Life, Death, Family and the Christian Voice

Looking back on the Presidential Election, I still don't know who I would have voted for had I voted on November 4th. It seems odd to say, but my vote did not seem to be as important for the issues I care about as the upcoming run-off election on December 2nd. 

This isn't a partisan decision at all, this is a Pro-Life, Pro-Faith  and Pro-Family issues. In regards to 'Same-Sex Marriage Rights', I believe this term is a misnomer. I don't think a 'Marriage' should ever be referred to as a 'Right'. A Marriage is an 'ability'. We know that 'abilities cannot be legislated, and therefore the ability of a man and a woman to be wed is therefore not a right. To imply that marriage is a right would be to imply that this is something to be granted by man.

A marriage is a blessing by God. He defines that a marriage is to be between a man and a woman and the government has no right to legislate on anything that supersedes its authority or jurisdiction. The extant that the government has can legislate is simply to recognize a Union formed by a higher authority.

In regards to the impact Christians have had on our government just in the last 6 years, consider the following:

There are roughly 60 million evangelical Christians in America.
In 2002, Christian voters led the way in voting in 36 new House members that were pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family. Likewise, their were 8 new Senators who were also pro-life.

In 2004, Christian voting turnout increased by 93%! This increase gave pro-life candidates huge majorities in the House and Senate. In fact, 25 of the 40 new House members were pro-life and 7 of the 9 new Senators were pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family.

Historian David Barton summarizes: "The result was the congressional enactment of the first four major stand-alone pro-life laws since Roe v. Wade:
1. Infants Born Alive Protection Act
2. Unborn Victims of Violence Act
3. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
4. Fetal Farming Ban

Furthermore, the addition of so many new pro-life Senators resulted in the confirmation of two new pro-life Supreme Court Justices and dozens of pro-life court of appeals and federal district court judges."

- In 2006, 92.5% of homosexual men and 91% of lesbian women voted.
- Plus, a 30% drop in Christians voting.

RESULT - The Baltimore Sun reported that America voted in "The most pro-choice Congress in the history of the Republic."

Only 17 of the 54 new House members were pro-life (30%)
Only 1 of the 10 new Senators was Pro-Life (10%).

In another post, I stated that Homosexuals were against Human Rights for their support of Proposition 8. This would have legalized marriage between members of the same sex and further promoted a medical condition that, in essence, is against the natural laws of human progression.

While proponents of Proposition 8 wonder why people are against something that doesn't seem to affect anyone else; I wonder why it seems that Homosexuals find it necessary to exercise their voice in relation to procreation? This obviously is an issue that shouldn't concern them.

These are the reasons why I'm voting for (R) Sen. Saxby Chambliss on December, 2nd. 

Powered by ScribeFire.

How to Prove the Validity of the New Testament

There's thousands of answers given that prove the validity of the New Testament. I admit that I never needed this type of proof myself to believe, but maybe one day this may provide ample evidence to someone who is skeptical about the validity of the Bible. Hopefully, this may give someone a reason to reconsider their skepticism.

2 Peter 1:16-21
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"--
18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

In the Bible, the word "Christian" is first mentioned in Acts 11:26: "For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch Jesus' disciples were first called Christians" (Gr. χριστιανοί, from Christ Gr. Χριστός, which means "the anointed")

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived. When other languages are included, the total of ancient copies approaches 25,000.

Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum, says… "in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament."

He continues by adding, "The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."

In terms of physical evidence that agrees with the eyewitness testimony?
To date, there have been ~ 23,000 archaeological findings directly related to and showing proof of the truths found in the Bible.

The next ancient text to come close to rivaling that number is Homer's Iliad which is thought to have survived in 643 ancient copies.

~ Recognizing this, F. E. Peters remarked:
"On the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity."

The most important discovery in the history of biblical archaeological findings has been the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948. Within these scrolls was found a complete scroll of the book of Isaiah, which is dated to about 100 B.C.

This is where it gets interesting, since scholars can see how well the Massoretic scribes had preserved the OT text. As scholars compared the two Isaiah texts (from 900 A.D. & 100 B.C.), they were startled by the precision of copying.

Isaiah 53, for example, has 166 words, and there are only 17 letters that differ. Ten are just spelling differences. Four are "minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions." The three remaining letters that differ are the word "light," added in verse 11, which does not affect the meaning.

Of course this predates the time of the New Testament, so how does this go about proving the writings of the NT?

If you cross-reference Isaiah 53:7-9 with Acts 8:32-40 you can see that this is how Phillip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian who received the gift of Salvation.
This act is also repeated in Matthew, Chapter 5, by Jesus to His disciples.

This is just one example out of hundreds that tie the validity of the NT in with the validity of the OT.

Apologetics, NT Proof, Christianity, Bible

Powered by ScribeFire.

Political Correctness vs. Political Politeness

The term "Political Correctness" originated as something of a joke,
literally in a comic strip. Too often "political correctness"
camouflages an underlying disease like racism and sexism.

The word Correctness is derived from the Greek term ὀρθοπραξις. Literally, this word is translated Orthopraxy
which means "correct action/activity" in rules of ethics and behavior
and extends to the actions of daily life and social obligations. In
essence, Correctness is an ideology.

What's so wrong with living "idealistically" one might say?
Once the term "PC" became an ideology,
it became a disease, in fact "PC" became deadly serious. It is the
great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of
millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, and around the
world.

All ideologies are totalitarian because the
essence of an ideology (note that conservatism correctly understood is
not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of
this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since
reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become
forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be
forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live
a lie, they naturally acknowledge this as untrue. Then the power of the
state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology
invariably requires a totalitarian state.

How do we cure
ourselves of this disease? Just like "alcoholism" we need to identify
it for what it is, a disease. Next, just like any other type of
disease, once we know what it is we can prescribe an effective
treatment.

Since untruths lie at the core of what makes "PC" deadly, I propose that an effective cure begins with telling the truth.

This
may seem like too large of a step for society to embrace, so why not
just begin with replacing "Correctness" with "Politeness"?

"Politeness" is best expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette. Politeness is a culturally defined phenomenon. The goal of politeness is to make all of the parties relaxed and comfortable with one another. To be polite is an attempt to save face for another.
Of course we know that politeness doesn't infer what is true, just simply that it is pleasant. Therefore politeness will never be mistaken as a "truth".

POLITICAL POLITENESS
is simply an action that seeks to establish a positive relationship
between parties; respects a person's need to be liked and understood.

While keeping "PP"
in mind we can effectively discuss what is true and therefore discover
a cure for other diseases such as racism and other forms of social
inequality diseases.

Political Speaking

Powered by ScribeFire.

Promotion of Same-Sex Marriage Is Anti-Human

Yes, I know this is a hugely debated subject that's been written about a zillion times. Knowing this blog is of a Christian nature you're probably not surprised by the title.

Instead of simply restating why homosexuality is wrong from a Christian perspective, I'd like to look at this from a secular viewpoint. I, like most people don't enjoy being labeled as close-minded, narrow-minded, intolerant, phobic or anything else that would infer lacking-intelligence or an uncaring nature. It's not surprising that proponents for homosexuals utilize these labels in an effort to discredit anyone that disagrees with their philosophy. Hmmmm, if you read that again you might be able to point out the irony.

None the less, these 'labels' have proved to be an effective method to deflect from the real questions concerning homosexuality. Mainly, should homosexuality be accepted by society as simply against  a social moray? Is society wrong to hold an intolerant attitude towards homosexuals?  

To answer this, lets first look to see if homosexuality could be considered 'normal'. Of course 'normal' is is a term that's often seen as purely subjective, so this does nothing to diffuse any controversy.

To avoid prolonging any debate, lets look at how the medical community defines what 'Homosexuality' is:
Mental Illness: Any of various psychiatric conditions, usually characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by physiological or psychosocial factors. Also called mental disease, mental disorder. 

This seems to be to broad of a term to offer any type of conclusive definition. Lets drill down and look at 'Mental Disorder':
any disturbance of emotional equilibrium as manifested in maladaptive behavior and impaired functioning, caused by genetic, physical, chemical, biologic, psychologic, or social and cultural factors. Also called emotional illness, mental illness, psychiatric disorder.

Based on this definition, 'Homosexuality' seems to fit in as a 'mental disorder'. Just to be sure though, look at the definition of:

Maladaptive: Not assisting or promoting adaptation

Adaptive: A change in structure, function, or behavior by which a species or individual improves its chance of survival in a specific environment. Adaptations develop as the result of natural selection operating on random genetic variations that are capable of being passed from one generation to the next. Variations that prove advantageous will tend to spread throughout the population.

Therefore, because homosexuality is by nature maladaptive, we can confidently designate homosexual behavior as a Mental Disorder. This is true regardless if a person is born with this condition. If someone is born with a heart condition, would we be remiss if we failed to recognize this as a dangerous medical condition? What if someone is born deaf? Is it wrong to recognize that this person suffers from hearing loss? How about those that are born without eyesight?

Society is not seen as intolerant for not considering the rights of the blind to be granted driving privileges. 

Somehow though, because society has defined that marriage is to be between a man and a woman this is seen as prejudiced and therefore wrong? Of course it's prejudicial, but this does not equate to being wrong.

Consider, we classify 'homosexuals' to be members of a minority group. What other minority group is designated as such based on their lifestyle? We classify various races as being within a 'minority group' but not based on lifestyle.

How would society be changed if a minority group became the 'majority group'? If divided only by race or nationality we may see a change in our culture. Other than this though, the effect on the Human Race would be as relative as reshuffling a deck of cards. Ultimately, we would still be playing with a full deck of 52 cards.

In contrast to this however, if homosexuals ever became a majority, this would have a disastrous effect on the progression of the 'human race'. For society to embrace 'homosexualism' could impede procreation. More and more children would have to be created in test-tubes. The cost associated with this may be prohibitive for many. Therefore the human population would inevitably cease to progress naturally.

Yes, I know that this is taking things to the extreme, but if the extreme is not considered valid reasoning we'll never be prepared if it came true. If an extreme case proves to be false, then that activity must therefore be deemed false or wrong.

Is it wrong to abolish same-sex marriage? NO, it is our responsibility to outlaw same-sex marriage. Anything that conflicts with the progression of the human race has always been and always should be outlawed. What's wrong with society is not its inability to tolerate differences it's precisely our ability to tolerate just about everything that's wrong!

It's wrong not recognizing homosexuality as a disorder. Society has proved that it has no issue with empathizing for those that suffer from a disease. Society has donated billions of dollars to the treatment and cure for many diseases. This is right because it is FOR the advancement of human life. By contrast, it would be wrong to host a charitable event to promote suicide, cancer, murder, abortion, and bomb making.  These are wrong because they advance ideas that oppose human life. In comparison, homosexuals march in parades and seek funding to promote a condition that is diametrically opposed to the advancement of human progression?

The true irony is that proponents of homosexual rights try to speak on behalf of 'human rights' yet their actions are diametrically opposed to the advancement of civilization!

Clearly, for society to accept homosexuality as normal would require the discarding of a few cards... the Kings seem the most appropriate choice.

A few good articles that I've come across recently detail exactly with and provide further proof for my attestations contained in this blog.

Article 1 - details the history of the removal of the 'Mental Disorder' distinction on Homosexuals.

Article 2 - details the effects on a society that accepts and/or promotes the homosexual lifestyle as 'normal'.

Article 3 - details the 'blueprint' for homosexuals to advance their cause onto healthy society.

Article 4 - If your familiar with the site 'Religious Tolerance' then you're probably aware of its inability to be committal towards any view. Likewise, this takes a more 'universal' approach and remains very objective to the subject. Needless to say, you're not going to find an opinion on this subject in this article.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Preaching Jesus For Dummies!

One of my favorite stories in the Bible to use to illustrate God's gift of Salvation is about the Ethiopian who receives Christ ~ Acts 8:25-40.

This story shows who, why and how a person can receive Christ into their heart. The who is anybody, the why is by accepting and the how explains both about the acceptance as well as the ministering. In regards to the ministry part, it's obvious that Phillip was not responsible for the words he spoke, he left it up to the Word. It's obvious that all he did was listen to the instruction of God.


34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, "Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?"

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

The part that caught my attention however is in verse 35 "from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him."

Do you see why this is so amazing? Look closer "from this Scripture"

What Scripture was he referring to that included Jesus? Consider that at this point in time the only Scripture in existence was what we refer to today as the Old Testament.

So here's the Ethiopian who's having a difficult time trying to figure out who the Prophet is speaking of and Phillip goes forth and shows him in Scripture that it is speaking of Jesus!

Can you preach Jesus to someone who has no knowledge of the New Testament? Can the Old Testament be used to explain who Jesus is?

Truly in light of this, we have it easy today. If the New Testament was published today Phillip may have suggested a more applicable name such as "How To Preach Jesus for DUMMIES!"

I know I've never tried teaching about Jesus exclusively by the OT, but clearly this was the effective and understood method in which Jesus was preached back then.

If anyone knows an effective way in which to do this, I hope to hear from you!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Women Pastors

Before giving my life to Christ, I had three sisters of whom I love and respect very much. They're all blessed with their own unique gifts that I've always admired. I don't believe anyone would have ever labeled me a sexist in the slightest.

Since giving my life to Christ I've been studying the Bible endlessly. I like to study the Bible with a question in mind, this way I'm motivated to discover an answer. The thing I hate is when I don't have a question. To solve this, I'll search other sources for questions. The Internet and discussion boards are great resources for questions.

Of course it wasn't long before I came across the subject of Women Pastors. I set out to discover exactly what the Scriptures have to say about this and discovered that Scripture never supports the role of women as Pastors presiding over a congregation of men.

While this subject has been debated endlessly for years, I hate regurgitating the same argument over again, especially since they haven't been able to convince anyone of the right way according to the Bible.
Many people that are for women Pastors have already discounted in their own mind all the scripture that speaks against women Pastors, so I hope not to revisit the obvious banter.
I think a simple approach is to just break down the roles within Christs Church and see which roles carry the responsibility of a Church leader or overseer?

Is a Deacon a church leader? No. Deacons were in charge of taking care of the sick and the poor. Phoebe was a Deaconess Romans 16:1

Is a Prophet a Church leader? No. Isiah wasn't a leader, he was simply a Prophet. Deborah was also a Prophetess - Judges 4:4-5 as was Miriam, Exodus 15:20; Huldah, 2Chronicles 34:22; Noadiah, Nehemiah 6:14; Anna, Luke 2:36; Philip's four unmarried daughters, Acts 2:36; and the list goes on.

Is a Ruler a Church leader? No. A ruler was a politician of sorts.
Evangelist? No. An Evangelist is called to go out and spread the word... not oversee a congregation.

Minister? No. There are many types of ministries, but these compliment a Church... they are not a Church. Matthew 27:55

Helper? No. A helper assists the Church

Witnesses? No. Mark 16:9

Preacher? No

Teacher? No

Judge? No.

Priest? Yes.

Pastor? Yes.

Bishop? Yes.

Elder? Yes

Our Churches today have difficulty with placing the proper title in accordance with what a particular office or position is. Because of this many people have become confused as to what the responsibilities are of a particular office. It's in this confusion that corruption occurs.

If there is an instance in the Bible that depicts a woman in a position of Church leadership and it is mentioned as favorable or acceptable to God, then I have no issue with women Pastors. I honestly believe that some women sitting among the congregation have a greater ability than the Pastor who is currently presiding over the congregation. That being said, I would leave the church immediately if a woman was ever to stand up to lead the congregation. While I can't find a passage that gives credence to women Pastors, I think Scripture makes it abundantly clear that women are not to teach men. 1 Timothy 2:9-15.... To believe women can preside over a church is to discount this and many other passages. I tend to check my understanding of scripture however by seeing if my thoughts contradict another single verse or passage in the rest of the Bible. If it does, then I know my interpretation is wrong.

Since becoming saved I didn't become sexist, I never lost respect for my sisters or any other woman. I did learn however to respect His Word.

Isaiah 3:12 & Deuteronomy 22:5 are interesting verses that aren't often brought up in relation to this discussion, but should not be overlooked in this context.

Powered by ScribeFire.