reasonedright's Blog

Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them.  - Blaise Pascal

 

     Many Christians today are ridiculed, mocked, and harassed due to their faith in God and His Son, Jesus Christ.  "Faith is blind."  "Faith is . . . (insert your quote here - there are too many to list!)  Even the Bible speaks of many faiths: great faith, little faith, strong faith, weak faith, special faith, saving faith, faith that moves mountains, taunting faith, healing faith, precious faith, hindered faith, erring faith, patient faith, active faith, living faith, dead faith . . . all in all about 60 different types of faith! 

 

     Todays understanding of faith, and by english definition it is correct, is that faith is a belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.  Given that, I can certainly understand why those opponents of "faith" refer to such as fairy tales and superstitions - if anyone were to suggest that the foundational principles of their beliefs were grounded on such I would think them illogical at best, but more than likely "loony" would be my chosen descriptive of them!

 

     Biblically, that definition is far from accurate . . . when God calls for faith, it is not a "blind trust."    "Faith" is translated from 2 different Greek words found in the original Biblical text.  In the Old Testament, the word for faith was 'emunah, whose definition is certainty.  In the New Testament, the word from which faith is translated is pistis - which is a firm persuasion or conviction based upon hearing; acknowledged truth through learning; a firm conviction producing a full acknowledgement of God's revelation or truth.

 

So there ya have it, Biblical faith is not lunacy, but rather certainty - a rather logical foundation of principles if you ask me . . . what say you?

Many people think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th
because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, and as of late atheists wanting to discredit Christianity by suggesting that Christmas is itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.

 

 

 The idea that the date was taken from the pagans goes back to two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “pagan-izations” of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many “degenerations” that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel.

Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.

 

 

The actual calculations of Christ’s birth are far too in depth to explain on a simple “blog,” and to be quite frank . . . most either couldn’t understand all of the logistics involved, and those who could aren’t likely to take the time to do so.  In light of this, I have summarized the most simple to understand and basic calculations of the birth date of our Lord and Savior that lends credence to the more in depth calculations that I have made taking into account several “hints” offered throughout the Bible; from fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, to genealogy, and the accounts of Christ’s birth offered within the 4 gospels.  That, along with a basic understanding of the Julian Calender, knowledge of the custom’s regarding circumcism (8 days after birth,) astrology - no, I don’t subscribe to it’s tenets, but the magi that followed the “north star” did, and one must take what is said about them into account . . . anyways, I’m starting to get into the logistics that I said I wouldn’t!  lol

 

 

The simple calculation:  The apparition of the angel Gabriel to Zechariah, announcing that he is to be the father of John the Baptist, occurred on Yom Kippur (This is inarguable amongst those who have studied scripture at any depth.)   Zechariah was a high priest and  his vision occurred during the high priest's annual entry into the Holy of Holies.  It follows that John was born in late June (traditionally, June 24 – once again, accepted as fact among scholar and student alike). Based on the Gospel account, the Annunciation  occurred three months earlier (traditionally, March 25). This puts the birth of Jesus on December 25, nine months later.  There is argument as to whether it was 4 B.C or 5 B.C. (Some even calculate it as early as 8 B.C and as late as 2 or 3 B.C.) but my own calculations lean toward 4 B.C.  I wouldn’t use this method to convince any “doubting Thomas” as to the veracity of the December 25 date, but as stated before, it serves as an evidentiary “back-up” to my more logistical (and in depth) calculations.

Either way . . . Merry Christmas!

 

 

(FROM: CNBC) All those advertisements advocating a "windfall profits tax" to be placed on big oil, to benefit the have-nots in America? Just words and populism, supplemented by $4-per-gallon gasoline. Perhaps someone told him that the 8.3 percent profit margin on the gas and oil industry pales in comparison with the 14.5 percent profit margin enjoyed by the electronics and appliance industry, the 18.4 percent margin for big pharma, or the 19.1 percent margin for alcohol and tobacco. Regardless of why, one thing is perfectly clear -- Barack Obama is once again breaking a foundational campaign promise. Did you hear that sound? Somewhere, a hardcore liberal Obama voter just exploded (crime scene investigators are currently searching, apparently in vain, for any sign of a brain).

 

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."








~ Thomas Jefferson

(This is why Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want gun control so badly! )



FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE



1.  An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a subject.




2.  A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.




3.  Colt:  The original point and click interface.




4.  Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.




5.  If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?




6.  If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.




7.  Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.




8.  If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.




9.  Those who trade liberty for security have neither.




10.  The United States Constitution (c)1791.  All Rights Reserved.




11.  What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?




12.  The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.




13.  64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.




14.  Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.




15.  Know guns, know peace, know safety.  No guns, no peace, no safety.




16.  You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.




17.  911:  Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.




18.  Assault is a behavior, not a device.




19.  Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.




20.  If guns cause crime then matches cause arson.




21.  Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.




22.  You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.




23.  Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.




24.  When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.




25.  The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.





We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good (Hillary Clinton June '04)

I accidentaly posted this under "News"  -  sorry.

Theist or Atheist: Who holds the Moral "High Ground?"

Let me start by warning you, this is a long one . . . but worth the read for those who seek the truth!

My wife and I just returned from a “mini-vacation” in Laughlin, Nevada.  While relaxing in the hot-tub, an obviously gay couple joined us, and we enjoyed pleasant conversation with one another until the topic of our chosen professions came up (no, it was not my wife or I who raised the topic.).  I am an assistant Pastor at a small church in Southern California, and currently studying for my doctorate in Christian Theology – the conversation flew from pleasantries to debate in very short order. 

 

 

 The "gay rights" issue was the immediate “hot topic,” and was quickly defined as more of a societal moral issue than that of an individual one.   They immediately jumped at the “atheist vs Christianity” angle, but after some debate they conceded that most every current deistic and theistic religion denounces homosexuality as sin . . . so we deliberated on the concept of theism vs atheism.  This makes more sense anyways, as those who do not believe in a god of any sort cannot possibly understand and/or accept the intricacies of any specific theistic religion.   For this reason, I decided to use science, physics, and logic as the basis of my argument – to use the Bible to convince theists would serve as much purpose as using ‘Gray's Anatomy' to teach logic.

 

 

 

The truth is, although an atheist may live by certain ‘morals', they lack the ability to objectively determine morality. At best, they have a subjective view of morality, thus, even the small percentage of society that seems to agree with them, will individually have their own ‘twist', depending on their own subjective view. In fact, the only people with the ability to objectively determine a moral system of values, are theists. Without a belief in God, or, at least, some higher power, one cannot possibly conceive morality. In support, I offer the following:

A body at rest tends to stay at rest, until acted upon by some outside force - A body in motion tends to stay in motion, until acted upon by some outside force. This change in motion by the influence of another body is but a transfer of motion that was previously transferred to the influencing body. This ability, to receive and transfer motion, is considered passive power.

Active power is the ability to contemplate and initiate change or motion. Of the two, active power is the signification which is more properly considered power. Passive power is likened to a billiards ball, acted upon by a billiards stick – the former capable of receiving motion from the latter, as well as of transferring that motion to another ball, but not capable of actually initiating motion, nor of the consideration of whether or not to do so. Active power is likened to the holder of the stick, for the billiards stick itself is, in fact, merely passive – responding to the initiation of motion by its holder, wherein lies the action of contemplation and initiation of motion.

Where this becomes truly interesting, is if we consider that the holder of the stick hath no soul. The body is matter. It is an organized grouping of fleeting particles of matter; organized into cells, which are in turn organized into organs, which are organized into a single mass that gives an appearance of wholeness. Underneath the facade, each particle is a body in motion, acted upon by others likewise in motion, never initiating any motion on its own but only continuing the motion set off by a source of active power . . .

– these are the source of active power, setting into motion the body to act upon others. Yet, these are mere illusion's, hath the body no soul; they are instead in such a case the motion of particles in the organ that we call a brain, particles that have motion only which was transferred to them by other particles, and transferring to other particles that motion which was transferred to them; with never any consideration or direction excepting that they move according to the forces of those other particles. If such is the case, then the holder of the stick  is likened to a billiards ball – acted upon by another, which was acted upon by still another, acted upon by another… all the way back to the initiation of the motion, the “Big Bang."

The soul is where consideration takes place, if indeed there even is such a thing. Without a soul, there is no ability to choose whether or not to pass on motion that has been transferred to the body, nor is there the power to determine how to do so, nor more importantly the power to initiate motion. Without a soul, there is no active power; there is only causality.

Are atheists capable of 'moral' behavior? Yes, but they are incapable of recognizing it as such. Similarly, they are incapable of recognizing immoral behavior as well. An atheist’s moral understanding, on whatever basis it is usually given, is always subjective, without an understanding of the greater good, which requires an understanding of the higher goal. This is always contrived without a higher law.

Morality takes on three forms. The first two forms of morality - compliance with civil law and compliance with the opinions of society, are both created by man, with whatever basis the ‘creators' decide the purpose of morality ought to be, and with whatever limits, or, lack of limitations they believe appropriate. With such a basis and set of limitations, such standards of morality are quite subjective. The third form, divine law or natural law (including instincts, and such), is objective. It is based on the goals of a higher power, whose position is absolute. Even without God per se, an understanding of the reason or purpose of the soul's existence grants objectivity to a view of right and wrong.

An atheist's views on morality are always subjective, then; moreover, because they do not believe in the soul or in any form of God or a god, they do not believe in an absolute arbiter of right and wrong. Their views on right and wrong are that it is right or wrong to take certain actions as a soulless human, usually based on whether or not such actions cause harm to another. Not only are their views on right and wrong, then, completely subjective - they are as declaring wrong the striking of a billiards ball by another, despite the reality that the strike was purely the result of causality, from which we must understand that there is no fault in the ball that does the striking; hence there is no wrong.

Well, if the atheists are right, then yes, they HAVE TO disagree - they have no choice in the matter, and I cannot fault them for it. However, if the theists are right, then we all have a choice, and atheists (will undoubtedly) CHOOSE to disagree - but they do not actually have to.

As an atheist, your ‘morality‘ stems from an action's benefits (or lack thereof), or it's resulting influence on your ‘life' (thus the incessant questioning of things like “just what effect is gay marriage going to have on your life?"). However, where's the objectivity in this? What is the measure of a beneficial act? Must an act, to be not wrong, be beneficial only to oneself, to a group of like-minded people, to a town, city or state, to a particular nation, to all of mankind, to all living things, or to the universe as a whole? It matters not how you answer - for it will be only your preference for the basis of morality; hence, a subjective answer, as are all of the moral laws which you base upon it.

Many say that our instincts inherently offer our morality. Human nature, generally, is to live in groups, and ensure all of “our kind" is fed and sheltered. Our own nature tells us that murder is wrong, and a moral standard is drawn. This example suggests that 'morality' is derived from nature and instinct. I ask, then, how we know of natural law, there being no higher power? Certainly, we do not get this particular view on it - that killing from amongst one's own kind is wrong - from watching . . . mothers who eat their own young, females eating their mates, packs that kill the weak within their ranks, or mortal battles between males competing for mating rights.

Now, from an atheist's view (if wrong, please explain where), what is wrong with killing anything, any more than destroying a tree or a rock? How is it more or less wrong to kill a man rather than a beast? How is it truly wrong for the fleeting particles that make up one body to spill the particles that make up another? How can there be right and wrong for mere substance?

If the atheists have it right, then we have no purpose. We are instead merely an accidental result of some chemical/electrical reaction within a pool of amino acids. The original life forms would have been strands of molecules that autonomously fed and replicated, mutating often and being replaced by more efficient mutations that eventually led to our present existence. Given this theory of our creation, our only purposes, if you could call that which animates us a purpose, are feeding and replication - society is merely a means to that end.

On the other hand, if there is a higher power that created us (God), then there was, and is, a reason for our existence. We have a purpose, and that which is inconsistent with that purpose is, objectively, considered immoral. In such a case there is an absolute something that we are required to do, according to one who objectively has authority over us: our very creator, God.

Anything less would simply be your own, subjective opinion.

Theist or Atheist: Who holds the Moral "High Ground?"

Let me start by warning you, this is a long one . . . but worth the read for those who seek the truth!

My wife and I just returned from a “mini-vacation” in Laughlin, Nevada.  While relaxing in the hot-tub, an obviously gay couple joined us, and we enjoyed pleasant conversation with one another until the topic of our chosen professions came up (no, it was not my wife or I who raised the topic.).  I am an assistant Pastor at a small church in Southern California, and currently studying for my doctorate in Christian Theology – the conversation flew from pleasantries to debate in very short order. 

 

 The "gay rights" issue was the immediate “hot topic,” and was quickly defined as more of a societal moral issue than that of an individual one.   They immediately jumped at the “atheist vs Christianity” angle, but after some debate they conceded that most every current deistic and theistic religion denounces homosexuality as sin . . . so we deliberated on the concept of theism vs atheism.  This makes more sense anyways, as those who do not believe in a god of any sort cannot possibly understand and/or accept the intricacies of any specific theistic religion.   For this reason, I decided to use science, physics, and logic as the basis of my argument – to use the Bible to convince theists would serve as much purpose as using ‘Gray's Anatomy' to teach logic.

 

The truth is, although an atheist may live by certain ‘morals', they lack the ability to objectively determine morality. At best, they have a subjective view of morality, thus, even the small percentage of society that seems to agree with them, will individually have their own ‘twist', depending on their own subjective view. In fact, the only people with the ability to objectively determine a moral system of values, are theists. Without a belief in God, or, at least, some higher power, one cannot possibly conceive morality. In support, I offer the following:

A body at rest tends to stay at rest, until acted upon by some outside force - A body in motion tends to stay in motion, until acted upon by some outside force. This change in motion by the influence of another body is but a transfer of motion that was previously transferred to the influencing body. This ability, to receive and transfer motion, is considered passive power.

Active power is the ability to contemplate and initiate change or motion. Of the two, active power is the signification which is more properly considered power. Passive power is likened to a billiards ball, acted upon by a billiards stick – the former capable of receiving motion from the latter, as well as of transferring that motion to another ball, but not capable of actually initiating motion, nor of the consideration of whether or not to do so. Active power is likened to the holder of the stick, for the billiards stick itself is, in fact, merely passive – responding to the initiation of motion by its holder, wherein lies the action of contemplation and initiation of motion.

Where this becomes truly interesting, is if we consider that the holder of the stick hath no soul. The body is matter. It is an organized grouping of fleeting particles of matter; organized into cells, which are in turn organized into organs, which are organized into a single mass that gives an appearance of wholeness. Underneath the facade, each particle is a body in motion, acted upon by others likewise in motion, never initiating any motion on its own but only continuing the motion set off by a source of active power . . .

– these are the source of active power, setting into motion the body to act upon others. Yet, these are mere illusion's, hath the body no soul; they are instead in such a case the motion of particles in the organ that we call a brain, particles that have motion only which was transferred to them by other particles, and transferring to other particles that motion which was transferred to them; with never any consideration or direction excepting that they move according to the forces of those other particles. If such is the case, then the holder of the stick  is likened to a billiards ball – acted upon by another, which was acted upon by still another, acted upon by another… all the way back to the initiation of the motion, the “Big Bang."

The soul is where consideration takes place, if indeed there even is such a thing. Without a soul, there is no ability to choose whether or not to pass on motion that has been transferred to the body, nor is there the power to determine how to do so, nor more importantly the power to initiate motion. Without a soul, there is no active power; there is only causality.

Are atheists capable of 'moral' behavior? Yes, but they are incapable of recognizing it as such. Similarly, they are incapable of recognizing immoral behavior as well. An atheist’s moral understanding, on whatever basis it is usually given, is always subjective, without an understanding of the greater good, which requires an understanding of the higher goal. This is always contrived without a higher law.

Morality takes on three forms. The first two forms of morality - compliance with civil law and compliance with the opinions of society, are both created by man, with whatever basis the ‘creators' decide the purpose of morality ought to be, and with whatever limits, or, lack of limitations they believe appropriate. With such a basis and set of limitations, such standards of morality are quite subjective. The third form, divine law or natural law (including instincts, and such), is objective. It is based on the goals of a higher power, whose position is absolute. Even without God per se, an understanding of the reason or purpose of the soul's existence grants objectivity to a view of right and wrong.

An atheist's views on morality are always subjective, then; moreover, because they do not believe in the soul or in any form of God or a god, they do not believe in an absolute arbiter of right and wrong. Their views on right and wrong are that it is right or wrong to take certain actions as a soulless human, usually based on whether or not such actions cause harm to another. Not only are their views on right and wrong, then, completely subjective - they are as declaring wrong the striking of a billiards ball by another, despite the reality that the strike was purely the result of causality, from which we must understand that there is no fault in the ball that does the striking; hence there is no wrong.

Well, if the atheists are right, then yes, they HAVE TO disagree - they have no choice in the matter, and I cannot fault them for it. However, if the theists are right, then we all have a choice, and atheists (will undoubtedly) CHOOSE to disagree - but they do not actually have to.

As an atheist, your ‘morality‘ stems from an action's benefits (or lack thereof), or it's resulting influence on your ‘life' (thus the incessant questioning of things like “just what effect is gay marriage going to have on your life?"). However, where's the objectivity in this? What is the measure of a beneficial act? Must an act, to be not wrong, be beneficial only to oneself, to a group of like-minded people, to a town, city or state, to a particular nation, to all of mankind, to all living things, or to the universe as a whole? It matters not how you answer - for it will be only your preference for the basis of morality; hence, a subjective answer, as are all of the moral laws which you base upon it.

Many say that our instincts inherently offer our morality. Human nature, generally, is to live in groups, and ensure all of “our kind" is fed and sheltered. Our own nature tells us that murder is wrong, and a moral standard is drawn. This example suggests that 'morality' is derived from nature and instinct. I ask, then, how we know of natural law, there being no higher power? Certainly, we do not get this particular view on it - that killing from amongst one's own kind is wrong - from watching . . . mothers who eat their own young, females eating their mates, packs that kill the weak within their ranks, or mortal battles between males competing for mating rights.

Now, from an atheist's view (if wrong, please explain where), what is wrong with killing anything, any more than destroying a tree or a rock? How is it more or less wrong to kill a man rather than a beast? How is it truly wrong for the fleeting particles that make up one body to spill the particles that make up another? How can there be right and wrong for mere substance?

If the atheists have it right, then we have no purpose. We are instead merely an accidental result of some chemical/electrical reaction within a pool of amino acids. The original life forms would have been strands of molecules that autonomously fed and replicated, mutating often and being replaced by more efficient mutations that eventually led to our present existence. Given this theory of our creation, our only purposes, if you could call that which animates us a purpose, are feeding and replication - society is merely a means to that end.

On the other hand, if there is a higher power that created us (God), then there was, and is, a reason for our existence. We have a purpose, and that which is inconsistent with that purpose is, objectively, considered immoral. In such a case there is an absolute something that we are required to do, according to one who objectively has authority over us: our very creator, God.

Anything less would simply be your own, subjective opinion.

     Atheism, humanism, and other religions based on the incredulity of deities have recently become more structured – even congregational at their core.  Some may consider this threatening, but I consider such attempts at the organization of atheism as a symbol that we (theists) must be doing something right - why the sudden need to organize these religious attitudes based on the non-belief of a deity?  I always thought the atheists primary argument was one based on "independent thought!"

     The truth is that most deistic religions have always expressed the need to share "God's word" for the betterment and "salvation" of the non-believer - all in all, a rather altruistic motivation.  Unfortunately, some [fanatically] religious individuals have created their identities out of some misinterpreted, even bastardized form of their chosen religion, and that has led to a much more self-based approach to the sharing of their beliefs.  I have never believed that it was "the message" that atheists found offensive, but rather a delivery of such through disingenuous and feigned concern. This basis is the same as that which has led atheists to feel the need to become organized in their religion - intent on imposing their system of non-belief onto the rest of society - that basis is the need to "be right" in one's own system of belief.

 

 

 

 

 

I have recently been asked this question:

 

 

"Can you, without qualification, admit that there is a possibility that there is no god, neither yours nor any other?"

 

 

     Although most of the population has not seen an atom, or even a molecule for that matter, we know that they exist. A small percentage of the population could undoubtedly be convinced that this is not true, simply because of lies and deception, and their acceptance of the false word of some and unwillingness to accept the factual word of others. That coupled with either the inability or unwillingness to do their own independent and open-minded research, or even those that choose to believe that 'atoms and molecules' are merely part of some governmental conspiracy is enough to leave those members of society convinced that there are no such things as atoms or molecules.

If someone were to take the time to spread such conspiracy theories, and back them up with "possible," yet un-provable theories in support, I'm certain that about 5% of the population could be convinced that there are no such things as atoms or molecules (hmmm . . . about the same percentage of the world's population that describe themselves as "atheist," and then support their assertions with several un-provable theories riddled with conjecture, hypothesis, and further theory.)  On the other hand, no matter how much effort one put into such a campaign, it would be highly unlikely, if not impossible to convince the other 95% of the world's population that there is no such thing as a molecule or atom (hmmm . . . imagine that, about the same percentage of the world's population that are "theists.") Coincidence?  I'm certain that about 5% of the world's population will tout it as such.

     Ask a molecular scientist about the existence of atoms and molecules, and no matter what evidence is presented by these conspiracy theorists and ineducable members of society, that scientist will not even suggest that the existence of such is questionable. So, to answer the question with the most simplistic of responses - NO . . . there is not even a possibility that there is no God! (call me a "God scientist." lol)  To qualify (and hopefully avoid a bombardment of vitriol and vacuous lines of questioning,) just as molecular scientists do not have full comprehension of every aspect of atoms and molecules, I do not have a full understanding of God and his Word . . . but I still KNOW that He exists.

Last year we had a "stimulus package" that I was against from the start put out by G.W.  and his administration.  The results were an astounding half to five point "blip" in the markets that lasted about a month. 

China, due to its economic woes has been subscribing to the same idiotic and failed tactic for the past ten years . . . and guess what, the 12 times that they did it the exact same thing happened - a false "blip" in the markets followed by a deeper descent. 

Now, in light of this inarguable evidence that "stimulus packages" DO NOT WORK, why is congress trying to push through an additional 300 billion dollar stimulus package that they say is "needed to counteract the current economic recession?" 

Do they really think that we are all too stupid to know that it has nothing to do with our economy, and everything to do with politics.  Are they really starting to buy votes for the 2010 elections so soon?

     In these tumultuous economic times , one of the most common phrases that I've been hearing is: "we've just got our fingers crossed that things will turn around."  Do you realize that there is a much more reliable cross to believe in?  The Bible offers sound economic advice that works regardless of what is happening in the world around us . . . times like these a nothing more than a ploy of Satan to get us to take our eyes off of God, and in so doing we are pulled down by our own lack of faith.

     God's plans for those who are faithful to His Word are very clear: God wants us to "prosper and be in good health." (3 John 1:2)  As I always do when faced with uncertainty and fear, I turned to my Bible for comfort and wisdom, and I want you to know that God has given each of us a way to prosper . . . even in times of lack.

    Before I go on, I want you to understand that "prosperity" comes in many forms - not just financial; but God's plans work in all areas of our lives that we would wish for prosperity, including financial. 

     Ultimately, the Bible outlines 7 very clear principles that will lead to prosperity . . . if you follow these steps, then you will succeed.  I'm not going to go into depth on this, if you want more information then you will either have to study God's Word, or wait for me to write the book!

Seven Principles to Prosperity

1. Dream it

2. Desire it

3. Design it

4. Be Diligent

5. Be dedicated

6. Determine it

7. Follow it to its destination.

Gee, I searched and searched and couldn't find a word about depending on others/government, etc.  I'll look again, but I believe that God has put personal success and/or failure of our endeavors within our own hands.  It's funny how God doesn't allow us to place blame on anyone else!  Now dream your dream, and be productive!

Here we are, a week after voting in one of the most "heated" presidential elections in modern history - kneejerk reactions and vehement posts have riddled the blogosphere.  Sore losers and and equally sore winners continue to thrash about wildly with little more than bias opinion and repetitious rhetoric of campaigns that were finished a week ago.

     In this post election season, I've seen everything from God to guns tossed into discussions about what we can expect from our new president and his appointed administration, and unfortunately most of the rhetoric has been unfounded (as it was during the campaigns,) or at best speculative.  I tried to get away from such infantile (no offense intended, I just can't think of a more accurately descriptive word) arguments by asking some very simple and direct questions in my "Now What" blog . . . that didn't work.  I do however have to give nemokc credit for attempting to answer - his opinions and mine definately differ on what "positive change" consists of!

     That brings us to my point - Barack Heussien Obama is OUR president elect, like it or not.  We as Americans must come together in a rally of support for our country's democratic process and the smooth transition from one administration to the next.  Several people ask why?  After all, the republicans were not afforded the same congeniality in 2000, nor for that matter, at any time over the past eight years!  The reason why . . . is that we republicans do put our "country first," and the success of any president (no matter which party he stems from) means the success of the United States of America.  We can not wish failure on our leaders and expect anything less than the failure of our nation - a lesson that the liberals might take with them as they evalute their thoughts, actions, and vitriol of the past eight years - and one that they must remember in 2010 when republicans regain control of the house and senate, and again in 2012 when Palin/Jindhal take the presidency back!

 

May God Bless America

     We are stuck with a POTUS with no military or foreign policy experience.  We are stuck with a president who will not defend the right to life, and therefore cannot defend liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  We are stuck with a president who believes in punishing success, and rewarding those with their hands out.  We are stuck with a president who's entire philosophy (socialism, marxism, communism - call it what you want, the principles fit into any of these categories) is the antithesis of 85%-90% of this country's citizens fundamental belief system (Christianity.)  We are stuck with a president who believes that a person's right to access governmental programs should, at least in part, be determined by the color of their skin.  We are stuck with a president who wants to dictate the acceptance of behavior that the majority of our religious doctrine's dictate are immoral  (England's Conventicle Act of 1665 that drove our founding fathers to America comes to mind.)  We are stuck with a president that will intentionall bankrupt businesses that he "doesn't agree with,"  even though it will have a drastic negative impact on all of the citizens of America ("energy costs will skyrocket.")  We are stuck with a president who will cut our defense spending by "at least 25%" thereby placing our security at risk.  We are stuck with a president . . . (I could go on, but I want to leave some for those who wish to respond.) 

     I've read most every blog on this site over the past three weeks or so, and I noticed the all too common rants of the left were void of any substance pertaining to the supposed positive changes that Barack Obama was going to bring to our country.  Sure the election of a "black man" to the presidency marks a rather auspicious occasion regarding race relations in this country, but still the blogs of democrat supporters are riddled with the names of John McCain and George Bush.  To them I say: stop living in the past . . . G.W. is done in less than 2 months, and McCain was finished as of the 5th of this month.  So I ask you this, since no one has offered this information during the "debate period" of the election process - what positive changes in policy and/or law do you expect Barack Obama to bring to America?  We have all heard his rhetoric regarding what he wants to achieve as end results, but how do you expect him to take our country from here to there?

That's exactly what Obama has promised that his plan will accomplish.  Don't believe me?  Would you believe Obama if he told you the same thing?  The fact is that in January of '08 that is exactly what he said . . . his plan WILL BANKRUPT the coal industry and his plan will result in SKYROCKETING ENERGY COSTS!  Come on people, dummy up - you lemmings will follow him right into the pit of the volcanoe if that's where he leads you . . . and even after he tells you that's where you're going!

To start with, this is not the epicurian riddle that you claim it to be . . . it is however an adaptation of that riddle by David Hume.  As with all riddles, there is an answer . . .

 

The reasoning is good as far as it goes, but without supplying all pertinent information it is logically unsound. The problem is that it fails to take into account the character of God.

 

He has the power to prevent evil, but His sense of justice, righteousness, and holiness demands He allow us to decide for ourselves to do good or evil. (free will)

 

He is not unwilling to do anything about evil. In fact, He has provided for the remission of our sins without punishment. That being done through the crucifixion and death of His Son, Jesus Christ. "No greater love exists than a man who lays down his life for a friend". But, consider this - we were enemies of God when He laid down His life for us (this is explained in the book of Romans).

 

"If He is both able and willing..." He is able, but only if you seperate His power from His character. He is hypothetically able, yet in reality, He is not by His own temperament - His power is tempered by His own character. This is also true concerning His sense of justice and mercy. His sense of justice demands death for our sins, He has the power to carry out that death sentence, but His sense of mercy prevents Him from killing us right now.

 

God has done everything His character will allow and still people reject Him and sin against Him. What greater evidence of God's power than His love which overcomes His justified Divine Retribution by providing a way out for us.

 

Why call Him "God"? What other name can truly be given to a being with such traits?

 

For this explanation to "come together," one must have an understanding of the "evil" that David Hume refers to - human suffering, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. - are a result of sin. God put into place certain princples that His character will not allow Him to violate. One of those princples is, "Everything a person does has ramification." One of the ramifications of "original sin" is a curse on the earth. This is where the "natural evils" originate. Human caused human suffering is another example of this princple.

 

It's really not much of a riddle at all as it is deceptive and faulty of logic at its core.  Most riddles are meant to incite thought, not divisiveness.

 

I hope this helps.

There are actually 2 different versions of this story with 2 very different morals. 

 OLD  VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.  The  grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.  The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. 


MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself! 

MODERN VERSION: 

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house
and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a
fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. 

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to
know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are
cold and starving. 

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering
grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled
with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. 

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is
allowed to suffer so? 

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when
they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.' 

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news
stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the
group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake. 

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant
has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. 

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act
retroactive to the beginning of the summer.  The ant is fined for failing to
hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to
pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. 

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit
against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that
Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. 

The ant loses the case. 

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's
food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the
ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. 

The ant has disappeared in the snow. 

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now
abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful
neighborhood. 

MORAL OF THE STORY:  Be careful how you vote in 2008  

Put your Country First - Vote McCain/Palin