The Son Of Man - Son Of God

Son of God or Man?

Huios Theou or Huios Anthropou?

Matthew 4:3 - The tempter came to Him and said, "If You are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." (Huios Theou) ["The Tempter" speaking to Jesus]

Matthew 4:6 - "If You are the Son of God," he said, "throw Yourself down." (Huios Theou) ["The Tempter" speaking to Jesus]

Matthew 8:20 - Jesus replied, "Foxes have dens and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head." (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 8:29 - “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” (Huie Theou) [Demons speaking to Jesus]

Matthew 9:5-6 - "Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk?' But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..." Then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your mat, and go home." (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 10:23 - When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Huios tou Anthropou)

Matthew 11:19 - The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is proved right by her deeds. (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 12:8 - For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Huios tou Anthropou)

Matthew 12:32 - Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come. (Huiou Anthropou)

Matthew 12:40 - For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 13:37 - He replied, “The One who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. (Huios Antrhopou)

Matthew 13:41 - The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom every cause of sin and all who practice lawlessness. (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 14:33 - Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." (Huios Theou)

Matthew 16:13 - When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" (Huion tou Anthropou)

Matthew 16:27 - For the Son of Man (Huios tou Anthropou) will come in His Father’s glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man (Huion Anthropou) coming in His kingdom.

Matthew 17:9 - As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, "Do not tell anyone about this vision until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." (Huios Antrhopou)

Matthew 17:12 - But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands. (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 17:22 - When they gathered together in Galilee, Jesus told them, "The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men." (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 19:28 - Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, in the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 20:18 - Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn Him to death... (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 20:28 - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many. (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 24:26-27 - So if they tell you, 'There He is in the wilderness,' do not go out; or, 'Here He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Huiou Anthropou)

Matthew 24:30 - At that time the sign of the Son of Man (Huiou Anthropou) will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man (Huion Anthropou) coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:36-39 - No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son (Huios), but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man (Huiou Anthropou). For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. (Huiou Anthropou)

Matthew 24:44 - For this reason, you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour you do not expect. (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 25:31 - When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 26:2 - "You know that the Passover is two days away, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified." (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 26:24 - The Son of Man will go just as it is written about Him, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed. It would be better for him if he had not been born." (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 26:45 - Then He returned to the disciples and said, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 26:63 - Then the high priest said to Him, "I charge You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God." (Huios Theou) [High priest speaking to Jesus]

Matthew 26:64 - "You have said it yourself," Jesus answered. "But I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Huios Anthropou)

Matthew 27:40 - "You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross!" (Huios Theou) [Jews speaking to Jesus]

Matthew 27:43 - He trusts in God. Let God deliver Him now if He wants Him. For He said, 'I am the Son of God.' (Huios Theou) [A priest speaking about Jesus]

Matthew 27:54 - When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified and said, "Truly this was the Son of God." (Huios Theou) [Centurion speaking about Jesus]

Mark 1:1 - Introduces Jesus as the "Son of God" (Huios Theou)

Mark 5:7 - Demons (Legion) refer to Jesus as "Son of the Most High God" (Hypsistou Theou)

Luke 1:32 - Gabriel tells Mary that Jesus will be called "Son of the Most High" (Huios Hypsistou)

Luke 1:34-35 - And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be borne will be called holy—the Son of God." (Huios Theou)

Luke 3:23-38 - Jesus's genealogy of "son of Joseph" through "son of Adam, son of God" (tou Theou)

Luke 4:34 - Demons refer to Jesus as "Holy one of God" (Hagios Theou)

Luke 4:41 - Demons refer to Jesus as "You are the Son of God" (Huios Theou)

John 5:25-27 - Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God (Huiou Theou), and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself. And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. (Huios Anthropou)

John 10:34-36 - Jesus replied, "Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’ [Psalm 82]? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?" (Huios Theou)

Jesus accused by a High Priest

Matthew 26:63-64 - Jewish high priest charged Jesus of claiming to be "the Christ" (Christos) and the "Son of God" (Huios Theou) - Jesus responds "You say so." (Sy eipas) "you will see the Son of Man..." (Huion Anthropou)

Mark 14:61-62 - Jewish high priest charged Jesus of claiming to be "the Christ" (Christos) and the "Son of the Blessed One" (Huios tou Eulogetos) - Jesus responds "I am and you will see the Son of Man..." (Huion Anthropou)

Luke 22:67-69 - Jewish high priest charged Jesus of claiming to be "the Christ" (Christos) - Jesus responds "You wouldn't believe" and "But now the Son of Man..." (Huios Anthropou)

Pontius Pilate questions Jesus

Matthew 27:11 - Pilate asks "Are you King of the Jews" - Jesus responds "You say so" (Sy legeis)

Mark 15:2 - Pilate asks "Are you King of the Jews" - Jesus responds "You say so" (Sy legeis)

Luke 23:3 - Pilate asks "Are you King of the Jews" - Jesus responds "You say so" (Sy legeis)

John 18:33-37 - Pilate asks "Are you King of the Jews" - Jesus responds "Do you ask" (Sy legeis) "or do others accuse me" [paraphrased] - Pilate asks "So are you a king" - Jesus responds "You say that I am a king" (Sy legeis)

Fulfillment of Isaiah

Matthew 1:21-23 - An angel of the Lord to Joseph: "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel."[Isaiah 7:14] (which means, God with us). (Theos Meth' Hemon)

Power is Transitive

Matthew 21:21-22 - “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

The Myth of the Noble Savage - excerpt

In order for there to be free will in the Garden of Eden, there has to be something that Adam and Eve can choose that's not God. What if every choice Adam and Eve make in the garden gets them back to God; the decision to love each other gets them God, the decision to kill each other gets them God? If that happens, there's no genuine free will.

So it's like it's like saying you have a maze with only one path. It's not a maze, just a corridor.

And so you have one thing that God does. He puts the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden. And Adam and Eve are told, “That way lies death.”

People will come back and argue, “How can you condemn Adam and Eve when they don't know what death is?” I would argue, and I think this is the brilliance of that story; it is so we know that it’s adamant that God walks with Adam and Eve.

We know that God made Adam and Eve in His image. He walks the garden with them. They can converse with God directly. They have absolute knowledge of the good. The only thing they do not know is evil. So when the tree of knowledge of good and evil is put in the garden, the only thing Adam and Eve can gain from it is the knowledge of evil, because they already know the good.

That's brilliant because God has not stacked the deck against them. They know the face of God. They know their Creator. They know his goodness. They just don't know evil, which God characterizes it as death.

So they know that by choosing that tree they will get something that's not God. And so the parameters of freewill are upheld. And God is absolved of being a tyrant because they know him.

What does it say about the god of the ancient Israelites, the god that has carried us through in Western culture for 2,000 years, what does it say about him that he loved his creation so much that their freedom meant more to him than their obedience?

It's one of the things that sets Western culture so far ahead of other cultures is that we choose freedom not obedience; the free market system. The Socialists, the Marxists, the progressives; they want to go back to a world where all human beings deserve the Garden of Eden like Adam and Eve, but they owe God no obedience for it.

The threat of the Old Testament, the First Commandment, is that you'll become God. “If you don't recognize that I am the Lord your God then you will become gods of yourself.”

Not only from the Enlightenment do you get the fallacy of romanticism - the natural goodness of man, and the fallacy of naturalism - morality is irrelevant because we're all animals. You also get Nietzsche. And Nietzsche said at the end of the 19th century, “God is dead. We philosophers have killed him with our knives. But,” he said, “Men must become like God then to be worthy of it.”

The only way modernism exists, the only way all these modern socialist-Marxist-fascist, whatever you want to call it, utopian dreams and schemes exist is if man assumes he's a God, not an animal.

And there's your corruption. There's commandment number one down the drain.

- Dr Duke Pesta

Taken from the YouTube transcript. Edited for readability, not content.

The Myth of the Noble Savage - YouTube - Dr. Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux

free exercise will cost you

ME: The law should protect both parties' rights; rights of equal protection and of religion.
THEM: Your group is infringing on my group's rights and discriminating against them.
ME: My group has religious rights, too. The law should accommodate both parties' rights.
THEM: Your group has every right to their religious beliefs, right up to the point where they infringe on my group's religious beliefs.
ME: You never address how to keep your group from infringing on my group's rights.
THEM: No one is telling your group what to believe. Or infringing on their practice of religion. They can pick either their religion or their employment, but not both.
ME: Your solution is they lose their jobs? How is that not an infringement of my group's religious rights?
THEM: Suck it up and do it, or find another job. Your group is free to practice their beliefs, as long as the practice does not infringe on my group's beliefs.
ME: You continue to deny accommodation for my group, while requiring accommodation of yours. How is that equal?
THEM: I made no request for accommodation for my group. I only threatened your group with their source of income. Your group is free to act against their religion. Or they can lose their job.

Why am I spending so much time fighting this battle?

Because, even though Kim Davis (county clerk in Kentucky) may have been in the wrong for HOW she acted, this is a larger demonstration of what has been going on in this country.

In a country where one of the very first enumerated rights is the "free exercise" of religion, it is hard to believe how often that right is being taken away. Perhaps even more concerning is how unequally those rights are being observed, even allowed. Cake bakers, photographers, military personnel, private property owners, flower shops, printing companies, and private individuals are being taken to court, as well as slandered in public, over their deeply held religious beliefs.

And with each instance, the clamoring gets louder that religion is something to be ashamed of; to hide away in your homes. Which is even more startling given the history of those who shout the loudest; those who for so very long had to hide their own beliefs for fear of ridicule and retaliation. Somehow, in this upside-down world, it is "Justice" to attack, degrade, and demean those who disagree. But it is that type of behavior which is called "bigotry" when practiced by those who call themselves "conservative". Yet it's hailed as "Social Justice" by those who, without irony, call themselves "progressives".

This largely takes place against openly Christian groups and individuals.

Yet with each instance, should the groups switch places, or should a different favored group be inserted for the "offensive" christian group, the reaction is entirely different. If a christian denies a homosexual access to their services, they are reviled, slandered, and often litigated.

Not so, if it were a homosexual denying a christian.

Not so, if it were a muslim group denying a homosexual. Or sometimes, even killing them.

---

Dick and Betty Odgaard believed in 2013 that they were standing for their Mennonite beliefs when they refused to let a gay couple get married at their Gortz Haus Gallery, a Grimes church they had turned into a flower shop and bistro.
The Odgaards in December agreed to a settlement with the two men stating that their business would not discriminate in offering its services to the public. Instead of being forced to open the venue to same-sex weddings, the Odgaards ended their wedding business entirely.

---

Stutzman is the Washington florist who has been sued for living out her Christian beliefs. In 2013, a long-time friend and customer came to her flower shop and asked her to provide flowers for his gay wedding. Stutzman had known this man and had done business with him for about nine years. Nevertheless, she told him that she could not participate in his wedding "because of my relationship with Jesus."
Keep in mind that Stutzman does not refuse service to gay people. Indeed she had been selling flowers to this gay couple for nine years. She has also employed gay people in her flower shop.
The court also ruled recently that both the state and the same-sex couple, who each filed lawsuits against her, may collect damages and attorneys fees not only from her business, but from Stutzman personally. That means the 70-year-old grandmother may not only lose her business, but also her home and savings because she lives her life and operates her business according to her beliefs.

---

In Oregon, the state labor commissioner in July ordered the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa to pay $135,000 damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to bake them a wedding cake. Aaron and Melissa Klein have appealed the ruling to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

---

Hands On Originals contended that it declined the T-shirt order because it is a Christian company and disagreed with the message of the shirt. The shirt was a stylized numeral 5 on the front. On the back was "Lexington Pride Festival" and a list of sponsors of the gay pride event.
Sexton said in a statement that the ruling is a landmark for Lexington's Fairness Ordinance. "If you're going to do business in Lexington, you must make your goods and services accessible to everyone regardless of the protected classes, including sexual orientation and gender identity. ... If this was a case involving race, religion or national origin, there would be no debate on right or wrong."

---

Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk, assigned to the 37th Training Wing, said Friday he was relieved July 26 of his duties as first sergeant of a training squadron and forced to take leave because he disagreed with his commanding officer’s position on gay marriage. He says his commander is openly lesbian.
Monk said he was subsequently relieved of his duties at the unit, and had to request permission to return in order to collect personal items. “I was relieved of my position because I do not agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” he said.

---

Atlanta city officials say they were within their rights to fire former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran because he wrote — and offered for sale — a Christian book without permission and gave copies of it to nearly two dozen people at work.
The councilman, who is openly gay, has told the Atlanta Constitution-Journal that “when you’re a city employee and [your] thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door,” according to ADF attorneys.

---

source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/01/gortz-haus-indiana-religion-law/70810344/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/08/colorado_court_rules_against_c.html
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/10/07/3468006_hands-on-originals-discriminated.html?rh=1
http://archive.militarytimes.com/article/20130816/NEWS05/308160021/AF-sgt-claims-he-fired-religious-views-gays
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-texas-judge-tonya-parker-won-perform-marriages-straight-couples-article-1.1027709
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/?page=all
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/being-gay-in-the-islamic-state-men-reveal-chilling-truth-about-homosexuality-under-isis-10470894.html

Forgive Us Our Debts - Re-Blog

Imagine I were to give you the following assignment: "I want you to sit down with a non-Christian who knows nothing of the Bible. He has only vaguely heard of Jesus Christ, and he's not even sure there is a God. I want you to explain to him how to become a Christian." Would you be able to do that? Could you sit down with somebody and explain simply what it means to become a Christian?

Many Christians don’t have a clear understanding what we're asking people to do when we ask them to become a Christian. What is it about? It's found in this phrase, "Forgive us our debts." In this phrase there are two profound implications to this simple request.

First, that request implies we have all sinned. Whenever you talk to people about their need for Jesus Christ, you have to begin with sin. Without the bad news, there is no good news. And here is the bad news: there is a God in heaven who has an objective list of requirements, and all of us have fallen short of those requirements. The Bible says, "There is none righteous, not even one... For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:10, 23). Most of us have a hard time believing that we really are in need of forgiveness because we compare ourselves to other people. We think as long as we haven't molested a child or committed murder, we're pretty good. Not perfect, but good enough. Yet the standard God uses to judge us is not other people. His standard is His perfect Son, Jesus Christ. And the Bible says that compared to the perfection of Jesus Christ, we have all fallen short. All of us have sinned.

Second, we owe God for our sin. Because we have sinned against God, we owe God a debt for the sin we have committed. What is that debt? Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death." Not just physical death but eternal death, eternal separation from God. We’ve all sinned. But here is the essence of the Christian message: Jesus Christ paid for our sin. When Jesus died on the cross, He paid our debt for us.

Here is the most important issue of your entire life: Who is going to pay for your sin? You have a choice. You can say, "God, I'll try to pay it myself." Then you will spend all eternity in hell trying to pay that sin debt, and it will never be paid off. Or you can choose to allow Jesus Christ to pay your debt for you. That's what He did when He died on the cross. He offered to take care of that debt for you. When you become a Christian, what you're doing is kneeling before a holy God and saying, "God, I know I've offended You. I know I have wronged You. I know I need to suffer for my sin, but I believe Jesus came and paid the debt for my sin in full. And I'm trusting in the name of Jesus to save me." The Bible says when we cry out to God in that way, He takes our faith and exchanges it for His perfect righteousness. That's what we're saying when we pray, "Father, forgive us our debts."

---

source:
Forgive Us Our Debts - Pathway to Victory

reminiscing on burying the hatchet

always remember, when burying the hatchet, you aren't the only one who knows its location... watch your back.

and when turning the other cheek, you can expect that one to get slapped, too.

on a personal note, i find it amusing that it does not matter how much i wish to extend the olive branch, i always seem to end up with olive-branch lash marks for my troubles... today i spent time with one step-son, supporting him in his college career and choices in life... it's always a pleasure to see him... in doing so, i tried to be friendly and cordial with my other step-son, whom is the diametrically opposite the first... no matter how hard i try, it is never a pleasure.

i'm not going to delude you (or myself) with the illusion that his an our issues are not mutual... we have both done things which should not have been done; said things which should not have been said... some things are water under the bridge; some flood over... but today, it was to be a détente‎, a mutual cease-fire for the sake of the family and to enjoy some family time; to bond over the mutual good fortune of our relative... it might as well have been the Tet Offensive.

we were talking about several movies; older movies, new movies, spoilers for movies... my wife brought up the upcoming movie of "God Isn't Dead"... i could feel my heart sink, as i knew that he wouldn't have let a religious reference go unchallenged; him being the faithful atheist zealot he is... his derisive comment was, "You know that's not based on a true story," as if we were thinking Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain just happened to be part of some documentary.

i should have let it go... i knew it at the time... my brain knew it, at least... my mouth didn't get the memo.

"That's why it's called a movie," i said, too much sarcasm in my voice... "Who thinks this is based on fact?"... to which he replied, "The same people who think The Passion of the Christ is based on fact."

okay... what do i do?... do i go on the offensive and provide some comments about his own beliefs (or lack thereof) or do i sit back and allow him to insult me and my wife (his mother) some more?... as i have allowed him to spit his derision in my face for several years, i suppose it is partly my fault... but, as i have made it clear that i won't allow that; i face a dilemma... do i go back to being spat upon, or do i do something about it?

i chose to just leave... call it a day... throw in the towel... move on... forgive-and-, well, i'm short on forgiveness these days... i can only take being kicked so much... so leaving seemed the best route... not classy, but it removes me from the situation.

speaking of classy... i'm short on that these days, too... he had his shit-eating grin, looking forward to shaking my hand on leaving... kind of his own little, "Well, that point goes to me"... i don't plan on losing well.

"F-U"... and i walk away.

well, apparently that was not what he wanted to hear... it definitely wasn't what should have been said... but i'll admit i felt much better haven gotten that off my chest.

i hope he got the same relief from the following bits he had to say in return... these are my favorite bits:
"You can't talk to me like that in front of my family"... yet he has never had that same restriction.
"You don't deserve my mom and brother"... a common refrain from his teenage years when i was dating his mother... Oedipus much?
"You've never respected me"... now that's not true, but how long can you respect someone who (figuratively, of course) defecates on you time and time again?... what am i, in an abusive relationship?... yet i keep coming back... maybe i am.
"I'm the only one who stands up to you"... obviously, he has a delusional image of married life... and his brother has, but not in that in-your-face manner, but in a more passive-aggressive mode... sometimes, he'll even sit down and discuss his issues with me... he, i respect.

i should learn from this experience... i should still walk away, but i should also let him have his hollow victory... i should shake his hand and wish him well... i know that one day, he'll treat someone else with the same mocking derision... someone who doesn't have the family ties to restrain him... one day, that someone will break his jaw... and he'll learn a very hard lesson; one i have tried to spare him for some time... but you can lead a horse to water; you can't make him think.

the greatest lesson i learned from this incident is going to remain my secret... but i have learned that he has a tell (like in poker)... and when i saw it, i couldn't suppress a grin.

i feel bad about that grin.

defeating Darwin, Nye, Ham, and Fisher

i discuss Bryan Fisher, of AFR, and his discussion of Bill Nye and Ken Ham who discussed scientific atheism vs. intelligent design... there's a lot of discussion going on, so let's get right to it... we'll skip ahead to Fisher's "Defeating Darwin in Easy Four  Steps", which is predicated on Ham's highlights, primarily those which confounded Nye the most.

First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.

what is the primary cause?... if all other things are secondary effects, what is the primary cause?... where did this "Great Ball of Matter/Energy" come from?
on a secondary note, i laugh whenever i hear the phrase "seeing light from the Big Bang"... apparently space unfolded faster than the speed of light, and light from the "Bang" had to catch up to the heavy matter out on the perimeter... think about that for a second, and you'll see why i find that hilarious.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction. This is why things break down if left to themselves, and why scientists tell us that the universe is headed toward a heat death.

of course, the simple answer is a reduction in entropy in one place is balanced/offset by an increase in entropy elsewhere... this is some quantum magic, apparently... where our planet has a decrease in entropy through evolution, there must be an equal increase in entropy somewhere else... my (sarcastic) guess would be on Mars... because no one likes Martians.
also, through this Law, we naturally arrive at the conclusion that, from the current entropic state, there is an "original ordered state" of zero entropy; an "Initial Singularity"... the first moment of entropy is colloquially called "the Big Bang"... since entropy is one of those non-reversible laws, it stands to reason that there is no way the original ordered state could ever be reached through natural processes; the Initial Singularity has no precedent nor any subsequent equal... so, where did it come from?... it just was... there is no determining where it came from nor the first cause from which all others derived... should we take that on "faith"?

Fossils. Realize that the fossil record is the only tangible, physical evidence for the theory of evolution that exists. The fossil record is it. There is absolutely nothing else Darwinians have they can show you.

even if we accept Darwinian evolution, which is entirely plausible in my opinion, what does this add or detract from the debate over "Intelligent Design" or the existence of God?... this is simply a mechanism for modification... where self-determinism fails to react to environmental stresses, successive generations are able to adapt and survive through biological processes... simply because evolution is not described in a collection of religious texts, this only proves the incompleteness and necessary brevity of the text... this does not describe an incomplete God.

Genes. The only mechanism – don't miss this – the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation. Mutations alter DNA, and these alterations can be passed on to descendants. Catch these two quotes. First, evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations." And this from University of Bristol scientist Alan Linton: "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another."

genes and fossils are two parts of the same debate, for which there is no necessary reason for discussion, as pointed out previously... one does not negate the other (e.g. evolution and God)... genes are simply mechanisms for either argument, not the argument, themselves.

---

source:
Defeating Darwin in four easy steps By Bryan Fischer, February 6, 2014

God and the law

I heard someone on TV say the US justice system has nothing to do with God. Oh?

Exodus 23:1-9

Bible Gateway Link (NIV 1984)

"Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.
"Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.
"If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him.If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it.

"Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.
"Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.
"Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous.
"Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus23:1-9&version=NIV1984

---

source:
Vine and Branch: I heard someone on TV say the US justice system ha... Posted by Kim Hume - February 6, 2013

unhappy holidays

no more Christmas for atheists... this isn't because i'm mean... it just isn't FOR them.

i'm serious... i'm getting tired of atheists... "Separation of church and state"... "No nativity on public grounds"... "Call it a 'Holiday Tree'"

really?... a holiday tree?... which holiday would that be?... we name them, you know... do you put up a tree for the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday?... or Valentines Day?... or the Independence Day holiday?... or is this tree for a December-specific holiday?... maybe Hanukkah?... is it a Hanukkah tree?... a Kwanzaa tree?... a Boxing Day tree?... be honest now... what f@#king holiday is it?

at this point, the crazies come out... we'll hear the pagans claiming the tree as their own... it's the Yule tree of the Germans... and this, i don't dispute the origins... however... who among us is worshiping Thor?... i know many people claim they are pagans or wiccans or druidism or some such... but most of them don't know the first thing about Thor, Odin, Mjolnir, or the reason the tree was decorated by the Norse... if they truly understood, they would never cut down the tree, nor would they bring the damned thing into their homes!

so let's get that settled here and now... if you're referring to the "holiday season" in general terms, such as "Happy Holidays", that's perfectly acceptable... there are many holidays occurring near this time of year, and a wish of "Happy Holidays" is fine... but if you are referencing anything related to the Christian holiday known as Christmas, then refer to it as such!... the tree is a Christmas tree... the gifts are Christmas gifts... the decorations are Christmas decorations.

so for all non-Christians... practice your religion and enjoy your holidays... and let Christians do the same.

for all atheists... shut your damned mouths... don't put up a tree... don't put up decorations... don't give nor receive gifts... you don't want to share our religion; fine... then you also don't get to share our traditions... you don't see me lighting Menorahs... you don't see me telling jews whether or not they can display them, either... so i don't want to see atheists decorating trees, giving gifts, or participating in our holiday... at all.

you cannot deny us our GOD GIVEN right to practice our religion... and, by God, if you refer to our traditions, call it by the right damned name.

Merry Christmas.

marriage advice no one told you

sometimes, i think arranged marriages are better... think about it... you've never met this person until your wedding day... then you must get to know this person slowly over the course of a lifetime; day by day... there are no excuses... you can't say, "You're not the person i used to know" or "You've changed"... no "Irreconcilable differences" because all you have are differences... and you must reconcile all of them!

too often, people think marriage is when you stop dating and can "be yourself"... but if your spouse married someone other than "yourself", why are we surprised when problems arise?... you get mad when he/she says they don't know you anymore, but it's your fault!... you've been lying to them all along!... it's no wonder divorce rates are so high.

which brings me to divorce... liberals (read: atheists, anarchists, gay marriage proponents, polygamists, and perverts - i'm using this term in the broadest sense) try to use divorce rates as ammunition to promote their own agenda... i'm not going to judge their agenda, only their method of attack... you see, divorce rates are so high because we have given in to the notion that marriage is a personal choice... one which we can change our minds on just because things didn't turn out like we imagined... the joke is usually "a man gets married hoping his wife won't change, and a woman gets married hoping her husband will; both are disappointed"... marriage isn't about personal choice... it's about making a commitment; not with the opposite member, but with yourself... moreover, it's a contract between you and your family, community, and society as a whole... it's most importantly a contract with God... i'll discuss this last point in a minute.

your word is your bond... when you say "I do", you had better... if you change your mind, what you are saying is "I don't follow through on my word, on my sacred honor, and I don't value commitments"... while i would never judge all divorcees, as i don't know who left whom, a person who causes a marriage to dissolve has decided their own word has no value... a person can justify it all they want, but you have broken your most sacred and valuable promise... the only saving grace is if your divorce is caused by the broken promise of your spouse, as a contract can only be whole if upheld by both parties... infidelity is colloquially understood as sexual, but fidelity means loyalty and the strict observance of promises... if your partner is disloyal to your marriage, be it sexual or not, then the contract is not being upheld.

that being said, it's not enough that your partner has been disloyal... you need to discover if you can repair the contract... marriage is about more than your personal feelings being hurt... it's a contract between more than two people.

you promised your family... not only your children (or future children)... you promised your parents... you promised to uphold the traditions of your ancestors... these traditions often seem like trivial things... "liberals" will attack traditions, too; trying to trivialize them... but these traditions are the glue that holds societies together... they are designed, over centuries, to reinforce family values and to strengthen family bonds... we don't send Christmas cards every year because Jesus told us to (he didn't)... we do it to remind ourselves that the people we are closest to are important to us... that they have value... that, though we may not think about them daily, we want them to know we haven't forgotten them.

also, we uphold these family traditions because it gives us a chance to remember... our family has stories, personal stories, that need to be remembered... each member has events which shaped their lives, and if we listen closely, we can allow them to shape our own... often, the harshest teacher we will ever encounter is experience... but not everyone must burn themselves to know fire is hot... stories being passed down, generation to generation, teach us... we borrow experience, and learn from them ourselves... "nani gigantum humeris insidentes" ("dwarves perched on the shoulders of giants")... to paraphrase Newton, we see further from the shoulders of giants.

a broken marriage also hurts society... each marriage is a contract with society, in essence saying "I will promote well-being within my community; I vow to protect others as I would protect myself"... you are showing, by example, your commitment to the whole by your actions in the part... for example, should you not value your own vows, what value can you reasonably expect others to ascribe to their own contracts?... should society, as a whole, devalue the bonds of matrimony, how can any member of that society hold secure those bonds society hold with them?... we trust that our government will honor its commitments to us, but when we don't honor our own, is it really any surprise that governments are inconstant in their promises?

God... we make these vows before God... atheists scoff at this... but even to the atheist, this should be our most solemn vow... "But why," you ask, "should an atheist make a vow before God?"... because this is a vow to our secret heart... we make this promise to ourselves, that should we be presented with an opportunity to be disloyal such that no one should ever know, we vow to remain constant to the promises we made... to a theist, God knows and sees all things, even those kept secret from our families and communities... should we break our pledge, God holds us accountable... an atheist believes in no such authority... so, should opportunity arise, there is no higher authority but himself... but the worst problem with this is the atheist is not omniscient... he has no means of knowing the future and whether his infidelity would ever be discovered... he can reason and justify all of his vows away, but he can't escape the fact that he can never fully know the outcome.

a theist resists infidelities even in the mind, knowing that God knows a man's heart... adultery in the mind is as detestable as adultery in the flesh... justifying one legitimizes the other... and i can hear the arguments already... "Just because I imagine it, doesn't mean I condone acting on it"... and that's true, one doesn't cause the other... but allowing your heart, in secret, to be disloyal to your vows grants you the first support for being disloyal in all other actions... "If no one ever knows, there isn't any harm"... how often do you hear, "No harm; no foul"... but when we justify one indiscretion, we open the floodgate for all others... you cannot open Pandora's box and only extract hope... either we maintain our vows, in public and in secret, or we find any reason to dissolve them.

and we often presume that our infidelities are secret and never known... we, fallible creatures as we are, will never know the end result of our actions until it is upon us... if we are not steadfast and stalwart in our vows, in secret and in public, we open ourselves up to the unknowable... for example, should we allow ourselves to be disloyal to our vow of "for richer or for poorer", should financial difficulties arise, we have allowed ourselves the latitude to place blame... once we have placed blame, in secret and in our heart, we will unknowingly change our behavior... there is nothing quite so hurtful as a slight roll of the eyes, thereby firmly announcing our placement of blame... we have been disloyal in our heart, and, without our conscious consent, we have displayed it to the world.

a firm commitment to our vow to an almighty God is our greatest protection against our own frailties.

wow... i've spent a lot of effort on fidelity... that wasn't where i was going with this... but, i suppose, you can't go anywhere without a firm foundation... once you have that, you have something upon which to build.

and how do you build on a marriage?... first, forget what everyone has told you (except this, of course)... marriage is never what you expect it to be... mainly, it isn't fun... oh, it can be... but that isn't what a marriage is... more often than not, it's a lot of work... it is compromise and often doing what you really don't want to do... and doing it with a genuine smile... yes, genuine... you have to decide for yourself that you will do that thing, which you would rather not do, because it is good for your marriage... doing something half-ass or begrudgingly is decidedly detrimental to a marriage... either do it completely or don't do it at all... dragging your feet like a hurt child only does damage to a marriage... playing games like "I'm-only-doing-this-because-I-have-to" or "If-I-do-this-you-owe-me" is childish at best, and does nothing to promote unity and growth... it's simply poisonous.

but being a push-over is equally poisonous... letting your spouse win every argument does nothing to grow a marriage... sure, it builds his self-esteem, but at the expense of your own... something as simple as what to have for dinner can build a marriage... even though many wives say they don't care what to have or where to go for dinner, this is often disingenuous... they care... but they often will let you chose for them as a gesture of kindness... men, notice this... it's fine to chose your favorite restaurant or meal... but, on occasion, chose what they would like... show them that you understand their gesture, and give them one back... if you go to a sports bar for wings and beers, take them out for sushi and cocktails (or whatever their personal preference is)... offer to cook dinner, and make something they like.

i'd make the same observation for women, but often they're better at this than men... however, they're not so good at it as they think they are... women like to spend time with their men, and men do to... but men want quality time, not necessarily quantity... you see this in the advent of the "man cave"... it's funny, but even back in the day when men spent 12 hours in the fields, they would come home only to go spend another 4 or 5 in the yard, barn, garage, or wherever they could... it isn't that they don't want to spend time with their wives, but they don't often get to spend time with themselves.

we're just wired differently... each of us needs to understand our own wiring and that of our spouse... we need to adjust our own minds to accommodate that of the other.

at the end of the day, we are each individuals... we know ourselves best... for us to have a successful marriage, our spouse must know us, too... and while many men would claim their wives are psychic mind-readers, none of us are able to delve into the depths of another's mind without a guide.

communication... this is the true pitfall of all marriages... "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility." - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Driftwood (1857)... how do you know a secret history?... the only way to see it is through the lens of the viewer... i say "lens" because often even the person who lived it has colored it some... we don't like to remember our own faults and failures, but they are as much a part of our makeup as our merits and successes... if we don't communicate everything to our spouse, is it their fault when they stumble over a tender subject?... if wounded, ask yourself, "Could they have known?"... often we fight over things that the other could never have guessed was an issue... it is a rare case when a person intentionally wounds their partner... even if they do, there surely is a reason behind it... the point is simple... communicate.

so often you hear the accusation, "They rushed into marriage"... i think that's a poor excuse... arranged marriages often turn out to be the strongest... and it's not that those who set them up were excellent match-makers... far from it... but from the outset, these couples understand that they are entering unknown waters... their futures, fortunes, and very lives depend on how cautiously they enter into these vows... (a man can be as overbearing as he likes, but he must sleep sometime... he must eat... even the most docile creature attacks when cornered)... when the health of your marriage determines your future, you treat it with more reverence and respect.

"They're too young"... balderdash... it's not that they're too young... it's that they're ignorant... ignorant of what the commitment truly is... oh, they think they know... but they don't... how could they?... they believe what they see around them... they believe that they can simply walk away if they don't like it... because that's what a devalued marriage is these days... it's simply a personal choice... if at first you don't succeed, try, try again... bullshit... this is the most important decision you will ever make in your lifetime... because it will forever alter your life... young people don't take this seriously, because, for them, a lifetime is merely eighteen years... eighty years is unthinkable... it might as well be a thousand... when your most far-seeing goal is "what am i going to do with my life", you don't dwell much on who will feed you on your death-bed... the most anyone can project their lives forward is equal to the years they have lived... at eighteen, you can't imagine forty... (hell, at forty you wonder what forty-one might bring)... too young is really too naive.

sex.

got your attention now, don't i?... the devaluation of marriage is the single greatest reason for the rise in teen pregnancies, single mothers, and crime rates... sex is the cornerstone of the problem.

sex has consequences... oh, i know the common "liberal" responses... they'll talk contraception and abortion... women's rights... personal choice... sexual identity... but what it really comes down to is simply, "I'll make up any excuse to do what feels good"... forget personal responsibility.

well, here's the reality of it... sex is final... that's right; once you've had sex, it can't be undone... insert your own joke about how you can unscrew a light bulb... so what?... what's the big deal?... well, the unintended consequences are many... let's start with promises... when you have sex, you are implying to the opposite party that all results of the sex are agreeable to both members, intended and otherwise... you may not actually mean it, but don't get hung up on the details... the opposite member may not see it your way... neither will you, should you contract an STD... you'd have every right to be upset... and if you got pregnant, you'd have every right to expect the other member to be at least 50% responsible for it... but, let's be realistic... does that happen?... no, of course not... to quote President Obama, often girls are "punished with a baby" and left to their own devices by a dead-beat boy/dad.

but let's assume you've avoided the baby issue... and even the STD issue (which, by the way, you can still get no matter what protection you use)... you can't avoid the emotional issue... sex creates an emotional connection, whether you want it to, or not... men can usually get over this (again, we're wired differently)... but for women, it can be more difficult... this isn't necessarily their fault, either... sex releases oxytocin in the brain... this drug is so powerful that, in a 20 second hug, a woman can produce enough oxytocin to bond her to that man... during sex, dopamine is also dumped into the body... dopamine is highly addictive... but men aren't let off the hook easily, either... they get hit by vasopressin... this causes pair-bonding (read: monogamy)... that's right, guys... if you have sex, you might never have sex with anyone else... ever. (horror)

but a good, strong-willed "liberal" would be able to overcome all that neurochemistry, right?... of course... and that's where it all goes wrong.

like any good drug, you get hooked on it... you've had it, so you want it again... and what's wrong with that?... well, if you continue to avoid all the other pitfalls stated above, there's only two things left to avoid... addiction and resistance... sexual addiction is a well documented phenomenon (and videos of said documentation can be purchased at you local adult video store)... seriously, it's a problem that does not need to be expanded on here.

resistance, however, is another problem that is rarely discussed... but, like any drug, once you begin to use it, it takes greater doses to achieve the same result... for women, they just want the sex to last longer so they get the same oxytocin/dopamine fix... men also want more sex to get the same dopamine high... but men get resistant to vasopressin... they build up a tolerence to "monogamy"... sex, of any duration, doesn't bond them any greater... so, you have a dopamine fiend who has lost the pair-bonding requirement... wonder what happens next?

does this sound familiar?... man #1 has "played the field" before getting married... lots of sexual partners... avoided getting anyone pregnant, contracting an STD, or being shot by the girls' fathers... finally, he 'decides' to settle down... he finds 'Miss. Right' and marries her... well, the new Mrs. Right finds she has a sexual dynamo and expert lover... lucky her!... she gets all the oxytocin and dopamine she can handle... everything is grand!... but Mr. Right is drifting further and further away... he gets his 'Mid-Life Crisis'... buys a sports car (also a dopamine addiction)... suddenly, Mrs. Right finds out Mr. Right has had an affair with Miss Wrong, as well as his secretary, Miss Mediocre, and also Mrs. Satisfactory from down the street... and we wonder what went wrong.

we could discuss the benefits/costs of sex before marriage, but this is neuroscience... sex outside of marriage is detrimental to your future marriage... and when (not if) the vasopressin begins to fade, you had better be prepared to honor your vows and make good on your promises... because the next marriage will be (chemically) more difficult than the first.

so, all you "liberals"... there may be very good reasons to not believe in Biblical teachings... but these ancient rules now have modern science giving you the same answers... marriage is sacred, no matter your beliefs... sex outside of marriage is detrimental... devaluation of marriage and of sex directly leads to societal ills.

this is the most important decision of your life... do it right.

before the cock crow

thou shalt deny me thrice.

and deny God and Jerusalem, they did...

---

source:
GOPICYMI YouTube Channel

there is no war on religion... promise!

Dept. of the Navy - Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
WRNATMILMEDCENINST 5720.4C - NAVMED Policy Memo 10-015
Partners in Care Guidelines

Section 8.f - "No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit."

maybe it's me, but if the United States Navy has been put on the task, it sure looks like a "war on religion" to me.

but maybe this war is winnable:

We are in the process of rewriting our policy and would like to offer the following statement:

Bibles and other religious materials have always been and will remain available for patient use at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. The visitation policy as written was incorrect and should have been more thoroughly reviewed before its release. It has been rescinded. We apologize for any confusion the policy may have caused.

Please know that at admission, all patients are asked for their religious preference and a chaplain associated with their preference visits them regularly to provide spiritual services. In addition, their families may also bring religious material.

WRNMMC provides multiple venues at WRMNMC for religious expression and worship. There is daily Catholic Mass as well as Protestant, Hindu, and Muslim services. Eucharist is also available at the bedside. There are weekly Torah studies, multiple weekly Christian bible studies, as well as weekly Qur'an study. Furthermore, chaplains coordinate spiritual needs for those whose faith groups are not represented by staff chaplains (such as Latter-Day Saints, Buddhist, and Christian Scientist).

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center remains committed to supporting the religious preferences of all our patients and we will continue to ensure their spiritual needs are met.
- Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

---

meanwhile, in other news...

If you think this is an isolated incident, consider the following dozen-plus examples reported in the past six months alone by the FRC and Rep. Forbes' office and a few of my own I found, which document how religious freedom and Christian liberty in particular have been limited, quarantined, omitted or outright obliterated.

--The Air Force Academy apologized for merely announcing Operation Christmas Child --a Christian-based charity and relief program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world.

--Yet the Air Force is building an $80,000 Stonehenge-like worship site for "earth-based" religions, including "pagans, Wiccans, druids, witches and followers of Native American faiths."

--The Marine Corps considered tearing down a Camp Pendleton cross meant to honor fallen heroes.

--Air Force officials stripped religious curriculum from a 20-year-old course on "just war theory."

--The Department of Veterans Affairs censored references to God and Jesus during prayers at Houston National Cemetery.

--The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate passed the $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which included a repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states: "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy."

--The Department of Health and Human Services unveiled new health care rules that ignore basic conscience protections for medical workers with faith-based objections to abortion and contraception.

--Officials at HHS denied funding for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' successful program for sex trafficking victims because of the church's teaching on human life.

--Administration officials refused to intervene in the closing of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

--President Barack Obama has lobbied for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would trample on the faith of employers in hiring, firing and promotion decisions.

--The Pentagon released new regulations that force chaplains to perform same-sex "weddings" despite their religious objections.

--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonized other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights.

--Just this past week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent a letter to officials at Travis Air Force Base, demanding the removal or transfer of a Nativity scene and a menorah that are part of a larger holiday display on the base.
- by Chuck Norris, at Newsbusters.com, on December 20, 2011

---

sources:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chuck-norris/2011/12/20/feds-war-religion-part-1-2
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chuck-norris/2011/12/27/feds-war-religion-part-2-2
http://www.bethesda.med.navy.mil/

ReBlog - The Jewish Case for "Merry Christmas"

You may find the title confusing. After all, religious Jews don’t celebrate Christmas. So why should a Jew care if a store clerk says “Merry Christmas”? Why should the public disappearance of Christmas matter to the Jewish people?

Patience. All will be explained in due course.

In the meantime, ‘tis the season to be politically correct – a coast-to-coast harkening-free zone and the tyranny of hyper-sensitivity.

The increasingly successful effort to purge Christmas from our culture (correctly called the War on Christmas) proceeds apace – municipal Christmas trees are re-christened (no pun intended) “holiday trees,” schools ban Christmas decorations and the singing of Christmas carols during holiday programs. Christmas – excuse me -- holiday parades are excluding Santa Claus, and, everywhere, stores (which derive 20% of their annual revenue from Christmas sales) are in Grinch overdrive.

This year, Lowe’s employees are permitted to say “Merry Christmas,” but only in response to a customer initiating the greeting. On its website, Barnes & Noble offers a “Gift Guide” which includes “Holiday gift baskets,” “holiday sleds” and “holiday delivery.” FYI, the “holiday” celebrated by 95% of the American people at this time of the year is called Christmas.

The Best Buy website offers “unique gifts for the season.” According to Liberty Counsel (a Christian legal action group), a company spokesman claims the use of the word “Christmas” is disrespectful.

Disrespectful to who? The 5% of the American people who don’t celebrate Christmas? But how many of them actually care? (For years, people said “Merry Christmas” to me, without inflicting severe emotional harm.) Would it be disrespectful for a clerk in Tel Aviv to wish someone a “Happy Hanukkah”?

(FYI, according to a Rasmussen poll (conducted November 18-19), 69% of Americans prefer “Merry Christmas” to the generic “happy holidays” (favored by 23% -- doubtless all card-carrying members of the ACLU.)

Eddie Bauer’s customer service department doesn’t acknowledge Christmas because, says a spokesman, the retailer doesn’t “want to offend Jews, those who celebrate Kwanza, and those who have no religious preference.” And what about the Christians whose holiday is intentionally ignored? The retail giant isn’t overly concerned about offending them.

Earlier this year, the no-religious-preference crowd (who nonetheless are into decking the halls) rejoiced when K-Mart again started selling “Holiday trees” – under which “holiday presents” could be placed and around which the family could gather on holiday eve to sing “um-um-um, um-um, um-um-um um” – until that too is banned as somehow disrespectful. Sadly for them, under consumer pressure, the store just did an about-face.

The refusal of retailers to wish 95% of the American people a “Merry Christmas,” is but a seasonal manifestation of the secularist jihad.

But the unholy war is most apparent at this time of the year:

• The City of Chicago pressured organizers of the annual Cristkindlmarket (literally: Christ child market) to drop New Line Cinema as a co-sponsor. The studio was going to show clips from its just-released film “The Nativity Story,” at its booth. A city official determined it would be terribly “insensitive to the many people of the many faiths who come to enjoy the market for its good and unique gifts” to encounter a booth showing clips from a movie about Jesus – at a Christmas fair. Might spoil their shopping experience, don’t you know. (And if someone went to a Hanukah party they might – oh no! – see a menorah. And wouldn’t that be just too awful for words.) By the by, Chicago always gives a warm municipal welcome to the annual Gay Pride Week (including “Mr. Leather”). Again, religious people apparently have no sensibilities.
• The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a lower court ruling that New York public schools can refuse to display crèches at Christmas, while putting up menorahs at Hanukah and crescents at Ramadan. Celebrating minority religions is cool, multicultural and sensitive. Acknowledging the religion of the overwhelming majority is callous, not inclusive – hence, un-cool.
• There’s an ongoing game of pc one-upsmanship. Employee “holiday parties” are no longer permitted at the University of Colorado. (Christmas parties were ditched last year.) Obsessive administrators decided that during a holiday party someone might be thinking about that holiday which is the focus of the season. Henceforth, the school will have “staff appreciation parties” or “good-will functions” -- as long as the good will referenced in no way relates to (you, know) peace on earth, good will toward men.

The War on Christmas is one front in the War on Christianity -- which itself is part of the war on religion and religious-based values.

The same ideologues who want to take Christmas out of Christmas, also want to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, “In God We Trust” off our currency and bibles out of presidential inaugurations. They want to pretend that the Ten Commandments had no more to do with the founding of this country than the Koran, The Humanist Manifesto II or “The Earth In Balance.”

The foregoing should matter to Jews principally for two reasons:

The Jewish mission is to spread God-based morality –

This has been true since the time of Abraham. God expects Jews to spread knowledge of Him and his commandments. We are told to stand against a morality of convenience. (We are expected not to change with the times, but to change the times – as we did in the ancient Near East.) Judaism was the first religion to embrace a universal moral code – one for all people, at all times, in all places.

Just as in the 19th century most American Jews opposed slavery and in the early 20th. century, Jewish reformers supported child-labor laws, today, morality-from-Sinai requires us to support the family and oppose sexual license and the destruction of innocent human life (including abortion-on-demand, cloning to kill and euthanasia).

Serious Christians – whose morality comes from our Bible – recognize the same ethical injunctions. That’s why they’re under relentless attack by the cultural elite. The secular left wants to extinguish God-based morality. The only way to do that is to drive Christianity underground. Hence, the War on Christianity. Hence, the War on Christmas.

How well the left has done its work of deconstructing marriage, the American family and traditional morality may be seen in three statistics. In the 1930s, married couples comprised 84% all households. Today, the figure is just under 50%. Since 2000, the number of cohabitating couples increased by 14%.

That’s why, Jews -- as Jews -- must oppose revisionist efforts to deny our nation’s Christian heritage, must stand against the drive to decouple our laws from Judeo-Christian ethics and must counter attacks on public expressions of the religion of most Americans – Christianity.

Jews are safer in a Christian America than in a secular America.

Look at the fate of Jews in post-Christian Europe.

Stephen Steinlight, former director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, says there are an average of 12 assaults a day on Parisian Jews – comparable to Nazi attacks on Jews in the dying days of the Weimar Republic. In recent years, synagogues, Jewish day schools and kosher restaurants have been targeted by Europeans of the jihad persuasion.

In a commentary in the October 17th Jerusalem Post, David Meyer (a French-born rabbi serving a synagogue in Brussels) writes: “I am frightened not just by the anti-Semitism (resurgent in Europe) but by the collective European response of indifference and appeasement. Today, Europe worships compromise. It is ‘fanatical’ in its non-violence. It is a Europe that, in the face of Islamist fanaticism, is ready to stay silent.”

Nature abhors a spiritual vacuum. In a Europe where churches are empty, mosques are filling and new ones are being built every day.

Muslims are having children, while child-like Europeans embrace childless lifestyles. If Christianity fails on the Continent, it won’t be replaced by secular nothingness, but by a creed that both Jews and Christians should fear.

It’s no surprise that the nation with the highest church attendance in the industrialized world (30% to 40%) is the strongest in its support for Israel. In general, support for Israel in the U.S. ican be predicted by frequency of church attendance, with Evangelicals, -- whose faith is deep-rooted -- most devoted to the Jewish state.

And, please don’t tell me about the Spanish Inquisition and the expulsions of 1492. That was half a millennium ago. The principal threats to Jews in the mid-20th century were creeds which sought to replace God with secular ideologies, based on evolutionary race theory or a maniacal class consciousness.

While Christmas isn’t part of my religion, I’m all for public acknowledgements of a religious holiday celebrated by 95% of the American people.

What’s the alternative -- an America dominated by the twisted theories of Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, Michael Moore and George Clooney? Instead of the red and green of Christmas, how about an America where chador black is the dominant color?

So, what do you prefer to saying “Merry Christmas”? “Workers of the world unite?” Or “Allah Akbar”?

The commentary originally appeared at GrassTopsUSA.com

---

source:
THE JEWISH CASE FOR “MERRY CHRISTMAS” - By Don Feder, posted December 8, 2006

"Here is my creed"

You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. Bit I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received carious corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.

---

source:
From a letter by Benjamin Franklin to Ezra Stiles - Philadelphia, March 9, 1790

Madalyn Murray O’Hair

My mother, brother and daughter were murdered.

There is no getting around the evidence. For almost three years the national atheist organization my mother once led has claimed she left the country with a large amount of money. This was false and I will tell you in this letter why they told this lie over and over again.

First, I want to talk to you about spiritual matters that the general media does not understand.

My mother was not just Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the atheist leader. She was an evil person who led many to hell. That is hard for me to say about my own mother but it is true.

When I was a young boy of ten or eleven years old she would come home and brag about spending the day in X-rated movie theaters in downtown Baltimore. She was proud of the fact she was the only woman in the movie house watching this filth. My mother’s whole life circulated around such things. She even wrote articles for Larry Flynt’s pornographic magazine, Hustler. My mother lived in spiritual death as Paul writes: "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." I Timothy 5:6

My mother delighted in hiring unrepentant criminals to work in her atheist office. She particularly enjoyed hiring convicted murderers who had served their time but were unrepentant about what they had done. She got a sense of power out of having men in her employ who had taken human life. It was love of power over people that finally caused not only her death, but the deaths of my brother and my daughter.

My mother had complete power over my brother, Jon, and my daughter, Robin. Although I was able to break away from the evil of this family, an evil that had been there for generations, they could not. My mother did not permit either my brother or my daughter to speak to me. She had total control of them.

My brother would have been forty years old the month he was murdered. He lived with my mother. He had breakfast with my mother. He went to work with my mother. He had lunch with my mother. He had dinner with my mother. He went on vacation with my mother. He never married. He never really even had the opportunity to have a serious relationship with a woman because Of the control my mother possessed over him. My mother had the same control over my daughter. She was just thirty the year she was murdered. She also lived with my mother. My mother used food to control her and make her unattractive to men. By the time she was murdered she was so heavy she had to purchase two airline tickets because she could not fit in one seat.

For twenty years I could not talk to my brother. He would hang up the phone on me or tear up my letters and send them back. The same was true of my daughter. They both called me "TRAITOR" because I had accepted Christ and changed my life. By "traitor" they meant that I no longer followed the absolute direction of my mother as they did.

The house they lived in had statuettes of mating animals on virtually every piece of furniture. There was a full cabinet of booze and a refrigerator full of foods high in fat and sugar. They liked to live a life which my mother called "high off the hog".

I must admit that toward the end I had lost hope for my mother’s conversion. The last ten years of her life she became even more profane and vulgar as the demons she courted got their final hold on her. The media stopped courting her because of the number of profane words she would use which they had to edit out.

My hopes and my prayers remained for my brother and my daughter. I honestly believed that nature would take its course and that my mother would die naturally, leaving them behind. In my heart I believed that without her constant evil influence they would start to move toward the light of God. I had even written letters to Jon and Robin that I had planned on sending them when my mother died. Those letters will never be mailed, nor will they be read, because they died with her.

My mother was an evil person ... Not for removing prayer from America’s schools ... No ... She was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents’ inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company. I could go on but I won’t. All the money my mother made in this manner stayed behind. It did not go with her. "For we brought nothing into this world and it is certain we can carry nothing out." I Timothy 6:7

My mother simply believed, "Do what thou wilt shall be the only law."

Regardless of how evil and lawless my mother was she did not deserve to die in the manner she did.

Yes, I understand that the circumstances were of her own making. She hired convicted murderers to work for her. She put one of those murders in charge of her office and he stole more than $54,000 from her. That same murderer is now suspected of killing her and Jon and Robin. He is also suspected of murdering and decapitating one of the men he recruited to kidnap my family.

Still, she was 77 years old when she was kidnapped. She and my daughter were held for almost 30 days, probably tied and gagged, while my brother desperately tried to obtain ransom money. At all times my brother was escorted by one of the kidnappers. Should he have run? Should he have tried to get help? I would have.

But, my brother was a total slave to my mother. He saw himself as her provider and rescuer. All his life she had talked down to him and made fun of him and now, in his mind, he would show her his worth by single-handedly rescuing her. He was murdered for his faithfulness.

Both my brother and daughter believed in my mother’s "importance" because she declared it constantly. Many times a day my mother would declare, "I am Madalyn Murray O’Hair." She honestly believed she had singled handedly removed prayer from school. She honestly believed she had "liberated" America sexually.

In reality my mother did not create the times, the times created her. She was what America was about in the sixties and seventies. There were several cases going to the Supreme Court to remove prayer. Her case just got there first. The left-wing Court of the day wanted prayer out of the schools and to allow abortion on demand. They virtually were advertising for cases to change America. But my mother saw the secular and sexual turn in America as centered around her.

I can see her now looking down the barrel of a gun and saying, "You don't dare shoot me, I AM MADALYN MURRAY O’HAIR." Of course, the killers did not care who she was just as most Americans didn’t care. To the majority of Americans and to the media she was just another celebrity fruit cake, sort of the Hulk Hogan of atheism.

The media asked me if I would hold a funeral and if so would there he prayer. My answer was simple but Biblical and sort of surprised them I am sure. I said, "They are already either in heaven of hell, praying over them now will not make a difference."

I made that statement knowing the torture they must have gone through the last thirty days of their lives. Did Robin pray to receive Christ as she was bound and gagged? Perhaps. Did my mother or brother cry out to the Lord just before they were murdered? I don’t know.

Christ is there for the vilest offender. The serial killer whose prayer at the hour of his death is genuine is also forgiven. My mother, my brother and my daughter may well await me in heaven. On the other hand, they may have stood their ground defying God to the end, in which case they are now spending yet another day of eternity in hell. If that is the case I will never see them again.

The deaths of my mother, brother and daughter should make all too clear the need for Christ to others that proclaim atheism. But those who would follow my mother continue to fight against God and His authority. "Fools make a mock at sin... " Prov. 14:8

During Easter, what is left of my mother’s American Atheist organization held a convention in New Jersey. My ministry placed an advertisement in the newspaper there to tell them about Jesus. The new atheist leader, Ellen Johnson, ranted and raved against me, against Christ and against the Holy Spirit.

Johnson told the media that the whole idea of my mother being murdered was a fabrication. She told the newspapers that I had "manufactured" the story using my connections to Congress to trick the FBI into getting involved. Why does this woman protest so much? Why does she not even shed a tear for her departed leader?

The FBI is involved because one of the individuals has confessed. How many others he will point his finger at I don’t know. But I do understand the "wisdom" of Ellen Johnson. Her "wisdom" is found in Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

Please continue to pray for this ministry and for my family. This is a difficult time. The news media calls day and night about my mother. The FBI even offered to provide a counselor for my wife Nancy and me. I said no thank you, I told the agent my family already has a counselor - the Great Counselor, Jesus Christ.

This statement was written by William Murray in May of 1999. The dismembered bodies of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Jon Murray and Robin Murray were found in January of 2000 near Camp Wood, Texas. One of the killers, David Waters, led the authorities to the site in return for a guarantee he would serve his time in a Federal rather than in a Texas state prison. He died in prison of liver disease in 2003. A second killer was sentenced to life in prison.

---

source:
The Madalyn Murray O’Hair Murder

thanks for nothing

i hate to nit-pick (not really), but did anyone else notice that, in the annual Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamation, President Obama did not mention God, nor did he make any religious reference whatsoever... i'm not saying Thanksgiving is a religious holiday; by no means... but Obama has made claims of his religious beliefs... how he and his family attended one church for 20 years.

if Obama would profess atheism, agnosticism, or Buddhism i would not say anything about his omission... just like i don't expect Jewish people to pray to Jesus, i wouldn't expect it... but i find it hypocritical of someone to professes Christianity on one hand, and deny it on the other.

---

source:
Presidential Proclamation--Thanksgiving Day 2005 (x3)
Presidential Proclamation--Thanksgiving Day 2006 (x2)
Presidential Proclamation--Thanksgiving Day 2007 (x3)
Presidential Proclamation--Thanksgiving Day 2008 (x4)

Presidential Proclamation--Thanksgiving Day 2009 (x1 quoting G.Washington)
Presidential Proclamation--Thanksgiving Day 2010 (x2)
Presidential Proclamation--Thanksgiving Day 2011 (x0)

happy Thanksgiving

While we commiserate the cause of the unfortunate and sympathize in their distresses, let us endeavor wisely and thankfully to improve our privileges and blessings to the glory of God and the best good of our fellow-men. Let us diligently cultivate habits of “sobriety, order, morality and piety” and study to lead “quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty” [1 Timothy 2:2].

And may the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Israel – the God in Whom our fathers trusted and found deliverance – continue to be our God and to bless us. “There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, Who rideth upon the heaven in thy help and in His excellency upon the sky” [Deuteronomy 33:26]. “The eternal God is thy refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms” [Deuteronomy 33:27]. “Happy is that people that is in such a case; yea, happy is that people whose God is the Lord” [Psalms 33:12].

AMEN

---

source:
The Response to President Washington’s 1795 Thanksgiving Proclamation: Sermon by Rev. Thomas Baldwin « The Founder's Blog

a most perfect and sublime system of morals

In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry & superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.

Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.

I. PHILOSOPHERS. 1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.

2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred & friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: toward our neighbors & countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity & love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.

II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God. But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious.

2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; & repulsive & anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.

III. JESUS. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, & of the sublimest eloquence.

The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.

1. Like Socrates & Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.

2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life & doctrines fell on the most unlettered & ignorant men; who wrote, too, from memory, & not till long after the transactions had passed.

3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy & combination of the altar and the throne, at about 33. years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of 3. years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.

4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligible.

5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating & perverting the simple doctrines he taught by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, & obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, & to view Jesus himself as an impostor.

Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.

The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merit of his doctrines.

1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.

2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred & friends, were more pure & perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.

3. The precepts of philosophy, & of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.

4. He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews; and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.

---

source:
From Thomas Jefferson: Letters: SYLLABUS OF AN ESTIMATE OF THE MERIT OF THE DOCTRINES OF JESUS, COMPARED WITH THOSE OF OTHERS - April 1803