The Right Spin

There's a divide within our nation. This isn't old news. However, as I was reading an article something the author stated made me think:

As the left-liberal root-causes rot has it, people are basically good. When and if they go astray, it's because someone caused them to. Crime is said to be precipitated by factors outside the perpetrator.

Can the differences between the left and right be summed up as simply as that? Can we say of the left and the right, "The left believes in mankind's basic goodness and acts accordingly and the right believes in mankind's basic badness and acts accordingly." The more I think about it the more I have to say, 'yes.' Ilana Mercer wrote an excellent article about this idea here.

When we look back at the tapestry of human history do we see the overwhelming progress of good or evil? If mankind is essentially good how do you explain the march of evil that is our past?

That's because, after people perpetrate evil, liberals toss free will to the wind... You see, to perpetrate evil, one must be "mentally ill."

If true how does the left explain the horrible evil of our past? Was everyone "mentally ill?" And why did this "illness" suddenly end in our age?

No human wants to think they're bad. We all want to believe we're doing what's right for ourselves and others. The problem with that thought, however, is the fact that most who commit evil don't believe it to be so. Crazy people don't think they're crazy


Oh, by the way, the first article linked has nothing to do with this topic but it's a good read anyway.

Islam and the Koran are built upon violence. Anyone who knows the history of the faith's founder knows this. Muhammad spoke only of peace when he was not in a position to take what he wanted. When his number swelled he had no problem bringing the sword to those who stood against him. There is simply no comparison between this man and the messiah of another faith, Yeshua.

That there are so many duped into believing Islam is a religion of peace while Christianity is a religion of intolerance astounds me yet is unsurprising. Anyone with the capacity to think and read can only conclude that Muslims who preach peace and tolerance are indeed infidels of the faith. The Koran is the literal word of Allah - unchanging and perfect in it's handing down. Therefore those who do not heed its call for the death of unbelievers (or at least their forced conversion at the sword) are not practicing true Islam. I suppose this could be blamed on the "corrupting" influence of the Judeo-Christian values that have formed the West.

It only goes to show how far the West has fallen when it extols the virtues of a barbaric faith while shunning the virtues of the faith without which they would not exist. Truly up has become down.

For the idiot near and dear to your heart.

Perhaps not.

So, I got my shipment of books from the History Book Club and I'm giddy about Lost Christianities and it's companion book Lost Scriptures. The former tells the story of how we came to have the modern Bible. In the second and third centuries A.D. there were many books floating around all of which believed to be holy and inspired by those who revered them. So, the "Church" of the ancient world was quite fractured. Eventually, it was decided that these books would be gathered and it would be decided which books were truly inspired and which were heresy. This was anything but a peaceful process. However, the end result was the Bible we have today... essentially. Protestant Bibles lack a number of books the Catholic Bible contains and the Greek Orthodox have even more books on top of that. The important thing being, even with the loss of these books (or excess of) these three factions still consider one another Christian. There is little theological friction between these divisions. All believe in the Trinity and the divinity of Yeshua, the virgin birth, forgiveness by grace and so on. The same could not be said of many "Christians" of the second and third centuries A.D. So attempts were made to remedy this which, as we can attest to today, eventually succeeded.

The latter book provides many copies of these exluded texts, some of which unavailable to the public.

Textual criticism of the Bible is a topic that facinates me. I believe that the Bible should be questioned and critically examined. God asks for faith but not blind faith. He gave us minds to use and to park it when it comes to the Bible seems unproductive to say the least. We don't have the unaltered word of God. The Bible did not suddenly appear out of the sky one day. It was written, interpreted and translated by man. Yet it is inspired by God. Because of this paradox (being wholly of man yet wholly of God) we must be critical of the Bible. If there were fierce battles over what was ispired scripture just two to three hundred years after the death of Yeshua why then are we afraid to do the same thing 2000 years after His death? Do not accept the Bible because your family, friends or Church tells you it's true. Accept it because you've looked at it and came to the decision yourself.

First: Sorry about the light blogging as of late. With the wife being ill, being crazy busy at work (where I usually blog) and me looking for a new job... there simply isn't enough time (or energy) in a day for me to keep up like I usually do. I expect it to be like this for some time yet. Fair notice (if somewhat late).

Anyway, I try to pay attention to what Hal Lindsey and his ilk are up to. I think he knows what he's talking about when it comes to Middle Eastern politics and End Times prophecy and how the two mix. He's posted a new article that breaks my heart. What he describes can be fixed. I just don't think it will be because of partisan politics and political correctness. Students of Biblical prophecy have often wondered why there seems to be no sign of the United States during the End of Days. We are the lone superpower in the world. What could possibly happen that would render our great military and economic might mute?

"The Arab newspaper, al-Hayat, reported in February 2004 that Osama bin Laden bought some of these devices from the Ukraine in 1998. Al-Hayat wrote that 'bin-Laden is storing them for possible use somewhere, some time – most probably against American cities.'"

And:

[W]e must remember – al-Qaida always coordinates multiple attacks in the same operation. Therefore, we should expect that many cities in the United States would be hit with this nightmare scenario in the same hour.

Kartina shows how utterly unprepared Federal and local authorities are to deal with a known and predictable disaster in a single American city. What about a suitcase sized nuclear device detonate in several American cities at the same time? Say, Washington D.C., L.A., Chicago and New York all at the same moment? Think this isn't possible?

By virtually unanimous agreement, a nuclear strike on the United States by Muslim terrorists is inevitable. Endless parades of experts have testified before Congress that it isn't a case of "if," but "when."

Former Russian security adviser Aleksandr Lebed testified before Congress in 1998 that some 80 to 100 suitcase-size nuclear weapons are missing from the Russian arsenal.

Former U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Charles Curtis doesn't buy Kremlin assurances either: "We believe we have a full accounting of all of Russia's strategic weapons, but when it comes to tactical weapons – the suitcase variety – we do not know, and I'm not sure they do, either."

And the yield of these devices?

Each of these nuclear devices has a yield of about 0.6 kilotons. That is about the same as the Hiroshima bomb dropped on Japan in 1945.

It's also well accepted that during the Cold War the Soviet Union hid several of these devices upon U.S. soil to be used by sleeper agents. The Russian government has been slow to reveal the location of these devices (or of their existance) because many within it still believe a nuclear exchange between them and the U.S. is inevitable. With many within the KGB and Russian Special Forces for sale after the collapse of communism and their poor economy today it is neglegent to believe that al-Queda hasn't earnestly sought them out.

So, I ask you, after reflecting upon Katrina, what will be the Federal response after 4 of our more important cities are evaporated? Mr. Lindsey concludes:

But I believe there is another essential point being missed. Since America has forsaken the Christian principles on which our country was founded and on which all our founding documents were based, God's gracious protection that is so evident in American history is being withdrawn. We are also forcing God's people, Israel, into indefensible positions in the land God swore on oath to give them forever.

I believe unless there is a major national repentance, America is in for worse catastrophes than can possibly be imagined. God help us.

Nations that have a heart for God are blessed and protected by them. The Tanakh attests to this simple fact. As Yahweh is pushed out of the courts, government and public He is pushed out of our nation. With Him goes His divine protection. People ask, "How could God allow this (insert you disaster here) to happen?" How many times do we have to tell Yahweh that we don't want Him around before He goes? And when we are left open to the evil of the world who are when then to blame Him?

There is a price to pay when we abandon our founding documents. I'm not talking about those documents enshrined in bullet proof glass in Washington. The documents I speak of are contained between Genesis and Revelation.

My friend Dean is writing essays for people who donate $50 to a Katrina relief fund. They choose a topic and he’ll write on it. It’s a good idea and he’s finished two as of this writing. I’m sure more are to follow. However, it is in response to his second essay, “The Biblical Genesis” that I am writing this now. He was asked to expound upon the question, “Does the Theory of Evolution refute the account in Genesis 1 & 2?” Unfortunately I feel he doesn’t answer it adequately as he treats the Genesis account as purely myth. As his supporting evidences he quotes other creation myth accounts and leaves it at that. That Dean is an agnostic colors his analysis to a degree. In all fairness to him and readers of this essay I, being a Christian, must admit that my faith may also color my analysis. However, I believe I can fairly and critically look at the Genesis creation story yet retain my faith. Here I will endeavor to do two things. First, determine whether or not Genesis 1 and 2 fit the mold of “creation myth.” Second, answer the question I believe was left dangling, “Does Genesis and Evolution mesh?”

These two questions have been addressed here on my blog before but not in one single essay. I hope readers enjoy what I am to present and give both mine a Dean’s essays the thought they deserve.

“Does the Genesis creation story fit the ‘creation myth’ mold?”

Leaving Genesis aside for a moment lets look at the extra-Biblical creation myths Dean cites in support of his argument and compare them to what Genesis states. He primarily gives us the Greek and Egyptian creation myths. I think the latter is particularly poignant when looking at the Genesis creation story but I’ll address that later.

Greek:

Looking at the Greek creation myth we start with Gaia. The author of Dean’s source tells us that Gaia came to be out of Chaos from a parthenogenic birth (Chaos herself gave birth to her alone). That Gaia (and other first beings depending upon whether or not you prefer the Hesiod over the Ovid version of the story) “pretty much just appeared.” Gaia herself then gives birth to Uranus (the Universe) and Pontus (the Sea). Uranus falls in love with Gaia and showers her with rain allowing her to give birth to the rest of creation. Gaia and Uranus essentially then populate space together. Gaia gives birth to many other children such as the Titans, Cyclopes, Meliads, Aetna, Eurybia, Nereus, Phorcys, Ceto, Thaumas, Atlas, Acheron, Antaeus and on and on.

Egyptian:

This account is a bit more complicated than the Greek but is also strikingly similar in its base elements. Rather than try to summarize it here I’ll ask that you simply read Dean’s source.

Commonalities:

So, what are the common threads these two (and all other extra-Biblical creation stories) share? First, a god is assigned to virtually every unique aspect of nature. In the Egyptian case multiple gods are assigned for varying stages of some processes. Second, gods are created or born. Gaia (born out of Chaos) gave birth to Uranus, Shu and Tefnut (birthed by Atum) gave birth to Geb and Nut. Third, the process of creation is quite biological in nature. Biological functions such as birthing, crying, vomiting and others, by the gods, are cause for creation. Fourth, other extra-Biblical account show gods warring with one another as the reason behind the stages and features of the Earth. One tells that the Tigris and Euphrates flowed through the eye sockets of a slain god. I find the Babylonian creation myth particularly compelling.

Now, look for these things in Genesis. They’re simply not there. I believe that the Genesis creation story is lumped into the “creation myth” pile simply because it appears in a religious text and that it involves a god. Other than those two factors the Genesis creation story has nothing in common with any other ancient creation account. The creation myths Dean has cited, indeed every creation myth out there, has obviously been penned by a human hand. It’s plain to see that when these myths were first realized they were drawn from the experience of the people of that time. They wrote what they knew. The fact that the Genesis story doesn’t contain these same humanistic elements should give ancient text scholars pause. Indeed, you would expect to see, at the very least, strong Egyptian influence upon Genesis 1 and 2. It simply isn’t there. Genesis looks nothing like the other creation accounts of the time from whence it came. That cannot be stated strongly enough. Every single ancient creation myth we have contains humanistic gods engaging in creation using methods familiar to those of the time. Except Genesis.

So, now we come to the “contradiction” between Genesis 1 and 2. If I may be blunt: There is no contradiction. However, in order to understand this you need to be aware of two things Hebraic verbiage and perspective. The following paragraphs are essentially lifted verbatim from Hugh Ross’, “The Fingerprint of God.”

Critics of Genesis 1 and 2 cite the order of events thusly:


Genesis 1 order of events

1. heavens and earth created
2. light created
3. light divided from darkness
4. heaven (“firmament”) created
5. land separated from water
6. plant life created
7. Sun, Moon, and stars created
8. animal life created
9. man (male and female) created

Genesis 2 order of events

1. heavens and earth created
2. plant life created
3. man (male only) created
4. animal life created
5. woman made from man’s side


These two accounts do seem to have their problems but this is resolved once you take perspective, or point of view, into account. Genesis 1 focuses on the physical events of creation; Genesis 2, on the spiritual events. More specifically, Genesis 1 describes those miracles God performed to prepare the earth for mankind. Genesis 2 presents God’s assignments of authority and responsibility. Careful attention to verb tenses and to the purpose of each account eliminates any supposed contradiction.

Genesis 1:1 uses the Hebrew words shamayin and erets for the heavens and earth respectively. When these words are joined in Hebrew literature, as they are in Genesis 1:1, they refer to the entire physical universe. The Hebrew word for “created,” bara, refers always to divine activity. The word emphasizes the newness of the created object. Genesis 1:1 tells us of God creating, brining from non-existence, the entire universe.

Now, with Genesis 1:2 we switch perspective from looking at the entire universe to under the cloud cover, on the surface of the waters of the earth. The miracles described in the account take place in or under the earth’s atmosphere, not in the broader scope of outer space.

Genesis 1:2 also states for us three initial conditions of planet earth:

It was dark upon the surface of the ocean.

The earth was formless, or disorganized.

The earth was void or empty.

Since Genesis 1 focuses on the introduction of life upon the earth, formless and void (or disorganized or empty) are best interpreted in the context of life. That is, the Bible says that in its initial state, the earth was unfit to support life and was literally “empty” of life. We are told, too, that the earth’s atmosphere (and/or interplanetary debris) blocked out the light that exists throughout the universe. Light could not pass through to the surface.

The physics of star and planet formation verifies that the proto-earth indeed must have had an atmosphere (or debris cloud) opaque to light. Such studies also confirm that conditions of the proto-earth made it entirely unfit for the support of life.

With the point of view and initial conditions established, we can properly interpret the Biblical chronology of events. What was once baffling and incorrect now becomes comprehensible and demonstrably accurate. It may be useful to note, too, that six different Hebrew verbs are used for God’s creative work. Bara appears in the manuscripts only twice more after Genesis 1:1, once for the creation of nephesh, or soulish animals – those creatures endowed with mind, will and emotions (namely, birds and mammals) – and again for the creation of adam, or “spirit” beings – those creatures endowed with the capacity to respond to God Himself.

So, what we now have is this:

Order of Genesis 1 creations events

1. creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent
3. formation of a stable water cycle
4. establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s)
5. production of plants on the continent(s)
6. transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and the stars became visible for the first time)
7. production of small sea animals
8. creation of sea mammals (nephesh)
9. creation of birds [possible same time as 8] (more nephesh)
10. making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents – still more nephesh)
11. creation of mankind (adam)

The record above perfectly accords with the findings of modern science. While some have found fault with it for its simplicity and brevity we must remember that when this was recorded some 3500 years ago it was recoded for the use of all people of all times and cultures. So, simplicity was and is important.

As great as all this is, and to answer the question of Genesis and the Theory of Evolution, we must answer the young/old earth question. I’ll be brief here and simply deal with the words translated into English as “day,” “evening” and “morning.”

The Hebrew word yowm, translated as day, may be used (and is) within the Bible, as it is in English, to indicate any four time periods: a) from sunrise and sunset, b) from sunset to sunset, c) a segment of time without and reference to solar days (usually several years), and d) an age or epoch.

The Hebrew word ‘ereb, translated evening also means “sunset,” “night,” or “ending of the day.” And the word boqer, translated morning, also means “sunrise,” “coming of light,” “beginning of day,” or “dawning,” with possible metaphoric usage.

Some have argued for 24-hour days on the basis that yown, when attached to an ordinal (second, third, fourth, etc.) elsewhere in the Bible always refers to a 24-hours period. This argument is inconclusive. The Bible, after all, has no other occasion to enumerate epochs of time. More importantly, no rule of Hebrew grammar states that yowm attached to an ordinal must refer to 24-hour days.

Others have argued that the Hebrew word ‘olam (as opposed to yowm) would have been used to indicate a long time period. However, Hebrew lexicons show that the word ‘olam only referred to a long age or period in post-Biblical writings. In biblical times it meant “forever,” “perpetual,” “lasting,” “always,” “of olden times,” or “the remote past, future, or both,” but the range of its usage did not include a set period of time.

It’s also interesting to note that the seventh day in Genesis 1 and 2 is not closed out. We’re still in that seventh day.

So, we have an old earth, a non-mythological creation account and the Theory of Evolution. This is what we’ve been building up to. Does the Theory of Evolution refute the account in Genesis 1 & 2?

No.

As I’ve already shown Genesis 1 presents the creation of the universe and life on earth in a way that completely meshes with science. But when people speak of evolution they are asking about microevolution – once species evolving over a period of time into another. The Bible is largely mute on that particular subject. Like I said above, Genesis 1 and 2 were written in broad strokes. God didn’t need to get into specifics because they weren’t important. The point of Genesis 1 and 2 is to show what God did to achieve His masterpiece – humanity – and God’s assignment of authority and responsibility. Could God have used an evolutionary process to lead up to a man-animal? Possibly. However, the scientific record of that evolution is still hotly debated today. But let’s say for a moment He did. So what? Genesis tells us that man is unique amongst all creation because he has a spirit. Man is able to commune with God. That is the point of it all. That evolution may have occurred doesn’t remove God from the picture nor does it make us any less accountable to Him.

Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar believes the Earth will soon see the coming a Messiah to judge all mankind.

States this article.

I find it very interesting. This is the first I've heard a Jew feel that we are living in the End of Days. His take on the whole thing, what with the Messiah having to be born and all, is quite interesting and understandable. As Jews rejected Yeshua as Messiah it only makes sense that they would expect Him to be born to a woman in modern times. Obviously Christians believe that Yeshua's return will be a lot less subtle.

Still, that Jews are feeling what many Christians have felt for a long time is quite... comforting. I firmly believe that we are living in the End Times and that I will see the return of Yeshua within my lifetime. Everything is almost in place and the field is ripe for a harvest.

The return of our Lord is upon us! Praise be to Him!

What is truth? Can we know truth? If truth is real and knowable doesn’t that then mean anything that isn’t truth is a lie? If there is no truth in life and existence are then such things as morality and goodness purely subjective? If they are then why is the man who murders worse than the man who saves a life?

Is one man really ever right? Is the other ever wrong?

Can you tell me what truth is? Not what truth is for you but a truth for everyone? Can you tell me a universal indisputable truth? Not, “The Earth orbits the Sun.” That’s not truth. That’s fact. A truth should be something one can build their life upon. Something meaningful and uplifting, even if it’s hard to hear. Truth is the rock which one can always depend upon. Truth does not change through the telling nor though the ages. It is eternal and unchanging.

Tell me a truth.

When Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate the Roman official asked of Him, “What is truth?” Truth itself stood before Pilate and still he could not see it. Our increasingly secularist world wants us to believe there is no such thing as a universal truth. That truth is subjective and my truth is just as correct as yours. But what is to be done when “truths” conflict? Something cannot be both black and white at the same time. Up cannot be down and light cannot be darkness. So, I ask you, outside of God’s only begotten son Jesus, how can we know truth?

Inspired by this article.

This is a thorny question and one that I do have an opinion on. However, I will not be the one to state my opinion is more correct than a church elder. They are in a position in which only God has the authority to judge them.

As for my opinion: I do believe that homosexuals should be allowed chruch membership. Just as any other human is. We are all sinners and we all need forgiveness. Also we all need to be included into a body of believers that can counsel and suppport us in our walk with Christ. However, this inclusion comes with an expectation of an individual by the group. The individual will repent of thier sins. They will not grasp upon particularly pleasurable sins and expect others to accept this. This then becomes a point of centention within the congregation and allows division to enter the church. We've seen this with the appointment of an openly gay Bishop within the Episcopalian denomination and within individual churches. As a man of God Bishop Robinson knew full well what his appointment would do to his denomination. No matter how ferverently he wished to serve God the unity of the Church should have been his primary concern. He chose his own selfish desires over the needs of his congregation.

Now, Rev. Edward Johnson, former pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church:

...has been banished from the pulpit and denied his salary for one year by the Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, despite the admission he acted on his conscience and his action could be defended "in theory" from the Methodist Book of Discipline.

He's been removed from his positon because he refused chruch membership to an openly gay man. A man who had been attending the church for some time and was also a member of the choir.

I'm inclined to agree with the pastor in this situation because his overall responsibility is to protect the congreation. If he were to allow an openly and unrepentant homosexual into the congration he risks their spiritual growth. If, however, this homosexual man expressed the desire and intention to repent from this sin and was still denied membership then I belive the pastor has errored. I've seen no place within the article that states this is the case.

The Church is to accept all people because we are all sinners in need of God's grace. But acceptance within Church hinges on one's desire to repent. If one does not, and flaunts it, then they must not be allowed to tempt others into stumbling.

He was 11
His sister 3
Her life snuffed out accidentally
Copied the rage from
Snoop our modern sage

Chrissy was 9
Not even in her prime
Dead, dog leash around her head
She played the part from Hollywood's violent art

At 28 Daniel was late
Never found peace
Now deceased
Copied Cobain, blew out his brain

Oh how the angels are falling

-Cindy Morgan (1995)

What does this mean? What is a "progressive Christian?" There once was a site called The Right Christians that labeled themselves this. The site no longer appears to exist. Aside from the fact they didn't want Christians like myself commenting on anything other than specific posts (while those who agreed with their stances could comment on anything) they were a fairly interesting group. Interesting in that I had no idea where they got their theology from yet they professed to be true Christians. The few times I commented there I tried to get them to explain their rationale for accepting gay marriage, abortion and things of the like but I never got anything more than, "Jesus said to love everyone." While all well and good I'm pretty sure He said a few more things on top of that. He wasn't crucified because He wanted everyone to hug. He said things that angered people to the point where they wanted to kill Him. They hated Him so much they even lied about what He had done to do so. If we are to be like Him should Christians inspire the same kind of hatred in some people as well?

Those who didn't agree with Jesus hated Him. That needs to be repeated. Those who didn't agree with Jesus hated Him. Think about that. Why did they hate Him so? If all Jesus was preaching was "love thy neighbor" why did so many want to see Him dead?

Simply, Jesus taught love and mercy and repentance. People seem to leave out that bit. John 8:10-11 tells us:

Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

There we see the love and mercy so many "progressive" Christians talk about but we also see a command. He did not accept her adultery as an acceptable alternate lifestyle. He judged her, forgave her and then commanded her to leave that life behind. Jesus judged sin, forgave it and then commanded the sinner to repent. While Christians cannot forgive sin, only God can, we are to confront it and counsel the sinner away from it. However, how can we do this when "progressives" in our midst attempt to cripple us by turning Scripture into catch phrases, completely removing them from context, and we buy it? "Thou shalt not judge" is not a commandment to avoid moral judgment. It's a commandment to avoid hypocrisy. The men who accused the woman we not incorrect in doing so. If they were Jesus would have called them on it. No, He chastised them for being hypocrites. They were so concerned with another's sin they ignored their own. Being saved Christians are in the singularly unique position of being able to make moral judgments because we recognize our sinful nature, sought forgiveness, came to repent and seek to bring others into the grace of God. How can we present the Gospel to those in need if we cannot decide that they need it? Additionally, are not Christians called to stand against evil and sin? How are we to do this if we cannot call sin what it is?

However, with all that said I will point out a woeful failing of many Christians. We often point out the sin but offer no grace to the sinner. Jesus, when rejected by the Jews, took His message to the Gentiles. Now, who were the Gentiles? Anyone who wasn't a Jew. That Jesus would do this quite important for a number of reasons if you know anything of Jew/Gentile relations. In short, most Jews' dislike of Gentile bordered on (if not crossed over into) racism. When the Holy Spirit commanded Peter to eat with a Gentile he did everything he could to avoid it. The early church, consisting primarily of Jews, had to be dragged by the Holy Spirit into bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were well aware of this dislike having to have to deal with Jewish businessmen on issues of commerce and dealing with the average Jew in their everyday life.

So, here you have this Jew, Jesus, taking His message to these people most Jews would rather spit on than look at. Jesus knew this distrust was well rooted but He had something vitally important to tell them. So, it was with love first that He came to them. With love and humility He disarmed them and made it so they could accept what He had to tell them.

Jesus' message is an uncompromising one. It is a hard message. It is a message counter to what the world tells us how things are. Scripture tells us that the Gospel will confound the wise and powerful. The sum of our worldly life experience tells us that the Gospel is incorrect. That the core of the Gospel is repentance is a difficult pill to swallow. As G.K. Chesterton said:

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.

The question isn't "Why is Christianity so bad when it claims to be so good?" but rather "Why are all human things so bad when they claim to be so good?" This is what the Bible is trying to tell us. We aren't good people. If we are then why is the world so messed up? This isn't an easy message to send or receive. It's a brick but it has to be delivered. So, how do we do this? How did Jesus do this? Jesus covered the brick in velvet. He wrapped His brick of repentance in the velvet of love and mercy. All parts play a key role in accepting the message and becoming a changed individual. However, so well-meaning Christians leave the velvet at home. While others (progressives) leave the brick behind. The former will be accepted by no one and only build resentment against the message and the latter will save no one and give them false hope.

Christians need to practice delivering that velvet covered brick otherwise the message will be lost upon those who would otherwise accept it. Christians need to be like Jesus when He came to the Gentiles. He exuded love and humility while never deviating from delivering His message of repentance. It was because He loved them that He did this thing. Do you love your gay neighbor? Adulterious co-worker? Or the pregnant teenager scared because she knows she cannot raise her child on her own? Do you love these people as Jesus does? Then come to them out of love, wrapped in humility, and give them what they need. Not just the Gospel but someone they can depend upon.

So, I'm reading Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton and I start with the introduction written by Philip Yancey. It's got be excited to dive into the classic of Christian apologetics and he poses a question posed by Chesterton.

Christians are often forced to answer the "problem of pain" by athiests for obvious reasons. Simply, "How could a good and loving God allow pain to exist?" It's simple and stunningly complex at the same time and every Christian worth his salt needs to have wrestled with this issue. I have and I believe I've come to a conclusion on the issue.

With that said athiests themselves have a question to ponder as well. The "problem of pleasure." Simply, "In the meaningless and random evolutionary process why did pleasure become necessary?" You don't need to feel pleasure to survive on any level. You don't need pleasure for reproduction or injesting sustinance. We derive pleasure from color yet we don't need to see color for sight to function. And the list goes one and on. So, why is pleasure a necessary step in the evolutionary process?

It seems today that feminism has become the sole property of the left much the the detriment of the movement. Is it really so praiseworthy a victory that women may now kill, on demand, the very thing that is core to their being? The left would tell us "yes". Is this what the founders of the femenist movement were really working toward? To believe it was defies logic.

However, reconizing how much the left has twisted an otherwise healthy goal, how have conservatives responded? How have conservative sought to uplift women in a healthy and meaningful way? Dr. Kelly Hollowell has some definate opinions on the issue and I can't help but agree with her.

She notes:

A rear admiral also spoke from the pulpit on "honor, courage and commitment." He said the best displays of these traits were illustrated by his wife as she supported him in his career, primarily raised the children, maintained the home and remained loyal to their relationship.

As these familiar examples illustrate, conservatives frequently extol and focus on a very limited view of women. Despite this tendency, I don't think conservatives regard women as inferior. Rather, it is a liberal spin that has over-capitalized on a rather obvious (although not exclusive) area of appreciation conservatives have for women.

Many conservatives feel that women need to be at home taking care of needs there. This isn't meant to be spiteful or out a desire to oppress female desires to have a career of their own. Rather is springs out of the conservative emphasis on family and home first. Conservative men reconize that with the wife at home the family tends to be more stable and, well, liveable. Stay-at-home moms fill a vital role in the development of their children that families with both parents working simply cannot match. There are countless studies and statistics that support this. However, the left grasps at this as evidence that conservatives seek to enslave women by chaining them to the kitchen with babe hanging off moms teat. It's an easy trick but utterly deceptive and false.

However, that decpetion has taken hold and many women have come to accpt it as true. This only pulls women who might otherwise agree with it from the conservative cause. Conservatives need to address this and soon. While encouraging women to care for home is a worthwhile goal there are many women whom this simply will not work for because of various reasons. These women too should be encouraged and supported.

The good news is that all of this is fixable. First, it would be good for conservatives to give a few more kudos to women called outside the traditional roles and – dare I suggest it – support them along the way. Second, it might help in some cases for the more traditional leaders to take a class on sensitivity training … OK, OK, at least a class in 21st century communication skills. Third, and I have to say it, it would help if the old codgers among us who do hold rather blatantly chauvinistic views stepped into the 21st century and recognized that women can think outside the cake box.

Dr. Hollowell goes on to recite a poem a friend sent her which, I feel, summs up the leftist femenist movement quite well and ends with what a real femenist should embrace. The entire thing should be read but I'll show the last two paragraphs here:

So I took off the rude helmet that I had made for myself. Laid down my armor of irritation; my weapon of anger; took off my breastplate of haughtiness and went to wash in God's river.

The water revealed a woman, soft hair, soft eyes, gentle hands and quiet voice. I stepped out and put on the garments that He quietly laid out for me – a gentle and kind disposition, a tender and obedient spirit, quietness and confidence for strength and I was stunned … the garments fit me perfectly.

A real fenemist, indeed a real woman, is what God designed her to be. Gentle, tender, obedient to God and posessing a quiet strength all should be envious of. There are many, many additional qualities on top of this meager list but it's a good start. The most important being "obedient to God". If any women, or any man for that matter, could master that everything else would fall into place.

She closes quite nicely with:

The point of the article and poem is to delineate a "New Choice" for women in America. That is to overcome the knee-jerk reaction to be offended by the often narrowly focused view of women by conservatives, overcome the liberal spin and reject the distorted interpretation of feminism that has become so prevalent.

The entire article should be read carefully by anyone with an interest in the femenist cause - and that is all of us.

So, being the computer geek that I am, I browse a number of internet forums. I believe I do so because I have a deep seeded need to piss myself off. That or I'm secretly masochistic - even to myself. Hmmm... that's one well kept secret. Anyway, I go to many forums and try to spread the joy and light that is the experience I like to call "Me". Often I never comment because doing so would only further cause me pain. Remember, it's browsing forums that fullfill my secret masochistic desires. Knowingly hurting myself is no fun.

So, I'm messing around with this cool web games called NationStates. It's a big ball of fun and I suggest everyone check it out. Anyway, after legislating my subjects my eye did wander about the page the same way it might wander about Monica Bellucci, so pleased I am with this game. And what did my eyes behold? A link to the forum talking about "12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is "Bad"". It then proceeds to link to a site that shoots these reasons down one at a time, or so the author of the thread states. I didn't look. I didn't have to. But, since I was already there I decided to look about. I had already decided not to post a though of my own because the number of comments had already exceeded 125 and I new a storm when I saw it. But, like clockwork, someone brings up God and the Old Testament for gay marriage being a bad idea. This happens to be a reason I agree with but I can come up with secular reasons as well if I have to (which I shouldn't have to... more later). The came the people saying "He's not my god" and so on and on. But I realized the conversation was doomed when someone called God a bigot. I mean, how can you have a thoughtful discussion after that? He called God a bigot. That doesn't make sense! God, any god, sets the ethical code His people live by. He is the final arbiter on what is ethical because, hey, He wrote moral law. So, how can the writer of ultimate moral law be a bigot? Don't we judge people as bigoted when they fail that moral law? Now, not just those who follow that law, but the Author Himself is a bigot. Seriously, where does the conversation go after that? Do you talk about puppies or something because any meaningful debate that could have been had is dead.

However, let's also talk about this whole Bible thing as a reason to object to gay marriage. I'm not going to debate what the Bible actually says about homosexuality but the idea that one cannot cite Scripture as reason for forming an opinion that one wishes to legislate. Often the reason cited by uninformed idiots (I suppose that redundant) is, as above, "I don't believe in the Bible or God" or some variation thereof. Well, Spanky, good for you! You can have the discussion with your Creator when you die. However, in this instance, your acknoledgement of God is not required. That right, a Christian is allowed to seek legisation on a moral issue derived from the Bible. Why? Because everyone else can regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. And because you don't believe in my particular deity isn't a reason to object to me exercising my rights. That the Bible rejects homosexuality and as a Christian I reject gay marriage is just as good a reason as any secular one. Why? Because the Constitution says so. Can someone please show me where in any of our Founding Documents is it stated that a political ideal is only relevant if it's secular?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

So, if Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, and cannot prohibit free speech why is religious speech less relevant than secular speech when it comes to politics? Why must Christians convert their religiously rooted political beliefs into secular terms to be accepted? They don't have to! If someone disagrees with a Christian's beliefs, well, too bad. They are allowed to express and seek legislation upon them as any other American. So, in the future, if you reject someone's idea because they're rooted in religion you, sir, are a bigot and are infringing upon thier protected First Amendment rights. So, if the arguement is gay marriage a religious reason for being against it is just as relevant as a secular one for it. It's called debate and when you start telling people what is and is not a relevant belief to base an opinion on you risk that same thing happening to you.