It was that time of year, where we had to revamp Worthy Chat.  We’ve given Worthy a fresh new look and we hope you like it!

We’ve added a Worthy Chat Facebook page — so be sure to become a fan!  We’re also now Twittering!

Keep an eye out for different chat events coming up!

Until next time…

Lately, I have gotten into a few conversations and debates, having to do with so-called rights. Those who are familiar with my rants on topics political and social have heard me say that rights are not plucked from trees.  Rights, true rights, ultimate rights, can only be dictated by our Creator. It is for His pleasure and purposes, that we exist, everything we are, everything we have, everything we do, is ultimately His do with as He pleases. Really, what this boils down to is that we have no rights, He owns us, end of story.

God is not a cruel slave owner though, He is a loving Father to those who will allow it, and a terror to those foolish enough to oppose One of such great power, and the only one who can define what is good.  By definition, all who oppose God are evil. Consequently, since we all oppose God, we are all evil. Where are the rights here? He has the right to wipe us from His presence.

However, we know that He has chosen to give life, and He reserves the right to take it away. We have no right to interfere in that process, unless he grants it to us.  Capital punishment comes to mind, so also might war. While there are many who would take issue with whether God has granted mankind any license whatsoever in the taking of human life, I am not here to have that debate.

In trying to recall verses about God granting rights specifically, only one came to mind:

John 1:12-13

12 But as many as received  Him, to them He gave the right  to become children of God,  even to those who believe in  His name, 13 who were born not  of blood, nor of the will of  the flesh, nor of the will of  man, but of God.

NASB

I decided to look at the Greek underlying the word “right” in that passage:

Strong’s NT:1849

exousia; (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e.  (subjectively) force,  capacity, competency, freedom,  or (objectively) mastery  (concretely, magistrate,  superhuman, potentate, token  of control), delegated  influence

From the way that definition from Strong’s reads, even this does not sound like what we consider rights to be. This kind of makes sense. If it is a right, we can take it. Our relationship however, is a gift, we were adopted, this is a bestowed privilege, more than it is a right.

Anyway, having these  discussions about rights, and  my repeated claim to the fruit  pickers, that rights do not  grow on trees, made me wonder  myself about rights. Where do they come from, who has the authority to say, how do you know what is a right, and what is not?

While it is not hard for me to say to others claiming rights, that no such right exists, I have a harder time defining what rights do exist. It is easy to point to some law, and within the law, discover rights secured by that law.  However, what about rights that are not obviously given to us by God, nor granted in any law, do they exist? If so, on what basis or on whose authority?

I have no idea. I am not  willing to say that a right  does not exist, if there is no  law establishing that right,  but I also cannot find it  within myself to grant every  right that people  think they  or others have. Often, when  people state “it is my right”,  I think what is going on is at  some level, they think it  should be their right, but  fear that unless they claim it as a right, no one is going to automatically grant them the  supposed right.

Claimed rights can be pretty silly.  Some of these rights are claimed on behalf of others who have no voice. Some will say that chickens have a right to be treated decently. In fact, according to the law in my state, they do have that legal right. It is a crime, to have roosters have fights with each other. Now, this one I understand, but I cannot help but think there is a sort of irony in this. No one is making the roosters fight; they are only being allowed to do what they want to do, what their instincts tell them to do. Could t not be said then, that the roosters are having their rights interfered with, not protected, because the roosters are entering into personal combat by mutual consent? Boxers do this, and it sometimes results in death, unnecessary death. Why do we allow grown men to kill each other in the ring, while we generally believe that men have more value than roosters? Animals apparently have the right to be protected from themselves, while humans do not. Interesting!

Now, of course, one thing that will jump into the mind of many readers is that the roosters lack the clear thinking ability to make decisions regarding their own lives. Okay, I can accept that, they lack the rational ability to enter into contracts with such serious consequences. I would argue that the fact that two men will get into a ring together and pummel each other into unconsciousness, is evidence that they also lack the ability to think rationally.

Okay, enough with silly illustrations. Let us get into a real world example. Children.

We are protective of children. We assume that they cannot rationally make all of their own decisions. Let a child choose between chocolate and broccoli for dinner, and you will see what I mean (not that adults would necessarily choose well either).They cannot enter legally binding contracts; they cannot make decisions about other areas of live that they are not mature enough to decide on. I should not have to get too specific here. If you are an adult, you can figure some of these things out. We also recognize that children do not have a powerful political voice, so, are at the mercy of the adults in the society around them.  Some of these adults, make poor choices themselves, and are not suited to make decisions regarding the welfare of children. I should not have to offer evidence or examples of that for they are plentiful and obvious. So, out of the recognition for a need to have a way to insure that the rights of children are protected, comes the U.N.  Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Now in my country, few people have even heard of this. I am not sure, but perhaps it is not well known in other countries either. For those interested in a long read, you can read the text of it here:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/crc.pdf

Now, I will be the first to admit that I do not know all that I should about how international law/treaties work, but my understanding is that all nations which have ratified the UNCRC, have obligated themselves to submit to the terms laid out in that treaty. This treaty has been in force, since late 1990. Unless you live in Somalia or the United States of America, this treaty is probably the law of your land.  Somalia is planning to ratify the treaty. Elements within the current administration in the United States and in Legislative Branch of the U.S. are preparing to try to shove ratification through there as well. One might well ask, “Why would a country resist ratifying a treaty to protect the rights of children?”

 Let me remind the reader, that this is what I am trying to reason out for myself here: “Where do rights come from”?

In this treaty, we have an attempt to recognize and agree upon, a universally accepted set of rights that children have. This seems like a lofty goal. Now, I would like to point out, just how dedicated to children’s rights, this U.N treaty is. There is a protocol in the treaty, which is optional. Basically, it says that children (under 18) cannot be conscripted into military service. It also requires that those children who volunteer for service, shall not be directly involved in direct hostilities. There is no age limitation on how young a child volunteer can be. As I read it, it looks as though a 5 year old can volunteer for military service under this protocol. Remember, this protocol is optional, meaning that the nations that ratified the UNCRC, are not obligated to obey this optional protocol unless they also separately, ratify it. In other worlds, this treaty allows nations who have not adopted the optional protocol, to force children into the military and make them be soldiers in combat if such nations see fit. So much for protecting the rights of children – oh, I guess that means that the U.N. had decided that children do not have a right not to be forced to be soldiers. O.K. I am beginning to see where rights come from, they come from the U.N. So, if a child complains that it is their right to try to have a happy and peaceful childhood, the U.N. say no, that is an option, not a right. I might mention another optional protocol. Article 1 of this second optional protocol declares Article 1 of the protocol declares that states must protect the rights and interests of child victims of trafficking, child prostitution and child pornography, child labor and especially the worst forms of child labor. So here again, this is an option, and Nations that do not choose the option are not obligated to obey they option. Once again, we have the U.N. pointing out, that children have no implicit right not to be sold, or to not be prostitutes, or not to participate in child pornography. I feel very comforted knowing that the U.N. is there to tell us that children only have these rights as an option, up to their country’s leaders to decide.

Now, I have mentioned these optional protocols, to demonstrate that the U.N. proves itself incapable of figuring out what rights should be. My country, the United States, is preparing to join the other countries that have already ratified the U.N. Treaty; I certainly hope that it does not. I do believe that children have rights, but I do not think the U.N. is the source of rights, nor am I confident that is it right place to hope to find rights.

I make no secret of the fact, that I distrust governments. The bigger the government, the more I distrust it. I am not an anarchist, I just believe that smaller governments are better, and local governments are superior to broader governments.

The smallest, most local human government is the individual. Children are individuals. However, clearly children lack the wisdom, knowledge or power to manage their own lives. The next largest small, local government is the family, specifically the parents. In my opinion, the family is God’s design and the raising of children, providing for them and protecting them, is a role given to parents by God. If it is given by God, does not that mean that it is a right, if anything can said to be a right?

While I distrust governments, I also recognize that God raises up authorities and wants us to obey the authorities as long as they do not usurp His position or try to overrule His commands.

To me then, rights, true rights, come from God. If the rearing of children is placed into my control, then I assume that it is parents, more than children, who need to have their rights protected.

Are we to trust that an international body, which thinks that keeping children from prostitution is an option, is the governing body that should decide what parents can and cannot do? I would rather have my own government, maintain it’s sovereignty, because so far, it has demonstrated itself to be morally superior to the U.N., but more to the point, I do not want distant, unrelated people, who have no personal interest in my children, deciding what is best for the family God has charged me with managing.

Now this is where it gets tough. Parents sometimes abuse their children, parent sometimes are drug addicts, or violent, etc, etc. Do I believe that the God given right of parents is absolute? No, I do not. Now, how can I say this?

It is God that grants human life and God who sustains it, and it is God’s right, to take back the life He has given, as he sees fit. Life is a basic human right, if there is one. It is God given. However, God has also dictated terms in which men can deprive other men of life. One only need read the Old Testament to discover many of these. I am not saying that every excuse for removing life found in the Old Testament should be exercised, that is not what I am addressing. What I am saying is, that God has shown us, that there are times, when it is proper for men, to deprive other men of rights that He has given.

I see parenthood in this light. Since He has charged us with taking care of and loving our families, it is our job first, as parents, to raise our children, and to make decisions about their welfare, according to the principles he has given us. When a parent is beating a child (beating, not spanking), or not providing for the child’s well being, or in some other way demonstrating that he or she is unwilling or incapable of providing and raising a child, then it is time to recognize that the parent has surrender parental rights, by quitting the job of being a parent. This is not different that giving a child up for adoption, rights are not ultimate or unlimited, they are dependent on responsibility.

As I said, this is where it gets difficult. Who gets to decide, and on what basis, when a parent has relinquished their right as a parent, through irresponsibility or lack of ability? This is dangerous ground. In my country, children have been removed from their parents because of the parent’s decision to educate their children themselves (a role assigned to them by God, by the way), rather than subject their children to the indoctrination of the public school system.*

I do not have the answers. I am writing this with no plan in mind, just exploring ideas about “rights” as they pop into my head. Every time I try to come up with some hard rule about who has what rights and what is a right and what is not, I can think up a situation where there is a large potential problem.

One day, not of this will matter. One day, we will either be with the Lord under His rule and yet as a co-heir, or we will be in a place where we do not have any rights whatsoever, except the right to a continual existence that we cannot enjoy. In this life, we do have the one right, to choose to live in eternity in bliss, or in pain, it is a tremendous opportunity.

For now though, we have to muddle our way through the complexities of a fallen and cursed world, imperfect humans and situations, and try to figure out it means to have rights, where they come from, what they are, when they can be removed, and whether they are flexible or inflexible, timeless or temporary, universal or regional etc.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts, if you are up to the challenge, since I clearly do not have the answers. All I know, is that for now, I need to try to obey God and let everything else, take it’s course.

Once again, if you managed to make your way all the way through this (only to find no light in the darkness), thank you for your patience. May the Lord’s peace be with you.

* As a side note, you can read about a few cases where children have been removed from families for stupid reasons at  this website, as well as find out more information about the possible implications of the UNCRC and what you can do to resists it’s implementation in the United States.

What is prompting me to write this one is the fact that a judicial activist (an ideologue wearing a black robe) has decided that his opinion is worth more than the 7 million voters he just overruled.

We had a proposition on the ballot here in California, to define marriage as between a man and a woman in our state constitution. Proposition 8 added these words to our state constitution:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

Now, one would expect that I might be against gay marriage as a Christian; after all, the Bible has several passages denouncing homosexuality. I am not writing this as a Christian, I am writing this as a citizen, and my Christian faith requires that I be a good citizen.

I have made it abundantly clear that I am a right wing conservative, something that my left wing brothers and sisters in Christ seem to be offended at, not because of my actual positions, but because in their perception, most Christians are right wing and seem to question the faith of left wingers, or at least, regard them with suspicion. Maybe that is true, but please do not think that I question the faith of those on the left. Whether one considers oneself left wing or right wing is irrelevant to me, what matters to me is things like right and wrong, practicality or impracticality, and law or lawlessness.

It is this last aspect that I am addressing here this time. Some refer to the U.S. as a democracy. This is not accurate, but its system does have a strong democratic component. We are a constitutional republic. What does all of this mean? Our roots derived from the fact that most of our early founders and residents, before we were a country, came from England. England was a monarchy, a country ruled by a king. Our founders were so distressed by the abuses of the monarchy – heavy taxation and religious bias from ruling authorities, that they finally rebelled. These men and women put everything on the line to achieve the right to be self-governing. The fought a war with their own countrymen, lost fortunes, land and family, all for the belief that the natural state of man, as intended by God, was to live lives of morality and responsibility free from the tyranny of a human king or ruling class. Democracy could have achieved that goal, but the founders saw a danger in democracy. In a democracy, the people rule. They implement laws through the vote of the majority. The founders believed that the danger of a democracy was that laws would be no better than the quality of character and sophistication of the voters. In other words, if the majority of the people proved to be unknowledgeable or of poor character, the resulting laws of the country would reflect this. In order to minimize this unfortunate side effect of direct democracy, a system of government where a constitution was the highest human law of the land was implemented. This law would be written, maintained and modified by representatives of the people; these representatives were to be democratically elected.

The hope was that those who chose to be representatives would have to be people of knowledge and character, in order to have the confidence of the people, and earn their vote. Voting was not a right bestowed upon everyone. It was recognized that certain classes of people, were more likely to be educated. Certain classes of people, would be funding the government, and had an extra stake in the country. The concern that led the founders to go this way is perhaps best illustrated by hypothetical example.

One could imagine, for example, that 80% of the people might be of low economic means. These people might desire a better standard of living. See the 20% who are well off, the 80% might decide to tax away the wealth of the 80%, to appropriate the benefits of wealth for themselves. If this were done without the legitimacy of law, we would call the confiscation of property “theft”. In essence, a democracy has the potential to make theft legal. While it might seem fair to have people of equal means, in practical terms, the rich provide jobs for the poor. Confiscate the wealth, and you destroy jobs, and ultimately, a lower standard for living for all.

Therefore, recognizing the dangers of democracy, the system was improved to make it a bit less dangerous. Furthermore, the government was split up into three branches, the legislative branch (those who write the actual laws), the judicial branch (those charged with trying actual cases in and rendering judgments in accordance with the intent of the laws) and the executive branch, The president and his staff and departments under his leadership, (functions as the chief executive officer of the country), in charge of enforcing the law, the military, and foreign affairs.

These three departments were created so that power would not be concentrated in any individual or ruling group. The goal in our form of government is to insure that the country is governed from the bottom up, not from the top down. The will of the people is superior to the will of a ruling class. That is the theory upon which our form of government is based.

None of what I have told you, is subject matter, it is only background, a framework from which we can understand the actual topic I have chosen to ponder and share.

The topic is Tyranny. People in other parts of the world would laugh to know that I hold that the United States is governed by tyranny. Certainly, it is not 100% true, but just as certainly, it is the direction we are headed. We have, though our choices in elected officials, slowly moves this country toward tyranny. We do not notice much, because we have a nice tyranny, not one bent on abusing us and harming us in a way that we would notice, but it is tyranny just the same.

The individual states were robbed of their right to self govern, and choose for themselves whether they wanted to allow abortion as a legal option. This was done by a judicial ruling, not through an act of legislation. In essence, a court held that abortion was a constitutional right. Looking over the constitution, you will find no mention of the topic of abortion, one wonders then how it could be a constitutional right. Furthermore, the 10^th amendment declares, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

That is clear is it not? If abortion is neither delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, then the States or the people get to decide what they want to have, it is not an area of federal concern.

The government has many laws about religion, placing limitations on what places of worship can or cannot do, creating tax exemptions for churches, restricting prayer in school or religious symbol on public property etc.

Look at the 1^st amendment, in part it says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

Again, it is quite clear. If congress shall make no law prohibiting the establishment or exercise of religion, then why are there such restrictions? Now notice, that is say congress shall make no law. This, in accordance with the 10^th amendment, leaves such matters to the states. Indeed, in the early days of our country, many states required a statement of faith, for one to hold public office. However, the federal government has again, overstepped it’s bounds, and just does what it wants to. This is tyranny.

Taxation. Power is granted to the Federal government to levy taxes. However, it is not empowered to do things that the constitution does not grant it as it’s role. Therefore, most everything that the federal government spends money on (think of the hundreds of social programs), it has no legal authority to do.  For the government to confiscate money and then spend that money in ways that the government is not authorized to do, and that the people were never allowed a choice in, is again, tyranny.

What set me off was this court decision to hold a law about marriage as unconstitutional. The constitutionality of this law has already been looked over, tested and found to be in harmony with the constitution by a great number of legal minds.  The judge himself in this case, is a self-proclaimed homosexual. It seems to me, that if he were a man with honor, instead of a man with an agenda, he would have excused himself from the case because of a conflict of interest. Whether gays should or should not be allowed to marry, is not at all my point or issue. My issue is with an individual deciding that he can use his position to override the will of the people. There are so many of these types of issues, that I see where states and individuals are losing their rights to a few who think they should decide for the rest of us what is right or lawful.

It is tyranny, and I am tired of it. I want my country back. The person currently occupying the Whitehouse is in my opinion, the biggest tyrant our country has seen since we won our independence.

Are we reaping our just rewards for abandoning God in this country, or is it just the result of lazy, selfish, and ignorant people not caring to preserve the things that made this country work so well for so long? I think it is a little of both, and I think the cures are obvious. However, I am not very optimistic that we will do what it takes. We have failed to pass on values, and we have failed to encourage values in those who immigrate to our country. I fear that our moral, political, and fiscal destruction is no longer in question, the only question is, “How fast will we fall”.

Part one in a potentially ongoing series.

The first category that comes to mind had to do with words and language. One of my pet peeves is hijacking words.

Some examples:

Organic. When I was younger, organic had to do with life or with carbon (life that we know is carbon based). Although the term had been applied to food and farming before I was born, it was my generation that made the term begin to mean something different. When I first heard of organic food, I thought that is redundant. All food is organic, but some in my generation seemed to think there was great benefit to eating tomatoes full of worms, because synthetic pestisides had not been used on them, a claim that I am still skeptical of. To my mind, any benefit, comes from the consumption of the worms, but I’ll pass anyway, thank you. I wonder if they ever stopped to realize that the curare poison on the tips of blow dart of indigenous South American peoples is organic, as are poisonous mushrooms, bubonic plague and crude oil.

Chill. People are sometimes described as chill these days. I don’t know what it is, but each generation seems to have some need to incorporate words into their speech, in ways that distinguish them from prior generations. To me, this appears to be a way of lowering others’ opinions of you, by using fad language of your own generation, you wish to identify with people with less wisdom than those the hand the language down to you. The sad thing about the word chill, is it is so unoriginal, since previous generations had already hijacked the word “cool”.

Gay. Believe it or not this used to mean happy or festive. There is a Christmas carol with the words “don we now our gay apparel”. I cannot hear that song any longer in the same way.

Ghetto language. By this, I do not mean the inner city only. I mean any time that a group of people, decide to modify the language in a way that makes it unique. I suppose that the purpose, is to make one feel part of something that others have in common, but what annoys me is that it has the effect of alienating those not of the group. Even the church does this.

There are several ways that the church does this.  One way is to use regular words in a different way than “normal”people do. For example, the word “just”. You may have no idea what I am talking about, but if you are an evengelical Christian, you have heard it:

“Father, we just come together tonight, to seek your face in prayer, and we just ask that you would look over us as we drive to the retreat. And Father, we also just ask that you would just bless those who attend the retreat . . . “  Now, if you examine that sample prayer, you will notice that leaving the word just out of it, leaves the intent of the prayer totally intact. Another example: the word “fellowship”. Fellowship is a noun, at least to “normal” people. Christians, however, think it is a verb. “where to you fellowship?”

Another way the church employs ghetto language, is to use words of theologians, those who make a living out of making word of God complex and specialized. Please undertand that I am not suggesting that theologians are doing anything wrong. There are reasons why special words exist in any specialty, whether it be science, law, medicine, theology or even construction work. What I am talking about is when we lay people (lay people meaning simple non theologians, non clergy) use theological terms in talking to each other or talking to non-believers.

We use phrases like sanctification, justification, propitiation, etc. I would bet that over 90% of non-believers have no idea what we are talking about, surely over 50% of believers are not certain, but nod their heads in agreement, waiting for the subject to end. Let’s not even talk about such clear terms as homologoumena, kenoticism, or perichoresis.

Even words like “the rapture”. In spite of the popularization of the term, especially among evangelicals, it has always struck me as odd. When I was an unbeliever, rapture meant a state of ecstasy or passion. I saw the bumper stickers that read “Warning, in case of rapture, this car will be driverless”. I kept thinking, that person needs to find a hotel.

Then there was the time when I started noticing little chrome fish or window stickers that has a fish with the letters IXOYE in them. I did not know how to pronounce IXOYE, but I figured it must be a brand of detergent, sold through multilevel marketing, that was friendly to the environment (fish friendly). I really thought that.

I still have to wonder why people have those, even knowing what is behind them, what it means. In case someone reading this, thinks it is and organic detergent, let me set you straight.

It is said that in the early church, where it was under heavy persecution, that believers used that fish symbol, as a way to identify each other without verbalizing their faith in Jesus. They might be sitting or standing, one would just casually draw a curved line in the dirt with a stick or finger, or even the edge of his sandal. The other person, if they were Christian, would do the same thing, making their mark overlap the other to form the fish symbol. They now both knew they were Christians and could speak freely to each other about things of faith. Is this story true? I have no idea. One might wonder why the fish, and not the cross. Perhaps the cross was too obvious. The fish supposedly comes from the idea that many of the first disciples were fishermen, and Jesus told them, that He would make them fishers of men.

O.K. what about the IXOYE? Well, it isn’t IXOYE, it is five Greek letters, Iota, Chi, Omickon, Upsilon, and Epsilon – ΙΧΘΥΕ . These stand for Iesous Christos Theou Huios Soter, Jesus Christ God’s Son King. Now, knowing this, why do we use these on our cars. Some might say, it is as a witness to Christ, to show that we identify with Him. Well, that might be the reason, but are unbelievers going to buy into this form of advertising, or will they think you are selling organic soap? I have asked unbelievers what they think it is about. Some say that they have no idea. I tell them what it means, and they ask the obvious question: “Why don’t they just say Jesus then?” I have no idea, but I have a theory. I think it is somewhat like the fish was used in the first place, a way for other Christians to know each other, only this time, they don’t have fellowship, they just drive by each other. Gee, that was worth the $3! I have heard other theories advances by unbelievers. One of my favorites is: It is a way for Christians to say: “I am a Christian, I am better than you!” Wow, is that what we are saying? We need to rethink our marketing strategy.

Okay, you get the idea. I make an issue where there is none. There is no real point to this article, no deep issue or importance, it is just a glimpse into what my mind concerns itself with when my intellect is disengaged. You now know some things that annoy me. Perhaps this article, can be one of yours.

Omegaman 2.0

The Pastor was talking about how a child learns to play music. In the beginning, as they learn to play, they tend to rush through the music, delivering it at an increased pace and without pauses. As the child gets more comfortable and confident, the music begins to be played more as it was written, and the child learns to appreciate that rests and pauses, are not empty places, but an integral part of the music itself. The music might run for a while, with a predictable regularity, and quiet down, and have several seconds of silence, before erupting suddenly and building to a crescendo and perhaps leveling out again before the glorious finale. It is all part of a well orchestrated plan, the notes and the pauses, are all part of the music.

In our lives, we often feel anxious or sad, even depressed. We wonder why we cannot hear from God. Perhaps, it is all part of His well orchestrated plan, and we need to hear the silence as part of the song, as we wait expectenly for the next movement.

 In these times, it is good to read the Psalms, perhaps Philippians 4 or Romans 8. It is good to seek council, seek friends, pray, or even minister to the needs of others. Perhaps, listening to some worship music might lift your spirits or encourage you. A favorite verse from one of my favorite songs by Petra, called “road to Zion, goes like this:

“Sometimes a shadow, dark and cold,

Lays like a mist across the road,

But be encouraged, by the sight,

Where there’s a shadow, there’s a light.”

Perhaps, what we need to consider most of all,  is the following eight words:

“Be still, and know that I am God”

Be blessed – Omegaman 2.0

I believe that God expects me to raise my children in the best ways, training them to be Godly and to also love their neighbors.

I believe that I have responsibilities to try to make the world a better place. That means to me, that I need to try to be part of a solution, and less of a problem. This translated into decisions that I make regarding voting issues, volunteerism, charity and countless other oportunities to affect peoples lives in a positive way, in the family, in the church, in the neighborhood, in the world at large.

I doubt many who name themselves liberals, would disagree much with my goal and principles to this point.

However, where they often do disagree, is how best to accomplish these ideals.

So, where do I part company with liberals philosophically? I will answer that, but please keep in mind, that I will be using generalities, there may well be many liberals who do not think that they are as I am going to discribe them, if you are a liberal, or a conservative, do not think that I am talking about you, I am talking about my perception of liberals and conservative in the U.S., the country in which I live and with which I am most familiar.

In my observation, there are some fundamental differances in the way the conservative mind and the liberal mind think. I am not going to say that one is superior to the other, but here is my attemp to explain what I see as differences in general.

The conservative thinks more in terms of individual responsibility, he/she sees obligation to act on a personal level, while the liberal tends to think in terms of what government should do to help people. That is probably not going to go unchallenged here, but it is what I beleive. Perhaps it would be good to give an example to illustrate my contention.

A conservative is likely to want to see government welfare programs reformed, reduced, or possibly elliminated. He believes that charity, is the job of individuals and charitable orgnizations. He will not generally approve of government attempts at charity, because he realizes that they have not demonstrated themselve to be efficient (only allowing 30 cents of every dollar spent to reach the beneficiary), are fraught with fraud, lack accountability, and get their funding by confiscating money from those who have it.  He believes it is better to to have people giving willingly out of love or compassion, than to have his elected officials deciding for him the best way to accomplish charity.

By contrast, a liberal is likely to assume that need is so great, that volunteerism will be insufficient to meet people’s needs, that those who have money, will not be generous enough to cover the needs of the needy, so therefore we need government to step in, take money from some individuals to give it to others.

I have a theory about why liberals have so little faith in voluntary charity.  Liberals are not going to like it though, but please, this is about generalities, not any individual

My theory is this. We see the world through the prism of our own world views, and that creates a kind of predjudice.  If we do not give much of our own substance away, we are likely to conclude that many or most others, are like us. Therefore, if we are not giving much, probably others are not giving much either. Is this a theory that I can prove?  No, not in the slightest. However, what can be demonstrated, is that in general, conservatives give more away than liberals. Now some will be thinking, that is not true, conservatives are likely to be more careful with their money, wealthier also, and there fore either the conservative will be stingy, or he is only giving more because he can easily affort it.

That notion is, of course, also a theory. However, there are massive amounts of data available to show that conservatives give more, regardless of their economic level. Poor conservatives give more than poor liberals, rich conservatives gove more that rich liberals. Now, I can hear someone thinking, that that may be true, but conservatives are more likely to be religious, so that explains that. I am happy to inform you however, that non religious conservatives still give more, and that those who attend church, and give there, are also more likely to give more in addition to that giving, even to non religious causes. The fact is, conservative on the whole, are more compassionate in deeds, than liberals are in the United States at least.

As a side note, the citizens of the United State pay for many types of government programs through their tax system which have goals to help those in need; I am pleased to state  they also manage to give away voluntarily, enough of their assets to charity, to amound to 8% of their gross domestic product, about 1 trillion dollar of charitible giving per year. I would like you to think about that number. It means that the average American, gives over $3000 to charitable causes each year, in addition to what is taken from him/her through taxation for similar purposes. Min you, that number is an average, taking into account every man, woman, child, and baby. If we adjusted those numbers to reflect only those people with assets and income, we would see that those who are able to give, do so generously without the goverment forcing them to do so.  I am sure this is true for many other countries as well. Is this related to conservatism? I have no way of knowing, but when American are polled about the values they believe in and hold, America turns out to mostly moderate to conservative, with a little over 20% being categorized as liberals. While Americals political leadership tends to be to the left, it’s citizens tend to be to the right.

I believe that both liberals and conservatives are true to their world view.  Conservatives beleive in individual giving, and do so, while liberals believe that charity is largely a government responsibility, and consider that they have given already through taxes, and of course that is true.  The difference is, that thr conservative is more likely to  ”give” both ways.

Now, I do not have an answer to the question of what motivates a conservative to give more. When one considers that it is not religiousity, or income level, I am at a loss to explain it.  However, I am happy to dismiss the stereotype that liberals are more compassionate, the facts do not seem to bear that out under examination.

I would like to point out another idea that ties in with this. Four times in U.S. History, that I am aware of, income taxes have been reduced. Liberals feared that this would result in a loss of income to the federal government, and that programs would have to be cut. In each of the four times, when taxes where cut, the governments revenue increased. How is this possible? It is not only possible, it is predictable. When you cut taxes on businesses, businesses have more money to invest in growth, give raises, hire new people etc. When a business buys more equipment, supplies, and raw materials, some one else who sold these items, is making more money. When some one makes more money from those investments, or from getting a raise or a new job, that new money becomes part of an income base, that is in turn taxed, producing more money for the government while at the same time, reducing the governments outlay for welware programs, unemployment insurance benefits, and the like. Also, there is probably another factor at work, the less abused a person feels by the tax system, the more likely he is to pay his taxes, instead of finding ways to cheat or to “loophole” his way out of them.

Lower taxes are one of those rare things, where everybody wins. So why don’t we lower taxes and keep them lower? Ask liberal politicians that question. It is hard to figure out to be sure. Historically in the U.S., it has been conservatives that fight the for reducing taxes and slowing tax growth. I can think of no good reason to burden people with more taxes in order to grow the government in ways that are not necessary, or to fund more inefficient programs that the private sector can handle. Now, while lowering taxes provides more jobs and higher incomes and more revenue to the governmet, there is another side effect that is worth noting. When people’s net income goes up, charitable income goes up also.

Now, with these things all in mind, which is more loving of these two models:

More jobs, more income, more money for govt programs, more charitable giving

or

less jobs, less income, less money for govt programs and less charitable giving?

There is no rocket science here, conservatism is more compassionate in practice, than liberalism is. I could go on with scores of other examples. Liberals who are passionate, could respond with their counterpoints, but I see no benefit in dragging this out to that degree. Instead, I want to bring this to a conclusion to what I think the real problem is, one which I cannot fix, but one which any individual can, in his or her own life.

Liberals are truly compassionate people at the heart level, where God looks. So I am not going to call into question their devotion to God or good intentions. But as I see it, the liberal tends to think with his heart, he feels his way to decisions. He believes that government can be a good force to help people, and that therefore, more government equals more help. The reasoning is not too bad, it all sounds logical and feels right.

By contrast, the conservative analyzes results, he observes that government is too often in the way of helping people, it lowers the standard of living in many ways, lowering the quality of live and the ability to help others. The conservative is not usually ready to try bold new ideas without a lot of examination and forethought as to consequences. Where the liberal sees the world through eyes that examine the way things ought to be, the conservate examines the world through an examination of what works and what doesn’t. Now, I know many will take exception with that analysis, and I admit that I cannot see into the minds of others to see how they tick. But with a world of evidence around us, and that information being more available than ever, it is not hard to find out what works and what does not, what has succeeded and what has failed.

Liberalism has sought to take from the rich and give to the poor, yet in spite of the fact that liberals are more often in control of the country than conservatives, one can reasonable wonder, why has the number of poor people not been reduced or elliminated by now. We have been growing income taxes for over 100 years in the U.S. We have created more social welfare programs than one can shake a stick at over the last 70 years, yet the ratio of poor people to not poor people has not improved, what we have received for those efforts, is a large group of individuals who feel entitled to be provided for, instead of feeling the need to improve their own condition. But it is worse than that.

In one sector our population, our poor black communities to be specific, we have managed to convert a people who were once very family oriented, to a subculture of people where 9 out of 10 black children are born out of wedlock, many of whom have no idea who there daddy is, because they cannot ever remember seeing him. Our government pays the mother money, to help support her child, but pays her more if she does not have a man living in the house, so we have rewarded women by paying them more to have dad gone. Is there something wrong with this picture? We also pay them more money, the more cildren they have.  It then becomes nearly impossible, for these women, to ever get off welfare, because too often they are undereducated, and if they could find a job, it would likely pay less than the goverment check. This then, becomes a way off life, often for multiple genrations in these families. No, lest someone accuse me of racial stereotyping here, I will quickly point out, that  more white people are on welfare, than black people are. I am just using this example to point out how devestating welfare programs have been to some of our minority communities, the communities that many liberals with their well intentioned hearts, claim to want to help. 

Speaking of blacks, I wish I knew more of them, the few that I do know cannot explain their allegiance to the Democratic Party. This question though, is more about party allegiance than conservative/liberal ideology. For those who are not aware, in the U.S. we have two major political parties, and dozens of minor ones. The Democratic Party, is largely liberal, while the Republican Party, is largely conservative, though only slightly at times. The Democratic party and the Whig party, were the major parties a bit prior to our civil war. It was the Republican Party, that opposed slavery and won freedom for slaves. In the early civil rights movement, Republicans by ratio, outnumbered Democrats in inacting civil rights reforms. The Democrats, for the most part, have created a welfare situation which has kept many black people who would rather work, dependant on the welfare system, penalyzing them if they try to better their position in life through personal effort for financial gain. Is it any wonder that drugs and prostitution is big business in these areas, since they seem to be the only way many see to make decent incomes without being worse off employed, than if on welfare?

 We have a very Racial focused ‘hate group’ in America, thankfully it is not very large. You may have heard of them, they are called the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Most of them, profess to be Democrats. Senator Robert Byrd, sometimes referred to as the conscience of the Democratic part, was at one time a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. That Blacks show special allegiance to the Democratic Party, baffles me. Just a random thought.

I am beginning to realize that I could continue in this vein for perhaps days, because the number of problems that liberals have helped bring about through their good intentions is staggering, the current economic crises comes to mind. Their opposition to solving problems with solutions that actually help, is mind blowing.

Where does the common notion come from, that the rich are greedy and made there money off the backs of the poor? Or that corporations are only out to cheat, steal, and destroy the environment. You know the kinds of notions I am talking about here, I will ask you, are they more common among liberals or among conservatives?

Having anwsered that, would you like to be rich yourself, given the choice? How many times has a poor person offered you employment? Since most corporations are owned by the stock holders, don’t the officers of a company have an obligation to try to make the company profitable. Almost half of American houshold own shares of stock, if companies where not “so greedy” many of these stock portfolios would not perform as well as a savings account, and savings accounts lose value in terms of buying power, every year.

Do you really beleive that some lawyer or a person who has never held a normal job or run a business, is the best sort of person to put in charge of running our lives? Why do we keep electing them? That is not a liberal/conservative question, that is for everyone.

If I continue, I am going to work myself into a state where I think my country is no good. I have focused here on a lot of problems that I see, but the truth is, that we have it pretty good, I just want to keep it that way – that is what conservatism is, “if it aint broke, don’t fix it”!

I apologize if that all seemed less than coherant. I know I went off topic a few times. This was not some well thought out thesis, this was just me rambling and ranting. I hope that at least one of three things happend while reading this. I hope that you at least saw your own thoughts crystalized, or, that you thought “Hmm, that is interesting, I never thought of it like that”, or that you got good and mad and feel motivated to prove me wrong. If your responce is a complacent yawn, I apologize for taking your time, maybe you can go find some professional wrestling on tv to watch, or maybe a good sitcom to stimulate your mind. Enjoy!

I realize, that if you think of yourself as a liberal, that you may feel that I have attacked you. Please do not! I know your intentions are good, I would just like you to rethink your ideas and examine if they are producing the good results that you expect. If not, why not look at the world of ideas out there, and find solutions that are working, and join in with them, and not feel an obligation so side with any group by label. This is for all people, all parties and philosphies. Any solution proposed by any group, party, or individual, which does not work, is not a solution, and does not need to be grown. Such ‘solutions’ need to be modfied or replaced. The world is not perfect, and problems are complex, therefore no simple solution will likely be perfect or capable of wholly fixing  a complex problem, but we can chose the better solutions, and we should.  Do your best to do your homework, and think things through.

Omegaman 2.0

Local concrete
countertop professional contractors fabricators artisans ashby system

Yet another reason for our expensive medical care, is medical insurance and government programs. Why would that be the case? Two reasons.  One, whenever an insurance company or government entity is involved, there is a lot of paper work to be done. This paper work means that additional personel have to be hired to process the paperwork. This cost is reflected in the cost of care. Another problem that accompanies government and insurance provide care, is fraud. There are always those who will scheme to jack up the costs, or even bill for services that are never provided, sometimes for patients that do not even exist.

There is yet another reason that healthcare costs go up with a government or insurance system. When people feel that they will not be charged anything if the visit the physician, they are more likely to go to the physician, for minor maladies like the common cold.
As anecdotal evidence of how much money is saved when one pays for ones medical cost out of pocket at the time of need, I have recently had some medical expenses to deal with, as an uninsured and unemployed person who pays for his own expenses directly.
In the last year, my three daughters needed dental extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Our usual local dentist recommended an oral surgeon. We called the office after he received the xrays, to discuss what these procedures would cost. The bill for the three girls, would be about $4500 dollars. That was a bit out of my price range. A few phone calls to lok for alternative solutions, and we ended up a a univeristy dental school, the bill there was $946 dollars, a savings of $3554, or almost 80%. If medical customers price shopped this way, medical intitutions would have to consider how to lower costs in order to attract business.
I went in for a checkup, and they were going to bill my insurance company $75, until I told them that I had no insurance, and I would pay cash, they lowered the bill to $37.
One of our daughters need to get a physical to go to a camp to volunteer, she shopped on the telephone, and found a clinic that gave her the physical fo $29.
What is the point? If Americans took more responsibility for their healthcare, instead of relying on work provided or government provided care, they would drive the overall cost of care down, through competition.
So, what else drives health care costs up? Quality of care does. Americans want a high standard of care, and they get it. While many may think that the quality of care is not good enough, the fact is that when you compare the outcome for specific maladies in the United States as compared with the rest of the world, we outperform other countries. Of people diagnosed with cancer, pneumonia, Aids, heart disease and others, the U.S. enjoys the longest survival after diagnoses of all countries. So, while we pay more here, we get more also.
If the U.S. adopts the sytems of other countries, and it ends up that our system works on a par with them, we will find, that we have to wait longer for appointments and treatments, sometimes months for life threating conditions. We will find our survivability rate lowered. There is a reason that patients for the U.K. and Canada come here for treatment, and that is because their own countries either deny it, or delay it dangerously. If the U.S. has such a system then, not only will our healt be in danger, but people in those other countries, will lose the option of having the safety of the backup system, that America now provides. These countries that many want us to copy, are living with the shortcomings of thier systems, and their newspapers have chronicled hundreds of hooro stories that result from their systems. Now, they are recognizing that they need to reform their systems, and work toward a more profit driven system.
People sometimes fail to consider, that the U.S. already has nationlized healthcare systems. Interview anyone who is stuck with the Vetarans Administration health care, or Medicare, or Medical, or the health care provided on Indian Reservations, and find out if they think the care is as good as outside the government system.

I have left a lot unsaid here, that is intentional. We can have healthcare reform, we can improve the system, without going to the nationalized system. We can be creative and make new models to help lower costs and improve quality, as well as make it more available, but we will have to get out of the idea that it is either the present system, or nationalize. The key to improvment, is more choices, competing, not limiting ourself to a government run system. Think about it, do you really want your healthcare controlled and decided by government beaurocrats, or are those decisions best left in the hands of the experts (healthcare professionals) and the patient (you)?

What do the people think?

I created this page for the purpose of making the blogs easier to use. If this is your first time visiting the blogs, you might be curious about what they are all about, so let’s start there.

The blogs were originally intended to give the Chat Administrators a place to record some of their thoughts, in the hopes that chatters could get to know us better, and more quickly. What the admins write about, is their choice, it could be about some personal experiences, or thoughts they have, or commentary on world events or results of personal Bible study, you never know what you will find here.

That last thought, is my main purpose on this page – making it easier to discover what exactly it is that you will find here, a table of contents, so to speak. I will get to that later.

For now, I want to tell you what to expect as you enter the blogs. As I said, the chat admins have the opportunity to maintain a blog in this area of Worthy. So do so, most do not. If you are a chat admin and want to blog here, send me a message and we will get you set up. For the rest of you, you can not blog here, but you can read the blogs of the admins, and comment on them at the end, if the author has enabled comments, most do.

When you read a blog there will be the words “no comments” or “add comments” or an areas saying how many comments exist. Clicking that, will bring you to the comment area. Also, at the bottom of the blog article, there is a “leave a reply function” – same thing. If you elect to comment, there is one thing you should know before you spent a lot of time typing out a response. Your comments are screened before they will show up.

Now, there isn’t a formal list of do’s and don’t on comments, but here are some guidelines if you want your comment approved.

1 . No Spamming. This means if you attempt to promote something, most likely it will not be approved. This is true whether it is blatant or stealthy. For example, if you were to say:

“Like I point out on my website, www.nothinghere.google.com, yada yada yada” , your comment might not be approved. Same can go for mentioning a book title, or a product etc. It is up to the discretion of the person approving or denying comments, but leave references to such things out, to assure success.

2. Promotion or even mentioning of “wild ideas, conspiracy theories, or asserting doctrine that can not be demonstrated by scripture, will likely get you comment blocked, unless it adds something meaningful to the topic, as judged by the administrator reviewing the comments.

3. Inclusion of swear words, intentionally mean or threatening language, or failure to show the proper respect to any person, will likely get your message blocked.

4. If your comment is not about the topic, it might be blocked. A comment like “Hi, I am new here, this is a nice website”, will not be posted because it has no relevance to the topic or the author of the topic. However, a comment like “Thanks for the thoughtful article” will probably be included because it encourages the author to write more blogs.

Comments are the only way we have of knowing that anyone is reading these blogs. If the admins are under the impression that few are reading the blogs, most likely the blogs will be few and far between. If you do not see your comment post on the site, and you followed the above guidelines – be patient, it can take some time for the comment to be read an approved.

O.K. Now, for the table of contents. This will be an ongoing work, and at times may be out of date, not showing the most recent blog installments. Even now, that is a problem, as I am out of time, but, I will return to create the contents, with links to the articles, and a short description of them.

Patience, is a fruit of the Spirit

This is not the type of thing I would normally blog on, but there seems to be a fair amount of chatter and mis-information about the new flu strain, happening in the chat rooms at worthychat. So, I have decided to put this information here, in order to have it readily available when the topic comes up.

Well, there are some things that people should consider before going nut or getting panicky. First of, this is not a pandemic at this time, it is pre-pandemic, and perhaps will be pandemic . . .

However, we have pandemics from time to time, and they are not always scary things, but they are cause for concern.

Here is what I think people should keep in mind as they hear the stories of death, that will likely happen . . .

Reagular seasonal flu, that we are all familiar with, causes deaths aslo. In the United States, we typically have 36,000 deaths a year from seasonal flu, with no less that 800 deaths each week since the beginning of this year EACH WEEK.

World wide, the estimates run from 1/4 million to 1/2 a million deaths from regular flu each year. Keep those numbers in mind as you here the numbers from this new strain of flu that is making the headlines. I think the spread of fear through the internet, is way more unusual than the spread of flu from person to person.

I do not know about other parts of the world, but in the states, 90% of flu deaths occur in people over 65 years of age.

So, so far, this new strain of flu is spreading quickly, but it has not demonstrated itself to be any more dangerous that regular seasonal flu at this time, but being a new stain, we do knot know alot about the strain yet, and since it is not flu season, se also do not know if it will become worse when flu season arrives, or whether infections will taper off, we basically just don’t have enough infomation on this particular flu to make intelligent projections, butwe also do not kno enough to panic over it either.

Information provided believed accurate as of April 30, 2009

Information derived from CNN, Center for Disease Control, and pandemicflu.gov website

BTW 109 cases of this so far in the U.S. with 1 death to date – that being in the state of Texas

Not a lot of preface to this one. Let’s just say it reveals God’s inpiration of the scriptures, and demonstrates the value of careful study. I call it FlashBack to the Future.

Matthew does not give us a very detailed description of the crucifixion. Jesus said a
number of things from the cross, among them, the following, as reported by Luke:

“Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise .”

Luke 23:46

“Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit.” And having said this, He breathed
His last.

You are probably familiar with these sayings, and their contexts. I am assuming that Matthew, had a reason for leaving these sayings out, he surely was aware of them, or perhaps God had a reason for Matthew omitting them.  So, what reason could Matthew have for focusing on the saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani”? Could it be that there is something here, that is more important, of a differing importance? Is Jesus, in crying out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” experiencing a moment of doubt? Is His faith wavering? Does there seem to be an element of accusation in these words?

It is clear, from Jesus’ conversations with his disciples, that He fully understood His mission. He knew that He was to die, He knew it would be hard, and He knew it had to be done.  Jesus did not doubt, whatever does not come from faith, is sin, and Jesus never sinned:

Jesus was always a righteous man, He always lived by faith.

Jesus never sinned, so everything He did, He did not do in doubt. He was tempted, but never sinned.

We can see, that Jesus was not doubting at all, so why did He ask why God was forsaking Him?

I think the answer lies not in the content of what He was saying, but the source of the saying. I think also, you will see why Matthew thought this saying was uniquely important.

Time for a flashback:

Ps 22:1 says:

My God, my God , why hast Thou forsaken me?

Sound familiar? That is right, Jesus is quoting the words of a Psalm, why would He do that, why this psalm? When Jesus was crucified, He was crucified in Jerusalem, in the land of Israel, the homeland of the children of Abraham, God’s chosen people, the keepers of the written word of God. A Jew, on that day, might upon hearing those words, know the
source, that they came from this Psalm. The more learned ones, may even have been able to recall the context of the words and gone over them in their minds. If so, what would they recall?

7 All who see me sneer at me;

They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying,

8 “Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him;

Compare the words above with those of Matthew:

39 And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him,
wagging their heads,

43 “He trusts in God; let Him deliver Him now,
if He takes pleasure in Him

See any similarities? Do you think it is possible, that some of those present, might
have noticed this? I think that is possible, even likely. Perhaps, some went home, deeply
troubled by the events that had just unfolded. They would never forget this. Perhaps some
would take the trouble to examine this Psalm, when they had the opportunity, What else
would they have seen?

13 They open wide their mouth at me,

As a ravening and a roaring lion.

14 I am poured out like water,

And all my bones are out of joint;

My heart is like wax;

It is melted within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,

And my tongue cleaves to my jaws;

And Thou dost lay me in the dust of death.

16 For dogs have surrounded me;

A band of evildoers has encompassed me;

They pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones.

They look, they stare at me;

18 They divide my garments among them,

In the above passage, we see this person surrounded by strong aggressive men, snarling at Him, while He is poured out like water, His strength waning, his bones being pulled apart, heart is under stress, thirsting, and recognizing that He is about to die. While in this condition, the evil surround Him, having pierced His hands and feet. He can sense each of His bones in the agony, and while people are gawking at Him, those at His feet, gamble and divide His clothes.

I would like to think, that if I were a Jew at that time, having witnessed this spectacle, that when I read this passage in the Psalm, I would have said “Oh my God, I witnessed this that day. I was there, the words of this Psalm, were fulfilled in my presence”. I would hope, that I would have fallen to my knees, and begged for mercy. I suspect, that many did. I also suspect, that as Matthew’s gospel was spread, that there would be those who read it, who may also have been here that day, or been close to the events, who also would have had this reaction, I am confident, that those who were
permitted to realize the significance, would also have sought God’s forgiveness, and received it, as people have hrough the centuries since.

One from that time, would have seen something else in that Psalm:

28 For the kingdom is the Lord’s,

And He rules over the nations.

29 All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship,

All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him,

Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.

30 Posterity will serve Him;

It will be told of the LORD to the coming generation.

31 They will come and will declare His righteousness

To a people who will be born, that He has performed it.

Pictured in the above passage of that psalm, we see the prediction that the church, that is to say that the future believers, who are gentiles, will turn from their pagan gods to the one true God. Of course, this turning to the Lord, was accomplished because the Messiah died for all men, and the faithfulness of Jesus apostles, in spreading the good news, led to the adoption of the gentiles, into the family of God, making the promise to Abraham come to fullness.

It is my belief, that Jesus quoted this psalm, not in any doubt about His Father’s faithfulness, but was indeed making a powerful statement. It is as though He were saying, “look to the scriptures, you will see this, and you will know I AM He. ” We can look today, and see this is clearly a prophecy, and a fulfillment. I believe, that this was a sign to believers, to the faithful, that they should be reassured, that the Son of Man, was supposed to die, something they were not expecting to happen to the Messiah, when He came. Otherwise, when Jesus died, they might doubt, and look for another as Messiah. This was NOT a sign to convince the unbelievers, they were to get a different sign, one more powerful than this one.

In Luke 23:46, we saw Jesus breathe His last. Those close to Jesus, were in despair, devastated, disillusioned. Although Jesus told them, repeatedly that He would be soon dying, it  was not enough, they were ready to give up, and try to put this all behind them as if it was only a terrible nightmare. They didn’t understand some things that Jesus told them. So, they hurriedly put Jesus in a tomb, and went away in their grief. To mere men, the grave appears to be the end.  Jesus was no mere man. Remember I told you that the unbelievers would get a more powerful sign?

Jesus has here, predicted his death, burial and resurrection, and stated that this is the only sign He would give those included in the evil generation. We tend to think of a generation as a group of people born at approximately the same time. In Greek, is can mean that, or the age in which a generation lives, or a race of people. I have no idea which is implied here. The sign given to this generation, would be Jesus’ resurrection after being in the earth 3 days. What Jesus went on to say, I think is very powerful, that Ninevah, would stand up (Greek anasteésontai, from the same root word that we understand as resurrection) with this generation, and condemn it at the judgement, because they repented and mere preaching of a prophet, but this generation did not believe, when the Son of God was among them, fulfilling prophecies and performing miracles.

The resurrection is a powerful idea. All people have a common enemy, one that we cannot defeat. That enemy is death. People are born with a survival instinct. What people do not stop to consider, is that death is inevitable, and that the
answer to the issue of survival, is to be able to survive after death. How would one know, if that were possible? The only real evidence that would at all be convincing, would be for some one to die and return back to life from the dead. They could not die as in having ones heart stop for a few minutes, that is not convincing, but really dead, all life
functions gone, cold on a slab kind of dead. If I am going to listen to someone tell me that there is a life after death, I want his source of information to come from someone who has been there, that is authority.

Where did the power come from for this resurrection?

Father ?

Son

Holy Spirit ?

Amen to that, what a great verse! There we see the Spirit who raised Christ from the dead, also dwells in the believer, giving life to our mortal (temporary and subject to death) bodies. What does this mean to us? We started at the Crucifixion, and went backward to see a detailed prophecy concerning it, back forward again to the resurrection. We
stopped there to see a small detail about the power of and behind the resurrection. Since tomorrow is resurrection Sunday, you will hear plenty about the resurrection itself.
Now, it is time to go forward again to our present, to examine it’s significance to our lives today.

The resurrection is the very core of our belief as Christians.

It that passage Paul asserts that if the resurrection did not occur, then you are living your life in vain, with no chance of an afterlife, and, in fact, you are a liar about God and still lost in your sins. Not only is the fact of the resurrection necessary for for your afterlife, so is your belief in the resurrection:

This brings to life another important part of our walk, one that is ignored by too many, failure in this area, can never be justified if you are able. We need to confess not only for our own salvation, but we are to love others, as a responsibility to God, a small thing which He expects from us. Evangelism. Many do not do this, because they are shy,
unconfident, not used to being pushy, or any number of other reasons. If God asks this of you, on what basis can you possibly refuse? We are told to love others as God also loved us. He loved us enough to die for us, but many of us, do not love Him enough to tell others about Him. Instead of loving our neighbors, we demonstrate contempt for them. By
not telling them of our Savior, we are in effect saying, that we would rather have them spend eternity in torment, than for us to be uncomfortable for a few moments. What could be more selfish? What is more important than a soul, for whom Jesus died? It boggles the mind, that the church treats others this way. Yes, I am guilty too.

I put this part about evangelism for one simple reason. As I was researching the preparing for this study, I kept coming across evangelistic passages. It was not in my plan to include it, but I could not steer through the passages in a way that avoided it. So, I took the hint and decided that is was not to be avoided. Those passages are there to
be read and to be accepted. Just as it would be unloving to not tell someone about the Savior, it would be unloving of me, to not encourage you to spread the word. Evangelism, is what a good and faithful servant does above all else. Christ didn’t die, to hear more worship songs. He didn’t die, so institutions would have more money given. He did not die, so people would do acts of charity. He did not die, so people would study the Bible. He died to save the lost. He died for us, and for everyone whom we have not told about Him.

After you attend your next church sevice, if not before, I’d ask you to consider, what Christ did for
you. After meditating on that, ask yourself, “What am I willing to do for Him?”.
Finally, consider following through on your answer.

May God richly bless you as you follow the Son.

Postscript:

That was the end of the study. However, after I gave this study, two attendees asked me if I knew about the worm. ”

Know about the worm? What are you talking about?”

“You know, the worm in the psalm, the one where it says “I am a worm, and no man!”

They told be some things about some worm, which I found a bit unlikely, but being an investigator at heart, I looked into it. It was an interesting investigation. You can read it here. Again, just another evidence of the inspiration of scripture.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.

This passage struck me lately. Especially verse 37.

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

Ive been seeing a lot of people lately who dont want to give up things or people in their lives who lead them away from the Lord. Someone who is saved, but who has a rabidly antiChristian boyfriend who is shaking their faith. Someone who loves their fiance and is living with them, but wont stop that sin to follow the relationship with Christ.

Jesus told us what the greatest commandment is in Matthew 22:36-38

Master, which is the great commandment in the Law? Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment.

We say He needs to be first in our lives, but is He? Are we allowing someone or something to take precedence? Do we encourage new believers enough to put aside the things or lifestyle or even the people who come between them and the Lord? Is our heart and our focus on the Lord first?

Revelation 4:8-11
And each one of the four living creatures had six wings about  him , and within being full of eyes. And they had no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God, the Almighty, who was and is and  is to come. And whenever the living creatures gave glory and honor and thanks to Him who sat on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fell down before the One sitting on the throne. And they worshiped Him who lives for ever and ever, and threw their crowns before the throne, saying, O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created.

In chat lately, many folks are using lower case letters for the name of Jesus and God. Some folks get upset when they see others calling God god. Others get upset when folks demand His name be capitalized. Is this really an issue to get upset over?

The Jews revere His name so much, that they write G-d, since there are no vowels in the name YHWH in the bible. For fear of using His name irreverently, they call Him HaShem “The Name”.

Do we diminish who He is when we neglect to capitalize His name? Do we have too casual a view towards our Lord that we cant even capitalize His name? Have Christians today in the US, and elsewhere, lost their reverence for the Holy Lord? Does that affect our faith? Questions to ponder.

It has been suggested to me that I let the reader know more about me so when we meet in chat, or on the boards, I will seem more like a friend then a stranger.

I am a relatively quiet person, always have been. I try to say as little as need be and be as clear as I can while doing so. Even though I enjoy talking with people, I try to be direct. In a crowd, you will find me usually watching the conversation instead of joining in. Alone, I have no problem discussing issues of the heart. Guess I am not into small talk much. Been that way for my 55 years of life.

I was born and brought up in a small town in West Central New Hampshire where the population has a hard time reaching the 13,000 mark. People here have that New England old fashion way about them. We are quick to notice a difference but take our time discerning what we think on a matter, not rushing into judging if the difference is good or not. Saying that, my town is trying to keep up with the times as the farms are disappearing and are being replaced with High Tech businesses and more housing. The corn fields have been developed into plazas. Our area is prime for growth with intersecting interstates, an airport, train station and Dartmouth College right up the road.

The landscape in my area consists of rolling hills and small mountains, barely reaching over 3,200 feet. The Appalachian Trail runs just 5 miles north of town, through some beautiful scenic mountains as it winds its way North to the White Mountains and Maine, and South into the beautiful green rolling hills and mountains of Vermont. There are many trails to hike everywhere. Recently, mountain biking has become a popular sport. Wildlife consists of Moose, Bear, Whitetail Deer, Red and Grey Fox, Bob Cats, Beaver, Mink, Fisher Cats, Weasels, Porcupines, Red and Grey Squirrels, Chipmunks, Rabbits, Snow Shoe Hares, and the all too feared Striped Skunk! Oh yeah, I can’t forget to mention the mosquitoes and the famous black flies that frequent the damp late Spring and early Summer.

My family consists of my wife of 26 years, five children and three grandchildren. We have been blessed with a Habitat for Humanity house that we helped build in 1994. Through the process of building our home, I had the opportunity to make some life long friends, some that have moved on and others that still live in the area. If you ever get a chance to help construct one of these homes, you will be well blessed for your efforts. Since my house was finished, I moved on to help build many more. Watching a dream come true for those who fall between the cracks leaves a lasting effect as you sit back and reminisce your memories of small children with smiles a mile long and parents who finally have something to work for.

I was a child of the 60′s, which would mean that I was a hippie who struggled with the moral issue of the Vietnam War. After struggling with this issue for some time, I did join the service. To my surprise, I enjoyed boot camp, but really disliked the rest of the service. I guess that it was because what I really wanted to do was close to enlisted servicemen while I was in boot camp. After my time was up, I headed out on the road hitchhiking across the US to see and do as much as I could while I could before I settled down to a family. Yup, one of those long haired hippies with a knapsack standing on the side of the road with his thumb out. Thank God that the world was a much nicer place back then. People were not afraid to stop and offer others a ride.

After working in manufacturing for many years, I thought it would be nice to get into construction, so I ventured into the building trades until an unfortunate accident left me with a broken neck. After recovery, I was informed that I needed to change my career, so Vocational Rehabilitation help me with school, where I went back at the age of 40 to get a degree in Computers and Business Management. After colege, I ended up in an IT position where I was the all around fix-it technician, far from my degree, but lots of fun. I worked with everyone in the company, from the President to the Mail Clerk. I became the welcomed face to everyone, since they mostly saw me when I fixed their computer problem so they could proceed with their daily business. It was normal for me to fix things cause I tinkered with cars all my life, and the “other job” I had to take in the service what a jet mechanic, specialized in Helicopter Jet Engines.

Today, I enjoy rock climbing, from bouldering to traditional climbing. I am always at awe as I climb cliffs and view the beauty of Gods creation, sometimes, taking a moment to say “Hi” to a lizard that is cruising down what I am struggling to get up! I love to watch hawks as they seem to float in mid air almost within reach. Other then climbing, I enjoy biking down the Rail to Trails we have here and hiking the many trails to beautiful outcrops that offer splendid views of the surrounding area. I use to be into Tae Kwon Do where I was into competition. I had to stop competing after I was diagnosed with Hep. C and Fibromyalgia.

As for my walk with Christ, I do have a shortened version of my testimony here, Running from God. I feel it is time to redo this and bring to light the full glory of God, who reached deep into the muck and mire of my sinful life to pull out a sinner like me. I have had the pleasure to work in the helps ministry for some time now. It is a blessing to help those who are where I once was, sharing the Love of the Lord with them and watch, over time, as the Holy Spirit works in their lives. It has been only a little over a year that I have been blessed with the opportunity to be part of this online ministry. Worthy Christian Forums is like a second home for me, where I have made many new friends, learned a lot and have shared some of what God has shown me. WCF is a very diverse site where Brothers and Sisters from other denomination come to give glory to the one God we all share, and to witness to those who are searching for the meaning of life. The blessings one receives from helping another find Christ, or help others find answers to critical questions, is beyond measure. Please, take the time to get to know everyone here. We all have a past, present and future. Come share yours with us as we share ours with you.

Well, that is basically who I am. Feel free to inquire where I have been vague or just stop by to say “Hi!”

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

In His Love,
Your Brother In Christ,
Alan, a.k.a. OneLight

God Bless Brothers and Sisters. It is my prayer that the Holy Spirit ministers onto to all who read.

Holy Spirit

Trinity – One God – Three Persons
Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Was Part of Creation
Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Part of Salvation
John 3:1-8
There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Promise from Jesus
John 14:12-21
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

As A Teacher
John 14:23-26
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me. “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Helper – Spirit of Truth
John 15:26
“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

Convicts – Guides
John 16:7-15
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

Gives Power
Acts 1:6-8
Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Baptizes
Acts 2:1-4
When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Comfort in Fear
Acts 9:26-31
And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out. And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. When the brethren found out, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.

Delivers from the Power of Flesh
Romans 8:1-39
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Righteous, Peace, Joy
Romans 14:16-17
Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Spirit of man vs. Spirit of God
1 Cor 2:10-16
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

2 Cor 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Washed, Sanctified, Justified
1 Cor 6:11
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit
1 Cor 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

Gifts from the Holy Spirit
1 Cor 12:1-31
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant: You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.
If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be?
But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

Fellowship with
2 Cor 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Conflicts between the Spirit and the flesh
Galatians 5:16-21
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Fruits of the Spirit
Galatians 5:22-26
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Do Not grieve the Spirit
Ephesians 4:30-32
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

Whole Armor of God
Ephesians 6:19-17
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

Wrote the Bible
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Test the Spirits
1 John 4:1-6
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Discerns the Spirit of the Antichrist
1 John 2:18-29
Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life.
These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

No answers here, but some things to think about.

I hear this question frequently, but I always wonder what is in the mind of the person asking the question. Is the answer to this question important, and if so, why and in what ways?

An unbeliever might like to pit the conclusions of modern scientists, who almost universally hold to the idea that the Earth is very old against the apparent assertions of the Bible that the Earth is relatively young. In other words, if the Bible says the Earth is young, and scientists say the Earth is ancient, then clearly the Bible is wrong and not to be believed.

A believer, on the other hand, might look at this problem and conclude, that the unbeliever has a point. Out of concern for the skepticism of the unbeliever, the believer might want to make it easier for the unbeliever to accept the Bible. Similarly, the believer may have his/her own doubts about this and so adopt the position, that the correct interpretation of the scriptures is that the Earth is old and in harmony with the consensus of scientists.

Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation. As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance.

Therefore, I shall be addressing this topic from the stand point of the believer – what it means to us. Is it important what we believe? What should we believe?

What concerns me the most, is not what we believe in regards to this question so much as why we believe what we believe. A standard rule of biblical interpretation, is that we interpret the Bible literally, unless we are compelled to do otherwise. Some might make the case that the science is so compelling, that we have to interpret Genesis in some figurative way.

I have to ask, what is it, that makes the science so compelling? I am a scientifically minded person, I run much of my daily life depending on ideas which science has observed and proven. Obviously, science has proven to be a powerful and useful tool. However, I think that the most trustworthy part of science, is the part where we can observe current phenomena, develop theories about the phenomena, and test those theories. When we begin to attempt to apply science to metaphysics – the spiritual part of our universe, science has left it’s realm of expertise. Topic of an historical nature – the issues of the formation of the universe, the development of life etc, science has also strayed from it’s expertise because it is attempting to guess what has happened in the past, from clues in the present. Most of the time, this will be of questionable reliability, since there is no way to repeat history in a test tube. It is gone, and not subject to examination.

What it comes down to then, in my opinion, is: “What do you trust more, the pronouncements of a demonstrably infallible God, or the pronouncements of demonstrably fallible men?” Now, to be certain, we can make mistakes in our interpretation of the Bible, so both methods have a risk of error. Never-the-less, I believe that the Christian who maintains that the Bible teaches or allows for and ancient earth, is knowingly electing to disbelieve the most natural literal interpretation of the Bible, in favor of the theories of men, derived from the natural sciences. Personally, if I am wrong in my assessment that the Earth might be quite young, I would rather have the clear conscience of taking God at His word and be in error than choosing to trust the dictates of men that God pronounces to be fools for their unbelief of Him.

It is true that there are reputable scientists who believe in an old Earth and who profess to be Christians. I do not doubt that most of these men and women are saved, trusting Jesus for their salvation. I do find it very odd, however, that they are willing to trust God about the scientifically unlikely event of the His resurrection, upon which their salvation rests, but cannot find it within themselves, to take Him at His word with regards to issues of origins. In fact, I find it saddening.

As you have probably concluded, I am of a younger Earth persuasion. This is not to say that I believe that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. as some assert. I note that the Bible never makes such a claim, and that this number is merely the result of calculations of a man who added up life spans and genealogies in the Bible. I have never checked his math, but in as much as the Jews were known to practice genealogies with gaps in them, recording more notable ancestors, it seems to me that there is some room for some extra time. In my estimation, all you can prove from the Bible about when the Earth was created, is that Adam, the first man, was created in 4004 B.C. or earlier. How much earlier, I have no idea. In other words, I do not believe the Bible makes any definitive statement on how old the Earth is. Having said that, can I prove there are gaps. Yes and no. The Bible as we know it, notes them itself, by comparing genealogies in some books versus others. In other words, different book describe ancestral lines with differing numbers of people in them. Therefore, some of these have to be incomplete, or else other have extra generations. If there are extras, then those passages are either untrue, or they are some sort of allegory. The do not appear to be allegory, so the most logical choice is that the others are not complete. If they are not complete, then we know that gaps were an allowable custom. Knowing that gaps are allowable, we can assume that all of the genealogies could contain gaps.

Now, a little known and underdiscussed fact is, that the Hebrew text from which the 4004 B.C. creation date comes, is the Masoretic text, the major text underlying the translations of modern Old Testaments. However, copies of the manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew, written some 300 years B.C. with extant copies going back to 400 A.D.) predates the Masoretic text by at least  350 years (the the oldest extant copy of the Masoretic text is Masoretic text dating to the 9th and 10th centuries A.D.) . Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted the Septuagint, so it is safe to assume it was thought reliable as the word of God. The geneologies of the Septuagint, if totaled in the same way that the 4004 B.C. Creation date was arrived at, push the creation date back to 5315 B.C. See how muddy and impossible it is to determine the date from the scripture?

To me then, the Bible allows for an undetermined age of the Earth, and mankind is at least 6000 years old (7300 if going by the Septuagint). Which brings us to the length of creation time passed before God made man.

The Old Earth Theorists, will have to hold to the idea that the 5 days prior to the creation of man, are not 5 literal days, but days which are of undetermined lengths of time, even millions of years each. This is done to force the scriptures to harmonize with scientific conclusions. That people may choose to interpret the Bible according to the dictates of predominantly atheistic scientists, is their own business. However, I think that it sets a very dangerous precedent, which allows for changing the meaning of the word of God, to suit whatever belief is in fashion. This is already being done in other portions of scripture. For example, science is looking to find a genetic causation for the behavior of homosexuality. If a link can be found to exist between heredity and sexual orientation, then what will follow is a discounting of the biblical notion that the practice homosexuality is a sin. Now, that leap will not be a logical one, but the leap will be made, never-the-less. I could cite other examples, but this one will serve to illustrate the point. The point is that even if it can be proven that homosexuality is genetically caused, it still does not alter the fact that God calls it a sin to practice, just as He calls it a sin for heterosexuals to act their carnal desires outside of the man/woman marriage that He ordained.

For myself, I shall not ever use the temporary and ever-changing opinions of science to interpret the God inspired scriptures which never need adjustment, but that is just me. Many Old Earth Creationists are aware of the supremacy of God’s word, but just do not have enough faith in the most natural interpretation of scripture to overcome their faith in modern science. In such cases, I can understand that, but I wish more of them were honest about that fact that that is what the problem is. Sadly, many choose instead, to find that the traditional beliefs of Christianity are suspect an inferior.

It should not take any effort on my part, to convince anyone that the most natural interpretation of the creation days of genesis, is that they are 6 literal days. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Old earth creationists will go to great lengths to point out that the Hebrew word for day, does not always mean a literal, twenty-four hour day. They are absolutely correct on that point. This Hebrew word is “Yom”.

Gen 1:4-5

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day. (NIV)

The first thing to notice about the word “day” as used in the creation account, is that it comes to us pre-defined. The light God called day. We do the same thing to this day. Also, one light and dark cycle, is also called a day. Just like we do. The implications of this one verse are a monumental obstacle, to anyone who wishes to maintain the notion that a day in Genesis, represents a length of time of thousands or millions of years. For one thing, we see here that in context, the word day is used identically as it is normally used in modern English. The internal, literary evidence therefore points to the conclusion that God intended this portion of scripture to be understood as literal, that a day is simply one cycle of light, most likely,  near 24 hours long. To assume that something else is intended, is a gross violation of rules of interpretation, not only of the Bible, but for any document.

Let’s suspend those rules momentarily, and allow for the idea that this day is, for example, not 24 hours, but one million years. Does this help Genesis square with modern scientific opinion? An interesting thing to note in the Genesis account, is that during this first day, the Sun has not yet been cause to shine upon the earth. The lightness and darkness that is cycling, is not sunlight. This gives some wiggle room because this light and dark, may not be dependant upon the rotation of the earth. We could say perhaps, that days were longer at that time. It get’s more difficult to maintain this notion though at creation day 4:

Gen 1:16-19

16 God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day. (NIV)

If these days are not 24 hours long, and we go back to the idea that a day is one million years long, might it be that the light was on for 500,000 years during a light/dark cycle. Since the old Earth theory is done to accommodate scientific opinion, then we should be consistent and assess the implication of 500,000 years of light. Is this light of similar intensity to what we experience from the Sun? If so, what would the surface temperature of the Earth rise to? Would the plants (created on the third day) survive the temperatures? Could they survive 500,000 years of darkness and no photosyntheses? Interpreting the scriptures to accommodate scientific consensus, causes more problems that it solves.

We have seen that interpreting Genesis passage literally, makes the most sense from a literary perspective. We have seen that interpreting it in the light of science, makes the text into nonsense. What about this word Yom we touched on briefly, is there a reason to expect that it might mean other than 24 hours in the original Hebrew?

My Bible software reports that this word Yom occurs 2304 times in the Old Testament. That should be plenty of data to work with, to discover the likelyhood that Yom should be understood as some sort of age. How many times is Yom not 24 hours in the Bible?

Here are examples of how it is used otherwise:

The span of human life. – Gen 5:4: “And the days of Adam …. were eight hundred years.” “And if thou wilt walk …. then I will lengthen thy days” (1 Kings 3:14; compare Ps 90:12; Isa 38:5).

(2) An indefinite time. – Existence in general: Gen 3:14: “All the days of thy life” (compare Gen 21:34; Num 9:19; Josh 22:3; Luke 1:24; Acts 21:10).

(3) A set time. – Gen 25:24: “And when her days …. were fulfilled”; Dan 12:13: “Thou shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the days” (compare Lev 12:6; Dan 2:44).

(4) A historic period. – Gen 6:4: “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days”; Judg 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel” (compare 1 Sam 3:1; 1 Chron 5:17; Hos 2:13).

(5) Past time. – Ps 18:18: “the day of my calamity”; Ps 77:5: “I have considered the days of old” (of Mic 7:20; Mal 3:7; Matt 23:30).

(6) Future time. – Deut 31:14: “Thy days approach that thou must die”; Ps 72:7: “In his days shall ….” (compare Ezek 22:14; Joel 2:29; Matt 24:19; 2 Peter 3:3; Rev 9:6).

(7) The eternal. – In Dan 7:9,13, where God is called “the ancient of days.”

(8) A season of opportunity. – John 9:4: “We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (compare Rom 13:12-13; 1 Thess 5:5-8). See DAY (4), above.

That was from the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Copyright (c)1996

See anything there that suggests eons? Most of those uses are less that a human lifespan. Some, are referances to historical periods – in other words AFTER the creation of man. The one possible exception, is number 7 above, but it is a reference to God Himself, not his creation. In short, to say that the word Yom contains the potential to represent millions of years, is forcing a definition or use of it, that is so extreme compared to actual uses of the word, that it can be considered as nothing other than a desperate grasping at straws by those that lack the faith to take God at His word. If any choose to believe the unstable opinions of the sciences over the revelation of God’s word, I am okay with that, I really am. I just wish they would have the honesty to state that they feel the need to abuse the science of hermeneutics to satisfy their own uneasiness about God’s word, instead of trying to convince others that it is somehow justified or legitimate to force personal beliefs upon the interpretation of scripture. To quote Prof. James Barr from the EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE: “If the word ‘day’ in this chapter does not mean the period of 24 hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”.

Is the evidence too strong against the bible, or at least of a literal interpretation of it? Certainly if scientific consensus is going to be the determining factor concerning out faith and theology, we have to ask the question:

What about the resurrection. Scientific consensus would be that a man who dies, and remains dead for three days, stays dead. If God cannot defy the opinions of scientists, then no miracles happen, not now, not ever, and the resurrection never took place. If that is true, then Christianity is little more than a collection of interesting stories. If God is going to be limited to our understanding of the laws of nature, then why would we be wondering about the length of the creation period. A God without the power to do the miraculous, could not bring the creation into existence in the first place. If that creation did not happen, then why would we suspect that creation has an author at all, and without such and author, does sin really exist? Who gets to define what is sin and what is not, who decides how salvation is accomplished or if it is even necessary. Is there really even an afterlife? Apart from a revelation from a supernatural God, these things are all unknowable, and Christianity has no real value. It may not be critically important, how long creation took, but knowing that it took place, believing God by faith that it did, is important, and I have to wonder how much we really believe god, if we cannot trust Him to accurately describe and make plain, the details of His own creation.

Consider some of the implications of a lengthy creation. How does it affect other beliefs or statements from the bible? Do other passages make reference to the creation events – do we call them into question? Did Jesus or the apostles mention anything about the creation account that would leave you to believe that they took it literally – if so, how does that affect their credibility? If we can choose to ignore a literal interpretation in Genesis – do we then grant ourselves the same license in other parts of the Bible – if so, how will you know where and when?

These are questions each person must address and consider. While science has century by century, worked to discover how the universe works, each generation of scientists has seen major scientific opinions come and go. Each generation of scientists indeed, has at it’s disposal, new knowledge and new tools to investigate the natural world. Each generation has advanced the collective knowledge of mankind, and each has refuted theories held dearly by collegues of previous generations, and yet, after thousands of years, is still seeking answers to fundamental question, answers that are elusive.

Meanwhile, the Christian is able to hold the same views as Jesus and the apostles expressed 2000 years ago, with no need to apologize for any of them. The 20^th Century saw the sciences advance at a tremendous rate, but as theories about origins and cosmology became more refined and old once discarded as obsolete, we found that the theories of prevailing science, are looking more like the bible all the time. Of course, science cannot truly address origins and cosmology ultimately, because those things are outside of it’s scope of examination. Science works in the present, it examines present clues about past events. The past is not like electricity or chemisty, it cannot be replicated or examined directly. Science is even more at a disadvantage, to look into matters of a spiritual nature. Science examines natural phenomena, the supernatural is outside it’s pervue. Still, it is interesting to observe that scientists seem to be edging their way toward beliefs that the bible expressed all along. Considering that the bible is not intended to be a science text book, it is remarkable how many scientific facts it got right before scientists would discover them.