Saturday, March 01, 2014
With the increasing legal and popular acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in the United States, there has been an accompanying increase in confusion.
With all the cries for acceptance of their sexual preferences have come accusations of discrimination and intolerance toward those who supposedly will not readily accept their immoral stance.
So, in order to eliminate as much confusion as possible, let's clarify a few things.
First, it should be understood that the long standing meaning of the clear statements of the Bible against homosexual activity that have been held by Professing Christians of many denominations will be continued to be held by those same conservative Believers.
Second, what has been labeled as discrimination against homosexuals tends to be nothing more than a First Amendment exercise of sincere religious belief on the part of professing religious Believers.
If a homosexual couple enters my restaurant to eat, am I to deny them a meal? They would say "No!"
If, however, they ask me to cater an event that showcases their lifestyle, that is a different matter. My religious belief would not allow me to promote, benefit or further actions or conditions that I would consider morally wrong.
On the other hand, if I entered a restaurant owned by a homosexual, would I expect him do deny me a meal simply because I was a professing Christian? No. By serving a meal to me, this person would in no way be promoting, benefitting or furthering my religious life and/or beliefs.
Nor, on the other hand, would I expect this person to cater my event where my lifestyle, religious beliefs, which may be diametrically opposed to his or hers, will be the center of attention. Can I or should I be able to force this person to promote, benefit or further my religious beliefs, simply because I ask him to? Should I expect this person to violate his own beliefs? Should I be able to sue for discrimination? The obvious answer is no.
This is just one aspect of a multi-faceted and emotional issue. Addressing one aspect at a time can help alleviate confusing arguments as well as promote rational thought.
Does this mean that everyone involved gets their way in every instance and circumstance? No, but ranting solves nothing and promotes misunderstanding as well as maintaining highly emotional exchanges.
That's why tolerance is an issue that really has two sides in the legal realm. It has a practical side that needs to be evident in the exercise of rights, as well as duties, according to the law.
Saturday, February 01, 2014
Sometimes, we find our heart wounded, maybe broken, because of the choices in life that are made. And sometimes, these choices are not made by us, but by others. Nevertheless, the impact is deeply felt.
So, in the matter of penetrating wounds of the heart, let's remember that Jesus is the perfect One to take out shattered heart to. He alone knows how to repair that which has been destroyed.
How does He do this?
He simply gives you Himself.
And then there was the intellectual who absolutely believed that there are no absolutes in life!
Can you run that by me one more time, please!
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Within the world of Christian music has been a debate raging for decades. What type or style of music is right? What type or style of music is wrong?
Increasingly, the consensus position has been reduced to the following. The music doesn't matter. The lyrics are what is important.
Really? So, any style of music can be used as long as the words, the lyrics are correct?
I would like to issue the following challenge.
For the moment set aside the issue of music.
Now contemplate all other issues of life and do this:
Name one area of life where it doesn't matter how you conduct yourself or how you do things. In other words, you can do it anyway you want to.
If you can name just one area of life in which it doesn't matter how you conduct yourself, then the area of music doesn't matter either.
In the United States, involuntary servitude has been prohibited via the 13th amendment to the Constitution. Voluntary servitude, however, has not. It remains completely legal. This legal condition is also pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, since it has not been specifically prohibited.
I am not aware of any example whereby someone has legally sold themselves into a state of total and complete slavery. It is difficult to imagine anyone selling themselves into such a condition.
Is it possible, then, to have a partial state of slavery?
To provide an answer, let's consult the Bible as our authority.
Solomon said in Proverbs 22:7 that the borrower is the slave of the lender.
How many in the United States can attest to being in personal debt? So, according to the Bible, one is a slave to the extent that they owe someone else.
Virtually all citizens of United States are in debt to one degree or another. This makes us the largest slave nation in the world.
The question of Jesus being involved in politics is constantly addressed.
Many answers are provided for us to consider, but the best source remains the Bible.
The fact is that Jesus confessed that he had a Kingdom, though it did not originate in this world. He even made sure Pilate understood that his Roman authority came from above.
Ultimately, this did not threaten the jurisdiction of Rome for whom Pilate acted. Rome was a physical power that presided over a physical jurisdiction. The jurisdictions of the gods, Roman or otherwise, was not an issue before Pilate to consider. Political threats were another issue entirely.
Rome had previously proven its efficiency in dealing with political revolutionaries. Threats were simply eliminated. Yet Pilate did not view Jesus as a political threat. His finding of "I find no fault in him" to the Jewish authorities was enlightening and, at the same time, maddening to the Jewish Leadership.
The real problem among professing Christians lies in the lack of understanding about the Heavenly Kingdom of God and it's separation from, yet vital connection to earthly Kingdoms. Until that is figured out, political confusion will reign, especially among American citizens of the Kingdom of God.
Government might be considered by many to be one of those "necessary evils" that we must all put up with in life.
In the Bible, Romans 13 is very clear. As Believers in God and His Son, Jesus, we are instructed how to view these governments and act toward them.
1. The Governments in place have been ordained by God.
2. Don't oppose the government. This means don't place yourself in their position or act as if you possess the power of government.
3. Don't resist the government. This means don't physically resist Goverment and their officials in their implementation of laws and policies that are legitimately within their jurisdiction.
4. To oppose or resist government is to oppose of resist God Himself.
5. Opposing or resisting Government, i.e. God is to invite judgment upon yourself.
The problem with most American Christians is that they constantly find something that government needs to change. So, they act to implement the necessary change.
Can you name a time in American history when the people weren't busy being against some government law or policy?
Do you find it interesting that Government consistently acts in ways that invite others, especially God's Children, to act in ways that violate Scripture?
Saturday, January 04, 2014
As parents, we have a duty to know the Truth, then act in obedience for the benefit of the children God has placed into our care.
ABC's Good Morning America announcing the upcoming debate between Bill Nye The Science Guy and Creation Museum Founder Ken Ham.
Friday, January 03, 2014
Interestingly, atheists are starting to downplay the credentials of Bill Nye as well as encouraging him to not follow through with the debate.
The agreed-upon topic for the 7 PM debate is “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”
This verbal clashing of world views, evolution and special creation, is already proving to attract a lot of media attention.