Friday, 31 October 2014

The Georgia Guidestone and the New World Oder (NWO)



The Georgia Guidestones are a mystery in that no one really knows who issued having these huge granite stones erected and have a message carved in ten different languages on these stones. All is known is that in 1979 an unknown group of people paid for the erection of the "Georgia Guidestones." 6 granite slabs of stones that instructs the survivors of an apocolypic scenario on how to rebuild a better world. The Georgia Guidestones monument has been vandalized several times since its erection in 1980. The message written on the English part of the monument is quite revealing. It reads as follows: "The Elite want 80% of us DEAD see # 1, Inside Job." Say what you want about whoever wrote that message. There is some truth to it. Consider the ten points written in English in the list below.


 
 
No doubt, some pretty powerful and wealthy people are behind this. People who don't want their identity revealed to the public. However, there are some well known people we do know that have openly stated that they want to see a reduction in the world's population. Here are a few quotes below:
 

The elderly are useless eaters” — Dr. Henry Kissinger
 
A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” — Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine
 
The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.” — Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER
 
“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”--David Rockefeller
 
If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”-- Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh
 
“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”--David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club.
 
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”--Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger.
 
There are many more that could be added, but I'm sure you get the point. Funny, how there is no mention of these people willing to volunteer their lives to help their "all so noble" cause of reducing the world's population. These wicked people care nothing at all about the people in the world other than themselves. That's made painfully clear in their above statements. I believe the people responsible for the erection of the Georgia Guidestones are a part of the New World Order (NWO). Author, Carl Teichrib makes this insightful observation in this paper below:
 


Thursday, 30 October 2014

The Triune Nature of Man

The tri-unity of man, made in the image of God consists of spirit, soul, and body; the spirit being the highest part of man. In the beginning, before the fall of man, the nature of man functioned in perfect harmony. Man then enjoyed wonderful fellowship with God, being very much alive spiritually to God (see Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7, 18, 21-25).

However, when man fell through sin, the order dramatically changed. Now man functions through the body, soul, and spirit. (see Gen. 3:1-24; Rom. 5:12). The spirit then becomes the lowest part of man. What occurred at the moment of man’s fall into sin can be explained in this way. The spirit fell into the realm of the soul, the soul fell into the realm of the body, and the body came under the sentence of death.  Hence, resulting in man being mostly dominated by his physical nature; being ruled by the nature of his soul and body through his passions, desires, and appetites. Man became spiritually dead in his relationship to God. Despite the fact the natural man is very much alive in the flesh, he is very much dead in his spiritual nature in relation to God due to his sin.

Though marred and separated from God by sin, man still possesses the innate conscious knowledge of God’s existence (see Rom. 1:19-21). Still man chooses to rebel against this knowledge. Because man is primarily ruled by his natural physical/soulish nature he is unable to receive the things of the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness unto him, nor is he able to know them, due to the fact he needs to be spiritually alive to receive them (see 1 Cor. 2:14). Man needs to approach the existence of God on God’s terms, not on his terms. The LORD reveals Himself only to those people who come to Him in faith and repentance.

1.       The Spirit of Man“God Conscience.” This is the highest part of man. The spirit in man gives him the ability to perceive, know, and worship God. This is the part of man that sets him apart from animals and gives him the ability to have a relationship with God.

2.       The Soul of Man“Self Conscience.” This is the middle part of man. This aspect of the nature of man is the seat of his personality, self awareness, mind, will, emotions, and the ability to connect with others.

3.       The Body of Man“World Conscience.” The lowest part of man. The physical nature of man that allows him to experience the world around him through the five natural senses. For example, if you were to stub your toe on a piece of furniture, you would feel it. The pain would raise your awareness of the physical world around you. 




Tuesday, 30 September 2014

Aliens Among Us?



"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
(2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, KJV)
 
The popularity of UFOs and aliens has grown exponentially over the past decade. There isn't a day that goes by that some sighting isn't being reported in some part of the world. Many believe these alien beings are from another planet somewhere in the galaxy. They are often depicted as either friendly in wanting to help humanity, or malevolent and evil. Are they real, physical beings that can be seen, touched, and communicated with, or are they spiritual in nature? What is their interest in humanity and what is their real agenda and goal? Also, what about the supposed alien abductions and experiments they do on humans we hear so much about? There are a few different views on aliens and UFOs. In this blog, I will be only presenting the Christian view on this subject.
 
Paul had forewarned that in the last days God would send "strong delusion" to all who would reject His truth in unrighteousness. I believe it is possible that aliens and UFOs could very well be a part of that deception spoken about in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians. Better to be forewarned than warned too late; better to be forearmed than armed too late. ...(To be Continued)...
 
 



Thursday, 25 September 2014

Emma Watson on Equality for Women: My Response


Emma Watson is perhaps best known as an actress in her role as Hermoine in the Harry Potter series of movies. Now she has grown into a beautiful young woman. Of lately, in the News she has been championing the cause for women's rights. As seen in the picture above, she had recently made a speech on behalf of women's rights at the U. N. This of course bothers me for obvious reasons. Like what "serious issues" are Western women facing that would cause Emma to bring women's rights issues to the attention of the U. N.? Western women are among the most privileged women in the world. Below is the quote from Emma, with my response that follows.

"EMMA WATSON SPEAKS TO THE UN ABOUT EQUALITY FOR WOMEN:
'Fighting for women's rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating... This has to stop. For the record, feminism by definition is: 'The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.'"
--Planned Parenthood.

MY RESPONSE: "Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband." (Ephesians 5:33, NKJV). Paul's command to married couples is simple. Husbands are to "love" their wives, and wives are to "respect" their husbands. Do married couples do this perfectly? No, this is why Paul admonishes couples to love and respect each other. However, in today's feminist inspired political climate that promotes "the hatred of men." There is an obvious rift and hostility between men and women that makes it extremely difficult to fulfill Paul's command here. Difficult, but not impossible if married couples learn to obey Paul's words in the above Scripture text. As already mentioned, below are some of my thoughts on Emma Watson's quote in the picture above.

First, "Fighting for women's rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating... This has to stop." I agree, man-hating has to stop. Feminism needs to stop pumping their "man-hating" propaganda into our society. and start taking their advice as mentioned above and start fighting for the rights of men as much as they do for women's rights. Now the reason why "fighting for women's rights" has been often associated with "man-hating" in today's society should be obvious. I give some reasons in my second point below.

Second,"For the record, feminism by definition is: 'The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.'" Man, nothing could be further from the truth. Feminism by definition has always been about "women's rights" only. Hence, its name. Women already have equal rights and opportunities in today's society. I have never seen feminist advertisements defending the rights of men other then TV commercials, sitcoms, cartoons, and movies that demean, mock, and outright demonize men. Talk about Misandry 101. This is a part of the reason why feminism is associated with "man-hating." If feminism was truly about EQUAL RIGHTS for all, if they were about men's rights, they would be fighting to keep father's in families, they would be fighting against the injustices of unreasonable alimonies heaped upon good men by law courts, while at the same time keeping them from seeing their children. Also, feminism has influenced society to view men as potential perpetrators and criminals. Man, I could give a whole list of issues that affect men that feminists either pretend they don't know about, ignore, or simply could not care less.

A case in point, a recent debate that took place in Toronto, Canada had four leading feminists debating the issue concerning the question "Are Men Obsolete?" One of the feminist debators, Caitlin Moran gave this revealing response to one of the Moderator Rudyard Griffiths' questions. She said: "I don't know. I never have any advice for men in the way I do for women." Another feminist debator, Maureen Dowd made this telling response to one of Mr. Griffiths' questions. "I think that you should just do whatever we tell you to do." These are well known leading feminists who have nothing worth while to say about men's plight in today's society. Again, if feminism was truly about the rights of men as they are about the rights of women, they would be informed about the injustices men face. The fact is, they are not. Now as for Emma Watson fighting for women's rights. What rights? How are women being discriminated against in today's society? Sorry, women in North America are definitely NOT OPPRESSED. They are among some of the most privileged women in the world.

Sunday, 3 August 2014

How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years?

by 

Published: 17 January 2009(GMT+10)
Image Wikipedia
Supernova 1987 A
Supernova
The following question was received from JD in response to one of the World by Design presentations in Australia recently, after I had earlier answered orally on the Hobart part of the World By Design tour.
“God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should change His mind.” (Numbers 23:19, NIV)
The above Scripture reference summarizes the essential trustworthiness of God. In view of this, if the entire universe (and not just the earth) was created approximately 6,000 years ago, how do you understand such events as, for example, supernova 1987A, in which a star exploded at a distance of approximately 170,000 light years from the solar system?
The astronomical distance scale is of course not absolute, but there is little basis for believing it to be overestimated by a factor of about 30 at such a relatively close distance. Other astronomical observations appear to represent vastly more distant objects, seen therefore at a much earlier epoch.
To suggest that the entire observable universe was created with a history of events (that never actually occurred) seems to be inconsistent with the character of the God described in the Bible.
I will now address each of the issues in the order in which JD has raised them:
“God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should change His mind.” (Numbers 23:19, NIV)
The above Scripture reference summarizes the essential trustworthiness of God.
Indeed, and it is God’s trustworthiness that provided the basis for the study and development of science in the first place and is why science developed in cultures that held a Judeo-Christian worldview (See the first chapter of Refuting Evolution by J Sarfati). Also, God’s trustworthiness provides the basis for our understanding of the perspicuity of Scripture, that is, the belief that it was written to be understood and that God would not deceive or mislead us. The plain meaning of the opening chapters of Genesis can, therefore, be taken as an historical account of what actually happened during the Creation Week, the Fall, the Flood and the dispersion at the Tower of Babel.
Of course, it doesn’t follow that statements made by fallible people based on their observations of the physical world are necessarily valid or trustworthy.
In view of this, if the entire universe (and not just the earth) was created approximately 6,000 years ago, how do you understand such events as, for example, supernova 1987A, in which a star exploded at a distance of approximately 170,000 light years from the solar system?
The supernova 1987A was observed in 1987 (hence its name) and is generally accepted as being 170,000 light years away (See also this article which includes a section on supernova 1987A). On the surface, it would appear that the light has been travelling for 170,000 years which is not consistent with a 6,000 year old universe. But the question is, by which clocks is the time being measured?
The astronomical distance scale is of course not absolute, but there is little basis for believing it to be overestimated by a factor of about 30 at such a relatively close distance. Other astronomical observations appear to represent vastly more distant objects, seen therefore at a much earlier epoch.
Big bangers have exactly the same problem. That is, the background radiation temperature is almost uniform, …. However, there hasn’t been nearly enough time for [energy transfer] to occur even in the assumed time since the alleged big bang
It’s interesting to note that big bangers have exactly the same problem. That is, the background radiation temperature is almost uniform, to one part in 100,000, at about 2.725 K, even when we look in the opposite directions of the cosmos. Since the big bang would predict hugely different temperatures, how did they become so even? Only if energy was transferred from hot parts to cold parts. However, there hasn’t been nearly enough time for this to occur even in the assumed time since the alleged big bang—see the instructive article Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang by Ph.D. astrophysicistJason Lisle.
The misotheistic publication New Scientist admitted in 13 things that do not make sense (19 March 2005, updated 14 April 2009):
This “horizon problem” is a big headache for cosmologists, so big that they have come up with some pretty wild solutions. “Inflation”, for example. You can solve the horizon problem by having the universe expand ultra-fast for a time, just after the big bang, blowing up by a factor of 1050 in 10–33 seconds. But is that just wishful thinking?
Other big bangers have tried to cure this headache by proposing that the speed of light was much faster in the past, e.g. João Magueijo and John Barrow. Yet when some creationists proposed something similar a few decades ago, it was a heresy! I.e. anything goes when it comes to rescuing the big bang dogma, but rescuing Genesis by exactly the same means is verboten. However, the observations of uniformity in the cosmic background radiation, which defy plausible evolutionary explanations, are consistent with a single Creator of space and time who holds the universe together (Colossians 1:17).
To suggest that the entire observable universe was created with a history of events (that never actually occurred) seems to be inconsistent with the character of the God described in the Bible.
Image NASA
Nebula
Nebula
Agreed. One idea which has been put forward to address this problem is that God created the information about such events in the ‘light’ beam on its way to Earth. However, this would imply a deceptive act by God if the event had never actually occurred. Most creationists would not support this idea. (See Alex Williams and John Hartnett, Functional creation and the appearance of age, pages 168–173 in: Dismantling the Big Bang.)
Recent developments in creationist cosmology offer an elegant explanation of the distant starlight question which is consistent with the Genesis account of creation and is based on recent astronomical observations and Einstein’s General Relativity equations. Whilst a detailed explanation of this new cosmology is beyond the scope of this Feedback article, it is explained more fully in the book Starlight, Time and the New Physics by John Hartnett. Hartnett’s explanation is an extrapolation from General Relativity, based on the expansion of the universe and 5D (space-time-velocity) Cosmological General Relativity as developed by Carmeli. One of the powerful confirming aspects of this cosmology is that the highly speculative big bang concepts of dark matter and dark energy are not required to explain the observations made in the far reaches of the cosmos—see Has dark matter really been proven?
Another model, also based on General Relativity, developed by Russell Humphreys is explained in his book Starlight and Time and the associated DVD of the same name.
This article attempts to provide a framework for understanding the answer to the distant starlight question. The key elements are time dilation, the recent observations showing that we live in a galacto-centric universe and the Scriptural references to God ‘stretching out the heavens’ on Day 4 of the Creation Week.

Time dilation

An experimentally verified prediction of Einstein’s General Relativity Theory is a phenomenon called gravitational time dilation. It has long been established that gravity affects the rate at which time flows in any particular location in the universe. A graphic example of this phenomenon is the GPS satellite navigation system which is becoming a standard feature in many motor vehicles today.
It has long been established that gravity affects the rate at which time flows in any particular location in the universe. A graphic example of this phenomenon is the GPS satellite navigation system which is becoming a standard feature in many motor vehicles today.
One’s position is determined by comparing the time taken for signals from a number of the satellites, which are visible at any one time, to reach the receiver so very high precision timing is needed. The constellation of satellites orbits the earth at an altitude of about 20,000km. At this height, the atomic clocks on board the satellites run faster than the same clocks on earth by 42 microseconds per day. The satellites are travelling at around 12,000 km per hour which produces an opposing relativistic effect of slowing the clocks down by about 5 microseconds per day. The combined effect is that the clocks on the GPS satellites run 38 microseconds per day faster than equivalent earth-bound clocks. Why does this matter? If this time difference was ignored and no compensation made, the position errors would build up at a rate of about 400m per hour which would render the system completely useless!
Another mechanism for time dilation is rapid acceleration of the fabric of space in an expanding universe. This is explained more fully in Hartnett’s book referenced above.

We live in a galactocentric universe

When Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift in the spectra of stars and galaxies and interpreted them as distance (known as the Hubble Law), he was horrified at the implication that the Earth could be in a special place.
Standard big bang theory has it that the universe has neither a centre nor an edge which is an assumption, called the Cosmological Principle, designed to avoid the earth being a special place. If the Earth was special in any way, it would imply design and thus a Designer which flies in the face of atheistic evolutionary belief. When Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift in the spectra of stars and galaxies and interpreted them as distance (known as the Hubble Law), he was horrified at the implication that the Earth could be in a special place. He wrote:
‘Such a condition [red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe … But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs … [and] is intolerable … moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.’1
In fact, Hubble in his later works rejected the velocity interpretation of the redshift, and instead preferred ideas such as ‘tired light’, to reject the big bang and expanding universe in favour of an infinite stationary one.2
Recent surveys3,4 have measured the galactic redshift for around 250,000 galaxies and have revealed an over abundance of galaxies at certain redshifts in which the data departs from the expected theoretical distribution in a series of large spikes. A straightforward interpretation of this data is that the galaxies are distributed with a spherical shell-like symmetry with the Milky Way galaxy at or near the centre! Such a result is entirely consistent with the biblical picture but is at odds with standard big bang beliefs and is not consistent with the Cosmological Principle.

God stretched out the heavens

In at least 11 places, the Scriptures speak of God ‘stretching out the heavens’ (e.g. Job 9:8Isaiah 40:22 and 42:5Jeremiah 10:12,Zechariah 12:1) and in Genesis 1:15 the words ‘And it was so.’ are recorded in connection with the events of Day 4 of Creation Week, implying the completion of the events described on that Day. It is a reasonable conclusion to draw that God stretched out the heavens to the vast extent of the observable universe in just one 24 hour day and then ceased the action of ‘stretching out’. This is more rational than the inflation fudge of big bangers discussed above. That is, where the universe just happened to expand much faster than light, although there is no known physical cause for starting or stopping this superluminal expansion.
We should also note that God created the Earth first before the sun, moon and stars (and by inference the planets etc) so it would seem reasonable to assume the universe was stretched out with the Earth at or very near its centre. Furthermore, Psalm 147:4 and Isaiah 40:26imply that there is a finite number of stars in the universe. So, the Bible seems to teach that we live in a finite universe that has, at the very least, our Milky Way galaxy at its centre.

Distant starlight and the biblical timescale

CODE satelite
Artist’s impression of the COBE satellite.
We now have the keys to understanding how starlight can reach us from such vast distances in just a few thousand years of Earth time. The days of the Creation Week were recorded from the point of view of an observer on the earth so the time reference in Genesis is Earth time. On Day 4, as God commenced stretching out the heavens, the mass of the universe (presumably including the ‘waters above’ which were separated out on Day 2) would have been confined to a much smaller volume of space than is the case today. Assuming the Hartnett–Carmeli theory is correct, the Universe rapidly expanded with massive time dilation as a result of very rapid acceleration of the fabric of space on Day 4. The Humphreys model5on the other hand, also based on General Relativity, has clocks at the outer edge of the cosmos running much faster than earth-bound clocks because of gravitational time dilation.
By the end of Day 4, when God completed his work of creating the sun, moon and stars, and had stretched out the heavens to their vast extent, billions of years of cosmic time could have elapsed at the outer edges of the cosmos in just one 24 hour earth day. There would have been more than enough time for the light from distant stars to have reached the earth so that when Adam gazed at the night sky on that sixth night he would have seen much the same as what we see today.
6,000 years have passed since the Creation Week. If the models outlined above are correct, the light from any star that is greater than 6,000 light years away from the earth will have originated on Day 4 itself. This would include most of the visible stars, all of which are part of the Milky Way galaxy. We are effectively looking at God’s creative activity on Day 4 as we gaze into the universe!
So what do we make of supernova 1987A? At 170,000 light years away we are looking at an event that occurred on Day 4 but whose light did not reach us until 1987.
Is an exploding star consistent with a perfect creation? God said that the stars were created to be for signs and seasons (Genesis 1:14) and God foreknew all that would happen right from the very beginning. What to us seems to be destruction is actually just a physical process which does not necessarily denote any lack of perfection in the original creation. Importantly, there is no loss of biblical life involved (thecreatures affected by death brought about by the Fall were those the Bible calls נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (nephesh chayyāh)).6

See the link: http://creation.com/how-can-distant-starlight-reach-us-in-just-6000-years

References

  1. Hubble, E.P., The Observational Approach to Cosmology The Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 50–59, 1937. Return to text.
  2. Assis, A.K.T., Neves, M.C.D. and Soares, D.S.L., Hubble s Cosmology: from a finite expanding universe to a static endless universe, Second Crisis in Cosmology Conference, 7–11 September 2008 | arxiv.org/abs/0806.4481v1 , 27 June 2008. Return to text.
  3. Two Degree Field Galactic Redshift Survey <www2.aao.gov.au/2dF/>. Return to text.
  4. Sloane Digital Sky Survey, <www.sdss.org/>. Return to text.
  5. Humphreys, D.R., New time dilation helps creation cosmology, Journal of Creation 22(3):84–92, 2008. Return to text.
  6. See Sarfati, J,. The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe: Hugh Ross s blunders on plant death in the BibleJournal of Creation 19(3):60–64, 2005. Return to text.

Friday, 11 July 2014

Some people want only as much of God's salvation as will keep them out of Hell!

From Grace Gems
   ~  ~  ~  ~
"Some people want only as much of God's salvation as will keep them out of Hell, and they measure out with unconscious precision how much worldliness and sin they can still hang on to without jeopardizing their chances. This is 'conversion' without repentance. Flee from it!" David Shepherd

"Are you guilty of this insidious practice? Are you unconsciously weighing out each day how much sin and worldliness you can still enjoy, and yet miss Hell's eternal torment and flames? If this is the case with you, then you are a religious pretender and a gross hypocrite who needs to swiftly run to the foot of the Cross and repent of such an atrocity!

"A 'worldly Christian'? Can there be such a thing? Or is this a term that the backslidden Church came up with to try to appease their guilty consciences and to excuse their ungodly ways? The concept of a 'worldly Christian' is a total absurdity! A true Christian is devoted, dedicated, or consecrated to God's service--not worldliness. We are either devoted to Jesus--or to the world. Which is it for you?" C. Giordano

"Nothing worse can happen to a church, than to be conformed to this world! Those who would be transfigured by Jesus, must not be disfigured by conformity to the world." Charles Spurgeon

"If I find anyone who is settled down too snugly into this world, I always doubt whether he's ever truly been born again." A.W. Tozer

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money!" Matthew 6:24 
   ~  ~  ~  ~
We have published several short quotes on the minced oaths and the sin of taking God's Name and Word in vain:

 The sin of sacrilege!
(Octavius Winslow, "The Officer's Daughter" 1861)

"I, the Lord, have spoken! I will bless those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at My Word." Isaiah 66:2

Alas! how prevalent the sin of sacrilege is — even with some professing Christians! The common use which is sometimes made of sacred words, the light and flippant manner in which holy phrases are employed, the carnal use which is frequently made of the words of Scripture itself, the interlarding of vain conversation with Scripture phraseology, and what are intended to be witticisms — at the expense of God's holy Word. These are sins of greater prevalence and magnitude than, perhaps, many who are beguiled into their commission are aware!

We can scarcely conceive of anything more grieving to the Holy Spirit — than the manner in which some people deal with His inspired Word. Nor is the low spirituality which this solemn trifling with the Bible betrays, less painful.

A heavenly mind will guard the sacredness and purity of God's Word with holy jealousy! How can it be otherwise? To the Bible, the instrumentality of God's truth — the believer is indebted for his quickening, for his sanctification, and for his comfort! To trifle, then, with that holy Word, to quote it flippantly, to speak of it irreverently, to jest with it profanely — would seem a crime from which a mind stored with its precious treasures, and imbued with its hallowed spirit — would recoil with holy dread!

Oh, beware, reader, how you sport with, or trifle with — God's holy Scriptures! Oh, it is a fearful thing to quote with sportive lip, to touch with unhallowed hands — the holy Word of God!

"My heart stands in awe of Your Word! I rejoice in Your Word like one who discovers a great treasure!" Psalm 119:161-162

(Editor's note: It is truly lamentable, that many professing Christians use the holy Word of God to amuse others with 'bible jokes' and in other trifling and irreverent ways. Much of today's pseudo-Christian music, movies and literature — use the Word of God in a flippant manner, if not in a downright profane and sacrilegious way.)

Little Sins

(J.R. Miller, "Daily Bible Readings in the Life of Christ" 1890)

"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same — will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 5:19

A great many people are careful about breaking large commandments and committing heinous sins — while they commit
'little sins' continually and without scruple.

They would not tell a direct lie for the world — but their speech is full of little falsehoods!

They would not steal money from the purse or drawer of another — and yet they continually commit small thefts! For example, by mistake the grocer gives them a penny too much change — and they do not think of returning it. Through the carelessness of a postal worker, the postage stamp on a letter is left uncancelled — and they take it off and use it a second time.

They would not purposely try to blacken a neighbor's name or destroy his character — and yet they repeat to others the evil whispers about him which they have heard, and thus soil his reputation.

They would not swear or curse in the coarse way of the ungodly — but they are continually using such minced oaths such as, Gosh! Gees! Heck! and other mild, timid substitutes for overt swearing.

They would not do flagrant acts of wickedness to disgrace themselves — but their lives are honeycombed with all kinds of little meannesses, impurities, selfishnesses, and bad tempers.

We need to remember, that little disobediences — harm our witness for the kingdom of Heaven.

Little sins — mar the beauty of our character.

Then, little sins are sure to grow! The trickling leak in the dike — becomes a torrent deluging vast plains!

Ofttimes, too, little sins are infinite in their consequences.

We ought never to indulge even the smallest faults or evil habits — but should aim always at perfection of character, and perfection is made up of 'littles'.
  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~
Editor's note: Minced oaths are used to avoid swearing, when expressing surprise or annoyance.
Minced oaths are usually, although not exclusively, religious in nature, and date from the days when it was irreverent and unacceptable to use the name of God, Jesus, or other sacred words in everyday speech. To mince your words, means to choose words so as not to offend anyone — except for God, who sees them as sacrilege (the sin of profaning sacred things).
Here are a few examples:
Bejabbers  —  By Jesus
By George  —  By God
By golly  —  By God
By gosh  —  By God
Chrissakes  —  For Christ's sake
Criminy  —  Christ
Cripes  —  Christ
Dad gum  —  God damn
Dagnabbit  —  God damn it
Dagnammit  —  God damn it
Dang  —  Damn
Darn  —  Damn
Darnation  —  Damnation
Doggone  —  God damn
Gee whizz  —  Jesus
Good grief  —  Good God
Goodness gracious  —  Good God
Gosh  —  God
Gosh darned  —  God damned
Heck  —  Hell
Jeepers Creepers  —  Jesus Christ
Jeez  —  Jesus
Jiminy Christmas  —  Jesus Christ
My goodness  —  My God
My gosh  —  My God
Tarnation  —  Damnation
 
Sacrilege!

(by Octavius Winslow)


Cultivate a profound reverence for God's Word. Nothing is more grievous to the Holy Spirit than a trifling with revelation. The words of Scripture are divinely inspired. "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Beware of referring to it with levity. To adopt the words of Scripture irreverently, or to employ its phraseology flippantly, is to cast discredit upon inspiration, to press it into the service of the flesh, and to make the Word of God the jest book of the profane. This is awful trifling with the thoughts and words of the Holy Spirit!

Stand in awe of this Holy Book!


God says, "I will bless those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at My Word." Isaiah 66:2

"Then all who trembled at the Words of the God of Israel..." Ezra 9:4

"We will follow the advice given by you and by the others who respect the commands of our God..." Ezra 10:3

"My flesh trembles in fear of you; I stand in awe of Your laws." Psalm 119:120

"My heart stands in awe of Your Word." Psalm 119:161

(Editor's note: How very sad is it that many professing Christians use the holy Word of God to amuse others with 'bible jokes' and in other trifling and irreverent ways. Much of today's pseudo Christian music, movies and children's literature use the Word of God in a flippant manner, if not in a downright profane and sacrilegious way.)

Sunday, 29 June 2014

A Critique of Eric Reitan's Article:


‘Anti-Gay Bigotry, Sincere Belief, and Christianity’

Of recently I was asked by a friend to give a response to Mr. Reitan’s article: “Anti-Gay Bigotry, Sincere Belief, and Christianity” written on Sunday April, 6, 2014 on his blogsite.[1] The article opens up with a popular meme going around the social media. Here below, I have recopied it so my readers can see the meme for themselves.


On the most part, as a Bible believing Christian I agree with the meme above, but of course my opponents will disagree with it. Since the meme above was the focus of Mr. Reitan’s article, my focus will be on examining his comments to see if it lines up with the facts and with what God says about the matter in the Holy Scriptures.

After carefully considering Eric Reitan’s article and what it has to say about the subject of homosexuality. It had raised a few concerns that I will be addressing in my thoughts below. So let us consider the matter before us.

First, I want to open by stating that I will not be dealing with the Huffington Post article that Mr. Reitan alludes to. That’s an article best left for another time to respond to. My primary focus will be on Eric’s article.

Second, It is good to see that Mr. Reitan acknowledges to a degree the love Christians desire to show to their gay and lesbian neighbors. He writes, “Let me start with the grain of truth. There are Christians out there--I've known many of them--who are sincerely committed to the love command of Christianity, who sincerely wish to show love for their gay and lesbian neighbors,…” However, he then goes on to reiterate one of the common phrases used by homosexual advocates to bully them into silence with such terms as “phobic”[2]

I think it is important to mention here the meaning behind the word homophobia. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says the following:

“An irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals—homophobe/ homophobic.”[3]

However, not all agree with the term homophobia, as one online article mentions:

“Perhaps the leading researcher and writer on homophobia from a gay perspective is Greg Herek, and he clearly expresses his reservations about homophobia, preferring the term sexual prejudice:

Sexual prejudice refers to negative attitudes toward an individual because of her or his sexual orientation. In this article, it is used to characterize heterosexuals’ negative attitudes toward (a) homosexual behavior; (b) people with a homosexual or bisexual orientation; and (c) communities of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Sexual prejudice is a preferable term to homophobia because it conveys no assumptions about the motivations underlying negative attitudes, locates the study of attitudes concerning sexual orientation within the broader context of social psychological research on prejudice, and avoids value judgments about such attitudes.”[4]

As you can see from the quote above, the term homophobia is not favored by Mr. Herek, who prefers the term “sexual prejudice.” Though I disagree with Mr. Herek, I believe his term is the better one. Sexual prejudice better explains how a homosexual feels in the face of those who disagree with him or her. However, the term is still wrong in light of God’s Word that clearly condemns homosexuality (more about that later).

What is even more interesting, the same online article I quoted from above gives its own criticism of the term homophobia in this comment below:

“For different reasons homophobia has been condemned, as inaccurate and not always appropriate for the purpose by gay writers and activists, and as a deliberately misleading and sinister smear by those opposed to the gay agenda. Thoughtful writers on both sides agree that the word rarely if ever means a debilitating irrational fearfulness of homosexuals or homosexuality, a meaning strictly required by psychiatric nomenclature. Probably for those very reasons, its broadness and its guilt-inducing and mental illness connotations, the word has served, and continues to serve, a most useful political purpose and despite its limitations is not likely to be abandoned any time soon.”[5]

I wholeheartedly agree with the quote above. My personal experience on online forums such as Youtube, Facebook, and even my personal email has people using the term homophobia as a political tool, often use it to silence those who oppose homosexuality and its agenda. Both myself and many other devote Christians who love our homosexual neighbors and want to reach out in love to them, do not suffer from a so-called ‘overwhelming irrational fear’ of homosexuals. We do not scream, “Eeeek! Look! A homosexual! Run!” No, in faithfulness to God and love to our homosexual neighbors we seek to share the TRUTH of God’s Word and what it says about homosexuality. Dr. James Dobson gives this insight on how Christians should treat their homosexual neighbor:

“As Christians, we must never do anything to cause hurt and rejection, especially to those with whom we disagree emphatically. We certainly cannot introduce homosexuals to Jesus Christ if we are calling them names and driving them away. Believers are called to show compassion and love to those who would be our enemies. These people, some of whom seem hateful themselves, need to be welcomed into the church and made to feel accepted and appreciated. At the same time, we must oppose their agenda, which is harmful to society, to families, and ultimately to homosexuals themselves.”[6]

Third, before I get into the three main points Mr. Reitan talks about, I believe it is worth while quoting his last paragraph in his introduction and make a few comments in what I have observed in it. It is as follows:

“In some cases, the Christians I've know who fit this description seem to wish quite sincerely that the Bible didn't say what they take it to say--because they are uncomfortable with the implications. They have gay friends and, while trying to avoid the subject when they can, feel that their allegiance to their faith demands that they call all gay/lesbian sex wrong when asked. They say, almost apologetically, "I'm just saying what I believe. It's nothing personal against you."” I don’t doubt there are those Christians who do feel “uncomfortable” with what the Bible says about homosexuality, since it is clearly condemned in the Scriptures. Such saints need to ask themselves this question, “Does a “loving monogamous” homosexual relationship justify it as being “Right” in light of the Holy Scriptures, or is it better to compromise on this issue so not to offend my homosexual neighbor, or is it better to just tell the TRUTH?” If we truly LOVE our homosexual neighbor (see Matt. 22:39), we will tell him or her the truth. That is the right thing to do. Love does not rejoice in wrongdoing [homosexuality], but rejoices in the truth [heterosexuality] (1 Cor. 13:6).

Fourth, now let us consider the three main points in the body of his argument and come to the conclusion of what the truth really is.

  1. First and foremost, it is Personal.

Under this first heading by Mr. Reitan, the author fallaciously argues the issue of homosexuality is personal. Often, gay people like to equate homosexuality to their identity. Some of them like to argue that being gay is innate, they were born that way. I can accept the fact that some people have more of an inclination towards homosexuality than other people do. However, a homosexual is NOT who he/she really is, it’s what they choose to do. Since we all possess a sinful nature, we all have desires and temptations we can fall prey to if we are not careful in making the right choice.

Next, we see Mr. Reitan appealing to his reader’s emotions through the illustration he uses to try to persuade us on how terrible it would be if some person was committed to breaking our marriage apart from the person we dearly love. He argues, because they love each other that makes their relationship before God alright. The author here is trying to equate same-sex marriage with heterosexual marriage. This of course is an erroneous argument. He is appealing to our emotions, instead of appealing to the TRUTH. The truth is the Holy Scripture does not recognize same-sex marriage. Actually, it is in opposition against the true order and purpose of marriage, which God ordained to be between a man and a woman. Also, it is a picture of Christ and the Church. The fact is same-sex marriage is a perversion of the true model of marriage between a man and a woman who are a picture of Christ [the man] and the Church [the woman] (see 1 Cor. 7:2; Eph. 5:22-33).

Then Mr. Reitan concludes his first point with these words: “And the personal effects would be devastating,…” Here, Mr. Reitan argues about “the personal effects would be devastating,” while at the same time ignoring the “devastating effects” that homosexuality has already had on our society. Funny how he conveniently did not consider addressing that issue.

  1. Beliefs can be Unloving.

Wow! There is so much I take issue with here in this second point. So for brevity’s sake, I will only address some of his key points that caught my attention.

First, Mr. Reitan argues, “Standing by certain beliefs can affect people’s lives. And this means that standing by a belief can be loving or unloving towards your gay and lesbian neighbors. To stand by the belief that all gay/lesbian sex is wrong is to be committed to the systematic social marginalization of gays and lesbians, and to be committed to ending their meaningful, loving intimate life-partnerships. In the face of that, an assurance of love and friendship and a promise not to “bully” can sound pretty darned hollow.” To begin with, standing by certain beliefs can affect people’s lives. Of course it does, it is supposed to. Now as for the Biblical “stand” or “belief” that Christians like myself hold to on the issue of homosexuality is the LOVING position to hold to, because it is based on God’s Word. But of course, you are going to cry foul, when I quote such Scriptures that condemns homosexuality as sin. You, like many other advocates for homosexuality will accuse me of being "unloving" and a hateful, bigoted, homophobe. All because I stand on the truth of what God's Word says about homosexuality. 

(To be Continued...)



[1] http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.ca
[2] This phrase “phobic” is a shortened form of the term “homophobic,” which is another form of the word “homophobia.”
[3] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Sixth Ed., (Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield, Massachusetts, USA; 2004), pg. 344.
[6] Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle, (Multnomah Publishers, Sisters, OR, 2004), pg. 73.