 Ephesians 4:11-16 and Hebrews 11: 1-40

McDowell and Bloom walk a slippery slope that will have you back peddling trying to explain Biblical truth in a sea of secular lies and it does not have to be that way if we take scripture at its word.

I believe Ross is trading certainty for truth and McDowell and Bloom are entertaining that idea as well Bloom more so than McDowell.

The truth is we can know scripture and what it says, understanding that not everyone will completely get what is being stated in every book or letter but the main theme of the Bible is God and following God. His grace to us and for us and how and why he did what he did for his creation.

You will see at the end of the video Ross offers a truce and I have no doubt Ross was very sincere just as I have no doubt Ross is a Bible believing man of God. The problem I have with Ross’s truce is it is not as the same way we can view the main purpose of truth from such men as George Whitfield and John Wesley.

Whitfield was a strong preacher of election with his main theme on salvation, while Wesley was a strong preacher on the will to know God with the main theme on salvation so we see two men that preached different styles had the same theme and that was salvation. This is what made these men great in the eyes of Biblical history the final authority was God and his salvation for you.

Ross’s truce is genuine but misguided based on the issue we live in different times than Wesley and Whitfield did; the average person had a standard of who was God and the respect of who God was not to mention being a pastor or evangelist during the 1700’s was a very respectable position.

Today’s western world does not respect God as it once did nor has a standard of who God is. Today’s western world does not respect men like Ross or Ham they view them as the enemy. People like Bill Nye who puts out hate messages that parents that teach creation are abusing their children.

We can easily see why main stream media and science who is desperate to be the grand daddy of all authority of life will mock and tear down our children and young people in the public arena.

How can we as Christians tell our children God did all these great supernatural things but that stuff in Genesis may not be literal, can you see why liberal Churches are not teaching that Jesus died or was born of a virgin, compromise to secularism to be relevant in today’s world is the in thing for people and Churches that think this is the only way to get people to God.

The difference between Ross and Ham is that Ham uses the Bible to interpret scripture for both knowing God and understanding God in a Biblical context with the final goal preaching the word of God for the purpose of following Jesus to salvation. Ross uses the Bible to prove science is correct and prove there is a God while returning a standard of the belief in God to science and while this is important without the notion of one following Jesus and putting God first before all things there is no real hope for people to know God.

Final thoughts I know those six men, Ham, Comfort, Hovid, Ross, McDowell and Bloom  are good men of God and I know they want the best for bringing the Gospel to all people but the western world we live in is now requiring we either go with the world or against the world.

Trying to compromise or make a hybrid world view with a mix of some world and some Christianity will not work. It is not Biblical to mix Holiness with evil 1 Corinthians 15:33, like my old youth pastor use to say, two rivers running into each other, one is flowing clear blue water the other is dirty brown water and when the two come together and mix the clear blue water turns to dirty brown. The two cannot mix.

IT HAS TO END NOW

37

Abortion has to end now, pro life and right to life groups are for slow incrementalism.
The goal is to slowly change the laws state by state all the while change the hearts and minds of humans that abortion is wrong.
I completely understand this but logically this form of action makes no sense.

For one point of logic the right to kill an unborn child with the idea that the baby is not a real human these days is antiquated and out dated at best.

In an age of 3D sonograms and medical sonograms that show at 5 weeks (one month) this is a baby and we are still saying “yes you can kill that child”.
Interesting note do a web search on sonograms and just about every medical site uses the term baby not globs of cells.

It took one day in 1973 for unelected judges to legalize killing our offspring yet we are expected to be patient and allow smart guys using the political process to slowly change the law through court cases one at a time. In the meantime millions of babies are being killed each year, in this country alone over a billion world wide since 1973.

The logical option is to end abortion now, every state needs to end abortion now today not tomorrow.

So what if the federal government says its legal, each state can still end abortion now.

Plenty of states have laws that are contrary to federal law yet they choose not to follow or the Feds choose not to prosecute so the precedent has been set many years ago, we don’t need judges to tell our states what kind of killing is right and wrong we need to end abortion now.

The logic is today all states make abortion illegal and criminal.
Now that it is illegal then pro life, right to life and all the good men and women everywhere can start explaining why killing your child is wrong. Why life is important, we educate people we educate our children why life is better alive than dead.

It is easier to explain to somebody why somethings is wrong to do when it’s wrong to do it.

When something is against the law you have a precedence on your side, you have the the legal right to explain why it’s wrong, the morality of the issue makes more sense because the law states this is wrong.

The ethics and philosophy of the law makes more sense and scientifically it confirms that yes there is a baby in that belly yes there is life living here.

Pro life and pro choice cannot be a preference, it cannot be an opinion abortion has to end now we owe this to our children and to the human race.

Logic demands we end abortion now

http://endabortionnow.com/

THE CROSS AND THE WEAPON

19

Another mass shooting and another plea by liberal Christians to increase gun control, or just ban them all together. Would Jesus be pro second amendment, would Jesus speak out against those who own guns or weapons in today’s world well to be frank its irrelevant.

We can speculate and speculate, we can take scripture in and out of context to try and make our case but to me it’s irrelevant. Jesus came to bring us the free gift of salvation. He didn’t get too political or religious something people can’t seem to not do because we are not God.

Jesus never really spoke of ownership of weapons, whether or not it is good or bad but he did speak several times on defending ourselves and the Bible in whole speaks about defense as well

Luke 22:35-36, Exodus 22:2-3, Luke 22:38, Psalm 18:34, Psalm 144:1 and 2 Samuel 22:35

Now while the Bible and Jesus do offer a defense of one’s self it is very clear that God tells us never take revenge. There is a complete difference in being prepared for self defense, pre meditated murder and revenge something my liberal Christians fail to see. One can also read Matthew 18:6 where Jesus is quite clear about when people injure children. I have a hard time believing God would not want us to defend a Childs life at all cost.  Matthew 18:6 begs for today’s liberal Christian to ask why God would want somebody to take their own life.

My liberal Christians fail to see it is not the weapon that makes one kill or promote killing it is the depraved heart that turns a person’s mind against Gods nature. It’s the person that kills not the weapon and we are not talking about people accidently kill themselves by discharging a weapon, people die all the time doing stupid and adventurous stuff don’t blame the gun on a ignorant mind.

It’s easy to blame people with guns for killing but don’t you dare blame the person and their depraved heart and mind for killing. When we preach that there is nothing greater than “Jesus is love” but conveniently forget repentance and forgiveness then you are giving out what Dietrich Bonheoffer would say “Cheap Grace”.

22

Our liberal Christians don’t like to mention nor even think humans can sink so low as to be callus and depraved in everything they do. We have to accept everything people do and when you counter that acceptance then you are the problem. It’s the Christians that speak out against LGBTP, pornography or refuse to believe in climate change, they are the ones to blame.  Two Islamist go on rampage and it’s not them it’s my fellow Christians that love guns fault. One has to wonder of the 14 people killed by our two Muslim killers if just two of the 14 would had been carrying guns would all 14 people be dead now.

These are issues that everyone is struggling with right now, the liberal Christian can’t get past that Christians that believe in self defense are not making the 2nd amendment their idol.  Liberals can’t get past that humans are depraved by nature and when they choose wrong over right they sometimes not only kill the body but the  mind and soul as well.

Controlling or banning weapons won’t solve the evil that rest in the heart and mind of humans. Nobody ever shoots a gun again problem solved but death never stops. We need to ban gun, bats, knifes, how about pornography what about drugs, child abuse. Liberal Christian, have you ever thought about why people do evil?

I ask liberal Christians to stop blaming and start praying. Stop worrying about what others deem opposite of your agenda and start praying that what you hold to be true also  be true with the mind of God. Stop tolerating evil and start asking for forgiveness, stop worrying about your conservative’s bother plank that is in their eyes and worry about the tree that is in your eyes.

CHRISTIANITY AND AMERICA

12

If we accept the notion that America should not be or is not a Christian national we fail to see the consequences that could have been and will be.
The founding framers attempted to design the constitution with the adaptation of natural law. They were of course a few ticks off but still maintained the importance of the need of The God of the Bible essence to be an integral part of the framework.

A strong percentage of our framers belonged to one church denomination or another, whether they were truly saved is not ours to judge but we have to know this affiliation to a Judeo-Christian church had to influence their judgment when creating a country such as America.
If we take Christianity away then we need only to take away some of our founding fathers like George Washington wondering would we have won the revolution without him and his Christian influence. Would a country full of atheist, Islamism, Buddhist and Hindus could have challenged the crown.

Would we still have a two party political system with the democrats and the Wigs parties? One could argue there would be no need for a man like Abraham Lincoln and how long would America continue slavery without the objection of the Christians.

In 1821 Benjamin Lunday, a Quaker from Ohio, started an anti-slavery newspaper “The Genius of Universal Emancipation.” 1830: The Plantation Mission Movement began. Methodist chapels were constructed on many plantations. 1959 John Brown raid on Haper’s ferry are just a few of the many Christian movements that combated slavery in America.

Christian missionaries moved in to helping the Native Americans, Christianizing many tribes over the years one notable being the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

As America became more prosperous missionary work flourished, one can easily criticize America’s greed but one cannot take away from prosperous people that gave and continue to give for and to missionaries to help the poor and disadvantaged in this country and abroad with privet contributions.

Much of our colleges we have today started out as Christian based education, Harvard, Yale, Princeton to name a few.

Civil rights movement of the 1960’s was heavily Christian with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and seminary students like John Lewis

We can argue and debate on this issue but it’s fairly easy to see the Christian influences in this country are huge. Can we say we are not a Christian nation well I guess one can make the case but we have to say we are a nation of Christian’s and a nation that has been impacted by Christianity. Can you make a case that our government should be secular, yes you can but we must then demand or statesmen and women to be Godly?

Our government functionality should be unbiased to everyone but the people that fill those positions in government should be Godly good statesmen.

If we have bad statesmen then we have bad government, ungodly statesmen ungodly government. In past it was important that anyone serving the public have some ties to a Judeo-Christian believing church of some kind. You can argue this is not fair for a county that embraces all religions all faiths but I’m not sure your argument would be valid.

Go back to the founding framers and their original intentions of natural law, this requires a statesman to know and understand moral law to govern. Can men and women of other faith know and understand good and bad and how morality plays out in a society; to an extent they can but they will fail to grasp why and who set these laws in motion thus the slow migration from a good and moral set of rules to a mixture of moral relativism.

I suspect the last few sentences will enrage some people, we can say America was not intended to be a Christian only nation but we have to admit it is a nation of Christians that have impacted society and helped design country based on a rule and law held on a notion of a creator and one God. A country based on a God with a moral law to protect and govern all that live in this great nation.

 

 

 

CULTURE WAR

culture-war

The culture war cannot be won with money power and votes, it is not a political stage even if the counter culture would have you to believe it is. Culture has to be changed through first the mind then the heart. It has to make sense not to want to kill unborn children or not to promote pornography to our young then it has to have and emotional connection to why those thing are wrong. The mind knows it is wrong the emotions keep it from happening.

This is why liberalism uses the political and judicial arenas to win in culture issues. Liberals politicize everything from God to cartoons, they use emotions to advance their agenda based on pure feelings alone. There is rarely any substance to liberal agendas when it comes to culture advancements. If they cannot win with emotions and feelings they then skip to the judicial arena to attempt the win. Instead of a conversation that they know cannot be won intellectually they go straight to making their issue law of the land.

Legalization of abortion, legalization of pornography, same sex marriage and coming to a city near you loss of rights to practice your religion with the redefining  of our 1st amendment.

Abortion used scare tactics of unsafe and putting women at risk for trying to terminate life. It is anti choice of the individual if they cannot terminate their child yet the individual growing inside is never given a choice. The logical ideas of counselling and adoption are hardly heard of. It used a jaded interpretation of the right to privacy then demand to be funded by tax payers.

Pornography used free speech, the right to publish the act of demeaning humans both male and female of all ages. Everyone does it or what I do behind close doors in my business even if it effects my mind and heart down the road. It started with pornography in marked theaters to allowing it on paid TV channels like HBO and Showtime. It’s slowly downgraded to soft core porn and then to viewer discretion advised.

The pornography industry never tells us about the broken marriages, the disillusioned ideas of what love and sex is. It’s never thought twice that a new generation of young people can watch strangers do anything and everything to themselves and each other with a click of the mouse.

Same sex marriage, we have a right to have the same benefits as regular couples not understanding the definition of benefits. We love each other after all love wins not really understanding what the true description of marriage and love is. Matthew 19: 3-6 1 Corinthians 13: 4-8

You will bake us a cake or take our wedding photos or we will sue you. They never tell you that maybe its not about true love maybe its about redefining morality. Judgement has a sting to it so maybe we make or redefine a law that says you cannot judge me anymore. Destruction of a society and an institution that had purpose is at hand but its my right because love wins.

All cases used law to enforce their existence because sound logic trumped emotional feeling every time is was argued. Mark 7:21 “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts”. Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?”

Next on the agenda will most likely redefining the 1st amendment. Practicing ones religion that offends another will be deemed illegal. Speaking out against ones concept of immorality will be deemed illegal or hate speech. Second hand grace does not ask for repentance it only condones bad behavior as long as you believe in God.

If we are to win or maintain a civil culture Christians and conservatives have to start working together. We can agree to disagree on minor politics but we must unite on rule of law, morality,  ethics and our philosophies need to be similar if not the same otherwise the divisiveness will pull us apart and this liberal and socialistic culture will continue to dominate our world.

We have to live what we believe to be true and teach it to the young, we have to be different from the world and show the success that being different is not only worth being different but it is truth worth living.

FALSE SEPARATION

separation

The Gospelcoalition.org had a great article entitled “The Urban Legend That Thomas Jefferson Believed in a Wall Separating Church and State” Posted by the Christian Apologetics Program by Biola University, good read take a look at it.

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.

NOT KNOWING THE OLD KEEPS US FROM UNDERSTANDING THE NEW

pro-life-holly-fisher-gun-bible-us-flag

Not knowing the old will keep us from knowing the present and surly lead our future to fail. Both the Old Testament and the Bill of Right particularly the 2nd Amendment have a bunch in common and can teach us a lot about mankind history, God and country.

The right to keep and bear arms is important right that most Americans take very seriously.

For the most part people that are for and against this right with little in the middle. With those that are against feeling this right the right to keep and bear arms is much like the Bibles Old Testament.

It’s old and does not apply today, it was relevant then but not now society has evolved better and most of all its very violent.

Much like the Old Testament, the 2nd amendment is just as relevant then and now. It holds a very import piece of history in our society and way of life.

To disregard both text would be to change everything, America would be different not better without the 2nd amendment and Christianity would be obsolete and a fraud without the Old Testament.

Statements like Pope Francis It makes me think of … people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn’t it? become hypocritical in nature since his own money from the Vatican buys guns and weapons to protect him.

Pope Francis is not the only well known face that has made this kind of hypocrisy our federal and state leaders elect do the same.

President Obama and my own state Senator from California Diane Feinstein both have spoken out against private citizens protecting themselves again hypocrisy.

Don’t get me wrong I believe I get what the Pope is saying in a Biblical text way but that way cannot be, it can never be since the day man fell in the garden of Eden.

Although the comment is Marxist in nature and meaning it shows little understanding of historical and spiritual importance of the Old Testament to the nature of man in which led up to the 2nd Amendment to be made.

I will be fare and add that Pope Francis most likely made this a general accusation and not towards one country or one human nature unlike President Obama and Senator Feistein.

The Old Testament and the 2nd amendment both tell a tale of disobedience of man and we can use both to help with the protection of our lives and our societies we live in.

In the Old Testament we are given countless times of disobedience to God by men and by God’s chosen people the Jews. Since the day Adam and Eve fell from grace man has been evil in nature and because of that man has had to arm himself for protection.

No matter if you live in a country like American or a communist country such as North Korea you will always have a moral right to defend yourself from bodily harm. The difference is does the country you live in support your right.

The American framers understood this right, it spurred from many different aspects but they knew this was a right that every citizen needed to be free in this new society.

The American framers saw firsthand what it was like to live in oppressive society and what happened when you disobeyed that form of government.

The Old Testament showed everyone what it was like to live under an oppressive society with God’s chosen people the Jews; the Old Testament also showed everyone what happens when you disobey God.

Understanding the relevance of the Old Testament is crucial to understanding the New Testament just as understanding why the American framers felt so passionate for the right to keep and bear arms be a freedom for every person living in the new world.

For those saying the Old Testament is outdated and not relevant to the new covenant (New Testament, grace and salvation) is truly showing ignorance.

Understand this, Old Testament during the days of Jesus and after his ascending to heaven was a collection of writings put together called the Septuagint in plane it was the Bible of the Jews.

Both Jesus and the saints used this Bible, they wrote the letters of what today we now call the New Testament. If the Old Testament was irrelevant then why would Jesus and the saints use it or quote from it.

For those saying the 2nd amendment is old fashion and relevant only to the war of independence then why was the right to keep and bear arms added to the Bill of Rights after the war of independence?

Without the 2nd amendment how do we think the war of 1812 would have turned out 21 years after the war of independence and 49 years before the civil war; at what time in history did the second amendment become void and who made this call?

To make comments “people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn’t it?” is either ignorance to God and history or arrogance to the common man.

One can make the point that Noah is just as guilty for the manufacture of weapons as anyone else.

If Noah had just ignored God and not build the Ark maybe God would have destroyed all mankind and started from scratch with a new and improved man and woman that would be more like a fun loving drone or robot to obey God’s every command.

Should Noah be left out of heaven because he built an ark and saved mankind only to have himself sin and mankind disobey God again and again? That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn’t it?

Why continue with the current model of man, why not scrap that model or heck not make man at all just pretty flowers, birds and maybe some bees.

These argument will rage on I know so I say again know your history both Biblical and what the framers of this country intentions were.

Without knowing the Old Testament we really can’t understand why things happen the way they do. Why God allowed what he did and what his purpose was for and what our purpose is for.

Not knowing and understanding the founding fathers and framers of this country’s purpose of designing the Bill of Rights is pure malicious ignorance on ones self. Without trying to know and understand is to not really love both God and country.

THE LEFT AND POPE FRANCIS’S CONUNDRUM

pope francis

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 Frances further defines his belief in what it means to embrace climate change and economic justice in which one comes to the conclusion that Pope Francis feels they are connect, it’s a good size article that needs to be read so I urge you to do so.  The Pope’s Encyclical, at Heart, Is About Us, Not Trees and Snail Darters

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.

THOUGHTS OF THE DAY: 4

CAN WE NOT KNOW  RIGHT AND FROM WRONG?

right and wrong

This was my question of the day last week on my FB page; the answers were spit, one saying yes one saying no and one basically allowing some people in the socciopath community unable to define right from wrong.

This question is part of the spine of natural law what atheist, secularist and humanist argue cannot be so.

Natural law teaches we know right from wrong, God designed us to do so with a conscious. Those who do not believe in the God of the Bible refute this argument, atheist view this as against Darwinian ideology. Secularist and humanist believe it’s what you make of it or what you are brought up to believe.

One of my friends felt that a sociopath loses his or hers conscious and no longer has that ability to know right from wrong. I have to disagree with my friend, if God creates us and designs us with a conscious then we all know no matter how damaged the brain is.

To say yes we cannot not know right from wrong based on upbringing is again to deny God and his creation. On one end you’re saying if you have no interaction with right you cannot know right. Can this be so, well look at it this way.

A person who would be brought up to know only wrong would still defend themselves if wrong was committed against them. They know you are doing a wrong deed against them, if they did not know in their conscious what right or wrong was they would allow anyone to do anything to them all the way to allowing you to kill them without protest.

Now mind you most children are brought up with some sense of right and wrong however jaded it may be. If society refutes this basic teaching and demands right or wrong be relative or your own definition I believe our inclinations will force to suppress what we already know and relativism will reign supreme.

The Decalogue also known as the Ten Commandments is Gods basic written log of natural law. Most everyone will agree the Ten Commandments are a good thing and I think that’s why atheist and secularist want the Ten Commandments removed it reminds them that right and wrong is not relative and there is an absolute truth.

No, we cannot not know right from wrong we were created to have a conscious that guides us. It did not evolve like the secular and humanist want you to believe because humans put value on right and wrong based on what God has designed us to know. 2nd Corinthians 1:12

 To think otherwise takes God out of the equation and allows relativism to be the heart and soul of our lives and there is no justice in relativism and there is no salvation in relativism just questions that can never be answered by the average man.

If the common man cannot not know right from wrong and only rulers or persons with authority can define and dictate what that right and wrong a free society is lost and I believe America was partly founded based on wanting to leave that form of belief and justice behind.