Reproach of Men

Back in April of 2011, I wrote a post critical of Barak Obama for his childish behavior. This was a year before Obama ran for, and was elected to a second term. The post is very clear that Barak Obama was, and still is in many respects, a child. I wrote nothing else about Obama for the duration of his time in office as I really didn’t have time to write, and it was clear that America was content with a child president.

That contentment with an infantile president was amply demonstrated in 2016 and since, by the election of Donald Trump as president. I actually thought that America would not elect a president more childish than Obama, as Americans would become sick of his childishness. I was wrong.

Rather, Americans have doubled-down on insisting on having a child for president. If anything, Donald Trump is far more childish than Obama. Trump is also far more erratic and unstable, exhibiting serious signs of mental instability, even to the point of delusional pronouncements such as the following gems:

“Big areas don’t want sanctuary cities. They want to be safe. They don’t want them. We had to fund our military. Our military was depleted.” (Yes, the “sentences” run back to back, without pause.)

“Six years ago, I wasn’t even running. The Republican of the year award. Maybe they knew what was going to happen.” (This was 2017 and six years previous Trump did not get any such award)

(The following is from November, 2019. If you can follow it, it’s pretty wild. It’s also not coherent)
“The light bulb — they got rid of the light bulb that people got used to. The new bulb is many times more expensive and — I hate to say it — it doesn’t make you look as good. Of course, being a vain person, that’s very important to me. It’s like — it gives you an orange look. I don’t want an orange look. Has anyone noticed that? So we’ll have to change those bulbs in at least a couple rooms where I am in the White House. … We have a situation where we’re looking very strongly at sinks and showers. And other elements of bathrooms — where you turn the faucet on, in areas where there’s tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it — and you don’t get any water. You turn on the faucet and you don’t get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out, just dripping out, very quietly, dripping out. People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once. They end up using more water. So EPA is looking at that very strongly, at my suggestion. You go into a new building, or a new house or a new home, and they have standards where you don’t get water. You can’t wash your hands practically, so little water comes out of the faucet. And the end result is you leave the faucet on and it takes you much longer to wash your hands. .. For the most part. you have many states where they have so much water, it comes down — it’s called rain. They don’t know what to do with it. … A lot of things we do are based on common sense. If I didn’t get elected you wouldn’t have a steel industry. … We weren’t going to have a steel industry.”

There a literally dozens of such pronouncements from Donald Trump. Each of them disconnected from reality. Yet, the Republicans see no problem with this and do not even question Trump’s fitness for the office of the Presidency.

This is literally children reinforcing the bad behavior of a child, instead of acting as a check and balance on Trump’s behavior.

Thus, it bears repeating:

Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning! (Ecclesiastes 10:16)

And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. (Isaiah 3:4-5)

Truly, America has a child ruling over it, and children in positions of authority. This is a curse from the LORD God. This will not end well.

On May 23, the New York Times Editorial Board decided to weigh in on the “same sex” marriage referendum in Ireland.

Granted, the Irish decided to continue down the road to national oblivion in approving “same sex” marriage as legal in their constitution. However, that is Ireland’s business if they are insane enough to do that. But, it hasn’t helped Ireland that it has been on the wrong side of history for quite a few decades now. Ireland has been steadily going down the road to cradle to grave socialism for quite some time now – and it has had its effect.

Presently, Irish debt to GDP is at 123%, which means they owe more than they can make. In short, they are economically bankrupt. However, that mirrors the moral situation perfectly, as they are morally bankrupt as well.

Nevertheless, that is Ireland’s problem, and not the United States’ problem. However, the New York Times decided to stick its nose in that situation, sniff, and then pontificate to us poor, unwashed, unenlightened masses about how worthless our values and morals are.

Specifically, what they stated is this:

“In a statement conceding defeat, the Iona Institute, the main opposition group, said it would continue to affirm “the importance of biological ties and of motherhood and fatherhood.” The absurdity of that statement speaks for itself.”1

I suppose the members of the Editorial Board of the Times entered the world as hatchlings? They surely couldn’t be human, because humans require a mother and a father. When we don’t have that, it is destabilizing.

It is quite clear that children that have both a father and mother who are present and accounted for, do far better than children in any other “arrangement” that exists. If you really care to dispute that, then look at the crime demographics, particularly for children of unwed mothers, or children of households in which one parent is missing. Kindly look at the suicide rate for those who identify themselves as “gay.” Examine the suicide rate for children of those “non-traditional” households.

I guess the New York Times thinks these are good things?

However, that is not the end of the story. The Times Editorial Board evidently thinks that history doesn’t matter. They would do well to note that the rise of Western Civilization was built on families which had a mother and a father. Western Civilization is being torn down and destroyed even as the “traditional” family is collapses. So it is that the short-sighted journalists of the Times cannot see that they are cheerleading destruction and degradation.

I am well aware that the Times Editorial Board does not believe in the LORD God. Thus it is virtually pointless to warn them about history and the witness of every society on earth which has turned this way. All those societies were destroyed. I am certain the Times is totally blind to that. Thus, it would be pointless to warn them.

That’s okay. They will have all eternity to figure it out.

1. The Victory for Same-Sex Marriage in Ireland [↩]

Do you have the inherent right to abort a child?

Do you have the inherent right to abort the life of anyone?

I had a lengthy conversation with a gentleman today. During that conversation he brought up a point that was dead on applicable to so much of the culture we live in. The belief that so many have regarding whether they have a “right” to perform some action doesn’t seem to be grounded in anything — period. The specific topic at that point in the conversation was atheism and the inane idea atheists have about how everything came to be. With regard to the creation of things, he made a statement that was profound in its implications. I don’t know whether he came up with this or heard it and repeated it, but it is well worth considering and taking to heart particularly in certain contexts, such as the abortion debate:

If you can’t create it, you have no business destroying it.

However much anyone might like to claim, getting pregnant is not a sure thing for any woman. Moreover, the child that is destroyed in an abortion, cannot be brought back to life again. Unless the person killing the child has the power to bring it back to life again, they have no business killing the child.

If you do not have the inherent power to create life and bring the dead back to life, then you don’t have the inherent right to take life.

This is why that all taking of life must be legally justified. The state cannot take life unless the person deprives another of their life, and that is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. The individual cannot take life unless theirs is imminently threatened. There must be a compelling, beyond the shadow of a doubt reason for life to be taken — and for such a drastic action to be justified.

Otherwise, you are simply a murderer.

— End of story —

 On January 15, in the wake of the Islamist attacks on the French Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine, the Pope came out and had the following to say about the violent attacks1

“You cannot provoke,” Pope Francis said on Thursday. “You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

Though he defended the principle of free expression and paid lip service to the notion that violence is always wrong, he warned “you can’t make a toy out of the religions of others.”

“To kill in the name of God is an aberration,” Francis said. However, he added that it was natural for those who have been insulted to lash out violently.

“In freedom of expression, there are limits, like in regard to my mom,” Francis continued. “If he says a swear word against my mother, he’s going to get a punch in the nose. That’s normal.”2

I wonder if the Pope really understands the difference between children and adults? Children get offended at many things and never allow an offense to pass. Adults, on the other hand, can be insulted and overlook the offensive statement, understanding that words spoken or written reflect far more on the one speaking or writing, than on what is spoken of, or written about. Apparently Pope Francis does not understand that distinction at all.

Perhaps that is because the Pope shares far more with the immature persons in the Muslim world than he does with any sort of maturity level sought for in rational western culture. At least at one time in western culture, striving to be as mature and understanding as possible was a goal.

It certainly is a desired for goal from a Scriptural point of view. In the Scripture we are admonished continually to grow and be mature and let nothing offend us. We are continually encouraged and exhorted to not be children.

But, there again, being a Catholic, the chances of the Pope actually reading the Scripture to receive that exhortation are slim to none. To defend childish behavior as normal, certainly indicates he didn’t.

Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them. (Psalm 119:165)

1. I should note here that the Vatican website notes that the interview took place, but somehow doesn’t have the text. Emphasis in bold is mine. [↩]
2. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/15/the-latest-to-justify-religious-violence-pope-francis/ [↩]

While doing research on what various Christian denominations and groups believe about the origin of sin, I ran across the following article “Where Did Sin Come From?” which explored the question of the origin of sin. The summation of the article did not answer the question at all, but left the reader with the following questions:

To answer our question, ‘Where did sin come from?’, we make the following conclusions:

1. Although Lucifer spawned the first sin, he was not the creator of the concept of sin.
2. The concept of sin has always been known to the all-knowing God.
3. Sin exists because—either it is a created concept of God brought about by God’s decrees, or, it has always co-existed as the eternal antithesis of everything that God is.
4. Sin could only experientially exist because, although God cannot sin, He made creatures who could.

I could not bear it, and emailed the webmaster with the following question:

Who wrote this nonsense? Give me a name please.

And listed the questions above. I then finished with the following statement:

This evidences a complete and total lack of understanding. Whoever wrote this, missed the mark.

The gentleman who wrote it answered back, and was gracious (considering my initial contact email) and stated that I had contested, but gave no reasons for disagreement. Moreover, he would be glad to address my concerns.

Fair enough. After all, had he been less than gracious, I would have deserved it. I thanked him for being gracious, and sent the following reply:

Sin has a cause, and that is transgression, which is brought about because of iniquity:

And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me. (Jeremiah 33:8)

Iniquity leads to transgression, which immediately results in sin.

Iniquity is the property of being unequal in any of one’s ways:

Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?  (Ezekiel 18:29-31)

When the LORD states that the ways of the people of Israel are unequal, and He then calls them to turn so iniquity will not be their ruin, He is defining what iniquity is. To help in our understanding, we can use the analogy of a math equation (which is an equality):

In thinking about equations: If we introduce into it any element that makes it unequal, what are our chances of making it equal if we don’t realize what we did? What are our chances of actually realizing we introduced an inequality? Moreover, if our understanding is not accurate because we perceive the equation wrongly (unequally — that is, not as it actually is), what are our chances of self-correction?

When a mistake is made working an equation, generally the person does not realize they erred, else they stop immediately and correct the error. However, the divergence with righteousness and iniquity here is that once a thought exists, it cannot be unthought or taken back. Since it is that the LORD judges the thoughts of the heart, once Lucifer had that one thought of being more glorious that the LORD on the throne, he committed an iniquity. Due to the very nature of inequality, he could not go back, nor find his way back.Because of this iniquity, pride arose, and Satan viewed himself to be better than the LORD God in numerous ways. Hence, he rebelled.

Now to look at righteousness: Being righteous is being equal in all one’s ways (which only the LORD God is):

Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.  (Psalms 98:9)

Here, like in Ezekiel, the LORD defines another term. Only in this case, it is righteousness. Putting the two together: Righteousness is the property of being equal in ALL one’s ways, and iniquity is the property of being unequal in ANY of one’s ways. It is of necessity true that if righteousness requires for all ways to be equal, that being (or becoming) unequal in any of one’s ways, means that one has iniquity. Moreover, like the math equation, being unequal in one part, spreads to every other part — and it grows.

Once one cannot perceive correctly because of being unequal (iniquity), the determination of what is the right thing to do is clouded and misperceived. It is easy to see then how we can transgress the bounds if we have difficulty perceiving where the bounds are. As soon as we transgress, we have missed the mark (sinned).

Briefly, to answer the final points you put forth in the article:

To answer our question, ‘Where did sin come from?’, we make the following conclusions: [My answers are in square brackets — italics for the web]

1. Although Lucifer spawned the first sin, he was not the creator of the concept of sin. [There is no “concept of sin.” Sin is not a concept. Rather, is a direct result of transgression (which is exceeding the bounds – thus missing the mark), which is brought about because of iniquity. Satan exercised iniquity because he thought in his heart that he was better than the LORD sitting on the throne he was covering (the descriptions of both the LORD and Satan are in the Scriptures, and that difference is significant). The “problem” is that the LORD gave both angels and men freewill and the ability to judge, but they were not given omniscience. Hence, perception and understanding were limited. Satan lost sight of who created him and gave him all that he had. To man, Satan is beyond genius. But he lost sight of the fact that he was GIVEN that. Just like his beauty and musical ability, his intelligence was given him by the LORD God. However, once he lost sight of that, it was a mere thought of the heart to become unequal – which slipped him into iniquity. Now Satan can never return from that, but only gets more and more unequal over time.]

2. The concept of sin has always been known to the all-knowing God. [No, the fact that creatures with free-will and the ability to judge, yet not having omniscience would have the potential to slip into iniquity, was known to the LORD God. Nevertheless, He chose to create them that way, and would deal with the consequences. The LORD God already knew what those consequences were, but He desired to create beings that would love Him of their own volition. The very nature of free-will, combined with the ability to judge, creates a situation in which the potential for iniquity exists. However, for love to be genuine, the will must be free, and to actually choose freely, one must be able to judge independently – that is, of oneself, given the facts to make a determination.]

3. Sin exists because—either it is a created concept of God brought about by God’s decrees, or, it has always co-existed as the eternal antithesis of everything that God is. [This is a false choice. We are to choose between the LORD God being the ultimate author of sin, or the core of Taoism? This is expressly man’s view, which lacks understanding of iniquity and righteousness.]

4. Sin could only experientially exist because, although God cannot sin, He made creatures who could. [Here you are closest to being right, but answer no questions. You would have to explain what you mean by “He made creatures who could.” How, and in what way?]

You are getting the essence of the doctrine. This is by no means extensive in addressing the ramifications of iniquity. But, it should briefly explain where sin came from. Of course, if you are of Calvinist or Reformed persuasion, you will likely reject everything I say.

In Christ,

Paul W. Davis

In the Scripture the following account is given of an interaction between the Lord Jesus Christ and a young man:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (Matthew 19:16-21)

In light of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, please answer the following questions:

1. If Calvinism is true, why did the Lord Jesus Christ lie to the young man?
2. Why did he not tell him that he was not ordained to eternal life, and there was no point in trying?
3. Surely Jesus knew the young man would not believe. Why did he string him along with a promise he had no intention of fulfilling?
4. In fact, what he told the young man couldn’t be fulfilled as the man was obviously not ordained to life. Why did Jesus do this?

Why did the Calvinist Jesus deceive the man (and everyone else who has knowledge of this incident) and lie to him? How is this righteous?

Here’s the short answer: It isn’t.

Moreover, no amount of logic twisting and distorting the words of Scripture are going to make it so. How can it be acceptable for the Lord Jesus to not tell the man the truth of his predicament? After all, in Matthew 23, he told the Pharisees the truth of their predicament? What would be the difference here?

If you tell one, you have to tell the other. That is the only righteous way to deal with both situations. That is the only way that is equal.

Don’t be like the Catholics and tell me “It’s a mystery.” That is a cop out and a dodge. Besides, it is obvious that there can only be one answer under Calvinist doctrine:

This ‘Jesus’ committed iniquity.

And, since the Calvinist Jesus committed iniquity, how does he pay for the sins of anyone else? How is he that “perfect sacrifice” which is necessary for the payment of the sins of those he ‘saves?’

I would like an honest answer. Unfortunately, based upon all my interaction with those holding Calvinist/Reformed doctrine, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it. I have yet to meet one that is intellectually honest.

Still, it would be good to see the explanation.

Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. (Ezekiel 18:29-30)

Why is it that the LORD God is able to maintain His righteousness, or the equality of all His ways in and of Himself.

To begin with, the LORD God is omniscient, that is, He knows all things. This is not merely having all knowledge, (which we typically think of as mere information) but includes all understanding of that information, and all wisdom to properly apply that information.

We must understand that having knowledge, which is information, is not merely enough, but one must know the significance of that information, which is understanding. One must also know how to apply the information to everything that concerns them. The ability to properly apply the information and understanding one has, is called wisdom. The Scripture is express that the LORD God’s understanding is infinite, which of necessity, means that His knowledge is infinite, or omniscient.

Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:5)

Understanding in itself is a kind of knowledge. It does not simply deal with information, but deals with the significance of that information: that is what that information means and how it relates to everything else. Understanding is essential to wisdom, for without understanding, there is simply no way to determine the weight, or significance of one thing versus another: whether something is to be of concern, or whether it can be ignored, or is of lesser significance.

Hence, we are led to wisdom, which is essential for the construct of things. Wisdom in itself is a kind of knowledge. It is the knowledge of how information is to be applied and how it will work out as things interact. Without it, it would have been impossible for the LORD God to create anything that worked. And yet, so wise is the LORD in His creation that even in a corrupted state, it still is a wonder to behold and works quite well.

To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever. (Psalm 136:5)

The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. (Proverbs 3:19)

Thus, when we say the LORD God is omniscient, it, in practical terms, means that the LORD God knows all that exists, and knows all the significance of everything, and is able to properly weight that information and thus apply it properly and correctly to every situation that exists or could exist, for all eternity.

In sum, the LORD God knows all things, and all out-workings that are and can be of those things and their interaction with all other things, for all time and eternity. Moreover, He knows that He knows all things which are, and knows that He knows all out-workings that are and will be. Additionally, the LORD God knows there is nothing else to know that can be known.

Without this knowledge and understanding, maintaining His righteousness would be impossible as He must know the end, and possible ends of everything that is or could be. Else, there exists the possibility of any action made by the LORD God that would be unequal in its end. This would yield unrighteousness, which is impossible with the LORD God.

But ominscience is not enough to maintain righteousness. It is not sufficient to merely have all knowledge so that in all workings accomplished, the end of all is known. Rather, one must also love equity or equality:

Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD’S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men. The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup. For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright. (Psalm 11:4-7)

(Here I speak as a man, from man’s perspective): Without a love for righteousness, there is no motivator to be righteous, though one may know all things which are, or could be, and the outworking of them all,

The LORD God delights in equity in all things, and in all His ways. It is His greatest pleasure to see things which are equal, balanced and true. Whether that equity, which is righteousness, is from the things He makes directly, or from His creatures, it is a delight to His soul to behold them.

Without this love for equity, righteousness and truth, which is in and of Himself, coupled with His omniscience, which is in and of Himself, righteousness would not be maintained.

This post updated and expanded — 07/21/2014

Today, the New York Times ran an article about one Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City and a very wealthy man. Unfortunately, Mr. Bloomberg has decided that he can play nanny to everyone and decide for them what is best for them. To that end, Mr. Bloomberg opposes firearms ownership, the use of tobacco, and the consumption of certain foods, holding that all are bad for the rest of us.

In the final paragraph of this puff piece, Mr. Bloomberg had this to say about the end of his efforts:

But if he senses that he may not have as much time left as he would like, he has little doubt about what would await him at a Judgment Day. Pointing to his work on gun safety, obesity and smoking cessation, he said with a grin: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”

Let it never be said that Michael Bloomberg runs short on pride. However that may be, Mr. Bloomberg missed the standard by which one gains entrance into heaven:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

The reason it is by the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone, is because He, and He alone meets the standard of righteousness the Father demands. Hence, through the Lord Jesus Christ and His work of redemption, salvation is, always has been, and ever will be by grace, and grace alone:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

And again:

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:5-6)

Thus, the Scripture is quite plain that you will do it by grace and grace alone, as works and grace are mutually exclusive. But, it is quite evident Mr. Bloomberg has chosen works for his justification before the LORD God, which is to his condemnation:

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11-15)

Moreover, poor Michael misses the boat altogether in that he thinks being wealthy and powerful are what might qualify him in the first place. However, had he read the following, he would have known the LORD God has no use for him in his present state:

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. (I Corinthians 1:26-29)

And he compounds his error in that he stated “I am telling you if there is a God,…” which is a blatant insult to the LORD God, and shows how very far away Mr. Bloomberg is from ever pleasing the LORD:

Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

Pray for the poor man. He needs all the help he can get. He is wretched, naked, poor and blind, and doesn’t even realize it.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)

I do not watch, nor do I care about Duck Dynasty. I don’t have time for television, and I really don’t need to waste what time I have on a “reality show.” That stated, I do happen to know a bit about Duck Dynasty as there are those I work with who do watch it, and news about it is all over the internet.

So, when the elder of the family that the program is about makes comments that get him fired from the show, it makes news. It is the comments that interest me. More precisely, it is the reaction to the comments that I am interested in. Comments such as this one:

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.1

Now, I happen to know that the family that the show is built around is Church of Christ. I take issue with the perversion of the Gospel of Christ that the Church of Christ puts forth as the “truth.” I can legitimately do this as I do know something about the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ, specifically the Gospel. However, I just don’t think Wilson Cruz does.

I don’t think Wilson Cruz is anywhere near qualified to state what Christians believe, or to make comment about anything relating to the Scripture.

Why?

Let’s try the following passages of Scripture, and keep firmly in mind that the LORD in the Old Testament that came to man and dealt directly with man, is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Yes, bear that in mind that the one who died on the cross is also the one that spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, and spoke to Job and his friends out of the whirlwind.

The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD: And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt. (Genesis 19:23-29)

This same LORD had eaten a meal with Abraham the previous day, and Abraham had interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah, that the LORD should not destroy them should at least ten (10) righteous men be found in them. By the way, what was Sodom and Gomorrah’s wickedness that warranted destruction?

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. (Leviticus 18:22-23)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Just who was it that gave the Levitical Law to Moses to give to the children of Israel? Who was it that met with Moses on Mount Sinai?

Well, that would be the Word, who would take the office of Christ and die to reconcile man to the LORD God.

This also belongs to Christ Jesus:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:7-13)

Hence, when the apostle Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, he penned chapter one by the Holy Ghost, who instructed him in accordance with what the Lord Jesus Christ wanted conveyed. And what does chapter one convey to everyone?

The descent into destruction:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:22-32)

Why does the LORD God call homosexuality an abomination?

Answer a couple of simple questions:

1. What if everyone engaged in same gender relationships only?
2. What would happen to the human race?

Suicide. Self-murder.

Homosexuality is against the very design of man. This kind of activity is destructive to the entire human race.

There is only one creature, one man that would delight in seeing the race of man engage in self-destructive behavior.

Satan.

Why? Because man is made in the similitude of God, and Satan hates the LORD God.

However, man does not need any help in engaging in self-destructive beliefs and behavior. Our own iniquity is plenty sufficient a generator of bad doctrine and the resultant behavior.

It won’t be any comfort to Wilson Cruz, but Phil of Duck Dynasty has his own set of problems to resolve before the LORD — his corrupt understanding of the Gospel:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

You see, Church of Christ doctrine demands that you be baptized for salvation. Hence, they hold that one is not saved unless one is baptized. However, the Scripture states otherwise:

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (I Corinthians 1:17)

And:

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:6)

Quite obviously water baptism is a work, and it is not part of the Gospel. Which means Church of Christ salvation is of works, and thus under a curse.

Being right about the wickedness of homosexuality is cold comfort when the most important knowledge to obtain is a true Gospel. Whether one is an abomination, or simply accursed, wrong is still wrong. Both individuals fall short of the truth — and it is going to cost them in the end.

Ignorance, it seems, has a rather loud voice.

1. ‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks, The Hollywood Reporter [↩]

The following was posted on Facebook by someone who will remain nameless:

I think man wants to believe in god because believing in our ourselves would require taking responsibility for the horrible things we have done, it’s much easier to lay the blame for that on our “nature” and pray to an imagined construct for salvation than to take responsibility for ourselves.

Christianity, why are you so fallacious?

***sigh***
Either it is ignorance of history, particularly recent (last 200 years or so) history, or the individual posting this just wanted to say something, anything to strike back. The reason I state that is because of the unmitigated slaughter which has taken place in the last 200 years by governments and organizations which, as a tenet of their philosophy, expressly deny the existence of God.

Let’s look at the numbers1:

20th Century democide

And the numbers of dead are from those humanists who (according to the poster on Facebook) have no problem taking responsibility for what they have done. Of course, that is a lie as the regimes attempted to hide what they were doing as long as they could. Moreover, to the victims of such regimes, I really don’t think it makes any difference — dead is still dead. We must also remember that the God-rejecting communists did all this in the name of making man “better,” of creating the “new communist man” devoid of any “superstition.”2

In the following chart (also taken from the Democide site), the numbers above are narrowed to include only communist regimes:

It is the 259,432,000 persons that is utterly staggering to consider. At this time (10/2013) there are approximately 300,000,000 individuals in the United States. If the number of dead, killed by the humanist-driven communists, where to be subtracted from our present population, the United States would be left with barely over 40,000,000 individuals. That is just a tad over 86.4 percent of the population of the United States.

The following is from the page “HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?” By R.J. Rummel, in which he explains the motivation of the communists:

How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with the absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the way of its achievement. Government–the Communist Party–was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in building the new world.

Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle. In a war millions may die, but the cause may be well justified, as in the defeat of Hitler and an utterly racist Nazism. And to many communists, the cause of a communist utopia was such as to justify all the deaths. The irony of this is that communism in practice, even after decades of total control, did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made their living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the greatest famines have occurred within the Soviet Union (about 5,000,000 dead during 1921-23 and 7,000,000 from 1932-3) and communist China (about 27,000,000 dead from 1959-61). In total almost 55,000,000 people died in various communist famines and associated diseases, a little over 10,000,000 of them from democidal famine. This is as though the total population of Turkey, Iran, or Thailand had been completely wiped out. And that something like 35,000,000 people fled communist countries as refugees, as though the countries of Argentina or Columbia had been totally emptied of all their people, was an unparalleled vote against the utopian pretensions of Marxism-Leninism.

But communists could not be wrong. After all, their knowledge was scientific, based on historical materialism, an understanding of the dialectical process in nature and human society, and a materialist (and thus realistic) view of nature. Marx has shown empirically where society has been and why, and he and his interpreters proved that it was destined for a communist end. No one could prevent this, but only stand in the way and delay it at the cost of more human misery. Those who disagreed with this world view and even with some of the proper interpretations of Marx and Lenin were, without a scintilla of doubt, wrong. After all, did not Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Mao say that. . . . In other words, communism was like a fanatical religion. It had its revealed text and chief interpreters. It had its priests and their ritualistic prose with all the answers. It had a heaven, and the proper behavior to reach it. It had its appeal to faith. And it had its crusade against nonbelievers.3

No, the poster on Facebook is quite incorrect. When the humanist considers in his heart that there is nothing he will have to pay for when he leaves this earth, then he is free to do whatever he wants when he is in power. Conversely, rather than God being a crutch and excuse, one who is truly saved understands that they are accountable for every thought, every word, every action. Moreover, they understand that they are no better than their fellow man and that everyone is judged by the LORD, who uses the same standard for all.

The poster of the comment on Facebook also does not understand that one of the great shortcomings of communism is that it does not allow for a diversity of opinion. Not one single tenet of its doctrine allows for liberty of the conscience. In fact, this shortcoming is found in virtually every false system of belief. There are those who claim that Biblical Christianity doesn’t either. But, I will submit to them that they never truly read the Scripture:

Of Liberty of the Conscience
I believe that liberty of the conscience, which is the liberty of the soul to freely choose what one will believe and accept, is essential for the individual to be accountable before God for the choices that are made and actions that are taken. I believe that the LORD God, in creating men and angels with a free will, bestowed upon us liberty of the conscience, and it is His desire that it be no other way. Howsoever, it is also the LORD’s express will that all men be reconciled to Him through Christ Jesus so that the original design of man is fulfilled, in that man is able to freely fellowship with the LORD God, which is not possible in man’s unregenerate state. In making the capacity to freely choose possible, the LORD God has provided in His word both the commandments He has given as our Creator, and explanation of the consequences of the choices we, as individuals, may make.

As such, it is not proper or permissible that anyone coerce, force, or attempt to force another to believe anything. This is particularly true concerning the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. A person must freely choose, being fully persuaded in their heart and soul, to repent and believe the Gospel. This freedom to choose holds true in all service to the LORD. One must freely choose to serve the LORD, just as one must freely choose to bring tithes and offerings. Anything less than this free choice will not be, and is not accepted of the LORD, as it comes of a heart improperly motivated. Thus, it is required in all a person may do pertaining to the LORD, from salvation and throughout all service, that it be done of a genuine and sincere love for the LORD God for it to be accepted.

In all cases, the individual must and will bear the express consequences for the choices made, as all choices the individual may make are solely the responsibility of that person, even if it appears the choice were made under duress.

Scripture References
Isaiah 1:18; Proverbs 3:31-32; Leviticus 1:1-3; II Corinthians 9:7; Genesis 4:6-7; Deuteronomy 30:15-20; Joshua 24:15; Romans 4:16-21; II Kings 17:13-15; Proverbs 1:20-30; Jeremiah 6:16; Ezekiel 33:10-11; II Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:1-4; Ezekiel 18:20; Matthew 23:37-38; Acts 7:51-53; Hebrews 9:27; Galatians 5:13-14; I Peter 5:5-7; Isaiah 56:1-7; Revelation 22:12-17.

Hence, I could ask: Humanist, why are you in denial of the truth about man? Do you not know that makes you full of fallacy and doomed to fail?

1. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM [↩]
2. ibid [↩]
3. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM [↩]