Pg.3
Li'l Big Lies, Pg.3
Here's yet another page of relatively short li'l essays on a broad range of topics, all designed to topple some portion of the hulking pile of rot that is THE BIG LIE! There's a lot of cluttered thinking going on out there, so check back some time again in the near future for even MORE commentary on it...I'm not shuttin' up anytime soon!!!
Known Document vs. "Living Constitution"
Enemies Foreign and Domestic
Flag Burning as Free Speech
Christ/Christians Are "Exclusive"
Artists From Space? NOT!
Known Document v. "Living Constitution"
As Rush Limbaugh is so fond of saying, "words mean things", in spite of the deconstructionist protest to the contrary (I know what I'm consciously trying to convey here, you guys...Quit putting words in my mouth!). With this knowledge and once commonly understood truth in mind, our founding fathers set down in writing their clear intention as to how this country should be governed.
Time hasn't eroded their intent or their words' meaning concerning what our form of government should be, only the ability of postmodernists and liberals to understand it, admit it, or abide by it. They say it's a different world now-a-days, one our founding fathers couldn't have foreseen or fathomed. The founding fathers didn't need to see into the future. They knew too well the sinful condition of the human heart, knew of the potential for tyranny in the governments instituted among the nations of the earth, and understood timeless truths of an objective nature. On this basis they provided us with a constitution for a republic that, if adhered to, would ensure our freedom for as long as we chose to keep it (though Ben Franklin had an idea we'd screw it up eventually).
There is obvious merit to the idea that everyone benefits from the principle of a documented set of rules applying to everyone equally. When everyone knows the rules from the start they have freedom in playing the game. They may hope for fairness to win life and liberty, and pursue happiness. When the referees can change the rules whenever they feel like it, however, making them up as they go along, what chance do any of the players really have? They might love the idea when the referees are ruling in a way that favors them, but they wouldn't be too happy when the refs turn on them! Let's be honest: More often than not it's the liberals who are guilty of abandoning textualism in favor of a Rorschach test view of our founding document, heedless of the unfairness of it as long as it gets them their way. There are conservatives with activist philosophies, too, and it would be just as wrong for them to be putting those into practice. Known concrete individual rights are an anchor for the ship of state, a safe harbor for freedom, as opposed to the shifting sand and crashing waves of a "living, evolving Constitution" (the permanent vs. the popular).
When the Constitution needs to change there is a prescribed method for it, though the amendment process is arduous for a reason. As one should have learned in elementary school (though it seems like everyone is a Constitution flaunter these days, thanks in large part to our public educational system), our government was designed as a constitutional republic rather than a true democracy, with a system of checks and balances insulating individual rights, and preventing tyranny from any one quarter, including from popular but wrong-headed movements that may gain momentum amongst the people. Majorities have been demonstrably wrong before...Just look at the income tax! Sold to the envious masses as a way to soak the rich to pay the bills, the Sixteenth Amendment soon became a way for the federal government to soak everybody, and stick its nose in all our business.
We're now too often at the mercy of the capricious whim of robed kings, usurpers of power not rightly belonging to them, who take the place of judges deciding the merit of laws passed by an accountable legislature according to the Constitution as written. Presidents, senators and representatives can be thrown out in the next election (or before, if need be) when shown to be tyrannical, while Supreme Court justices are appointed for life (initially this was intended as a shield for the court against political influence, ironically enough). They can be impeached when not sticking to the Constitution, but congress is derelict in this duty when not downright complicit in the contravention of our constitutional order.
Presidential games with the court and judicial activism have existed since the beginning of the republic, but after that ol' court-packer F.D.R.'s New Deal (My Grandma, Jenny, used to say that he was the reason she became a Republican, God bless her), both Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge Robert Bork (Check out his excellent book, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, 1990, Free Press) tend to agree that the real disintegration of the integrity of the Supreme Court began with the politically active Warren Court, which set many dangerous precedents in decisions fabricated from whole cloth and no precedent. One in particular, Griswold v. Connecticut, in a majority opinion written by Justice Douglas, found a supposed right to privacy that was unknown in the nearly two hundred years previous to that. He said it was based in very New Age sounding "penumbras" which are "formed from emanations" from guarantees in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps he saw these things in tea leaves, because they're not in the Constitution. However, it was this same right to privacy and the same "penumbras" "emanating" (or should I say "oozing") from the Bill of Rights that allowed Justice Blackmun of the Berger Court, in Roe v. Wade to make up and scribble into the margins of our Constitution a right to kill babies in the womb!
It has been an unsettling proclivity of the Senate to politicize the bench in the past fifteen years, starting with the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, continuing through the Clarence Thomas sexual harassment circus, and lasting into the current Senate (2001) declaration that ideology will be used as a disqualifying criteria in considering the confirmation of judicial nominees. Embellishing its advice and consent function to include the consideration of the politics of the nominee,the Senate (or more accurately, its Democratic majority), hoping to achieve political goals through the court that they can't achieve through legislative channels, is using its power as a bludgeon to strike down the nominations that fail to demonstrate a willingness to write law (satisfying a liberal agenda, of course) as opposed to ruling on the constitutionality of the law as written by the legislature, the elected representatives of the people. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says that when voters demand judges based on the political positions they hold instead of their ability to interpret the Constitution, there is the terrible consequence of placing the meaning of the Bill of Rights in the hands of the very entity against which the Bill of Rights was meant to protect the individual, that being the majority.
Judicial activism serves as the impetus for this politicization of the court, because if it didn't pay, politicians wouldn't play! Besides, they don't want any judges on the Supreme Court that might acknowledge that the Tenth Amendment actually exists. It says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If this were enforced, the federal leviathan would shrink to its intended size, the power of the politicians would shrivel with it, and all the social engineering, pork-barrel spending, wealth redistribution, and government largesse (liberals are generous to a fault with other people's money) that gets them votes would disappear. It seems lately that even the Republicans have all too often abandoned principle and sound constitutional adherence, helping the Democrats bloat the federal government so as to not look mean-spirited, instead of arguing a principled case. Our founding fathers of all parties were once willing to die to preserve our freedoms, so many of today's political breed of both parties must apparently need fade pale by comparison.
When judges legislate from the bench, they do an end run around the legislature, negating the power of the people by royal proclamation and judicial fiat. Their will be done, the constitution and the people be damned! The "living Constitution" is no Constitution at all, and the birth of this notion forebodes the death of our republic. Between activist judges, executive orders, bureaucratic regulatory monstrosities, and self-interested, ideologically motivated legislators, the people hardly matter anymore. Sadly enough, as they hand over their freedom for what they feel is gain, most of the people don't even seem to know it or care.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on The WTC twin towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, DC on September 11, 2001 (I'm writing this the weekend and the beginning of the following week after it happened), it has become abundantly clear that the plan to terrorize our people backfired, instead bringing us all together as a nation with a common cause and a common enemy. Patriotism swells in the chests of folks all across this great land of ours as neighbor helps neighbor and expressions of empathic grief at the tragic, massive loss of our countrymen's lives on American soil stand on display in the explosion of stars and stripes flapping in the aftermath's breeze. I personally can't even think about how much (God Bless America!!!) I LOVE the UNITED STATES without choking up and being blinded by tears (Don't worry; I'll check all this for typos later!). It is my sincere hope that the people, whatever their political leanings may be, continue to work in unity toward the public good, and to demonstrate the decency of character and fortitude that they have thus far. An extremely liberal woman I work with confided to me that she hated to, but had to admit that she was actually glad that it was Bush in office as Commander-in-Chief during this crisis. One poll indicates that some 91% of the people surveyed trust Bush's leadership in handling the situation. At least George W. Bush is an honorable man, and won't just drop a bomb or start a war when he needs a diversion from some scandal at home. I truly believe that God ultimately is in control, and only allows what He does toward some purpose. I hope what we are seeing is evidence that what our evil foreign enemies intended for our national harm is being turned by God to our national good, and how we react to it will have everything to do with that. We can look to God for answers and let this bring us closer to Him, or we can become weary, consumed with the cares of this world, going on with business as usual, turning to move further from Him. Maybe there will be an awakened interest in what many have taken for granted, that being our Constitution as written by our founding fathers, and the freedom and rights as given by God that it guarantees for each one of us. Dare I hold my breath?! The sad truth is that our enemies abroad are legion, and will always be with us. The most they can do is kill some of our people and damage some of our property. If, God forbid, they ever succeed in defeating this country, it will be because it was weakened from within first, if our domestic enemies haven't more likely just finished the job they started and destroyed it themselves first.
The plain fact of the matter is that enemies within our borders is really nothing new. The obvious analogies to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor have been made concerning these recent acts of terrorism, but I'm talking about those who came out FROM us, but were not OF us; the enemies who've been demolishing this country from the inside out for years. Call me pessimistic, but I guess I'm simply afraid that soon the rubble will be cleared, we'll have kicked some terrorist butts, and our domestic enemies will be back at it. I'm not necessarily talking about your friends and neighbors here, other than as it may indicate aiding and abetting. I'm talking about those who know that what they're doing is wrong, but do it anyway, whether for money, for power, or because for them the ends justify the means. They'll lie, steal, cheat, or even kill, and can be downright vicious in attaining their goals. At this sensitive time, I'm not trying to stir up enmity, meaning no offense toward anyone personally, but as my pastor says, "I'm just dialin' the number...If your phone's ringin', maybe you better pick it up!" If anything I'm bringing all this up because of my love of this nation, and out of concern for its condition. As much as lieth in me , I try to live peaceably with all men, attempting to be wise as a serpent, but harmless as a dove. Because I am led by my mind and try to think things through, my passionate heart is fueled by the courage of my convictions, and I tend to be fierce in defense of what's right (That's why I wouldn't mind it if, in service to my country, I had an opportunity to nuke bin Laden and the camel he rode in on). Even Jesus exhibited righteous anger! I am only asking that those of my countrymen who most often FEEL first and rationalize later stop and think first about what's in this land's best interests from now on before the knee-jerking starts. That includes resisting the urge to implement oppressive security measures, born out of fear because of these incidents, that would rob us all of more freedom than we seem to have lost as it is. Ben Franklin admonished that "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I must say, there are so many things gone awry around us that I hardly know where to begin. Divorce is rampant, and families are falling apart. Kids are running in gangs when they're not committing mass murder in our schools because it became somehow wrong to tell them that "Thou shalt not kill." Sex and violence is ubiquitous in movies and music, and on television it is interspersed with ads to have that sickening cow Miss Cleo tell us our future. There are those that try to disarm honest citizens, and molly-coddle criminals. Environmental extremists worship the planet, sacrificing our property rights and human well-being to it. We're regulated to the point of tyranny. Socialists are stealing money through taxes to redistribute to others who never earned it. State sanctioned racism exists in the form of affirmative action. Political correctness threatens to silence anyone who expresses dissent from the progressive view. Homosexuality demands acceptance. A society that, as long as the economy is good, would countenance a president that sold nuclear secrets to Red china for campaign cash, abused his power, perjured himself in front of a grand jury, and then claimed to have saved the Constitution by fighting his impeachment cannot be considered whole. Judges and politicians ignore or rewrite the Constitution to suit their political ends on a regular basis, corrupting the only authority after God that we have for freedom. I've cried much over the lost lives of my fellow Americans because of the kamikaze hijackers, but to put it in perspective, more American babies were killed in abortion clinics in this past week alone than Osama bin Laden ever dreamed possible. Who's crying for THEM right now?!
The root of our internal problems in this country is in our people's rejection of God, shoving him out of all our affairs, both public and private, and it shows.
The modernist age, with it's belief in a random universe, its contrasting, stated disbelief in anything it couldn't measure empirically, and with secular humanism being its reigning religion (though Man's self-will in disobedience to God's was what caused the fall of Man to begin with), brought with it the banishment of God from public life in the early 60's by decree of an errant Supreme Court. The notion that children praying in school was an establishment of religion would have made our founding fathers righteously indignant, most of them being Christians, many of them clergy, and all of them fresh off of an escape from religious persecution by a state owned-and-operated church. The whole point to the First Amendment was to protect religion from government, not the other way around! In part, it was intended to prevent government from being able to tell us we COULDN'T have our children pray in school if we wanted them to (although I AM a public school teacher, and there's probably more than a few of my peers that I wouldn't want to have proselytizing to any progeny I may ever have). It took awhile for the rot to set in fully, but with God out of the way, it's gotten to the point where the postmodern moral relativists have set up camp, making it officially the case where everybody gets to make up their own reality. Except for "exclusive", unyielding Christianity, anything goes.
It's not bad enough that a community can't even put up a nativity scene in the public square at Christmas time or a cross to commemorate the passing of one of (or several thousand of, as the case may be) its own on public property without some goober from the ACLU breathing down their neck; the misinterpretation of the establishment of religion clause involving the so-called "wall of separation of church and state" (It's actually more of a semi-permeable membrane, with influence diffusing one way [religion to state], but not the other [state to religion]) has not only stifled religious expression in public schools, it has hampered the quality of education all around. Having discarded the Judeo-Christian ethic, rather than teaching, the trend (Gee, don't we love those!) among teachers is to indoctrinate the children in their care to become illiterate, docile parishioners of the state religion of the Church of Almighty Government. Many teachers are afraid of legal problems if they so much as mention Christianity in the classroom (I personally take the position that I have freedom of speech rights and won't hesitate to talk about what I believe about Jesus or anything else with my students). The impact of Christianity on world history altogether, Western civilization in general (which academics in higher education especially seem to loathe), and the founding of the United States of America (along with its unique culture) in particular, is an often avoided topic in public schools, substituting instead a bunch of historically revisionist, multicultural, politically correct mush. Building and protecting the student's self-esteem is the prime directive, but how a kid can have any genuine self-esteem when he's kept dumb as a box of rocks is beyond me! It's no wonder that human life can become so devalued when we can't inform children that they're made in God's image, but instead tell them they evolved spontaneously out of a tepid puddle of crud. It's become so twisted that we can't even mention the word "prayer" in a public school. The day that President Bush declared a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance in honor of the terrorists' victims, it was more than a little disheartening to hear the principal of the school where I teach come on the PA system and tell the kids that the president had declared a day of "reflection and remembrance". We had two minutes of silence while the kids sat around, apparently expected to gaze at their navels. With all this going on in schools, its no wonder so many kids grow up to be screwed up adults with no moral compass.
Many mainline denominational churches have been liberalized, secularized, and their message watered down. They've traded the power of the Gospel and the mission of bringing a lost and dieing world to Christ for a pop psychological, therapeutic approach. Afraid of offending potential donors, afraid of appearing judgmental, afraid of seeming ignorant, intolerant, insensitive, or un-hip, many have abandoned the doctrine of hell, neglecting to inform people of the need for and way of salvation from it. There IS a REAL HELL, and in effect, it is true that a loving God would never send anybody to hell. We send ourselves there if we reject the only way out of it that He provided (i.e. Jesus). Though I know that there are still others around these days that understand this truth, sometimes I can't help it that I empathize with Isaiah. If I'm not mistaken, part of the gist of the book of Isaiah is that God is sending him to warn the nation Israel that because of their sin and rejection of Him, bad things are going to come their way if they don't repent. He tells Isaiah that His people won't listen, but wants Isaiah to tell them anyway. There are things that need said and warnings that need to be made about the state of my beloved America, even if no one hears or heeds. I don't care if someone resents me for telling it like it is, and God willing, I won't back down when I know I'm in the right. "Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?!"
Shortly after Tuesday's attacks, Jerry Falwell came under fire for suggesting that God was punishing this country (maybe more accurately that He'd removed His protective Hand from us) thereby because of the sin abounding here. There was a predictable uproar over it, as if Falwell was an evil crackpot for suggesting such a thing, and he ended up making a retracting apology for his remarks. I'm not so sure he was wrong! God is a God of mercy and love, but also of justice! I don't know that God smote us for our sin, but then again, I don't know that he didn't. I do think that it's entirely possible that He may have allowed it to happen in part to get our attention or to chastise us as a parent would a child whom He loves, for our own good. Perhaps it was allowed as a warning that we as a people need to turn back toward Him before He turns His back on us altogether. Our founding fathers recognized the dire possibility of this someday being the case. Thomas Jefferson said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." Benjamin Franklin pointed out that without God, our unique form of government is worthless when he said, "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." George Washington went so far as to equate godliness with patriotism by saying, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. Do not ever let anyone claim to be a true American patriot if they ever attempt to separate religion from politics."
In the 18th century, Wandsbeker Bote stated, "Those who are free are not those who can do whatever they want. Rather those are free who can want to do what they ought to do." We ought to want to seek salvation and a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ while we still have the freedom to do so in this once (and God willing, future) grand republic. Here's a question for you: Do you know beyond any doubt that if you were to die today you'd go to heaven? If you, the reader, are trusting in church membership, doing good works, or being a good person to get you there (anything but faith in Christ alone, plus NOTHING else), you'll be sorely disappointed when that day does arrive. If your answer to this question was not an emphatic "YES!" because you've never before trusted Jesus Christ personally as your Savior, or simply lack assurance, please click here where it says: "Believe on Jesus Christ and thou SHALT BE SAVED!" Today is the day, and NOW is the time. You CAN KNOW for SURE! It is my earnest prayer that, beyond the war being won against our terrorist enemies abroad, another, more vital result of that horrible assault will be a revival and a return to the cross here at home. Especially in light of this sudden, recent carnage, it may be prudent to "boast not thyself of tomorrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth" (Proverbs 27:1).
Shortly after the terrorist destruction at the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers, a sixth-grade teacher in Sacramento set fire to an American flag in front of his elementary school class, apparently (if the turban he was wearing in the photo I saw of him is an indication) as a token of solidarity with his Islamic brothers waging jihad against our country. The treasonous implications (providing aid and comfort to our enemies) and timing of this specific incident aside, the debate over the legality of burning our flag has continued for decades. Hoping to settle the matter, some have recently suggested a Constitutional Amendment to protect the stars and stripes as a symbol of the United States of America.
According to accepted flag etiquette, there are times when it is actually considered proper to burn the flag (if it needs to be discarded for being old, worn, or if it touches the ground) in order to demonstrate respect. When a flag is set on fire due to disrespect toward it and our country, it supposedly counts as free speech covered by the First Amendment to our nation's Constitution.
The thinking on this seems to run along the lines that it is a form of protected speech in the same vein as political performance art, hunger strikes, silent vigils, or mimes acting out their grievances. Intellectually, I suppose I can grasp this concept, and may even be able to get my mind around it to the point where I would agree that one should have the legal right to publicly burn the American flag. However, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If actions may be considered speech, I hereby retain my right to freely express my dissenting opinion by walking up to any flag-burner I may encounter and slugging him right in the mush!
Christ/Christians Are "Exclusive"
Reserving a special hatred for them because they run counter to the proposition that there are absolutely no absolutes (a contradiction in and of itself, to be sure), postmodern multiculturalists, moral relativists, Unitarians, and other various liberal fellow-travelers often hold the opinion that Christ and orthodox Christianity are somehow, in their trendy lingo, "exclusive". On the contrary, Christ and orthodox Christianity are most inclusive.
God is "not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance (2Peter 3:9)," and to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord! He bids ALL to come to Him. Claiming to BE (not just to show) the way, the truth, and the life, and stating that NO man may come unto the Father but by Him (John 14:4), Jesus is only exclusive if one refuses to accept Him on His terms. Heaven is an exclusive clubhouse only insomuch as it is incumbent upon those who enter to use the only door that the builder/landlord has provided. Jesus IS the door, not just one porter among many (See John 10:1-18)!
Awhile ago, I saw Kevin Cronin (from REO Speedwagon) and that sapsucker Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect (maybe it's 1/5 that on any good given night) demonstrating their ignorance of Christ and true Christianity. Maher insisted that Christians think that the more money they send to tv preachers, the better their chances are to get into heaven. True Christians understand that salvation from hell is a free gift, bought and paid for with the blood of Christ. We have assurance of it, and believe that through the spreading of the Gospel others may have it too. If we want to give some of our money to further that end, what's it to Bill Maher? He'll give his agent ten percent, but bristles at the idea of giving ANYthing to God who gave him EVERYthing, even his life. The true principle of tithing is adhered to by the Christian out of obedience to God. By giving a tenth of his earnings to God through his local church, the Christian is promoting not only the preaching of the Gospel, but helping to feed and clothe the poor, shelter the homeless, and counsel families in crisis, among other things. Though there have been many hucksters on the tube, there have also been many valid television ministries, and buying air time takes money. Just ask Bill Maher's wavering sponsors! People like Maher probably have nothing but the warm-fuzzies for celebrities on telethons for secular organizations asking for cash, but won't countenance such behavior from a Christian.
Maher's guest on the show, Kevin Cronin said that he has a Christian friend that believes that a Christian that abuses Girl Scouts will get into heaven, but a Buddhist who's lived an exemplary life won't (the point of his friend being that salvation is something we can't earn or keep for ourselves). He just couldn't grasp how this could be so. "There is a way which SEEMETH right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12)." It's a fact of our existence that this is a fallen world...Just look around! Scripture and experience tells us that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Even really nice Buddhists! Rom 3:22). People think that because they go to church on Easter and Christmas to make grandma happy, pay their taxes and haven't killed anybody they must be alright. If you say, "But, I'm a good person, aren't I?" God says, NO, you're NOT! Think about all the little things you think and do. If you look deep you'll see a lifetime of SIN! People say "nobody's perfect", as if that gives them a pass for "little" sins, but they'll send you to hell the same as the big ones (Gal. 5:19-21/James 2:10). Sin isn't just something we do. A sinner is what we ARE. Scripture also tells us that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). None of us can exist in the presence of a perfect, holy God, and so we are separated from Him. Jesus is the reconciliation between us.
As I've said many times, I've heard many people say that they don't believe a loving God would ever send ANYone to hell. God is a God of love, but He is also a God of justice! A price must be paid for sin. People send themselves to hell when they opt to pay the penalty for their sins themselves (as the Buddhist is trying to do) rather than allowing Christ to pay the penalty for it in their place (like the Girl Scout abusing believer. This guy still needs to work on his obedience to God while he's serving out a prison sentence). They refuse to accept the free gift of eternal life, given by God's grace (unmerited favor), though to attain it requires only acceptance of it through belief on Jesus as Savior from hell. Due to pride, many of them think they'll get in on the basis of their own works when it's their own works that send them to hell! It's all the works-based religions that are exclusive in that they only claim to allow heaven, nirvana, paradise, etc. for those who've chanted enough, meditated enough, been reincarnated enough, donated enough time and money to the right causes, or been ambitious enough to rise high enough in the ranks of whatever religious system or organization one has in place of a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
Cronin is hardly original in his variation on a theme: When the unique primacy of Christ is preached, someone always asks something like, "Well, what about that little native boy living deep in the jungle somewhere that never heard the name of Jesus?" In scripture God says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (Romans 9:15)." Only God knows the heart of a man. However, the Bible says Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness (Romans 4:3), and though he lived years before Jesus Christ was born, his was a faith in the coming Messiah. The Bible also says Jesus is "the only name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12)." 1John 5:11-13 says, "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." If you've heard the name of Jesus and His Gospel and rejected Him, you have no excuse. To say so when that's the fact of the matter is universally inclusive, because that's the bottom line for EVERYBODY. The Christian that believes this but doesn't SAY so is excluding people from heaven.
Not all ideas are equal (Anyone who thinks they are is demonstrably a simpleton, a fool, a postmodernist,or just plain nuts), and so not all religions are valid. If they were, that would place a radical Islamic terrorists' beliefs on an equal footing with the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. If you really and truly think that there's any equivalence there, I can only wonder what goes on in that so-called brain of yours! As divergent as the various belief systems of the world's many religions are, there's no way that all those contradictory roadsigns point to the same heavenly destination. I've heard several people since September 11th equating the terrorists' hijacking and killing in the name of Allah with fervor for the Judeo-Christian God. They're aghast in a superior kind of way that the hijackers did what they did in the name of "God". I'm here to tell you that their God is not THE GOD. The Christian God of scripture isn't some generic God that becomes whatever anyone wants to make Him, neither is He the same God that's worshipped by Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, or Rastafarians (they think He's dead politician Haile Selassie...You'd have to be buzzin' big time to believe that one!). He is who He is, in spite of what we think. Praise God that He's willing to give us a revelation of it! I tend to subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth, i.e. that there is an objective, absolute truth, and the validity of one's perception of truth depends on how well it lines up with the ultimate. I also believe that "A" cannot equal "non-A". Jesus claims to be The Truth, not one among many. Hence, I purpose myself to know Christ only, and Him crucified. As opposed to the speculation engaged in by other religions, the efficacy of Christ as revealed is in His power not only to say something, but to bring it to pass!
The sorry state in every way of every Muslim nation in the world should be evidence of the superiority of Christendom (the West), and that not every creed packs the same spiritual muscle. As Jeffrey Hart points out in a recent column concerning this, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." A good tree brings forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit (see Matt. 7:16-20). Jeffrey goes on to say that, "I keep hearing that the Muslim faith is one of the world's 'great religions.' I don't think that idea should be repeated until, at the very least, its leaders condemn bin Laden and all his works." In October (2001), Franklin Graham said, "We're not attacking Islam, but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God" as ours, "and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion." After the predictable fuss, in order to clarify, he later added that he didn't believe Muslims to be evil people for their faith, but decried evil done in the name of that or any other faith, including Christianity. However, he went on to say that "the persecution or elimination of non-Muslims has been a cornerstone of Islamic conquests and rule for centuries (Hmm, forced inclusion...How very liberal)," and that the Koran "provides ample evidence that Islam encourages violence in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world." The cornerstone of orthodox Christianity in winning converts is Christ, and reaching one with His message through the foolishness of preaching so that one may come to Him of one's own freewill. Does anyone else notice a contrast here?
Christianity is a tolerant faith, though toleration of a belief does not mean that one must accept that belief nor consider it true. Liberals demand otherwise. They are "inclusive" in the way that everyone must accept anything and everything BUT Christ and Christianity or risk a law suit (maybe worse yet, being called a bigot)! It is my considered opinion that if a liberal despises a thing it probably makes sense in opposition to their feelings. Multiculturalists bristle when one claims the United States is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but people of other faiths that live here should be grateful and glad that it is. As great Orator and founding father Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here." Perhaps Patrick presciently had George Harrison in mind. Coming here from Great Britain, George certainly prospered in America enough that he could afford to sit around here on his bare feet gazing at his navel all day long if he wanted to. His recent death (Nov. 2001) brought with it a media orgy of reveling in an ecumenical, all encompassing, New Age, brotherhood-of-man view of spirituality. His "sweet lord", Vishnu, afforded him "Spirit Guide To The Universe" status and high praise from MTV's Kurt Loder. Kurt proclaimed, "We should all learn something from George Harrison and not fear death, and not fear the end of life, and see that it's moving on to another plane, and accept it gracefully...I think it's just the greatest thing he's given to people." I'm sorry (not really), but what a bunch of treacly, touchy-feely, pop-psychological, pseudo-spiritual pap! There are two planes to which one moves after death: Heaven or a literal hell. The latter is the only thing George Harrison had to give anybody if they buy into that kind of mushy-headed, sentimentalist dung!
To those that like to think of Jesus as just another among many paths to heaven, or think he was simply a good man, prophet, and teacher, I say: If He is NOT God as He claimed He is and DIDN'T rise from the dead as He foretold that He would, then He's neither good (a liar), nor a prophet (Jewish law demanded that if even ONE of a prophet's prophecies failed to come true, he was not considered a true prophet of God, and was executed! Deut. 18:20-22). Who should want to learn anything from a teacher such as that? Considering then that He was who He said He was, if any other means or man were able to make a way into heaven, why would Jesus the Christ as God incarnate come here to die? It hardly seems dignified or logical of the Almighty if unnecessary. Buddha, Vishnu, Mohammed, and all the others are inclusively still in the ground. The only way in which Christianity is exclusive is that we're the only one of the world's major religions with a God who had the audacity (not to mention humility) to enter history in the way of sinful flesh, die, and rise bodily from the grave three days later, conquering death once and for all for them that believe.
Many have speculated, most famously in Erich von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods", that huge carvings, drawings, and glyphs visible only from the air were produced by ancient civilizations for the benefit of aliens, and could only have been made with their help, being directed from their space-craft in the sky. As to the purpose of these glyphs' creation, one could suppose, though, that they were simply made for the pagan gods of these people. If modeled after anything visible to them, these images' strange appearance could as easily (and plausibly) be explained by demons pretending to be their gods as by the representation of space-suits of ancient astronauts!
There is by no means any mystery about HOW they were made, however. Any artist worth his salt could do the same thing with no problem. By marking off a grid in squares across a smaller drawing, one may then lay out a larger grid (in this case, probably with string and stakes in the ground), reproducing the parts of each section of the original in the corresponding section of the image being made to the grander scale. This is commonly done when using a reference photo for a bigger drawing, or when laying out a mural. It's a piece of cake!
In spite of the fact that these pictures are only visible from the air, these folks may have only made them because they could...Perhaps they are a sign, not so much one made to communicate with UFO's as of the ego of the artist writ large!
Entire written contents copyright© 2002 by Ed DeVore
*CLICK HERE TO GO TO GOLGOTHA HOME
*CLICK HERE TO GO TO LI'L BIG LIES, Pg.4
*COSMIC EDDIE'S CYBER SPACE (stories, comix, personal stuff)