Friday, December 4, 2015

Crazy cracker - San Bernardino

I was really struggling over whether or not I wanted to write this post.  But then I thought, my hope and aim with this blog is always to provide someone with a different perspective or to lubricate the rusty gears and maybe get someone thinking in a way they haven’t previously.

San Bernardino.  I know it is still relatively early and preliminary information is still rolling in, but if President Obama does not declare war on ISIS within the next few days, I am going to be a very upset American.  In fact, if it doesn’t happen soon, you better believe something is happening behind closed doors and insulated walls that you do simply cannot know about...or else “they” would have to kill you.  I hate to think that there is a larger more serious issue than innocent American people losing their lives, but lets face it, it wouldn’t be the first time innocent people died under cover of a secret agenda.  I get that some things must be kept dark.  I am all for classified information, intelligence, and greater good.  I also believe that a country owes a duty to its citizens to keep them safe from harm, whether the threat is foreign or domestic.

I am ashamed to admit my racism.  The very second that that dude's name was released and I read, "Syed Farook," I was like - oh he is definitely a terrorist.  This was a full 24-36 hours before they released information that the couple or the wife had ties to ISIS.  Even as I was reading the story that he was an American-born guy, had a baby and a wife and government job and was living the dream—I was like, how does anyone think that he is not a terrorist?  I mean c'mon kids.  Syed Farook.

Please accept my sincerest apology.  I am still growing as a person and racism is wrong.

This cracker infiltrated my United States, got a government job right under our noses, bought guns legally in a state with some of the harshest gun laws, traveled back to Saudi (most likely to get a crash course in urban warfare and Killing Americans 101), then proceeded to marry a true life terrorist chik and carry out a plan that I personally believe was laid out five years ago, not last year or last month or whatever it is that we are being told.

If this happens again in the next six months, I will sign the petition to deport every single person residing in the United States that has been to any country in the middle east at any time within the last five years.  Period.  White, American, Christian, Pope, child, jew, black, asian, mexican, politicians, horses, dogs, name it, I want it gone if it has traveled to Islam-town since 2010.  And somebody better find out why every single general and leader of ISIS is named Abu.  Seriously, there’s gotta be something there.  All of them.  Abu.  Look into it.  CIA FBI somebody needs to get on that.

Next, I want to talk about the gosh dang gun law cry babies.  Read this next part slowly for effect and so that it sinks in real good.  STRICTER GUN LAWS WILL NOT MAKE AMERICA A SAFER PLACE TO LIVE.  WHY DO YOU THINK THAT CHANGING THE GUN LAWS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE?  For crying out loud!  When will it end?  And if that isn’t bad enough, somehow prayer is getting a bad rap?!?!  I suppose it isn’t surprising that non-believers, aka liberals, would be shaming prayer.  Duh.  The problem is that they are doing it in an effort to make a stronger push for more gun laws.

This post is far from a finished product.  Stay tuned.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

The President's refugees

Obama might as well have ordered the hanging of all puppies and kittens for the response he received from Americans this past week.  It is downright shameful.  How dare anyone of you throw up the argument about not taking care of our own before helping others.  Do you not hear how that sounds?  You choose now to speak up for homeless people (veterans or otherwise)?  Unbelievable.  You wait until others who are running from threat of death and war, who are seeking compassion and refuge from a stronger nation, to choose to speak out for a problem you have hardly cared about in the past.  That's right, hardly cared about.  Were you out rallying for the homeless everyday for the last 20 years?  Yeah, me neither.  Were you aware of the problem and felt sad about it not being better?  Probably, but that certainly does not give you the right to blast the President and accuse him of letting murderers and terrorists run rampant in good ole US of A.  Some of you literally accused the President of inviting murder.  Clearly that part of the brain that filters the dumb stuff, broke.  In the interest of fairness I will not list some of the awesome comments I've read regarding our leadership.

If a small group of white people rob a liquor store and kill the proprietor, do we automatically jump to the conclusion that all white people are thieves and murderers?  Well according to the collective intellect of facebook, all Muslims are terrorists.  Just wait, this post gets even better!

What if I told you that 83% of Americans identify as Christians?  Does this surprise you?  It should.  I am a Christian.  I recall that we should love others more than we love ourselves.  God gave His son to save us.  What would we give to save another?  Nothing apparently.  A boot to the rear maybe?  "We don't take kindly to your kind 'round here."  Sound like a Christian?

Now I want to talk about what I think is a more serious issue.  Radical Muslim terrorists can disguise themselves as refugees.  For that reason, and that reason alone, I feel like maybe we should not provide asylum.  It is a very difficult decision, but even as a Christian I do not think it is the right thing to do to risk innocent American lives to save others.  That's bad business.  It has nothing to do with the President and it certainly has nothing to do with the homeless.  It is a matter of public policy I suppose.  I do not have a proposal either.  I hate that innocent people will die for ideology.  Because that's what terrorists are, ideologists.  It is about power and fear.  They might claim to do the things they are doing in the name of Allah, but the devil has put hate in their hearts and has deceived them to the uttermost.  If you are going to call yourself a Christian, be a Christian.  Pray for our enemy instead of spewing venom at our own leader.  God bless America.

Friday, November 13, 2015

Being tested

We are being tested.  As a nation, we are facing a very pivotal moment in U.S. history.  It would be difficult to argue that the landscape of America is not changing.  We have all but abandoned morality and sensible decision making, and in its place is unadulterated unabashed selfishness.  The reason this is so important right now is because in a few short months we are going to be voting for a new free world leader.  What are the chances people actually vote with their conscience?  Can you imagine putting someone in charge who actually cares about the state of the union or who will be proactive in matters of public policy with respect to the greater good?  The danger and probably the real reason we do not elect a president who will stand up and fight for good, is fear of attack.  A president who has a higher moral standard and is willing to die for what is right is something this country has needed for a very long time.  Of real concern is that if we elect an upright man or woman as president...someone is going to kill them.  And just in case you are mumbling about what is moral, moral standards are not subjective.  Somewhere in our collective shallow hearts and minds is a true sense of right and wrong, but because that behavior has been shunned for so long now we are all afraid to stand up.  Rather, we acquiesce for the sake of conformity.  For the last 20 years, it has been all about image and the popular majority.  It makes sense that things are in such disarray right now.  Did you know that England first banned abortion in 1803?  1803.  By "banned," I mean that it was statutorily outlawed.  It was an offense that was punishable by death.  DEATH people.  If you were found guilty of having an abortion you were put down like a lame horse.  Fast forward to 2015 and women are practically encouraged to have abortions.  Evolution of philosophy you might say?  "The doctors said my baby is sick and might have physical defects."  Abortion.  "I don't have my dream job yet."  Abortion.  "My boyfriend/husband said he would leave me."  Abortion.  "I'm still so young and there is so much I want to do."  Abortion.  "Oh my gosh, I don't even remember his name.  That was such a crazy night.  Can you imagine me with a baby?  Girl, I am not about to have no baby!"  Abortion.  Take notice of all the "I"s and "my"s.  Remember what I said about selfishness?  (Sorry, the abortion rant was not a planned part of this post, but it illustrated my point well.  :)

No, what is more likely to happen is that we are going to vote for ourselves by choosing the candidate that we believe is going to best meet our needs and who thinks most like us.  Here's why that is a bad thing (among so many other reasons).  The 2016 presidential election is drawing nigh kids and if we really believe anything mainstream media has to say on the personal character of our presidential hopeful front-runners, we are in a whole lot of trouble.  Donald Trump is a bigot, a sexist, and thinks we are all stupid.  Ben Carson has profitable financial relationships with ex-felons and is an angry maniac.  Hillary Clinton wears a wig and is a walking national security breach.  Carly Fiorina has a difficult time telling the truth about anything at all.  Marco Rubio is just glad to have banks that can count his money for him (he struggles in matter of finance apparently).  Ted Cruz is also a liar and tends to be late to work...often.  What in the world are we going to do if one of these people end up as president of the United States of America?  Well, I for one am going to vote for the one that is least likely to take my God and my gun away from me.  But seriously, given the vast amount of absolutely worthless information the media feeds us, how are we supposed to make a choice here?  Are we really supposed to be choosing the one that we hope will do the least amount of damage for potentially the  next eight years?  What a bummer.

Just be honest with yourselves people.  Read a real magazine, look at more than one news source and educate yourself just a little bit before voting.  The individuals running for president are not as bad as the media would have you to believe.  Donald, Hillary, Ben, Carly, and Ted, have donated tens of millions of dollars to reputable organizations and I think for the most part they have America's best interests at heart.  Just do a little bit of homework before voting and please don't vote for a candidate because they have good or bad hair, or because they don't smell bad, or can't count (maybe he's dyslexic).  Vote for the candidate you think is most likely to have a POSITIVE impact on our nation.  The end.

Comment at your own peril.  Better yet, just share it with others, like it, give it a thumbs up or a +1, something like that.

Friday, May 29, 2015

I had to read Moral Choices by Scott B. Rae, PhD, for my Ethics class.  Below is a paper I just finished comparing Divine Command Theory and Virtue Theory.

Comparison of Divine Command Theory and Virtue Theory

God is good.  The Scriptures confirm that God is good.  “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)  King David wrote, “Thou art good, and doest good; teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:68)  During the various works of creation at the beginning of time, God Himself described His own works as “good”.  In Luke, Jesus declared to a certain ruler that only God was good, “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.” (Luke 18:19) (please do your research before questioning me about the deity of Jesus)
Rae defines Divine Command Theory as follows: “A divine command system is one in which the ultimate foundation for morality is the revealed will of God, namely, the commands of God as found in Scripture.”  (Rae, pg.47)  Since I am here, I will also include that Rae says this of God’s commands, “Morality is ultimately grounded in the character of God̵that is, the ultimate source for morality is not God’s commands but God’s character.” (Rae, pg.24) Now, in the very same chapter, Rae tells us that traditional divine command theory holds a slightly different view than what is advanced here in Moral Choices.  I, however, am inclined to agree with Mr. Rae on his first assessment of God’s commands, that it is not the command that makes a thing good, but the character from whence the command originates, from within God.
For as much as I have established where “good” comes from, it should also be noted that I do not believe there can be “morality” without an originating source for the same.  It certainly does not come from the trees or the mountains.  No, morality has it roots and owes its very existence
to God as well.  We have said previously that morality is grounded in the character of God.  We know from Scripture that there was nothing before God (“I am alpha and omega, the beginning and  the end”), therefore morality could not have come from man or earth or anything finite, up to and including any man-made notions, ideals or concepts, respectively.
The gist of Divine Command Theory is that a thing is good if God commands it.  I submit that this is only partially true.  A command that comes from God is good only because God is good.  That is, the command’s source is good, therefore it is good.  It is not the command itself that is good.  I wrestled with this at first because I said, “Well if God is good and the command comes from God, the command must be good.”  This is true, but again, it subtly indicates that the command is good.  Additionally, and in response to the question posed in Plato’s “Euthyphro dilemma”, things are not good because God commands them, things are good because God’s commands are derived from His character, and His character is good.
Virtue Theory is generally explained as an approach to ethics that emphasizes importance of an individual’s character rather than the basic motivational elements of the acts that an individual engages in (known as Deontology) or their consequences (known as Consequentialism).  Rae does not spend an exorbitant amount of time on Consequentialism.  “Virtue theory . . . holds that morality is more than simply doing the right thing.”  (Rae, pg.91)  We can infer that what Rae means here is that virtue is not whether the act itself is good or bad, but the source nature (or intention maybe) of the act before it is performed.  Now, sense we have concluded that God’s character is where goodness comes from, it seems prudent that we determine that our own virtue comes from within.  My personal opinion is that everyone is born with an inherent sense of right and wrong.  Yes, we learn lessons and are taught what behavior is proper and/or socially acceptable as children, but ultimately, without a pre-existing internal knowledge of good and bad, why in the world would anyone do good (even if only for personal gain)?  Why do good at all?  We do good because it feels right.  It might be confirmation from God that we are doing the right thing; that we are operating within His will.
With respect to Virtue Theory, Rae says, “. . . the ideal person will model Christ”, and “. . . the moral obligations for the follower of Jesus are subsumed under the notion of becoming like Christ.”  (Rae, pg.41, internal citation omitted)  In choosing to follow Christ, we, by default, choose to change our inner-man.  We are made new in Christ Jesus.  We are told in Scripture that we (man) have a sin nature.  This supports my previous statement, “why do good at all?”  I do agree with Rae to a small degree, that Christians ought to hold at least some level of agreement with Deontological ethics.  Even though God commands us to love our neighbor, He goes into explicit detail about why.  It is their salvation that we should be concerned about.  Similarly, we are to appreciate, sympathize, and give to the poor and needy.  Not strictly because God commands, but because it is the right thing to do and assists with securing our own place in the Kingdom of God.  From the time of Adam and Eve, our natural internal state is one of evil, greed, and biased unabashed selfishness.  The inherent sense of right and wrong that I mentioned earlier is like a “God override”.  If you consider how many people daily and perpetually seek to fulfill the lusts of their flesh and how infrequently those same people perform “good” unselfish deeds, it makes sense.
Mirriam-Webster defines virtue as: (a) conformity to a standard of right: morality; and (b) a particular moral excellence.  Both of these definitions concern the word moral which we have previously established is found in the character of God.  And if we want to go even further, it is probably no coincidence that virtue is also defined plurally as: (c) an order of angels - see, celestial hierarchy.
I would argue that Divine Command Theory is the more “right” of the two theories, primarily because I believe that humans are not naturally virtuous except for the aforementioned “God override”.  The danger for churches generally is that if a church teaches that virtue comes from within it inadvertently acknowledges that virtue does not originate from God, unless that change is initiated by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.  The Divine Command Theory likewise can be dangerous because it must be emphasized that it is God’s character that makes a command good.  God does not command a thing because it is good.  The command is good because it comes from God’s character.  The church today probably focuses more on Divine Command Theory.  Consider that most Christian denominations focus on letting Christ change us from the inside out and that as new Christians we are to obey God’s commands as they are laid out in Scripture.  Most sermons today focus on obedience to God and accepting Jesus as Lord and savior.

**I apologize for not going into more detail about the traditional philosophical arguments associated with either theory, but assignment parameters simply would not allow it.

Friday, May 9, 2014

Excerpt from my schoolwork

In my Christian Perspectives class we had to watch a lecture by Dr. Peter Kreeft, a "well known" professor of philosophy at Boston College and Lutheran pastor.  He is known for his writings and thoughts on moral relativism, modernity, and the postmodern movement.  I was asked to write a brief review on his most recent work, ‘How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Culture in Crisis.’ Here is the link to the lecture, it's about 45 minutes long (I recommend it if you have the time, otherwise my review will give you an idea of where he's coming from):  My review of his lecture is below and I did not hold back.

Kreeft comes across as an angry and cynical human being. Understandably so given the state of society as a whole, but to the extent that he should presume to know how to combat cultural warfare by telling Christians how they should treat and approach non-Christians, he probably shouldn't be the ringleader.

Kreeft makes some good points with respect to his "P.H.O.N.E.Y" acronym. (Politics, happy talk, organizationalism, neo-worship, egalitarianism, and yuppydom)

I agree that God is love and that the very essence of politics is force. However, I also believe that the realm of politics, because it is so influential, can provide a substantial platform for Christian activism.

Regarding "happy talk", I have no issues there. I agree that we should "shut up and fight."

"Organizationalism" is a tough one to be on board with, but I think I agree. We should be real and meditate on God always. Being fake subtracts from who we are in Christ. That being said, "not being fake" is a good way to be martyred.

As far as "neo-worship" is concerned I have never been a fan of "newer is better", however, I see it all the time within our culture (Christian). While I continue to learn and expand my horizons, I do not fall victim to believing everything that claims to enlighten me or allow me to be more open-minded. The Bible has withstood the test of time, do not interpret it to be something it's not.

As humans, well, we are all humans. In that regard we are all equal. But anyone who thinks that people in general are equal, is silly. Look around. Men and women are different, respectively. As far as "moral relativism" is concerned, as long as people have a conscious that can eat at them, we will have people justifying their behavior. Egalitarianism.

Cheerful giving and self-sacrifice is very nearly the definition of being a follower of Christ, and selfishness is the opposite of that. I do not agree with what Kreeft said about why Islam is growing faster than Christianity. What I mean is, he may be right about the rate of growth, but I think he is wrong about why. I do not particularly care to expand here.

I agree with Kreeft and what he said about spirituality. Don't be concerned with stuff (yuppydom), be concerned with people. I also agree that the more we love on our neighbor and reach out to them, the more likely we are to see them in heaven.

Overall, I think Kreeft has some valid points and I like where his head is, but I question if his heart is really in the game. As I mentioned, I think he is angry at the world and possibly angry at God for letting it get this way. I don't know that his "plan" could help win the cultural war because I believe that it lacks love. He speaks of love as a primary driving force for Christianity, but yet he is cynical and is often steered in his thoughts by his own anger.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme

My previous post with respect to the Emergent Church movement explained my take on the matter.  But what it did not do is clarify that a Christian is a Christian is a Christian is a Christian.  For those that believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior, no amount of arguing over which doctrinal interpretation is correct can rob that salvation from you.  The Lord showed me this very fact a month or so ago.  I make no qualms about it.  I myself was struggling mightily with the concepts being taught from my own textbooks.  There was arguing over the continuing providence of God, whether the Holy Spirit still performed miracles since the resurrection, and that we should love our Christian brothers and sisters even more so than our own blood, strangers, and unbelievers.  For now, I will not go into the details of the arguments and I may never.  Then again I am tempted to all the time.  These topics threatened to become a stumbling block for me, but the Lord helped me through.  You see, while you and I may not agree on every interpretation of Scripture, every topic or doctrine, what I do know is that my salvation (and yours if you believe) is intact.  I struggled because I felt that there were students that would be told and taught something other than what I know to be the truth.  Thing is, who am I to judge the truth?  All I know to be true is what the Bible tells me is true.  I generally feel that if an argument can be made with much scriptural basis, it is a good argument, but what happens often is people like to infer or cause you to infer and that is dangerous.  My red flag goes up anytime I hear, "what God meant was.." or "what the Bible is saying here is...".  Yes there are parables and a goodly amount of poetic (figurative) language that should not be taken as literal.  That is where prayer and study come in.  Without prayer and study we can not hope to understand the Word of God.  The Bible is written and interpreted in many languages because God knew that we humans would be able to communicate through written/spoken words.  Scripture is meant for us to understand and not be a source of great confusion.  The point is that God wants us to understand the Bible as The truth, The whole truth, and The only truth.  Whether the Bible is in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, NIV, KJV, ESV, it doesn't matter how much, if anything, was lost in translation.  The Bible is God's Word and it is infallible.  Believe that when you read it.

Friday, May 2, 2014

The devastation of the Emergent Church

First, the emergent church (hereinafter, “EC”) is an upstart of an “event” that now threatens to spread like a plague, or should I say, an epidemic.  Its reaches are clearly global and that means up to, and including, the infiltration of Bible-believing churches.  It began in the late 20th and early 21st century, and the movement’s attraction is phenomenal.  The EC is recognized for its daring breaks from the mold of traditional church and tendency to venture into blasphemous beliefs.  EC members prefer to live their life as a "post modern" society and are often impossible to differentiate between secular society.  The gist of it is that most of them are upset that they can’t hang with genuine "organized religion."  Truly institutional church rules are way too hard to comply with and they figure the best way to be the Christian they WANT to be is to create a new version, Version 2.0 if you will.  Because of this “re-branding” of the church, bible discipline, church organization (government or polity), the sacraments, and church offices, are all being snubbed with the greater implications being the compromising, ongoing, unrepentant sin to exist throughout the Body of Christ, i.e., the church.  Further, Paul and the other apostles taught that church discipline for blatantly sinful and generally unrepentant members hurts the Body of Christ and diminishes  the witnessing abilities of the church.

The EC is very pro-active in its quest to change and sway society.  This of course means the use of political leverage to create and operate from a platform of social activism, and trying to overtake or displace a well-standing system presently being viewed as “harsh” by most lay people.  What the world should see in both missions and evangelism, is emphasis on the love of God as one of the primary attributes of God.  Instead, the EC frames its beliefs around the “stripping” of the gospel, of the necessity of a Savior.  To a repugnant degree they neglect to preach sin, repentance, confession, church discipline, and the shining fruits of the Holy Spirit.

One defining characteristic of the EC is the lack of presence of the Lord’s Supper.  I don’t fully understand why, but I suspect that it is because they don’t like the idea of “eating” and “drinking”, even as a symbolic gesture, the body of Christ.  Paul discussed the importance of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”  Then, with the cup after supper he said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”  For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”

EC claims that we cannot know the full truth regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality, among other doctrines in the Bible.  They say “truth is relative.”  Another defining feature of the EC is denial of the inerrancy of the Word of God (Bible).  They figure that it was written by men regardless if it was under the divine influence of the Holy Spirit.  Go figure.  Not all EC’s are alike and not all follow the methods I’ve described above.  The overwhelming tendency of people nowadays is to venture from church to church looking for something “not so strict.”  They don’t want to tithe and they don’t want to be told that they need to repent of their sin.  Taking accountability and trying to be a better person really isn’t so bad of a thing, is it?  Postmodernists want good music that has near secular tendencies and they are more concerned with being comfortable in church than they are of hearing the truth of God’s Word.  It has been said, and I tend to agree, that most EC members are very much involved with religion for selfish reasons, i.e., they really aren’t all that interested in serving others.

Popular culture is attempting to change Christianity into something it is not.  Truth is truth and anyone who believes that truth is a relative concept has been blinded.  Paper is made from pulp. Concrete is hard.  A forest is comprised of trees.  Hurricanes are devastating.  All truths.  Not fiction and not “tailored” to be true for one person and not another.  People and churches can be sincere but still be sincerely wrong.  Ignorance is no excuse.  Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6) and “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). These are blanket statements.  They are true for everyone.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

So the American Atheists have put their heads together and decided that it was a good idea to put a GIANT billboard in Times Square, NY that reads, “Who needs Christ during Christmas?” and then a hand sweeps across the board and crosses out "Christ" and writes "Nobody."

Mr. David Silverman, the President of American Atheists, says that "This season is a great time of year for a hundred reasons, none of them having to do with religion.  This year, start a new tradition, don’t go to church.  You hate it, it’s boring; you probably only go because you feel guilty or obligated.  Instead, spend more time with your family and friends or volunteer. There are better uses of your time and money.” “Most people don't care about any religious ties to the season because church and religion are not what Americans care about during this time of year—they care about family and friends and giving presents and food and having fun,” said Public Relations Director Dave Muscato.  “Many so-called ‘Christmas’ traditions celebrated by Americans have nothing to do with Christianity.  For example, the North Pole and Santa traditions come from Nordic and Germanic pagan traditions, and caroling, yule logs, mistletoe, holly wreaths all pre-date Christianity.  Christianity has been trying to claim ownership of the season for hundreds of years.  But the winter solstice came first and so did its traditions.  The season belongs to everybody.”

Some of the past billboards in New Jersey and throughout NY said things like, "Disaster victims need real help, not religion."  They need "real help, not bibles."  They need real help, not prayer."

Now then, I do not feel the need to express my thoughts regarding the purpose of the American Atheists organization. What I will say is that the same dude that says Christians go to church even though they hate it and instead they should try volunteering may not be the brains you want in charge of your operation.  Because everyone would rather volunteer instead of go to Church. Just ask the people who are in charge of volunteer organizations if their numbers are even close to the attendance of even the smallest town churches.  Silverman also mentioned that it is a great season for many reasons and not to do with religion. Tell that to nearly 1/3 of the total population which happens to be...yup, you guessed it, Christians. As far as the rest of the comments made by the representative of the American Atheists, in the interest of fairness, I have no comment. I wonder how many millions of dollars spent on billboards trying to debunk ONE religion could have been donated to charities or volunteer organizations.  I wonder how many Christians, after looking at those billboards said, "you know something, he's right." Probably not very many. Anyone wanna take a stab at how much Christian organizations help the homeless and disaster relief victims throughout the world? Yeah, it’s astronomical compared to what the American Atheists organization gives.  God saves.  Not man.  Get over it.  Living a life not believing in anything is a post for another day.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

I Was Gone, Now I Am Back

It is time to revive the inner dimensions of my geniusness. I stopped blogging for a bit particularly because school and work were taking up an exorbitant amount of my time. While I will fully disclose at this time that much of what I pontificate both now and down the road is personal opinion, going forward I will be "re-purposing" my Blog. I understand that I may have previously sent signals that were not necessarily received as I intended them, but rather they were interpreted as misguided and/or close-minded. For shame! I am a Christian and as such I wish to emulate that behavior. I fancy myself the antithesis of close-mindedness and apologize to all whom may have consummated the notion. I will endeavor to consider the thoughts and positions of others whilst I postulate. My first post since August is forthcoming.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

God is Sovereign, not Arbitrary

Choose life. There are those who have muddied the waters of the river and rendered it undrinkable.
Free will is what separated us from God. Eve chose to believe Satan’s lie and she could not have foreseen the snowball effect it would have. In His sovereignty, God allowed this to be. However, He also assured us that the very same sovereignty that allows so many wrongs to occur in our world and separated us from God can, when combined with our ability to choose right from wrong, get us back into God’s loving arms. See, Acts 16:31.
Take a look around. There are 2 types of people, believers and non-believers. Personally, I argue that our very existence is evidence of God. Besides, science all but proves there are too many intricate coincidences for nature to have accomplished the formation of our world by happenstance and/or evolution. Now pause for a moment; think on the world, its problems, and its endless supply of atrocities. These actions by humankind show us that God has given free will and that in His sovereignty he allows these things to take place. Granted, judgment is coming.
Now think of the beautiful things that without Him are not, nor could not be possible. If you aren't going to believe, then you are just living to die. Where is your hope? What hope do you leave your children? He has given us the opportunity for the greatest hope of all, and freedom from the dreadful life we would lead were it not for His saving grace.
Self-awareness can be a blessing here because when you look at yourself in relation to the world you can see that, in fact, you are no different and do need a savior, that life everlasting is a futile endeavor without God. This part only makes sense if you believe there is purpose to our lives, which anyone who believes that God put us here to grow old, breed, and die is silly. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. See, John 3:16. He wants us in heaven and He wants us to tell others. That’s our purpose.
This world is full of people who are living proof that we may choose good or evil, life everlasting or eternal damnation. We must accept the grace of God as it is freely given. It will not be forced upon you by Him. I believe everyone is born with an inherent sense of right and wrong, otherwise the world would abound in chaos (it only seems like it does now). Those who do not possess this “inherent sense” are typically classified as "nutty”.
Society will shape you and mold you because you are in the world. Sin is ever present. Resist temptation to do wrong, pray for God's will. Do not conform to this world because it means that you have given up hope. God is not going to arbitrarily call some to Him and shun others. His will is that we all come to Christ. There's a narrow path that leads to eternity, find it. When you do find it, give glory and praise to the one who showed you the way.