Response to a forum post.

 Quote:

Okay, okay, okay. We all know that “Separation of Church and State” is
written nowhere in the Constitution, ever. But here, I put forth my
argument. The separation is indeed there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

First Amendment. Bill of Rights. First thing written in the Bill, hard
to miss. Before the first semicolon in the Bill of Rights.

In plain english, Congress will never legislate anything regarding
religion or outlawing free practice of religion. Seeing as the not
president nor the courts can make laws, there is no way to make a law
that deals with religion.

I seriously want to hear a counter-argument to this: people affirm that
America is a Christian nation and fail to back it up. I get the feeling
that I may be missing something obvious.

The first part of the message isn’t very important, or even relevant,
really, to the main point. I’ll address it later, or in a second post.
Not this one. This one is for meat and potatoes.

Ok, let’s start, at the beginning. The first thing to go to is the
original document. You’ve done that. Now, we need to break it down,
logically.

Here’s my outline, before I go into it.

A. Breakdown
1. Language breakdown. What exactly does it say?

2. Context breakdown. In what context was it placed?

B. Historical references
1. Background of the phrase “separation of church and state”

2. Background about the founding fathers.

3. Background about the social climate, and religious context of the day.

So, without further ado – here we go.

A. Breakdown

When we approach history, we have to take a holistic
approach. We can’t come at the issue without an understanding of what
it says, exactly, the context we need to place it in, and the frame of
reference the authors penned it in.

History is not fluid – it is static. Only the present is fluid –
and merely because we cannot see the myriad effects each isolated event
has on others, or the effect a series, or a group of events has. Only
from the perspective of history can these trends be examined. Even that
much is the province of scholars, and researchers – and often takes
decades of their lives. I’m not going to presume upon my own
scholarship to settle the question. Thus, I shall fall back on
reference, and the assembled wisdom of many, in order to answer the
question: (which is actually in two parts, as I understand it.)

1. “Why do Christians affirm that America is a Christian nation?”
2. “Why do Christians assert that “separation of church and state” is
not what the Founding Fathers intended by penning the First Amendment?”

This short essay is an attempt to answer those two questions, and
provide the references, reasoning, and response to those two questions.

A. 1. Language

The first thing we need to do, as the source document is in slightly
archaic English, is to examine the actual wording, and linguistically
study, the document in question.

The Document. (provided for those who wish to study it for themselves, and do it conveniently)

Now, as you’ve already stated, the First Amendment (I’m going to snip
the later portions of it, as they are unrelated) says the following:

 Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So, let’s break the sentence down, word by word.

Congress. The national legislative body of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Straightforward.

Shall. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation. Future tense.

Make. To cause to exist or happen; bring about; create. In this case, it is tied to the word “law” – so “create law”.

No. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement. In this particular cas,e “no” is used as a modifier – thus, it turns “create law” into “create no law. Or, in other words – “Do NOT create any law”

Law. A piece of enacted legislation. Thus, we now have the following:

Congress (the legislative branch) shall (is obligated) make (create) no (modifer of create – negatively. “Not create”, effectively.) law (legislation, rule of conduct, judiciary quideline).

We’ll go on.

Respecting. To relate or refer to; concern.
the case could be made that the word “respecting” could mean,
alternately, “deferential regard for; esteem.”, or ” To avoid violation
of or interference with”. Which is it? It’s an important question, on
which much hangs. Let direct our attention toward the rest of the
document.

Article IV: Section 3: The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting
the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and
nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any
claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Respecting is not used as “esteem” – it is used as “to refer to”. Let’s
see what “respect” and “respective” turn up – as they are the “refer
to” form, of a certainty.

Constitution:

Respect:
Article II: Section 3: in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment (in reference to)

Respective:

Article I: Section 2: States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers (in reference to)

Article I: Section 6: be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses (in reference to)

Article I: Section 8: to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries (in reference to)

Article II: Section I: [The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot (in reference to)

Article II: Section 2: relating to the duties of their respective offices (in reference to)

Respectively:
Article I: Section 7: the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. (in reference to)

Article I: Section 8: reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers. (in reference to)

Bill of Rights:

Amendment 10: are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (in reference to)

Amendment 12: The Electors shall meet in their respective states (in reference to)

Amendment 14: Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers (in reference to)

That’s all of them. Now, here is what we get, by all of that research, linguistically.

We now know that there is one place in the Constitution where the word
“respecting” is used – in that case, it is NOT referring to esteem – it
is referring to definition #3 – “To relate or refer to; concern.”

Every other derivation of “respect” in the Constitution is also
referring to this same definition. Thus, we can safely say, that by
comparision, the word “respecting”, whn used in the First Amendment, is
used as “refer”, “concern”, or “relate”.

So, we can NOW move on. That point, incidentally, is often used,
incorrectly, by proponents of the so-called “separation clause”, to
mean that Congress cannot “respect or esteem” religion. We have now
addressed that, shown it to be false, and can continue.

An. The form of a used before words beginning with a vowel or with an unpronounced h. So, we are thus referred to the definition of “a”.

A Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing.
So, the object of this reference is singular. This, by the way, is
important. Keep that thought in the back of your mind – I’m going to
come back to it.

Establishment. 2. Something established, as
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.

As the sentence is laid out, it seems to suggest C, in particular:

However, “an arranged order or system”, or “a permanent civil, political, or military organization” may also apply.

But, this is even more argued than “respecting”. So we’ll delve into it like we did the other.

“Establishment”

Article VII: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

This is the other usage of the word “Establishment” in the
Constitution. There is no other usage in the Bill of Rights. In this
case, the sentence lends itself to only two definitions – both of which
fit the prior definition we used:

2. Something established, as
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.

So, what Congress cannot do, is create a law arranging a single,
permanent, order or system, an arranged order or system, or an
established church… (in regards to religion.) Which brings us to the
next couple words.

Of. Associated with or adhering to – or, if you prefer, Derived or coming from; originating at or from

So, we are now at this point: Congress cannot create a law arranging a single, permanent, order or system adhering to….

Religion.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Hrmm, so. We are now complete, and here is how our definition reads:

Congress cannot create a law to arrange a single institutionalized system adhering to a certain belief.

NOT that Congress cannot allow any expression of any belief in any
place in government – there is simply a prohibition on selecting any
religion, or sect of any religion, as the state, or sanctioned,
religion.

Now, we’ll move on to the second half:

 Quote:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Or. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series. The “no” which modified “make” earlier, with this “or” operator, also applies to the following word.

Prohibiting. To forbid by authority, or, To prevent; preclude. In no way is to Congress to forbid, prevent, or preclude “the free exercise thereof” – ie: They cannot
interfere with the practice of religious adherents. Not to forbid parts
of their worship, not to prevent their worship, or to preclude their
worship. Add that up with free speech, and there is a serious
constitutional case directly contrary to the “separation” clause. The so-called separation clause not only interferes with the first amendment religious rights of religious practioners, but also the first amendment free speech

rights of religious practitioners! Nothing imaginable could be further
from the truth than the so-called “separation” of church and state.

But… I digressed. I’ll finish the dissection.

The. Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things. So, the following is both particular, and specific. Gotcha.

Free.

1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
3.
a. Having political independence
b. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties
c. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government

5. Not subject to external restraint.

Pick one of the above, and apply it.

Exercise 1 : the discharge of an official function or professional occupation

I’m going to use this definition. You know why? A. it’s a legal
definition – and a large, large percentage of the Founding fathers were
lawyers. B. The Constitution itself is a legal document, by which all
other laws are interpreted. It makes more sense, and it fits the usage
in this sentence best.

So there. The official function (or professional occupation) of any
member of any religion, is what the religion in question outlines.
So… if a religion calls for a certain action by it’s members, then
Congress cannot forbid, prevent, or preclude anyone from freely doing what that religion says.

All you have to do is look up the words, and their definitions. I don’t
know why people are so confused, or so upset about it. It’s very, very,
VERY clear.

Thereof.
1. Of or concerning this, that, or it.

2. From that cause or origin; therefrom.

Or anything which concerns religion, in essence.

So, to close this up. Not only can Congress not make any religion the
“official” religion – they cannot interfere, forbid, prevent, or in any
way regulate, the practice, or anything concerning the practice, or
religion.

So, what would be bad about disallowing the practice, or reference to, religion in public? The law is now prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

This applies for all religions – yes. This means
Muslims have an equal right to practice Islam. Jews have an equal right
to practice Judaism. All sects of all of the receding, as well as all
sects of Christianity, are free to practice (not believe…
PRACTICE) their religions, whether public, or private, as they please,
and without any interference from the law. Period.

Practice of a belief is defined by the belief in question – not the
state. They cannot make any religion “official”, thus, they have no
power over defining what is a belief or not – or what can be practiced,
or not.

So… that is point 1. Of at least 5.

Linguistics shows that the intent, according to the wording, was to
prohibit a single, state religion – but NOT to interfere, in any way,
with the exercise of any religious practices. There is no state
religion, and there has never been. However, a movement is underway
which states that the “establishment clause” (to be accurate to the
text), or the “separation clause” (which is inaccurate to the text)
requires that all references to religion must be expunged from public
buildings, public display, public schooling, public actions, and public
fora, in any circumstances. This movement believes the aforementioned,
to varying degrees. I feel that such actions violate the “free
exercise” clause, as well as the spirit, intent, and meaning of the
“establishment” clause.

A. 2. Context

Everything depends, in most areas of study – especially the fields of
history, literature, and theology, on a correct understanding of the context. Context is defined as follows:

 Quote:

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

So, we have to do two things:

1. Examine the surrounding text, to determine the meaning of the text in question.

2. Examine the circumstances and setting surrounding the adoption, and writing, of the Bill of Rights.

Ready?

Textual Context

The sorrounding words can give us a clue into the tone, and intent of
the writers. The following words, they will have to be, as the words
we’re dealing with are the very first of the document, and set the tone
for the rest. However, by picking up that tone, we can see which tone
the first amendment was trying to give to the rest.

The First Amendment concerns other rights as well, which imediately follow those outlined at the beginning of the amendment.

 Quote:

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right ofthe people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Speech, press, assembly, petition. None of these can be abridged – diminished or reduced in scope.
So, directly following the admonition that no one state religion can be
established, and that no prohibition of the exercise of religion may be
made, we are immediately told that the right to speak as we wish, write
what we wish, assemble as we wish, and petition as we wish, cannot be
curtailed, either.

That makes a case, to me, not of removing these things from the government, but of protecting all of these things from the government.

The government, if given unlimited power, will take
unlimited power. All of these examples, and, indeed, the entire Bill of
Rights, is an enumerated listing of the limitations we have placed on
government. Not protection for the government. The government needs
no protection from it’s citizens. Nothing in the first ten amendments
lists any protections for the government – only protections from the government.

The rest of the amendments are in a similar vein:

 Quote:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note: This is a protection of the people, not the state.

 Quote:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.

 Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.

 Quote:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law

Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.

 Quote:

the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have
been committed

Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.

 Quote:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved

Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.

 Quote:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Once again, a protection of the people – not the state.

 Quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This one is always fun to watch. Or argue. It’s an interesting amendment – and neither often used, nor often cited.

 Quote:

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.

Yet, once again, it is an affirmation of the rights of persons being
the central focus – NOT the rights of the state, in any fashion
whatsoever. In fact, every single one of the Amendments comprising the
Bill of Rights is a personal rights amendment. Are we to say that only
the first is a right reserved for the state? I think not. The contextual evidence from the surrounding areas in the document also rules against the “separation clause” argument.

Circumstancial Context

In Madison’s original speech, proposing an amendment to the Constitution, the following statement is made:

 Quote:

Fourthly.
That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted
these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on
account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

That should be very, very, very eye-opening. If you look at the
statement, and apply the test of intent to the final version, the
intent, and circumstances surrounding it are very, very clear.

No right on account of religious belief, or worship, should be
abridged. Neither should the right of conscience be infringed, in any
manner, or on any pretext.

That, my friends, is unbelievably, eye-openingly, clear, when it comes
to the intent. Nothing, in any way, shape, or form, when you get down
to brass tacks, was ever, ever said, or implied concerning religion,
save to protect it from government influence, or interference. Nothing.
At all.

From the proposer of the Bill of Rights, from his own speech, we have
the actual, clear intent of the framers – to protect religious
expression, exercise, and worship from being abridged. In any manner,
or on any pretext! ANY. Including, I might add, the pretext of
“protecting” the state from the church.

Historical Reference

The actual words, and speeches of the founders have everything – every
cotton-pickin thing, to do with this issue. The original intent, the
original thoughts, the original writing, of the people that wrote the thing.

The Infamous Danbury Baptist Association letter.

The final text, as sent:

 Quote:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a
committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of
Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so
good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist
association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a
faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, &

in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the
discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or
his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions
only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of
separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of
the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I
shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments
which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has
no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of
the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves
& your religious association, assurances of my high respect &

esteem.

Now, for the original version: (As found here)

 Quote:

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a
committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of
Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are
so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist
association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a
faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents,
and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those
duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or
his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions
only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act
of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress
thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive
authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from
prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced
indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its
church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary
regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: “confining
myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely
temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be
infringed by any act of mine and that.” These lines he crossed out and then wrote: “concurring with”; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: “Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience”; next he crossed out these words and wrote: “Adhering
to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the
rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the
progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his
natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition
to his social duties.”]

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of
the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves
& the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

I’d also invite you to read this article, concerning the letter, and the circumstances surrounding it: FBI Helps Restore Jefferson’s Obliterated Draft

I’ll quote it, though:

 Quote:

It
seems likely that in modifying the draft of the Danbury Baptist letter
by eliminating words like “eternal” and “merely temporal,” which
sounded so uncompromisingly secular, Jefferson was motivated not merely
by political considerations but by a realization that these words,
written in haste to make a political statement, did not accurately
reflect the conviction he had reached by the beginning of 1802 on the
role of government in religion. Jefferson would never compromise his
views that there were things government could not do in the religious
sphere — legally establish one creed as official truth and support it
with its full financial and coercive powers. But by 1802, he seems to
have come around to something close to the views of New England Baptist
leaders such as Isaac Backus and Caleb Blood, who believed that,
provided the state kept within its well-appointed limits, it could
provide “friendly aids” to the churches, including putting at their
disposal public property that even a stickler like John Leland was
comfortable using.

There is a lot more, mostly concerning the times, and circumstances under which it was written.

Go read it. Also, read one of Jefferson’s own essays on religion.

A large number of his writings can be found Here as well. Happy studying.

Selected references

1. One contributor to the First Amendment – Fisher Ames

“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school
book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble.
In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant;
and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and
the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well
as of faith.”

3. James Madison:

“There is not a shadow of right in the general [federal] government to
intermeddle with religion….This subject is, for the honor of America,
perfectly free and unshackled.” (The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 5,
pp. 176, 132.)

4. Gouverneur Morris

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education
should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards
God.” (1792, Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France.)

5. George Washington

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these
great pillars…. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and cherish them…. Let it simply
be asked, ‘Where is the security for property, for reputation, for
life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?’ …And let us with
caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without
religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
education on minds…reason and experience both forbid us to expect
that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principle.” (George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)

6. Benjamin Franklin
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs
of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice,
it is probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been
assured in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House,
they labour 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:”
(At the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787.)

7.

“How comes it that Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is recognized by all
the departments of Government? In the law, Sunday is a ‘dies non;’ it
cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs,
or other judicial purposes. The executive departments, the public
establishments, are all closed on Sundays; …neither House of Congress
sits.”

(U.S. Senate, January 19, 1853, on Congressional Chaplains.)

Trivia:
A. Note the date that it was written: 1802. Date the Bill of Rights was adopted? 1789

B. While President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was also made
president of the Washington, DC public school system in which he placed
the Bible and the Isaac Watt’s hymnal as the two primary reading texts.

C. “In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is
placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General
[federal] Government.” – Jefferson, second Inaugural address.

D. First English language Bible printed in America was by Congress in 1782 “for use of schools.”

E. “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 the gift of God?” – Jefferson, Notes on the
State of Virginia, 1781

Last, the courts.

Not until 1879 was this ever even used. Not until 1947 was it used concerning the “establishment clause”.

“In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation between
church and State.’ Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164
(1879)].”

Now, not only have we shown that this basis is untrue, we have shown
the contrary to be true. Not only does Jefferson’s single letter not
have a thing to do with what the Constitution says, it is, in fact,
unconstitutional to try to do so.

 Quote:

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine on a mistaken
understanding of Constitutional history…. The establishment clause
has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for
nearly forty years…. There is simply no historical foundation for the
proposition that the Framers intended to build a wall of separation….
The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language
or the intent of the Framers.”

Supreme Court Justice William Rhenquist, WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38

The reading is very, very, very good – if you can, and have the patience, to read legal documents.

The synopsis: From the linguistic, contextual,
and historical frames of reference, the so-called “separation of church
and state” is not only incorrect, but the antithesis of the intent and
beliefs of the founders, and statesmen behind both the Constitution,
and the Bill of Rights.

The answers:
Q: 1. “Why do Christians affirm that America is a Christian nation?”

A: Because of the overwhelming evidence – from personal letters, public
speeches, and public writing, which attests to the Christian
foundation, heritage, and background of both our nation, and it’s
people.

Q: 2. “Why do Christians assert that “separation of church and state”
is not what the Founding Fathers intended by penning the First
Amendment?”

A. Because, the liguistic, contextual, and historical evidence says exactly the opposite.

Please post rebuttals, nitpicking, and general comments now….

Back in the 1890’s, in the period leading up the the
Spanish-American war, something called “Yellow Journalism” came into
being. Sensationalism, jingoism, and incredibly one-sided reporting of
news.

Also known as “propaganda”.

Now, when it comes to debating, and arguing, nowadays, especially as
reflected in political campaigns, public relations, and reputation
building, this sort of discussion seems to be the basis for any sort of
argument.

See, it seems some have the idea that debate is about “being right”, or
“winning”. I don’t believe that is the case. Logic, regardless of the
disuse into which it has fallen, is both a key to thinking
intelligently, and key to avoiding being hoisted by your own petard.
Such as it is.
——————–
Rebuttal: begin.

 Quote:

It’s funny. I think living every day of your life with only a quarter
inch of aluminum siding between you and the elements does something bad
to your brain. Yes…I’m sure of it.

As funny as I’m sure you think the above sounded – I neither live in a
trailer, nor have I ever lived in one. I’m not from Mississippi, or
even from the South – I’m from the American Southwest, in Tucson,
Arizona. Which you often conveniently forget. Home of the University of
Arizona, one of the premier medical schools in the nation, and a major
college town – with a population of over a million. I’m not from a
small town, nor am I uneducated, or self-educated. I live in a resort
community, in a 3,000 square foot house, and I work on computers for a
living.

No, me and Billy Bob don’t hitch up our horses at the trough, and “done hook up our com-pooters”.
—————————-

 Quote:

Now since I’m in a good mood I’ll put this very nicely to my rather hickish friend.

Personal jab #2.

 Quote:

Now, I’m proud of you, for managing to pick the words from your high
school philosophy teacher. I really hope the GED works out.

Jab number 3…
I was homeschooled, with national honors, ACT score of 32 (99th+
percentile), SAT in 99.95th percentile. Two questions away from acing
the ASVAB, multiple electronics certifications, several computer
certifications, and years of experience in electronic/computer
maintenance. Nice try. What’s your hang up with trying to make yourself
“the smartest person!!1111!!” ?
——————–

 Quote:

Placing importance on consequences is bad?

Yes, if they are imaginary consequences, or worst case consequences. When the potential consequences are nowhere near to actual consequences of a potential outcome. Essentially, you’re building cases like you build sandcastles.
—————————-

 Quote:

That’s f***ing ridiculous. How can one possibly ignore the
consequences, when the consequences indicate potentially thousands of
American lives?

The solution you present is not the issue: The way you present it, and
the way you project it, is. I don’t disagree that terrorists are bad,
we need to be in Iraq to eradicate them, and that radical Islam is a
clear and present danger to the security of the United States, and her
interests.

I disagree, however, that wiping out an entire geographic region will
either serve our interests, increase our security, or even help us do
what we’re trying to do. All we’ll do is kill a bunch of people. Who,
as likely as you say they hate us, like us. You know, like the 80-95%
of Iraqis, who, when asked, say they like us being there, and
appreciate us toppling Hussein.

Instead of killing terrorists, your solution is to kill innocents,
terrorists, AND anyone else in the immediate area who fits in between
the two. Why is that acceptable? Killing a few million people won’t
keep the other terrorists, worldwide, from pulling another 9/11.
Overkill to that extreme is, to be blunt, stupid. Not to mention
frightfully immoral.

I’m not saying terrorists are worthy of mercy, or should be left alone – I’m saying – why kill everyone

when we’re killing thousands of the cockroaches already, and they show
no signs of decreasing their zeal to die? We have our military for a
reason. We have a strategic position in Iraq, as defenders and
liberators – but you want to substitute pre-emptive nuclear strikes in
place of the lightest casualties in any major war in American history?

How does that make sense?
————–

 Quote:

So what I’d like you to do go over to some of the 9/11 Memorial web
sites. And I want you to tell those people over there, that we should
ignore consequences. That when picking our next president we should
ignore the potential of the terrorist threat.

Did I say that? I said you’re exaggerating the consequences to make
your point. As much as I agree with your premise, I find your idea of
“handling the situation” overly grotesque, and your replies a mere
charicature of what you were asked. You take a comment, twist it into a
pretzel, and then answer the pretzel, not the question.
————–

 Quote:

“but the fact that you espouse genocide of people our very presence is converting, in rather large numbers, to Christianity.”

 Quote:

Yes. That’s right. We should ignore the threat of terrorism because….these people are becoming Christians!!! Wait…umm…

I said: Espouse genocide – referring to your “nuke em all” strategy. Which is retarded.
You said: ignore terrorism – does refraining from nuking whole areas of
the middle east constitute “ignoring terrorism”? In that case, we
better get that do-nothing republican who won’t nuke the middle east,
out of office…. right?

Don’t be ridiculous, and don’t rewrite comments. It’s stupid. I want us
to kill every stinking terrorist in the world before we’re done. I have
no sympathy for those seeking our deaths, our soldiers’ deaths, or
anyone’s death. They should die. But, let’s not kill every living being
in the surrounding area to do so. Guns, tanks, and (non-nuclear) bombs
should do fine.

 Quote:

I don’t rewrite what people say. I simply put it in the very plain
English that it should be. When someone says “don’t kill the
terrorists, understand them” what that actually mean, no matter how you
flower it up, is appease them.

When I say you “espouse genocide” that doesn’t mean “espouse” suddenly
morphed definitions into “ignore the threat”, and genocide doesn’t
magically change into “of terrorism”. Sorry. You just rewrote what I
said, and attacked something I didn’t say. You created a straw man,
attacked it, and said you won. Maybe against the straw man… However,
you never answered what _I_ said.

 Quote:

– long, drawn out story somehow related to something or other-

The ability to read between the lines is important. Some people, much
like you or whoever else, don’t like the fact that there are those of
us with an ability to read between the lines.

Sure, if you don’t rewrite what I say, and attack something else
altogether. I’m ex-military, pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush, pro-War on Terror,
pro-Republican, pro-defense spending, pro-foreign intervention.

In short, I’m a conservative Republican. So, don’t act like I’m some
euro liberal, who calls for appeasement, “world order”, or any of the
like. Because that’ll not only be full of crap, but not even remotely
describe my political views, which are clearly on view, here on this
blog.

Don’t blow smoke. Answer what I write, not what you wish I would have
written, so you can attack it just like you would a dem liberal, or a
euro commie.

 Quote:

Apparently the threat of terrorism is a false dilemma?

 Quote:

If it comes between us and them, I choose them for a fast delivery of nuclear weapons.

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in
reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use
of the “or” operator.

Now, when you said that, early on in the “November election” debate,
you make up a VERY unlikely scenario, put “us”, or “them” as the two
options, and try to force the readers to choose between the two.

Now, sure, in some hypothetical military confrontation between us, and
a foreign power, I’d be more than willing to initiate a nuclear
exchange. However, we’re talking guerillas, and terrorists, not a
nuclear-armed world power. There is no concentrated population base
which would make a nuclear strike effective, or even necessary. So what
is what, but a false dilemna?

 Quote:

Prejudicial language?

 Quote:

I would hope, that any other god fearing American would be willing to make that same choice.

Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral
goodness to believing the proposition.

So, not only do you use prejudicial language, but you link that to the false dilemna.

 Quote:

Style over substance?

The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is
taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

I don’t need a quote for this one. Your constant attempt is to use
every dirty trick you can to make yourself look good, and the opponent
look bad. Not on the basis of facts, but on the basis of destroying their reputation for the betterment of your own.

 Quote:

For [He doesn’t have anything to do with your opinions, sorry] sake,
RK, I’m glad you finally managed to read “Philosophy For Dummies”. I’m
sure it was a great 2 dollar investment at the General Store, but for
[Hi, I’m a potty mouthed Christian] sake, you’re such a [Hi, I’m a
potty mouthed Christian] sophomore.

Opinion noted – and ignored most wholeheartedly. I already said I don’t
care what you think – you’ve shown your opinion to be less than
worthless by how you treat people. Oh, and you’re still a pottymouth
with the dignity of a sewer, when it comes to your Christian witness.

We’ve discussed this – you don’t care, I know. Just thought I’d mention it again.

 Quote:

“Well you used a straw man argument!!!

Well, it WOULD kinda be more effective to even ATTEMPT to respond to
your opponent, instead of traipsing along in JF fantasy land. But,
whatever floats your boat 😀

 Quote:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA”. I don’t see a score board anywhere, and I don’t see a set of rules.

I don’t see any respect or esteem, either. Which is what you’re trying
to cultivate, it seems, as you won’t argue the isues at hand – just the
issues you can hammer at over and over, with the tiring fanaticism of
someone trying his hand at creating his very own cult of personality.

 Quote:

If you’ve got an actual response, bring it.

Which one? The one I give, or the one you rewrite it to?

 Quote:

Says you in your years of experience as what?

Debating? Unlike some people, I don’t feel the need to present myself
as infallible, or perfection incarnate. I don’t need to list
credentials, or attempt to impress people by my “skillz”.

Nobody cares if you’re in law. Lawyers, unfortunately, have come a long
way from the days of John Adams. You’re no John Adams. When you’ve
written a state constitution, become a diplomat, authored many of the
papers upon which the history of a country is founded – then, you’re
big time, and above all of the “little people”. John Adams, however,
even when he was President, was not only a humble man, but a principled
one.

That doesn’t make you superman, and you’re not infallible, superior, or
“above the riff raff”. You’re no specimen of human superiority, whose
inherent excellence shines down upon the dirty, unwashed masses, who
look up to you, adoringly, with reverence and awe.

Nope. Get off your high horse. You’re conceited. We don’t care.

 Quote:

I’m sorry…your internet suicide incident and break up with common law wifey.

Hrmm? I’ve never even come close to suicide. Or even hinted it.
Get real.

 Quote:

I’m sorry again. From now on in I’ll just refer to her as ‘yo baby momma’.

No, you’re not sorry. I’ll just call you “sewer-mouth”, since you have this fascination with pet names.

 Quote:

Right!!!! With a National Team Championship and a few national individual awards, I don’t know anything!!! Aha!!! That’s it!!!

They let you call people “******* morons” and rewrite their arguments to suit what you want to attack there?

Yeah, sure they do.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you had a hang-up about adequacy.

 Quote:

No. Link me again!!!!

Men of God International

 Quote:

And to quote the immortal words of Jerry Spence: “There greatest logical fallacy is logical fallacy”.

Who?

 Quote:

Law logic — an artificial system of reasoning, exclusively used in courts of justice, but good for nothing anywhere else.

– John Quincy Adams

 Quote:

Although, I must admit it’s funny that RK, who is unable to debate
without the use of his bible to attempt go at someone who is better
educated than him, now is relying on a web site about logical fallacy
to attempt go to at someone who is far better educated than him.

Really? Shows how much you know, bud. No, actually, it’s merely easy to
link to a resource someone can see, to illustrate your point – since,
umm.. were on the internet, and all? You know, where they have websites
about every conceivable subject. That you can use as reference.

I could use wikipedia, or dictionary.com, if that works better for you.
It doesn’t change the fact that you rarely answer the questions people
ask – just answer to make them look bad, so you look better. It’s a
pattern. You have a complex about making yourself look good in
comparison to someone else, it appears.

 Quote:

I want to see somebody do that in court some day. Guy is finishing his
closing argument and RK jumps up “OBJECTION THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY”.

No, they demolish fallacious logic in the arguments. If it’s retarded, well, it’s likely going to be seen as retarded.

Don’t be retarded.

Quote:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.”

– Isaiah 55:8-9

You’re right – God doesn’t see things like we do. He’s God. The only
yardstick he uses is “guilty”, or “not guilty”. So really, by
categorizing one sin as worse than another, we’re guilty of the same
thing we profess when calling someone on saying “a lie is not as bad as
murder” – which is untrue. That was a very perceptive statement, and I
thank you for pointing that out. I needed to hear it.

However, Jesus also said this, while He was surrounded by a crowd of
children, as they listened to the Son of God Himself teach them:

Quote:

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to
stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his
neck, and he were thrown into the sea.

– Mark 9:42

So, in another way, Jesus gave perhaps one of the strongest warnings in
all the Bible to those who think to prey on children. So, there’s a
case for both, but again, I appreciate you pointing that out.

God, however, the more I learn of Him, confounds my mind more and more. Which is as it should be.

A couple thoughts on God, since I’m writing.

Quote:

Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, And how small a whisper we
hear of Him! But the thunder of His power who can understand?”

– Job 26:14

God is awesome. To this same man, who God held up as an example of a
righteous follower, He replied to Job’s simple question, amounting to
“why is this happening to me” – with 64 questions of his own. These
questions were rhetorical, and amounted to one cosmically massive
answer – “because I am God – and you are not! Do you trust me to do
well by you, or not?”

Job’s answer, like the answer we all will give one day, was this – He could give no other:

Quote:

Then Job answered the LORD and said, “I know that You can do all
things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that
hides counsel without knowledge?’ “Therefore I have declared that which
I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not
know.” ‘Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct
me.’ “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye
sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes.”

God is sovereign.

The same God who will judge creation, and all that is in it has also
promised life – life without end, life without limit, or sorrow, or
hurt – to those who believe Him.

This same God, who will one day “tread the wine press of the fierce
wrath of God, the Almighty”, comes this poetically beautiful statement,
for our comfort, and to give us peace.

Quote:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down
from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow
of turning.

– James 1:17

What in the world is a Nazarite Vow, you might ask?

Quote:

Naz”a*rite, n.
A Jew bound by a vow to leave the hair uncut, to abstain from
wine and strong drink, and to practice extraordinary purity

of life and devotion, the obligation being for life, or for a
certain time. The word is also used adjectively.

Additionally, they are prohibited from any contact with a dead body.

The word used for “Nazarite” is based upon the Hebrew verb “rzn”, transliterated as “Nazar”, which means “to dedicate, consecrate, separate”. It is commonly used to indicate that someone is living as a Nazarite.

Further, another form (noun) is the Hebrew “ryzn”, transliterated as “Naziyr” – this form means “consecrated or devoted one” – interestingly, it also means “untrimmed”, as in a vine.

Who were Nazarites, in the Bible?

The first one mentioned in the Bible is the famous Samson, the Judge. His story can be found in Judges 13-16..

Samson was a Nazarite from birth. You can read more about his life, and
his story above – in fact, I’d suggest it. It’s a very interesting
story. He’s the Superman of the Bible – but that never helped him, when
it came to doing the right thing.

The second Biblical Nazarite was Samuel, the first Prophet. He also was
consecrated from birth. He was the last Judge, and crowned Israel’s
first earthly king. He was raised by a priest, and was conceived due to
the prayers of his mother, who promised to give him to God, should she
bear a child. Samuel is also, incidentally, the only person (besides
Jesus, of course) in the Bible to visit the world again after his own
death.

To read about Samuel… read the books 1st Samuel, and 2nd Samuel.

The third Biblical Nazarite was John the Baptist, of whom Jesus said
“Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than
John the Baptist”. High praise indeed, coming from the Son of God! John
was also consecrated from birth. He was born to a priest – and he was
Jesus’ cousin. John was the promised forerunner of the Messiah, who
pointed all toward Him. John baptized Jesus. In short, this was one
awesome guy. A bit odd, though. He wore camel-hair clothes, ate only
locusts and honey, and lived out in the desert! His favorite sermon was
“Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand!”.

That’s all well and good, but so what?

The Nazarite Vow, like many other things in the Bible, was a
foreshadowing of the decision required to become a New Testament
disciple. Don’t get the connection? Let me explain.

Did you know the Nazarite Vow is explicitly mentioned, and detailed in the book of Numbers?

1. A Nazarite can “eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk” (v. 4)

2. A Nazarite cannot let a “razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled” (v.5)

3. A Nazarite, during the days of his separation, “shall come at no dead body” (v.6)

Ok? What’s that have to do with anything?

What did Jesus tell his disciples, when He called them to follow Him?
The recurring principle was “sacrifice”. He told every single disciple
to give up their livelihoods, and follow Him! All 12 did. The decision to follow Christ is, at it’s very essence, a vow. Every Biblical vow to God, in order to underscore it’s importance, involves sacrifice.

As Ecclesiastes says:

Quote:

“When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou vowest.”

God takes vows seriously.

The first component of the vow:
Sacrifice.

Wine, in the Bible, is a symbol of joy – like most things that are
good, to be a child of God requires sacrifice. In this case, the
sacrifice is of joy.

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself” (Luke 9:23)

The second component of the vow:
Shame.

Long hair on a man indicates shame, in the Bible. Also, imagine, an
entire LIFETIME without a haircut? You’d look very, very unkempt. Very,
very long hair… like, dragging the ground. Imagine how different
someone like that would look. Back in the day, the “older generation”
looked askance at “the hippies”, due to their long hair, and generally
unkempt appearance. Just IMAGINE an entire lifetime of that – and worse!

The third component of the vow:

Separation from death.

Remember, the whole world is dead, in its sin. We were cursed with
death, in repayment for our sins. A Nazarite vows to wholly exempt
himself from every contact with death. It is not their concern.

Remember this?
“Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead” (Matthew 8:22)

Conclusion:

The Nazarite vow was yet another way for God to point us toward the
correct way to Himself. The Bible is absolutely chock full of types,
illustrations, examples, and directions – all of which are designed to
point us directly at the face of God. All 3 lifetime Nazarites were
extraordinary people. One was the strongest man who ever lived, a
Judge, and singlehandedly defended his entire nation from another. The
next was a Judge, annointed the first King of Israel, and spoke
directly with God. The third, as we said earlier, was called the
greatest man ever born of a woman. A very impressive record, wouldn’t
you say?

Something to close with, though.

Directly after Jesus’ glowing recommendation of John, he added something we should pay close, close attention to.

“Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. – Matthew 11:11.

Catch that? If you are a child of the King, you are already greater
than the most righteous man ever born of a woman. That’s saying
something, when God took two previous prophets of His directly to Heaven, without dying, because they were so righteous. Why are we greater?

Quote:

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our
Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life – Titus 3:5-7

The Nazarite vow is just a big sign, pointing to future discipleship,
and explaining it’s principles. That doesn’t mean, however, that it
isn’t important, or a worthy topic of study. Everything in scripture is
designed to point us toward God. This is no exception.

Atheism

Definition:
Dictionary.com

Quote:

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Language origin: Greek

“a” (negative, negator) – “theos” (god) = “No God”

Antithesis:

Theism – Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. (Dictionary.com)

Self-definitions

* “An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god.”
* “An atheist lacks belief in a god.”
* “An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all.”
* “An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry.”
* “An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas.”

Reasons:

1. Lack of Evidence

Example:

The supporting evidence isn’t good enough for him to affirm God’s existence. (agnostic?)

2. Illogical

Example:

Says there is evidence contrary to God’s existence.

3. Non-Issue

Example:

Lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible space snails in orbit around Saturn.

Common Presuppositions

(NOTE – NOT universally adopted. The ONLY common belief is a belief that God does not exist.)

1. There is no God or devil.
2. There is no supernatural realm.
3. Miracles cannot occur.
4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.
5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
6. Man is material.

7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
8. Ethics and morals are relative

Example Argument

God is supposed to be all good and all powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist.

Mission: Prove a negative, absolute statement
—————————————————— —————————————————————– —–

Your mission, should you choose to accept it – is to state that there is absolutely no god, and that the concept of god is absolutely false -then, to provethis statement: NO GOD =1

First, we have to make a couple definitions. A CANNOT be A and NOT A, at the same time.

To say there is NO God is an absolute statement. So, if you say that there is NO God, No God = NOT A. If you say that there IS a God, God = A. A cannot be A, and NOT A at the same time, remember. So, the mission is to prove that A =/= A – but A = NOT A.

If A = god, and NOT A = No god

A cannot be A, but MUST be NOT A, in order for NOT A to be true.

NOT A and A are not equal, and cannot have the same value – so, we must accept that NOT A =/= A.

In order for NOT A to be a true statement. A MUST be false. In order for NOT A to be accepted true, the axiom of “A =/= NOT A” MUST be accepted – thus, absolutes must be accepted, in order for there to be NO god. No is an ABSOLUTE statement – thus, A MUST be false, and it MUST be accompanied by a proof, for the statements GOD = A , and NO GOD = NOT A, to be logically true.

So, since we’ve established that “No God”, and “God” are mutually exclusive – we’ll move on.
———————————————————— —————————————————————-

“No God” is a negative value – so, the mission is to prove a negative. God cannot exist, and there must be proof of God’s non-existence – or there is still a possibility of A equaling A.
————————————————————- —————————————————————

To prove that A = A, however, is still pretty hard. It’s an axiom, like 0=0, or 1=1. To prove that God = A, requires that Not A also be proven false. So, on the other side, we’re also stuck.

But, we’ve proven that it’s impossible to “prove” God’s existence, or non-existence – and, we HAVE proven the existence of absolutes. So, it’s now possible to use absolutes in our argument,s henceforth. A, forever after, CANNOT also be NOT A – thus, unless you invalidate absolutes altogether, and thus, any scientific method, you’re stuck with absolutes as an axiom. So to accept that A cannot be NOT A did absolutely nothing but prove absolute exist. So, let’s move on.

———————————————————- —————————————————————– –

So, here’s the next question – if a statement is unprovable – how can it be absolute?

The answer?

It can’t.

So, the basic statement Atheism is founded upon is based upon belief, to put it bluntly – yet contains an absolute statement – which, in order to be undeniably correct, would have to prove a negative – something which has NEVER been done in the history of logical thought.

So, in order to back up that absolute statement saying there is NO god, you would have to prove a negative – but, how do you prove that the negative of something which you say does not exist, does NOT exist – without recognizing it’s existence?

On the other hand, any Religion has only the burden of evidence to bear – not the burden of proof – because all religions are based upon faith in the unprovable – not an absolute statement of fact. If you believe something, you believe IN something. You have no need to prove the non-existence of a thing – you just have to prove a thing exists. Also impossible, but not because of logical impossibility – but factual impossibilty. Noone, but the God believed in, can know ALL the facts – so, it’s unprovable. There is evidence, of course – which an Atheist can never have – there CAN be no evidence of the NON existence of something – because there would be nothing to see, if the thing which does not exist – doesn’t exist.

Existence is either believed, or disbelieved – but it is never known, with complete certainly.

Christians are commanded to be “salt” – but what does that really mean?

Matthew 5:13

Quote:

You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.

We are to have influence in the wold around us – when people look at us, and at what we do, we are to be obviously different – not necessarily fanatical, (though some may consider us so – I have NO shame whatsoever in being called a “fanatic” for Jesus) or “in your face” about what we consider “improper”. But, in our own lives and actions – in what we stand up to, stand up for, and endorse – what we DO – we are to be obvious, holy and sincere examples of the principles taught by Jesus, His disciples, and every word contained in the Bible. We can’t pick and choose which ones we consider right, or wrong – we can only consider contexts and underlying meaning, concerning some parts in the Old and New Testament – and then, the underlying principles still must be followed, even if we’re no longer required to follow the “letter” of the law – we still must follow the “meaning” of the law. Always.

Salt is many things, but let’s look at a few things that salt has always been, historically, and in the Bible.

In the Bible:

1. A symbol of a binding covenant (Lev. 2:13)

2. A healing and cleansing aid (2 Ki. 2:20-21)

3. A stimulant to the appetite (Job 6:6)

4. A preventive of decay (Luke 14:34-35)

5. A promoter of peace (Mark 9:50)

6. A stimulant to our testimony (Mt. 5:13)

7. An evidence of grace (Col. 4:6)

In a Christian:

————————————————————- ——————————————–
Our Preserving Ability

Salt wards off rot and decay! It is rubbed into meat in an effort to preserve it.

Sodom and Gomorrah – Gen. 18:16-33. They could have been saved by the preserving influence of just 10 righteous men. So it is in America today. I am convinced that the presence and the prayers of “salty” Christians has done more to preserve this nation than anything else we could name. It is the righteousness of God’s children that made America great and it is what keeps this country from being judged today, Pro. 14:34.

————————————————————– ————
Our Penetrating Ability

Salt will penetrate and infiltrate whatever it touches. It is an aggressive substance. It dissolves easily in liquid, permeates solids.

Look at the early church! Acts 8:1 – They so upset the world, then, that the “establishment” was after their lives – that’s not “living quietly”, to me.

Acts 8:4 – After being scattered to the four winds – they still went about the very thing that caused them to be persecuted. What does that tell you, Christian reader? Hrmm?

Acts 17:6 – We’re meant to be ACTIVE. “These men who have upset the world”, it says – do you “upset the world” by attempting to be mild, non-controversial, and try your hardest to “keep from offending” people? I don’t think so. If I’m “upsetting the world”, I’m on the right track, ladies and gents.

The church should be a militant army charging the very gates of Hell. No, not militant, as in army, as in camo-wearing gun-toting militia – but we should be activists – not for some PAC – but FOR our GOD and what HE calls right, and AGAINST what He calls wrong! That’s our JOB, people.

Matt. 16:18. – Even if you reject the “militant” image – you can’t deny that we are commanded, by the previous verse, to DEFEND your Lord, when He, or His principles are attacked. There IS no option.

————————————————————- —————————————
Our Purifying Ability

Salt has remarkable cleansing ability.

2 Kings 2:19-22 – Elisha cleansed the waters at Jericho with salt.

In ancient times, newborn babies were washed in salt to cleanse their bodies and to give firmness to their skin, Eze. 16:4.

Salt in a wound can cleanse the area. Often, Christians have a purifying effect on the world around them. They ought to behave differently when the child of God walks up. Don’t be offended if they stop talking when you come around. Just thank God that you are acting as a purifying force in the world around you.

Every meat offering was to be made with salt – Lev. 2:13. So it is with our lives.

We are to offer our lives as an offering to the Lord, Rom. 12:1-2.

In that passage, we are told to be non-conformists. Did you catch that? We’re SUPPOSED to be different. SUPPOSED to be set apart (which is what the world “holy” means….), SUPPOSED to be clearly demarcated from the world around us.

When we are, it proves that we are worth our salt…

—————————————————— ————————————————————-
Our Pleasing Ability

Bringing out the best.

Salt blends and adds flavor to food. In fact, there are some foods that are better off not eaten, if there is no salt.

So too, the Christian should flavor the world around him. As salt, we are to so live our lives that we bring out the best in those around us. That is what Jesus did time and again, and that what you and I are supposed to be doing for His glory! Phil. 1:27

————————————————————- ——————————————————-
Our Poisoning Ability

Salt kills some things! Ever poured salt on a slug? Slugs and salt do not mix! Salt poured on a lawn will kill the grass. Too much salt is not good for your blood pressure.

Abimelech, in Judges 9:45, took a city and the sowed the city with salt to prevent the ground from being used to grow crops. He killed the fields with salt.

By the same token, when true Christianity is sowed into the lives, homes and communities of the world, some things will be put to death. We can make an impact on our world by the very fact that Christianity is pure poison to sin. When Jesus comes into a life, drinking, cussing, fighting, hating, killing, drugging, loose living, etcetera, are all put to death in the name of Jesus – 2 Cor. 5:17.

See, people SHOULD call us killjoys – if the “joy” in question is something God specifically calls SIN. Sure, Christians sin, too – if any Christian says he or she is perfect – they need a reality check. But, we are called – to call a spade a spade. we are called to recognize sin, and call it what it is. We are not to be deceived by “alternate” lifestyles, or “white” lies, or recognize “relative” morality – there is only ONE truth, there is only ONE way, and there is only ONE life – and all of those come directly from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

—————————————————— ——————————————————
Our Promoting Ability

Salt creates a thirst for water in those who are exposed to it…

As salt, the Christian has the wonderful opportunity to promote a thirst for Jesus in the world. Remember what the Lord told us? He said that out of our innermost being would flow rivers of living water – John 7:37-38.

When we live as Christians should live. When we take the call of Jesus seriously and live right, look right, act right, talk right, worship right, dress right, etc. Then we have the ability to create a thirst for Jesus in the hearts of those around us. When that happens, we can point men to Jesus and share with them the water of life. Sadly, most Christians do not promote thirst, but ridicule instead. Too often, we live substandard immoral lives and the world sees it and says, “Why should I receive Jesus? I live just as good as that crowd down at the church!” Fact is, they are often right! Let’s so live that we ever prove them wrong. Our lives must be above reproach if we are to create a thirst for God in the world around us!

We must never give anyone cause to say, “If that is a Christian, then I never want to be one.” Instead, our lives ought to motivate people to say, “That is what I want my life to be.”

Brendan Manning has this to say:
“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door, and deny Him with their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world finds simply unbelievable“

Is that you? Is that me? If so, we need to turn things around, and do it quickly.

—————————————————– ————————————————————–
Our Proven Ability

Salt changes nearly everything it touches – food, water, etc. We are called to be thermostats and not thermometers in the world around us. We are to be the instruments that God can use to implement change in a wicked world. When genuine, New Testament Christianity touches this sinful, wicked world, there will be change of some variety. We just need to be sure that we are changing the world and not the other way around!

The modern mentality, “We have to be like the world to win the world.” We’ll win more if we are like Jesus!

BE NOT CONFORMED!

—————————————————– ————————————————————–

In Practice

————————————————————- ——————————————————–
Dangers to Avoid

Salt was a very valuable in the ancient world. So valuable, in fact, that the Roman Legions were often paid their wages in salt. This payment was called the “salarium.”

This where the expression, “Not worth his salt.” comes from.

It was possible for salt in that day to lose its flavor. The salt used then was far different from that which we see today. Our salt is a chemical compound called chloride of sodium or sodium chloride. The salt used in the ancient world was either mined from the salt cliffs along the Dead Sea, which were 7 miles long and several hundred feet high, or it was evaporated from the waters of the Dead Sea. Either way, it was always mixed with mineral or vegetable matter. When this substance was exposed to the elements or when it touched the earth, the salt lost its salty taste. Even the surface salt that was dug from the cliffs was discarded because exposure to he light rendered it tasteless. This tasteless salt also lost all the qualities that made it so valuable and sought after to begin with.

It is possible for Christians to loose their saltiness as well. This happens to us when we, just like salt in ancient times, come into too close contact with the world. When get to be more like the world than we are like the Lord, then we have lost that thing that sets us apart and makes us valuable to the Lord’s Kingdom work.

————————————————————- —————————————————
A Destiny to Abhor

In ancient times, when salt lost its savor, it was then taken out and cast into the footpaths. It was used much as gravel is in our day. Its only purpose then was to kill out the weeds that might grow in the road, and for me to walk on to keep their sandals out of the mud. Literally, it was to be trodden under the foot of men.

Every Christian reading this needs to understand that when we lose our saltiness and when we cease to function as salt in the world, then we too have become good for nothing, and while we cannot lose our salvation, we can most certainly lose our usefulness to the Lord and to His work. When this happens, we have become something to be trodden upon and treated with contempt! When we are living for the Lord, men may not like us, but there is often a certain respect for the stand we take and for the testimony that we possess. When we allow our testimony to become tainted by sin and the world, then men will walk upon our testimony and we become absolutely useless to the Lord as a vessel of witness.

I do not know about you, but I do not want to wind up being cast out as a vessel by the Lord. I would like for my life to be useful to Him. I would like for Him to be able to use my life to bring others to Himself. I really would like to be a blessing and a light for the Lord. I believe that every child of God reading this wants to be a salty Christian for the glory of God.

Paul knew that the potential always existed for him to be a castaway – 1 Cor. 9:27.

I see that potential in my life as well, and I do not want that. How about you?

———————————————————– ———————————————————-

In Conclusion

Chistians are NOT called to be “quiet” – when SIN is the issue. Christians are NOT called to be so unnoticed that noone around them could EVER tell they were Christians. If everyone you come in contact with DOESNT know what you believe – you’re doing something wrong, folks. It should be obvious – it shouldn’t be something ANYONE has to guess at – it should be as plain as the nose on your face.

I was almost inconsolable, recently, when I realized the amount of damage I was doing to any attempt on my own part to advance the cause of the gospel – when I was in sin myself, and not renouncing it. My “mission” recently, so to speak, has been to make absolutely no bones, whatsoever, as to what I believe. Especially on the internet. I spend the bulk of my free time on the ‘net, and it’s simply ludicrous for me NOT to be an “ambassador” for Him – while I do “my thing” online. Oh, it takes a LOT more time – but I’ve been amazingly changed by the experience. Not only do I feel exonentially more fulfillment, in everything I do – as long as i do it for the glory of God, I don’t feel “guilty” about the time i spend on the net, anymore – because I have no compunctions about dropping whatever i’m doing and defending my faith – not aymore.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel – for it is the power of God, to salvation, for anyone who believes”

Don’t be ashamed, and PRAY that noone has to guess who you are. If it’s not obvious – are you “in the world”, or “in Christ”?

Quite possibly one of the most important questions you’ll ever ask yourself.

I used to HATE it when this didn’t go my way. It’d get me down, depressed, and oh, so pissed off.

Praise the Lord, I’m no longer bound to the emotional savagery that
washes over you when it seems everything in life is conspiring to drown
you, and crush you.

See, I live by a different paradigm, now. My goal is NOT to advance
myself, and to make sure I’m #1 on everyone’s list. It’s to advance the
cause of Christ! So, like my friends from Skillet,

 Quote:

I’m a beep, I’m a vapor
I’m just a blinking light
I’m a beep, I’m a vapor
And I’m about to evaporate

And the future’s robbing my soul
I’m face to face with my futility
And my life is slipping away
Inhaling my mortality

And I feel my skin’s just a shell
Underneath is my reality
I breathe dimensions unknown
It conquers my mortality

It’s a mad world will it ever stop?
Will the madness end?
While my body decays my soul does not
Death is just the beginning

And the future is robbing my soul
Inhaling my mortality

‘Vanity of vanities – all is vanity”, says the preacher
– and I’m inclined to agree with him. Everything I’ve ever set my heart
on, save God, has been systematically dismantled, bit by bit. I know
why, too – I still claim ownership over my own life, in many respects,
and count my worthiness in other’s esteem, much too often.

God’s solution, as usual, is to pare my life down to it’s essence – He asks me, like Peter:

 Quote:

15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,
“Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him,
“Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.”
16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love
Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to
him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son
of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the
third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all
things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.

– John 21:15-19

That’s all that matters, folks.

Not job, not significant other, not children, not hobbies, not skill, not esteem – just read this.

 Quote:

23 And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, “How hard it will
be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The
disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said
to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 “It
is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They were even more astonished and
said to Him, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Looking at them, Jesus said,
“With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are
possible with God.” 28 Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left
everything and followed You.” 29 Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there
is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father
or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 but
that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age,
houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms,
along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 “But
many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”

Yeah, I’m some religious nut. You betcha, kids. I stand on the promises
of God. I don’t need man’s affirmation, I need God’s. “Whom God loves,
He chastens”, though, is also something that comes to mind for a
Believer. God destroys you, in order to build you up. Doesn’t sound
like fun?
Oh, it isn’t. You Jesus was kidding, above, when He says “Children, how
hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God”? Heck no. I wouldn’t trade it
for anything in the world, though.

Cause despite the “refining” I’m going through right now – like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego – I’m FIREPROOF

Job 13:15 – “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.”

​​​​As much as I love obscure references, and favor subtlety over most
things – a quote from Pontius Pilate, though thought provoking, just
didn’t cut it anymore.

 Quote:

“What is Truth”?

As little as I put the gloves on, and prefer the gloves off, I figured I may as well skip pretenses.

I write from a Christian perspective. I write from the perspective of a
child of God. Not a perfect one – “For there is none righteous, no, not
one” – but one who DOES strive to become more and more like Him. I
write to point out error, to contradict untruths, to defend my faith,
and my Lord.

Does that make me untolerant? You betcha. Call me intolerant – cause
I’ll agree. I cannot tolerate what God cannot tolerate.

 Quote:

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

Now, I’ll qualify the preceding statement – “toleration” is limited to actions,
not people. If you say you cannot “tolerate’ someONE, you’re actually
wrong. You either tolerate, or do not tolerate, their actions. The
person is necessarily excluded, because the person is something
entirely different.

 Quote:

tol·er·ate
1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).

I cannot, and will not allow ideals, practices, or actions contrary to
those in the Bible to pass without opposition anywhere I frequent.
Obviously, I can’t tell people “don’t curse” in a sandbox-type arena,
and I can’t tell people not to do something that is “allowed” somewhere
– but I can oppose it by either advancing the opposite ideal, or
advancing an alternative course that does not involve something
directly contrary to the beliefs I’m required to defend and be a
proponent of. I can also make it my personal mission to make it
absolutely obvious that I’m a Christian, and that my actions will
reflect it, regardless of the arena. That’s our role, as Christians, is
to be salt (re: my recent entry)
and light, in a world becoming darker and darker. We’re the ones who
put a light upon practices, actions, and ideas that should be
illuminated for the darkness they are.

“Here I stand, I can do no other”, said Martin Luther – well, I agree
with him. A Christian without Christian principles, without the
willingness to stand up and say “that’s wrong” is no Christian at all,
but merely an imitation of an imitation.

A Christian willing to compromise the precepts laid out in the Bible to
keep from “making waves”, or to be “tolerant”, or to avoid persecution
is worse than useless. He’s the salt that lost it’s saltiness, and was
used to pave roads with – to be walked over.

A Christian who compromises his OWN moral code, and does what he knows
is wrong is a full-armed slap in God’s face. I’ve been there, and so
has every single Christian, at one point, or another. The question is,
then:

 Quote:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

I’ll answer the same as Paul did, to his own question:

 Quote:

May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

We all screw up, we all slip, we all fall, and we all come up battered and bruised, afterwards. But, do we falter in our Pilgrim’s Progress, or do we dust ourselves off, tend to our wounds (which almost always are self-inflicted), and continue on?

There’s only one choice. We are here for one purpose, and one purpose
alone – to give glory to God. We can only do that if we “press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”
We can’t do that by “letting things lie” – we’re called to be set
apart, or, holy . This means that in all things, with every person we
come in contact with, our difference should be plainly, and absolutely
evident. “We are His workmanship, created for good works in Christ”.
Now, that doesn’t mean all of us are called to “shout it from the
housetops” – but some of us are. I’m relatively sure I happen to be one
of them.

So don’t get upset if I seem a bit overt with other people, fellow
believers. Instead, rejoice that His word is going out. If you think
I’m going about things the wrong way – take me aside, privately, and
show me, according to God’s word, that I’m wrong. I don’t mind being
told i’m wrong. But, keep in mind the following, before you do.

 Quote:

Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. – 2 Ii. 4:2

Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.
Titus. 2:15

Dearly loved friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about
the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about
something else, urging you to defend the truth of the Good News. God
gave this unchanging truth once for all time to his holy people. I say
this because some godless people have wormed their way in among you,
saying that God’s forgiveness allows us to live immoral lives. The fate
of such people was determined long ago, for they have turned against
our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. – Jude 1:3-4

Now, don’t get me wrong – it’s not our place to trash people, or put
them down, or tell them how terrible they are. it’s our place to
simultaneously condemn sin as what it is, and to both be proponents of our Lord, and defenders of His precepts.

Some have the gift for this, some do not. It’s the
responsibility of all, but some do it by service, some by witness
(living a godly life), some by teaching, some by encouragement, and
others by preaching and apologetics (root word apologia – make a defense).

But anyway, that’s just my “mission statement’ for you.

Yeah, this is a different “me” than some of you have seen before. Well,
that’s something I’m upset about. And something I intend to change,
with Gods help.

If you’re a Christian, I’m your brother, and hopefully I’m an
encouragement, or a goad toward a closer relationship with Him, at very
least.

If you’re not a Christian – I hope what I say gets under your skin, and
I hope the recognition that absolute TRUTH exists, is more than an
existential concept, brings you closer to the knowledge of the God I
serve.

Joshua is my namesake. So I’ll leave you with this.

 Quote:

“If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for
yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your
fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites
in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” – Joshua 24:15

Those “gods” could be self, pleasure, money, a literal “other god”,
paganism, mysticism, atheism (you DO know that’s a religion too,
right?), humanism, or a host of others. I’ll stand against them all,
and be the “voice crying in the wilderness”.

Some of you still have no idea what I’m talking about

Hence, the “motto” change. Some of you will never have a clue in the
world where I’m coming from, until the day you die. I’ll just be
another “right wing nutjob jesus freak”.

I hope there’s not many, because I’ll tell you, that’s not a good place
to end up. It’s hot – and I’m from Arizona – I can tell you about hot.

Some of you will be angry at me – and frequently. Some people do NOT like to hear truth. When it’s absolute truth.

That’s fine. I can take the heat. Just remember – it’s not about YOU – it’s about what you DO.br>

I love children. If they weren’t taught to behave, well, they get on my nerves, but I still love them.

I have two beautiful daughters. You’ve likely heard all about my
youngest, Gabrielle, by now. She’s adorable. Sweet disposition, smiles
for everyone.

I think I’ve mentioned my oldest, Kaylie Jordan, once. I lived for that
child. When I was still married, my wife told me once that she wondered
if I loved my daughter more than I did her. Well, now that I think
about it… I do, and did. She is… was… such a joy. The problem is,
I haven’t seen my little girl since November of 2001. I talked to her
for roughly 9 months afterwards, and didn’t hear from her mother at all
till early in 2003. I got to talk to her for about 5 minutes, and that
was the last time I heard from her. I miss her more than I can say. I
have pictures, but… I can’t look at them today. So I’m not going to
post them. Hopes has seen a couple of them.

I… as much as I love Gabby – which i truly think is just as much as I
love Kaylie, I couldn’t help it, as soon as I woke up this morning,
just hugging Gabby to my chest and whispering, with tears running down
my face, that i wish she could see her big sister. I won’t say she’s in
my mind constantly. I’d be lying. In a lot of ways, I try *not* to
think of her too much – because it HURTS. It’s been a year and a half
since I’ve talked to her, and close to 3 years since I’ve seen her, and
it’s still like an open wound.

She was.. is (I think of her in past-tense, sometimes – I think it’s a
sign of mourning… but I try to fight that tendency.) just the
sweetest little thing you’ve ever seen. Blue eyes, blond hair, in curls
down her back (even at 2 and a half). She was Daddy’s Little Girl. I
just really don’t know what to say about her, now. I can still see the
look on her face, the day I had to leave for Mississippi. I stayed as
long as I could. I think I had a pseudo-breakdown when I got divorced,
and I was really a mess. I had left the military, I couldn’t hold a
job, cause I’d just break down in the middle of work… it was not
pretty. If you’ve ever seen a grown man cry in the middle of a
warehouse full of other men, you’ll know exactly what i mean. I was
seriously out of it. I stayed as long as i could, solely to see my
daughter, as long as possible. My wife, as bad as we’d been to each
other, knew that that girl meant the world to me. She let me have her
the whole week before I left, and oh… the look my little girl gave
me, after I’d held her tight, for about 5 minutes, it seemed… it
broke my heart. I see that little face while dreaming, every so often,
and I wake up choking off a scream.

My ex-wife took at look at my face, and she todl me that if I didn’t go
now, I’d never be able to make myself do it. I think she was right. I
had my car packed up, and I drive about 25 miles, tears streaming,
until I finally couldn’t see. At a gas station, out in the middle of
nowhere – in the middle of the desert, i pulled off, sat at a filthy
picnic table, and cried – I think it was 2 hours. I’m not quite sure.
Several people asked me if i was alright – I told them “no” – but that
I would be, in a little while. I *think* they understood me, but I’m
not sure.

Finally, a policeman – I don’t know if someone called him, or he just
stopped by – probably the former – pulled up, and talked to me. I was
cried out, worn out, and wrung out, by this point. I looked a wreck,
and I felt it. He asked me what was wrong. I told him – “I just left
the person I love most in this entire world, in the hands of a person I
hate most”. His first question was “your ex?” I could only nod. He
talked to me for a minute or two, and told me to stay safe.

i just sat there, and smoked cigarettes, for another two hours. I’ve
never come closer to suicide than that moment. Only two things kept me
from it – a merry-go-round of images – her birth, her smiling, her
laugh, her face, while sleeping – and a little voice, almost too subtle
to notice, reminding me that I was God’s child.

Something I will NEVER forget, as long as I live. I believe that this
was the one and only time I’ve heard something directly from my Lord. I
heard it, clear as day. Remember – I’m in the middle of the Arizona
desert. I grew up there.

 Quote:

A father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows, Is God in His
holy habitation. God makes a home for the lonely; He leads out the
prisoners into prosperity, Only the rebellious dwell in a parched land.

I heard that, clear as bell, in my head. I don’t think i’d heard that verse in years. I’d never connected it with me.

 Quote:

A Father for the fatherless

God, I just want you to know, tonight, that I remember your promise.
I’m crying right now, writing this, and i can barely see the keys. but
Happy Father’s day. Please, watch over her for me. She was, and is,
yours, to begin with – but you know how much i love her. Just keep an
eye on her. Most importantly, bring her to know You. I don’t know how
I’d stand not seeing her when i see You. Please grant my prayer. be a
father to the fatherless.

From “A Ship of Fools”, by Richard Paul Russo (Phillip K. Dick Award Winner)

 Quote:

“There was no one thing that raised doubts within me, no one tragedy or
horror. It was an accumulation of small,personal tragedies and miseries
that I saw around me, directly, and indirectly, in all parts of the
ship, in stories people told me, in the Church’s historical records as
well as my own observations of daily life. There were so many people,
good people with deep and abiding faith, who nonetheless suffered
terribly in their lives – physically, emotionally, or both. People
whose prayers never seemed to be answered.
“The most distressing,
and troubling, were the children. Young, innocent children, who could
not have sinned, could not even know what sin was, and yet who lived
protracted, agony filled lives, or died horrible, painful deaths. There
weren’t many, but I couldn’t understand it for even one. Why did these things happen?” She slowly shook her head. ” I had no answers. None.
“I could not reconcile these things with my earlier conception of a
benevolent, all-powerful God who listened to our prayers and who
interceded in our lives. The priests would tell me that the suffering
was a test, or a lesson for us to learn from. Or, alternatively, that
God’s ways were just too mysterious for us to ever understand, that
applying any kind of logic or looking for rational reasons for why
things happened was useless”

She turned, and looked directly at me. “I could not accept any of these
answers. I still can’t. So I began to seriously doubt God’s existence.
Or, I told myself, if God did exist, if he was omniscient and omnipotent, could intercede in our lives and ease or end our suffering, but chose not to, or in fact chose to make us suffer… then I wanted nothing to do with such a God.”
“Father Bernard recognized my growing doubts, even though I had not
overtly expressed to him. Actually, they were more than just doubts. I
was ready to quit my studies and abandon my plans. He encouraged me to
take some time for myself – away from the Church, away from my studies,
away from my family and friends. He encouraged me to meditate on my
doubts, upon my faith. Like Jesus, I went into the desert.”
“I spent ten days there, ten days in the desert. I packed food and
water for two weeks, a sleeping pad, and nothing else. Not even a
Bible. After ten days, I had what I can only describe as a revelation.
An unconventional revelation, some might even call it heretical, for it
differs from the standard Church doctrines. Some people might put it
off to a fevered mind addled by heat and thirst and semistarvation,
hallucinations caused by days of isolation. But it was all so crystal
clear to me, everything finally falling into place, and it all made
sense to me at last. It felt right, it felt true.
Most importantly, the understanding, the feeling of rightness, stayed
with me long after I’d left the wasteland and returned to my quarters.
It remains with me to this day.”

I had to fight the urge to question her, to encourage her to speak.
“Free will,” she eventually said. “That’s what I finally understood. True free will. When God created human beings, he bestowed on them the greatest gift besides His love. Out of His love. Two gifts, really, but so interconnected, they’re like one. First, the capacity to do anything, good or evil, wise or unwise, loving or hateful. Second, true free will to act upon that capacity.”
“Those are God-like qualities. Not in power, but in choice. If he had
created us in such a way that we could only do good, if we were
incapable of acting badly, selfishly, causing pain or harm, then the
notion of free will would be meaningless, would it not? Not only that,
true free will precludes God’s intervention in our lives. (Note: I disagree with this, to an extent, but I’ll say more about that later.)

There is no free will if God intercedes to protect us or save us from
the consequences of our own, or other people’s actions and choices. We
have to face those consequences ourselves. That is the price we pay for
free will.”

Great passage. There’s a bit more, and I disagree very slightly with
one point he makes, but man, that was powerful to read. There’s another
bit I’ll post soon, but I need to go, or I’ll be late for Church if I
don’t go.