Special Report: The ‘Christmas Religion’

Special Report: The ‘Christmas Religion’
Vol: 39 Issue: 24 Friday, December 24, 2004

Every year about this time, the debate begins anew about Christmas. Does offering someone a greeting like “Merry Christmas” offend those who aren’t Christians?

Should we remember to keep the ‘Christ’ in Christmas? Is Jesus the reason for the season? Is observing Christmas an inappropriate endorsement of religion?

It is difficult to figure out, if celebrating Christmas as a ‘religious holiday’, exactly WHICH religion is being endorsed. Christianity is the only faith on earth that is NOT a religion.

Jesus Christ was the most anti-religious ‘religious’ leader who ever lived. Jesus came to dismantle religion and replace it His doctrine of faith and trust.

Jesus called the religious leaders of His day “a generation of vipers” and likened them to “whited sepulchers [tombs], beautiful on the outside, but on the inside, ‘filled with dead men’s bones.’

Religion is the antithesis of Christianity. Religion is man’s way of making himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God’s way of making man acceptable to Him.

Religion has rules and regulations that bind its adherents, with the promise of eternal punishment if those rules and regulations are violated.

Jesus taught the opposite; He said the truth would make us free and that salvation comes by faith alone that His sacrificial death and His subsequent Resurrection would save us, and not our good deeds.

Salvation doesn’t come by doing good works or attending church, or by being baptized or by believing in God. James 2:19 says; “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

Believing in God is NOT enough — as James points out, Satan believes in God. The Book of Job tells us that Satan regularly comes to present himself before the Lord, but that won’t keep Satan from his appointment with the Lake of Fire.

Good works won’t save a person. Isaiah 64:4 notes that, “we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

Note that it isn’t just our sins that are as ‘filthy rags’ before the Lord. Even our ‘righteousness’ is filthy in God’s eyes. “God is Light and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1st John 1:5)

So to a pure a Holy and perfect God, ANY sin/darkness would naturally be alien and repugnant to Him, so — humanly speaking — it IS impossible for us to be saved. THAT is why God demonstrated His love for us by coming down in human form as the Lord Jesus Christ.

God gave Moses the Ten Commandments for a single reason . . . to PROVE two things. The first is that we are ALL sinners — no human being who ever lived (with the exception of Jesus) ever kept all ten of them.

The second reason is to prove we ALL need a Savior. Since it is a human impossibility to keep the Commandments, it is humanly impossible, according to Scripture, for any person to be saved by his works.

James 2:10 reminds us that whoever “whoever shall keep the whole law and stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” A person who tries to live by the Ten Commandments will die by the Ten Commandments and will stand before the judge clothed in his own righteousness, or what the Lord refers to as ‘filthy rags’.

The celebration of Christmas has been declared, by the politically correct but overwhelmingly stupid, a religious holiday. .Note well who it is that objects the most to its celebration. Religionists.

Secular humanism is a religion. It meets all of the benchmark tests — it is man’s way of making himself acceptable to his god, which, of course, is himself. It has rules and regulations — you can’t believe in humanism and believe in God, it has its own doctrine (evolution) and it requires a tremendous amount of faith.

To be a humanist, you have to deny logic and accept a constantly-changing and unprovable ‘theory’ that says that everything we know about physics is true — unless you add the unprovable element of billions of years.

To a humanist, a frog turning into a handsome prince is a fairy tale. Unless you add a couple of billion years. Then it’s scientific evolution.

To a Muslim or a Jew, Christmas is offensive. To the Jew, it remains a standing indictment against his religion. Christmas is a reminder that it was his religion that put the Messiah on the Cross. The only way around that indictment is to deny He was the Messiah.

To the Muslim, Christmas is offensive because it is an acknowledgment that the Koran is wrong — it specifically denies the Deity of Christ and repeatedly tells its adherents that “God has no Son.”

Christmas finds great acceptance among Christian religionists, like the Catholic Church or mainstream Protestant denominations.

But it doesn’t do that well among non-denominational Christians, who point out that the early Church didn’t celebrate the birth of Christ and that Christmas is really a repacking of the Babylonian religion of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz.

Non-denominational Christianity teaches that its ok to celebrate Christmas if one wants to, and equally ok to not celebrate Christmas, if one wants to.

Religionists take one of two positions on Christmas. They oppose its celebration, because they find it offensive. Or, they oppose efforts to stifle its celebration, which they claim is offensive to them.

Paul writes; “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.” (Romans 14: 5-6)

The Apostle reminds us, Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Romans 14:13)

The religionists on each side of the Christmas controversy strain at one another, red-faced and angry, over whether or not it is a good religious observance or a bad religious observance, and in the end, everybody ends up taking offense — over the Birth of the Prince of Peace!

The Bible — the source of all that is known of God — offers the final word on the topic, but the Bible is the last place a religionist would think to look for answers about religion.

“Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” (Romans 14:19)

I pray for each of you, that you have a wonderful, merry and peace-filled Christmas.

‘For Thirty Pieces of Silver’

‘For Thirty Pieces of Silver’
Vol: 39 Issue: 23 Thursday, December 23, 2004

The prophet Zechariah lived in the 6th century BC and was among those Babylonian exiles who returned to Judea after the seventy years of captivity prophesied by Jeremiah was completed around 536 BC.

The book bearing his name divides itself into two major portions. Chapters 1-8 deal principally with events contemporary with the prophet, while chapters 9-14 sweep across the centuries, reaching all the way to the second coming of Christ at the end of history.

It is the prophet Zechariah who prophesied that in the last days, the world would be focused on Jerusalem and would be united against Israel’s possession of the Holy City.

The prophet Zechariah also predicted that any nation who ‘burdened themselves’ with Jerusalem would be ‘cut in pieces.’ Portions of Zechariah’s prophecies for the last days are already in the process of being fulfilled in our day.

At the present time, Israel’s only ally is the United States. The United States is committed to Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, despite the policies of any sitting administration.

The Jerusalem Act, passed by Congress in 1995, has several key provisions that enshrine that commitment as a matter of law, rather than of foreign policy.

It notes that every country designates its own capital, and that Israel has so designated Jerusalem, the spiritual center of Judaism.

It states that since the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, religious freedom has been guaranteed to all. And it recalls several previous Congressional resolutions calling for the city to remain united.

The Act then states what henceforth will be not Congressional preferences but the official policy of the United States toward Jerusalem: that it should remain a united city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; that it should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and that the U.S. Embassy should be established there no later than May 31, 1999.

The Act gives the President the authority to suspend relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, but only for a period of six months at a time. To suspend the provisions of the Jerusalem Act, the President must report to Congress that implementing it at this time would not be in the best interests of national security.

The administration has to do more than just invoke national security, the Act requires him to give details explaining how suspending the Act for another six months is in America’s best interests. The Act had near unanimous support by both Houses and was overwhelming passed by the Senate (93-5) and by the House (374-37).

The United States is one of only three nations in the world that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Only two nations actually relocated their embassies to Jerusalem — Costa Rica and El Salvador. (The Arab world severed relations with them both.)

The United Nations issued a 1997 report entitled ‘The Status of Jerusalem’ that declares it an ‘international city’ that should remain divided along the armistice lines of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of April 3, 1949.

As a consequence, as Zechariah predicted, the whole world opposes Israel’s possession of Jerusalem, except for the United States.

It was US support of Israel that was cited by Osama bin-Laden in his declaration of jihad against America, and it was US support of Israel that prompted the September 11 attacks and the subsequent war on terror.

(While the US hasn’t exactly been ‘cut in pieces’ to this point, the war is ongoing and the nation’s biggest fear is terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.)

The prophet Zechariah also said that God Himself will stand with Israel, promising that, “he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David’ (Zechariah 12:8) and that, “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” (12:10)

Assessment:

That is pretty amazing stuff, when you think about it. Here is a Jewish prophet, living five centuries before the First Christmas, discussing the second coming of the Messiah Whom the prophet acknowledges was ‘pierced’ by His Own people.

But for the most part, Zechariah’s prophecies for the last days remain unfulfilled. But they will be. Zechariah’s track record for specificity is unrivaled. Consider the following prophecy concerning the Lord at His First Advent;

“And I said unto them, If ye think good, give Me My price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for My price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.” (Zechariah 11:12-13)

Zechariah, speaking on behalf of the promised Messiah, makes the following points.

Zechariah speaks of haggling over His price; “If ye think good, give Me My price; and if not, forbear.”

Matthew records Judas haggling over the price for betraying Jesus, saying, “What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.” The term covenanted (suntithemi) means to work out a mutually agreeable contract — a negotiated settlement.

Zechariah specified the metallic composition of the coinage by which the transaction would be made. It was neither gold nor copper, but rather, silver” and Zechariah predicted the precise number of coins to be paid.

Zechariah s prophecy indicated that the money would be returned to the Jewish leaders, the custodians of the house of God.

Matthew s record reveals that Judas, in a swoon of regret, brought back the coinage to the chief priests and elders. But they would have none of it. Instead, they used the money to buy a ‘potter’s field’ to serve as a burial place for strangers.

And, prophet indicated that in some way the silver coins were to be cast (thrown) into the house of Jehovah. Zechariah has perfectly depicted the act of the betrayer. Judas cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary (Matthew 27:5)

The detail, as already noted, is breathtaking, when one sits down to think about it. Now, here is where the dots connect:

The prophet who so painstakingly recorded the details of the betrayal of the Messiah two thousand years ago is the same one who provided the details of His Second Coming on the last Day.

In our day, so much of Bible prophecy seems to be on the cusp of its ultimate fulfillment that we tend to get a bit complacent about it.

Even among serious Christians with a love for His appearing, there is sometimes a sense of ‘so what’ that replaces our earlier ‘gee whiz’ attitude to the signs of our times.

Think of a cross country trip in which you are navigating by using a road atlas. You left New York, headed for Los Angeles, and have just crossed the California state line. Only a few hundred miles to go!

Do you then conclude the road map that got you this far is suddenly unreliable?

The Bible is our ‘road map’ for the last days. We started our trip on May 15, 1948 when the fig tree blossomed in Israel, and now, according to that same road map, we are almost home.

Is it possible that the last part of the ‘atlas’ is wrong? Maybe its further away than we think?

The Apostle Peter made a similar point, writing;

“Knowing this first, that there shall come IN THE LAST DAYS scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2nd Peter 3:4-5)

Peter goes on, writing;

“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, BY THE SAME WORD are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” (3:5-7)

The fact is, He IS coming back, and He IS coming back soon. This isn’t a case of wishful thinking, or a hopeful interpretation of the signs of the times. We are living in the final hours of human history, and we have been given an awesome responsibility.

Every person that we meet in the course of our day-to-day lives has an eternal destiny. Either it will be spent in unspeakable joy in the presence of Christ, or it will be spent in unspeakable horror in the lake of fire.

And for all any of us know, we may be the only hope they have of learning the truth. Before it is too late.

Don’t let yourself get complacent. The Bible is true and the Lord IS coming back — in this generation.

You can bet, oh, thirty pieces of silver on it.

Special Report: Will Catholics Who Don’t Believe in the Rapture Go To Heaven?

Special Report: Will Catholics Who Don’t Believe in the Rapture Go To Heaven?
Vol: 39 Issue: 22 Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Special Report: Will Catholics Who Don’t Believe in the Rapture Go To Heaven?

Yesterday, I received an email from a reader that asked, “Will Catholics who don’t know about or believe in the Rapture go to Heaven?”

The email continued; “I have many relatives who are Catholic and they either don’t know about the Rapture because their church never taught them about it OR they don’t believe in the Rapture because their church teaches against it or just totally ignores the Scripture. Will they be excluded in the Rapture? I desperately need your opinion. “

Although I answered my correspondent personally, the question kept troubling my spirit and reverberating in my mind all night.

I took that as a leading from the Spirit to deal with it more fully here. When it comes to a leading from the Spirit, I don’t decide, I just report. This is one of those times.

My correspondent continued; “I have talked to them till I am blue in the face and it does no good. Then, I remember the verse about not casting “your pearls before swine.” Should I just give up? ALSO, they think that since they were baptized at birth, that is good enough. Leads to the same argument.”

Let me lay out some personal background first. I was raised Catholic. I went to Mass, attended Catholic school, studied Catholic catechism, and even, at one point, considered becoming a priest.

I left the Church and abandoned my priestly aspirations in my teens. Later, I got saved and my calling became more clear, (but that takes us in a different direction, so I’ll leave it there for now.)

I have no intention of bashing Catholics. Neither is this a deliberate diatribe against Catholic teachings. There was a question asked. It deserves an answer.

First, the premise of the question. “. . .they either don’t know about the Rapture because their church never taught them about it OR they don’t believe in the Rapture because their church teaches against it or just totally ignores the Scripture. Will they be excluded in the Rapture?”

Salvation is not dependent on a belief in the Rapture, but only those who are truly saved when the trumpet sounds will hear it.

There are many sincere believing Christians who don’t believe in either the Rapture or the Tribulation. They don’t believe in Bible prophecy. They believe that the events described by the Revelation were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Among sincere, believing Christians that do believe in the Rapture, there are deep divisions regarding the question of when it will take place. We believe the Rapture takes place before the Tribulation begins. Other sincere, believing Christians think it will happen at the Tribulation’s mid-point; others believe it takes place at the end.

But if they trust Jesus for their salvation, then they will be included in the Rapture’s call, whether they believe in the Rapture or agree on its timing or not.

The conditions for being included in the Rapture are outlined by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Thessalonians;

“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.” (1 Thessalonians 4:14)

Baptism is not a condition of salvation. In fact, it is the other way around. Salvation is a condition of baptism.

Paul says that we must ‘believe’ that Jesus died and rose again — infants being baptized in the Catholic rite of baptism only believe the water is cold. (It makes them cry.)

When Phillip met the Ethiopian eunuch on the road to Gaza, the eunuch was reading the ‘Suffering Messiah’ passages in Isaiah 53.

He asked Phillip, “I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts 8:34-35)

The Bible lists the mechanism of salvation in the Church Age; the ‘formula’, so to speak, from God’s perspective. We are drawn by the Father (John 6:44) to the Son (John 14:6) and born of the Spirit. (John 3:6)

The Ethiopian eunuch was drawn by Scripture, Phillip preached to him Jesus, and upon accepting Christ as Savior, the eunuch was born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?”

Note Phillip’s answer — and the eunuch’s reply — carefully.

“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:36-37)

An infant cannot, as Phillip asked, ‘believe with all its heart’ and an infant cannot, as the Ethiopian did, confess Jesus as the Son of God.

But it wasn’t until both those conditions were satisfied that Phillip “commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:38)

While salvation isn’t dependant on belief in the Rapture, it is a precondition for being included in it. One does not get saved by attending Mass, neither does one lose one’s salvation by missing Mass. The Bible knows no such ritual as ‘Mass’ and there is no record of any such ritual in the early church.

The Catholic ritual of the Mass is the Transubstantiation of Christ — that is, Christ is re-sacrificed at each Mass, with the bread and wine becoming the literal ‘Body and Blood of Christ’ through the Catholic miracle of ‘Transubstantiation’.

But Hebrews 10:11 says, “And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS.”

One becomes saved when one trusts the shed Blood of Christ as an all-sufficient sacrifice to cover their sins and make them acceptable to God.

“But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins FOR EVER, sat down on the right Hand of God.” (Hebrews 10:12)

Salvation is not granted by a Church, neither can it be rescinded or withheld by a Church.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” (Romans 9:16)

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6)

If salvation is by grace, and grace is granted by God alone, then doing the works mandated by a Church as a condition of salvation is precluded.

Salvation is unconditional, and is between the sinner and God. No third party need be involved. A person’s salvation is SUSTAINED by Jesus, not by church membership or an individual’s good works or bad works.

“Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath BEGUN a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:” (Phillipians 1:6)

It is Jesus Who BEGINS a ‘good work in you’ at salvation, and it is He that ‘performs it’. Of that, Paul says we can be ‘confident’.

There can be only one source for truth. God doesn’t need to be defined by a Church or by a religion.

Religion is man’s way of making HIMSELF acceptable to God. Christianity is God’s way of making us acceptable to Him. There is a vast difference, and things that are different cannot be the same.

In Scripture we find the Words of Jesus Christ. Of itself, the Scriptures say, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2nd Timothy 3:16)

If religious leaders know something that isn’t in the Bible, or something that contradicts the Bible, where did they learn it from?

If it contradicts Scripture, then it cannot be Divine Revelation, because that means the Scriptures lied. And if the Bible isn’t true, then we are all operating on guesswork anyway.

According the Catholic tradition, people don’t go directly to heaven when they die unless they have received a plenary indulgence from the Church. If they haven’t, then they have to go to a place called ‘Purgatory’ — a place of suffering where saved people pay for their sins before being admitted into Heaven.

It is a kind of temporary hell — and, as noted, all Catholics (that don’t get the get-out-of-Purgatory-free indulgence) have to go there first.

(I don’t mean to sound flippant, but that is what a ‘plenary indulgence’ is. Permission from the Church to skip Purgatory.)

The Bible makes no mention of Purgatory, and the Catholic Church has no teaching on the Rapture.

According to ‘Catholic Answers” — an officially sanctioned website of the Catholic Church — the Vatican “has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called “millenarianism” (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism “cannot safely be taught”.

The reason that premillennialism and the Rapture cannot ‘safely be taught’ is directly contradicts the Catholic teaching about Purgatory. The length of time one is sentenced to spend there is dependent on good works or bad works.

The Catholic Council of Trent says in Canon 11; “If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, excluding grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the favour of God, let him be anathema.”

Canon 12 says; “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.”

Canon 30 says; “If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.”

The dictionary defines ‘anathema’ as, “a formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication.”

But the Bible says; “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;” (Titus 3:5)

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:21)

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

Now we return to the question at hand: “Will Catholics Who Don’t Believe in the Rapture Go To Heaven?”

It depends on whether they are ‘good’ Catholics or whether they are ‘anathema’.

If we are to go by the Catholic Canons, the only way for a Catholic to get into heaven is if they qualify for excommunication by trusting Jesus alone for their salvation instead of Jesus plus the Church.

Sometimes, there are no easy answers.

JesusLand, Gun Control and the Coming Prince

JesusLand, Gun Control and the Coming Prince
Vol: 39 Issue: 21 Tuesday, December 21, 2004

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (US Constitution, 2nd Amendment, ratified December 15th, 1791)

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is apparently written in language so mysterious and sublime that it means something different to everybody who reads it.

Evidently, it also changes meaning as the clock ticks forward, since it continues to be interpreted and re-interpreted as if there were an ongoing contest for the most original interpretation of a sentence that, to the ignorant and uninitiated masses, seems to make perfect sense just the way it reads on the surface.

For about the first two hundred years of the Republic, the 2nd Amendment meant American citizens had a Constitutional right to keep and to bear arms.

And, for about the first two hundred years of the Republic, the 2nd Amendment functioned as it was intended. It kept the government at bay.

Originally, the Constitution was approved without a Bill of Rights, then sent to the states for ratification. The states felt the Constitution, as written, failed to give enough protection to individual rights that they wanted specifically protected by amendment.

Among the rights the states sought to enshrine as Constitutionally-protected were the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to keep and bear arms.

The intent of the Bill of Rights was to protect individuals from government powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments as well as the American citizens that the Federal government would not try to take away the freedoms which many of them had so recently fought for.

Richard Henry Lee, the Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, noted at the time that, “to preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

James Madison said in the Federalist Papers that the 2nd Amendment preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Noah Webster observed that, “before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

Patrick Henry argued that the power to resist oppression rested entirely on the right to bear arms, saying, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”

It would seem, as I noted at the outset, that the 2nd Amendment was intended to mean pretty much what it says. Indeed, our country was born when a group of colonists rose up in arms against British rule.

Guns empower the masses: they are the last line of defense for a citizenry confronted with an evil government.

The regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s U.S.S.R. recognized this principle and seized all weapons, precluding any effectual resistance to their tyranny. One need only read the newspapers in New York and Los Angeles to realize that even the innocent have cause to fear the police.

Communities around the country are justifiably hesitant to relinquish their weapons and be at the mercy of local law enforcement. Law enforcement, by definition, is powerless to act until AFTER a crime has been committed. Police can’t protect individuals, they can only prosecute after the fact.

(Which, in the case of murder, is of little consolation to the victim)

In countries like Canada and England that have imposed what amounts to a ban on private ownership of weapons, citizens are most vulnerable in their own homes.

Home invasions (burglaries) became the crime of choice among criminals who became the embodiment of the slogan, ‘when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’

A 1998 study by the US Department of Justice found that there were 40 percent more muggings in England, and burglary rates were almost 100 percent higher than in the United States.

And, counter-intuitively, rates of crimes using handguns is on the rise. In 1999-2000, crimes using handguns were at a seven year high.

Apparently, criminals were easily able to access guns, but law enforcement officers and law-abiding citizens were not allowed. (When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, remember?)

In America, burglars aren’t sure if homeowners are armed or not, but the odds favor there being at least one gun in the house. So they avoid burglarizing occupied homes. Only thirteen percent of US burglaries are against occupied homes.

In Canada, the overall burglary rate is higher than the American one, and a Canadian burglary is four times more likely to take place when the victims are home.

In Toronto, forty-four percent of burglaries were against occupied homes, and twenty-one percent involved a confrontation with the victim.

Most Canadian residential burglaries occur at night, while American burglars are known to prefer daytime entry to reduce the risk of an armed confrontation.

A 1982 British survey found fifty-nine percent of attempted burglaries in the UK involved an occupied home, prompting the Wall Street Journal to report that;

“Compared with London, New York is downright safe in one category: burglary. In London, where many homes have been burglarized half a dozen times, and where psychologists specialize in treating children traumatized by such thefts, the rate is nearly twice as high as in the Big Apple. And burglars here increasingly prefer striking when occupants are home, since alarms and locks tend to be disengaged and intruders have little to fear from unarmed residents.” ( WSJ, Apr. 19, 1994, page A1)

The London Sunday Times, pointing to Britain’s soaring burglary rate, calls Britain “a nation of thieves.”

In the Netherlands, forty-eight percent of residential burglaries involved an occupied home.

In the Republic of Ireland, criminologists report that burglars have little reluctance about attacking an occupied residence.

In America, burglars are reluctant to invade an occupied home because they might get shot. One out of every 31 burglars gets shot. That is about the equal to the burglar’s odds of being sent to prison.

Assuming that the threat of prison is a deterrent to burglary, as in Canada or Britain, it seems reasonable to conclude that the equally large risk of being shot provides an equally large deterrent.

In other words, private individuals with firearms in their homes double the deterrent effect that would exist if government-imposed punishment were the only deterrent.

On the other hand, Switzerland has few restrictions on who can own or carry a firearm.

As a consequence, Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, despite very high levels of gun ownership. Also, despite being sandwiched between two aggressive powers during World War II, the country remained untouched, largely due to the heavy rates of private gun ownership.

Hitler and Mussolini knew that the heavily armed Swiss population would defend itself fiercely, (something they didn’t fear from the French, for example)

But these facts seem to be as lost to gun control advocates as is the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment. To them, being at the mercy of invaders, either foreign or domestic, is a small price to pay to get guns off the streets.

Most gun control advocates point to the recent upsurge in gun violence by children as an example of why guns need to be controlled.

The fact is, the upsurge in gun violence among corresponds with the various successes enjoyed by gun control advocates. There were more guns in circulation in America in previous generations, but far fewer gun deaths. (The first federal regulation of firearms in America wasn’t introduced until 1934.)

Previous generations of Americans grew up with guns. They were familiar objects around the house, like a shovel or a wrench. There was nothing mysterious about them. Kids knew better than to play with them.

Gun control advocates argue that the 2nd Amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms to a well regulated MILITIA, and not to the ‘people’. According to this interpretation, the 2nd Amendment gives the government the right to keep and bear arms via the National Guard.

The silliness of this argument is obvious to anybody but a liberal or an activist judge. Why would the government give itself the right to bear arms by Constitutional amendment, since the Constitution already gives it the right to do so in order to ‘provide for the common defense’?

But that has been the prevailing legal opinion since the passage of the Brady Bill. That the right to bear arms is granted to the government via a ‘well-regulated militia’ by the 2nd Amendment.

According to Title 10 of the United States Code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

In other words, the ‘militia’ and ‘the people’ mean the same thing.

Among the various documents and action plans uncovered among the terrorist camps in Afghanistan was a plan for suicide operatives to simply walk up to someone’s door and shoot whoever answers.

Another called for terrorist operatives to set up sniper posts in American cities simultaneously and starting picking off victims.

Both tactics have been used by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli settlements, but were seldom successful, since all Israeli settlers are armed to the teeth.

The terror threat facing the homeland prompted a reexamination of the gun control debate by the DoJ. It recently released a 103 page “Memoradum Opinion For the Attorney General” issued in August by Assistant Attorneys General Steven G. Bradbury, Howard C. Nielson, Jr. and C. Kevin Marshall.

They studied the history of anti-gun legislation and anti-gun court cases and reached the following conclusion:

“Our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views.”

The memorandum was titled; “Whether the 2nd Amendment Secures an Individual Right” and conspicuously put the conclusion in the subtitle; “The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.”

(The entire memorandum can be found at this link: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm)

When I queried Google using the keywords ‘2nd Amendment’, there were only nine stories relating to the DoJ memo. Of them, only one was in the national media. The Washington Times carried the story under the headline, “Gun group urges 2nd Amendment observance”.

Other than that, the media seems to have spiked the story. To the liberal left, gun control is more than an issue, it is a matter of doctrine.

Gun control is a front for the advancement of the socialist agenda. Giving in to the idea that guns are dangerous concedes to the notion that it is better to let some lowlife steal your property, rape your wife, and beat you half to death than it is to expedite his passage into the next world.

(Your property was all gained at his expense anyway, so in a moral sense, he’s entitled to it as much as you are.)

That is the core of the socialist doctrine. And it is the dominant worldview of most of the industrialized world.

But that worldview is changing, it would seem, in the newly discovered country of ‘JesusLand’. The world is marching in one direction, but Red State America is beginning to turn itself around and march the other way, dragging the Blue States along, kicking and screaming all the way.

As a consequence, Red State America is now the only obstacle in the path of the globalist social engineers who are unwittingly, but eagerly, preparing the way for the antichrist.

Paul says that the ‘mystery of iniquity’ is already at work, but that the Restrainer will continue to restrain, ‘until He be taken out of the way’ at the Rapture.

Without the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit working through the indwelt Church, the Blue State Americans left behind after the Rapture will be only too happy to turn back around, throw away their guns, and defenselessly march in lockstep with their socialist cousins — straight into the waiting arms of the Beast.

“And THEN shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His Mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:8)

TIME To Make Amends?

TIME To Make Amends?
Vol: 39 Issue: 20 Monday, December 20, 2004

TIME Magazine named President George W. Bush as 2004’s ‘Person of the Year’ in what appears to be the first in a series of fence-mending moves among the media elite who finally recognize that he’s still gonna be president come January 20.

That the elite media pulled out all the stops to get Bush defeated is beyond question — but Bush won anyway, so, at long last, it really IS time to ‘move on’. The Bush-bashing of the last four years backfired — ‘big time’ — to use a quote from a bygone campaign season.

They’ve paid dearly for their efforts. It cost Dan Rather his anchor seat at CBS. The cost to CBS is incalculable — it has yet to release its report on the forged memo debacle, and CBS News may never recover its lost credibility. There is even talk of CBS abandoning its news department and giving itself wholly over to entertainment broadcasting.

Four years of incessant America-bashing by Peter Jennings has put ABCNews on the same slippery slide — one doesn’t hear ABC’s tag line, “More Americans get their news from ABC News than from any other source” as often, because it is no longer true.

Leading up to the election, the media elite did everything they could to hand the election to John Kerry. When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made allegations that John Kerry’s Vietnam service was not what Kerry said it was, the media went after the Swift Boat vets — not John Kerry.

Kerry got a pass from the media about lying about his alleged ‘Christmas in Cambodia’ — a lie he told for more than thirty years. But the media accepted Kerry’s ‘explanation’ that what had been “seared — SEARED in [his] memory” when he told the story from the Senate well in 1985 was an innocent misstatement. No harm, no foul.

But when allegations were made that George Bush might have missed the last few meetings of his National Guard service, it was headline news. When there were no facts to back up the allegations, the media manufactured them, including using forged documents when the real ones didn’t say what the media hoped they would.

To listen to the media elite’s description of the war in Iraq, America is losing. But the veterans who come home tell a different story. Since the news from Afghanistan is largely positive, it is largely ignored.

What had been the ‘graveyard of empires’ for centuries was transformed in three years into a representative democracy. Hamid Karzai was elected president of Afghanistan in that country’s first free elections — ever.

That got a grudging nod from the press in the first few minutes of the news broadcasts, before returning their attention to the latest bad news from Iraq.

Iraq is much larger than Fallujah, or the Sunni Triangle. For every insurgent there are ten thousand Iraqis yearning for freedom — for every attack there are ten thousand successes.

But there is almost never any good news from Iraq. In a nation of fifty million, how can this be? Enquiring minds want to know.

When Alberto Gonzales was nominated to be the first Hispanic Attorney-General, the media didn’t celebrate the diversity of the Bush cabinet. They complained he was too much of a ‘team player’ — as if that were a bad thing to have in a presidential cabinet.

Bush’s National Security advisor, Condoleeza Rice, was the second woman and first BLACK woman in history ever nominated to be Secretary of State. The media bypassed that fact, zeroing in on Rice as another ‘team player’.

The only notice given to the fact she was black was in overtly racist cartoons by liberal cartoonists like Tom Oliphant and Ted Ralls depicting her as a big-lipped parrot or an illiterate slave-era caricature sitting in a rocking chair saying things like; “I knows all about dose aluminum tubes.”

A Doonesbury strip depicted President Bush calling Dr. Rice ‘Brown Sugar’.

A Ted Ralls cartoon depicted Dr. Rice proclaiming herself Bush’s “HOUSE NIGGA.” A black man demands that Rice “HAND OVER HER HAIR STRAIGHTENER.” His t-shirt reads “YOU’RE NOT WHITE, STUPID.” The caption below the frame reads “SENT TO INNER-CITY RACIAL RE-EDUCATION CAMP.”

Dr. Rice is not the first Secretary of State to agree with her boss. The very first female Secretary of State in history was Clinton appointee Madeline Albright.

She had no problem taking a stand in defense of her boss when he was accused of perjury, sexual harassment and rape. Nobody in the media seemed to take exception to that. (Indeed, the elite media praised HER for her loyalty).

The elite media has engaged in four years of concentrated deception, trying to make good on its 2000 promise to make George Bush’s presidency the most unsuccessful in history. They thought they were doing a pretty good job of it, until Election Day came around.

Their initial reaction (“how could 56 million voters be so stupid?”) didn’t play that well with the fifty-six million dummies they had been attempting to ‘re-educate’ for the last four years, so they are trying to do a little fence-mending.

They’ve suddenly realized (and I DO mean ‘suddenly’) that they’ve lost credibility with the majority of America — and something even more startling — they aren’t automatically getting it back now that the election is over.

So now they are trying to manipulate themselves back into the public’s good graces. We can expect to see them applaud a few Bush administration initiatives, maybe say something nice about Red State America, (maybe even salute President Bush as the ‘Person of the Year’) – but only until they recover some of their lost ratings.

The Great Culture War of 2004 isn’t over — this is just a temporary truce until they can get their act back together. It has been a learning experience for both the media elite and the American public.

Looked at under the light of Bible prophecy, we can learn something else about the Big Picture for the last days. The media onslaught was successful, according to all the polls, everywhere EXCEPT in America.

Globally, George Bush is almost universally hated, with most of the world still convinced that Bush lied about the Iraq war, was probably complicit in the 9/11 attacks and that he stole the presidency in 2000.

The only ones who saw through the propaganda was Red State America — what the media elite sneeringly dismissed as ‘JesusLand’.

In outlining the chain of events that would eventually put the antichrist in power, the Apostle Paul noted that, “ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:6-7)

The ‘mystery of iniquity’ [sin], the Apostle says, is ALREADY at work, but is that evil is ‘let’ [Old English for ‘restrain’] by the Holy Spirit, ‘until He be taken out of the way’.

Had there not been a ‘Red State America’ the media conspiracy would have been as successful in America as it was in the rest of the civilized world. Were it not for Red State America, the media would have been successful in using deception to put their man in the White House.

At the Rapture, when the ‘Restrainer is taken out of the way’ Red State America will be no more. Paul says that, after the Restrainer is removed, “then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His Mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming:”.

I’m not saying John Kerry was the antichrist. But there is something here worth noting. If the antichrist WERE to make his appearance, the only ones who WOULDN’T buy into the ‘strong delusion’ would be those indwelt by the same Spirit of Truth that exposed the 2004 media propaganda blitz for what it was.

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send THEM strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (2nd Thessalonians 2:9-10)

The rise of the antichrist depends on deception.

So did the election of John Kerry. It failed, thanks to ‘JesusLand’.

So NOW “ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.”

Until He be ‘taken out of the way’ — at the Rapture.

Tyranny of the Stupid

Tyranny of the Stupid
Vol: 39 Issue: 19 Sunday, December 19, 2004

A high-school junior in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, filed a sex discrimination suit against the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association because the association refused to let him join the all-girls team.

According to the complaint, reported in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune and in WorldNet daily, the alleged discrimination based on Bukowski’s sex violates education amendments which prohibit “discrimination based upon sex in extracurricular activities at public schools.”

It gets better. Doug Chickering, executive director of the WIAA, has been standing firm in keeping Bukowski off the team, even though the girls’ coach had no problem with the boy’s participation.

He recently explained to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the reasons given by the WIAA for its ban and why girls are granted exceptions.

In his explanation is one of the most bizarre examples of political correctness it’s ever been my pleasure to laugh at. Chickering said — and I’m not making this up — “Our investigation of court cases indicates that there are physiological differences between boys and girls.”

Note that Chickering had to investigate ‘court cases’ to come up with this amazing discovery. Had he arrived this conclusion the old-fashioned way, well, then he’d have the ACLU and the National Organization of Women all over him.

It is politically incorrect to observe that men and women are physically different. It makes it harder for them to get jobs as cops, firemen or combat soldiers if anybody admits it out loud.

So instead, Chickering had to ‘investigate court cases’ in order to conclude; “These differences would strongly indicate that physical advantages would have to be given to the boys.”

They ‘strongly indicate’ that boys have physical advantages over girls? Has he ever BEEN a boy? Did he ever play on the playground with girls? (I used to love to play baseball against the girl’s team. It was the only time we could win)

This isn’t intended to slam women, but it IS intended to highlight the stupidity of political correctness (PC)

PC is a communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished.

It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community.

Soon those who were publicly declared politically INcorrect becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.

(In Canada, the use of politically incorrect words has already resulted in numerous criminal convictions before Canada’s human rights tribunals)

The rational behind this tyranny of the stupid is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behavior that may upset homosexuals, women, non-white, the crippled, the mentally impaired, the fat or the ugly. Giving rise to terms like ‘gay’, ‘feminist’, ‘physically challenged , special needs’, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Don’t misunderstand. I try not to give offense and would never deliberately insult someone for the sake of causing hurt, but that isn’t the same as being forced by the PC police to ‘investigate court cases’ in order to discover that boys have physical advantages over girls in competitive sports.

The concept (and the stupidity) of Political Correctness is not exactly new. The first use of the term in America dates back to a U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled “Chisholm v. Georgia” concerning whether a toast should be given to ‘the United States’ or the ‘People of the United States’.

(The Court ruled that toasting to the ‘United States’ instead of to, ‘the People of the United States’ was not ‘politically correct’.)

But it reached its height of stupidity in the 1980’s and has crossed over to become a form of social tyranny in the hands of the minority. The consequences are incalculable.

Take the practice of abortion, for example. It is politically incorrect to refer to practitioners of abortion as ‘abortionists’ which has the effect of sanitizing what it is that they do. They destroy unborn babies in the womb.

It is politically incorrect to use the phrase ‘pro-abortion’ in favor of ‘pro-choice’. Just as it is politically incorrect to use the phrase ‘pro-life’ in favor of the more negative-sounding ‘anti-choice’ or ‘anti-abortion’.

A recent situation at the L.A. Times illustrates PC tyranny in action: A news review of an opera included the term ‘pro-life’ — in the sense of ‘life-affirming’.

However it is Times policy to use the term ‘anti-abortion’ in lieu of the term “pro-life”, therefore the term was changed, even though the meaning was entirely different. It was a major embarrassment to the Times editors, who deny a left-leaning bias.

“Anti-abortion” has pejorative connotations alluding to a ‘challenge’ to women’s rights, while “pro-life” symbolizes an ‘active defense’ of the unborn children’s right to life.

Nobody wants to think about trading a woman’s rights for a human life, so PC-think can’t tolerate references to the unborn as being ‘alive’.

The Apostle Paul spoke to this specifically, writing, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. . .” (1st Timothy 4:1-2)

That is all PC-speak really is — a ‘conscience ironer’. It is a way to declassify sin as sin and reclassify it as an ‘alternative’ to the politically-incorrect concept of ‘normal’. Hence, being a homosexual is an alternative, but normal lifestyle. It says so in your child’s school textbooks, so it must be true.

Abortion is the exercise of a woman’s ‘rights’, not the destruction of her unborn child. Hence, it is not murder and has no social or eternal consequences. Some women have had multiple abortions and claim no regret. Their consciences have been ironed, pressed AND folded.

The fact that the whole concept is stupid (a politically incorrect, but accurate adjective) only seems to bother those tyrannized. The tyrants see themselves as the ‘enlightened ones’ and those they tyrannize as their social and intellectual inferiors.

It was Adolf Hitler who correctly deduced that the more outrageous a lie was, the more likely it was that people would not only accept it, but propagate it.

People want to believe that they are ‘enlightened’ — Hitler was an astute observer of human nature. Believing themselves to be the enlightened ones makes them feel more comfortable about the dark.

That’s how Hitler conned an entire nation into becoming complicit in mass murder. By making them feel good about themselves as being the only ones with the courage to impose the ‘Final Solution’.

PC-speak is another word for mass delusion. George Orwell used the concept of PC speak as the main plotline of his science-fiction classic, “1984” about a society totally controlled by ‘Big Brother’ by being constantly bombarded by what Orwell called ‘double-speak’.

The Apostle Paul spoke of mass delusion in the last days under the ultimate tyrant of human history — the antichrist.

According to Paul, “for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,” and explaining from his vantage point 2000 years ago, what Hitler only articulated in the past century; ” That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but HAD PLEASURE in unrighteousness.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12)

The Apostle John says the antichrist and false prophet; “deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.” (Revelation 13:14)

What is today the tyranny of the stupid is really the tyranny of the Big Lie in its infant form. With every passing day, the pieces of the puzzle for the last days come into clearer focus.

The prophet Daniel, when he was given his vision of the last days, was told by the revealing Angel;

“Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till THE TIME OF THE END.” The Angel continued; “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but THE WISE SHALL UNDERSTAND.” (Daniel 12:9-10)

The seals have been broken and Daniel’s vision and prophecy are no longer ‘closed up’ as they’ve been for the past twenty-five hundred years.

The wicked continue to do wickedly, and, as PC-speak proves, by definition, none of the wicked understand.

That leaves it up to us.

“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” (Ezekiel 33:7)

“But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” (2nd Timothy 4:5)

The CDC, Marriage and the Bible

The CDC, Marriage and the Bible
Vol: 39 Issue: 18 Saturday, December 18, 2004

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented some interesting — and some inexplicable — information on marriage, health and happiness.

The report, Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2002, was based on interviews with 127,545 adults aged 18 and over as part of the National Health Interview Survey, conducted by CDC s National Center for Health Statistics.

The study looked at health status and limitations, health conditions, and health-related behaviors according to marital status and also by age, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic factors such as education and poverty status.

One of the unspoken findings in the study found that people prefer to be married. That appears to contradict the statistics that say that every other marriage ends in divorce.

Statistcally, if you just got married, you’ve got a fifty percent chance of being divorced. If you are middle aged, the odds you’ve already been divorced are about the same odds that a coin toss will come up ‘heads’.

But despite all that, only about ten percent of Americans in this study were either divorced or separated. Only about six percent of Americans are cohabitating, which is about the same number of Americans who are widowed or widowers.

Nineteen percent of Americans have never married. (The study surveyed ‘adults’ as young as eighteen, accounting for the high number of never-marrieds)

But according to the study, a whopping sixty percent of Americans prefer to be married in the traditional sense of marriage.

I characterize that number as a ‘whopping’ percentage, because, as previously noted, fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce, statistically speaking, but only 10 percent of Americans in this study show up as being divorced at the moment.

That presents an statistically interesting corollary deduction: While fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, this study also proves about the same number of divorces end in marriage.

Marriages in America vary according to ethnicity, as well. Sixty-one percent of whites and fifty-nine percent of Hispanics are married, while only thirty-eight percent of blacks live in a traditional marriage.

The study also found that traditional marriage is a much healthier lifestyle, despite the claims of the minority who are lobbying against traditional marriage (and who seem to get all the headlines.)

The study found that adults in a traditional marriage are less likely than other adults to be in ‘fair or poor health’. They are less likely to suffer from chronic health problems than adults living other lifestyles. They are less like to suffer from psychological problems that adults in other lifestyles.

Adults living in a traditional marriage are less likely to be limited in their activities, from work to recreation to mobility. Adults in traditional marriages are less likely to smoke, drink heavily, and more likely to exercise and take care of themselves.

In fact, the study ‘discovered’ there is only one downside to traditional marriages.

Husbands tend to get fat.

Assessment:

Even the ‘down side’ is evidence of the spiritual and physical benefits of traditional marriage. The saying, ‘fat, dumb and happy’ wasn’t born in a vacuum — these old sayings tend to convey universal truths.

It is more than simply living with someone you love; the study found that adults who live in cohabiting relationships are also more likely to have health problems than traditionally married adults and ‘more closely resemble divorced and separated adults’, although the CDC study admits that “the reasons for better health status among married adults cannot be determined with the cross-sectional data collected in the National Health Interview Survey.”

Marriage is a spiritual union, according to Scripture, going all the way back to the beginning:

“So God created man in His Own Image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” (Genesis 1:27)

When asked by the Pharisees whether divorce was lawful, “Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.”

Jesus made it clear that marriage is a spiritual union, not once, but twice, before making it clear that marriage is ordained of God.

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:5-9)

This passage does not mean that Christians can’t divorce, as some in the Church contend. Jesus Himself identified adultery as grounds for divorce, saying, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication” (Matthew 19:9) and Paul cited spiritual incompatibility as another.

“But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.” (1st Corinthians 7:15)

Divorce is evil because of the pain it causes families, but in some cases, it is the product of frivolously entering into an unscriptural marriage in the first place.

In some marriages, divorce is the only option. (But that is a topic for a different Omega Letter — this one is about marriage)

The spiritual element of marriage is such that God uses it to describe His relationship with mankind. The Church is characterized as the Bride of Christ. God characterized the practice of idol worship among the ancient Israelites as ‘adultery’.

Ephesians 5:25 says, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it.”

Colossians 3:18-19 repeats the theme, saying, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.”

Proverbs 5:18 says, “Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.”

Ecclesiates 9:9: “Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.”

1 Corinthians 7:3-4: “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”

All these Scriptures are regularly used by the Useful Idiots to ‘prove’ the Bible oppresses women, or that traditional marriage somehow tramples women’s rights, and so on.

Ephesians 5:23 is the most often cited: “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church: and He is the Saviour of the body”. (That one sends the feminazis ballistic)

Look back at them again.

Ephesians 5:25 requires the husband to love his wife, “as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it.” Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified for His Bride. Husbands have a Scriptural duty to do no less for theirs.

As far as the husband being ‘the head of the wife’, Jesus taught the ‘two shall become one flesh’. There are no two-headed animals in nature. Somebody has to take the lead, but with it, comes the responsibility before the Lord. God said it should be the husband, as part of the curse pronounced against Adam; “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground”. (Genesis 3:19)

Corinithians puts the body of each under the power of the other — there is nothing one-sided about it.

Colossians 3:18-19 places equal responsibility on each. If both sides meet their responsibility, neither side can claim ‘oppression’.

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes speak to the lifelong joy that is part of a happy, traditional marriage. So does the CDC’s study.

Marriage has been part of the human social order as long as human beings have lived on this earth. Every civilization in history has had rules, customs and traditions associated with marriage.

Some civilizations sanction polygamy, others sanction arranged marriages, others follow the monogamous model given by Scripture, but there is no record of a civilization seriously questioning the basic principle of marriage — that it is unique to a man and a woman — until this generation, that is.

Even when all the scientific and social evidence proves beyond question that traditional marriages offer unique and lasting benefits, there are Useful Idiots everywhere questioning the system upon which civilization was built.

Traditional marriage is under attack primarily as a right-wing, religious tradition and therefore, worthy of redefinition for that reason, if no other, which is why the Useful Idiots on the Left have decided to back the gay rights effort to redefine mankind’s oldest institution.

Paul writes of this in Romans 1:26-28 saying,

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.”

So the CDC study proves the health benefits of traditional marriage. Other previous medical studies have established the healing power of prayer, still others, the health benefits of regular Christian fellowship, and, so on.

While documenting that these benefits are real and tangible, the CDC admits that it can’t explain why.

The reason is because the Bible is true. Its precepts are valid, its teachings are life-changing and its power is tangible, but how it works remains inexplicable to science.

The Bible proves itself with every serious study, which in turn causes the world to scratch its head and seek another, more comfortable explanation.

The Scripture that promises the joy and longevity associated with a happy, traditional family is the same Word of God that promises eternal life to those who trust Jesus for salvation.

Everything that CAN be proved in the here and now about the reliability of the Word of God pretty much HAS been proved; from historicity of Jesus Christ, to the benefits associated with Christianity, to the ancient prophecies directed at a single generation, somewhere in time, that are coming together in THIS generation.

One cannot ‘prove’ eternal life, since, by definition, eternity exists outside of the dimensions of space and time that make up our physical world.

But God has provided, in His Word, all the proof necessary to know the He exists and remains intimately involved in the affairs of men. The rest we take on faith.

The Bible is true. That means it is ALL true. Including the part about Jesus coming for His Church.

“. . . for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that Day.”

Watching current events and comparing them to Scripture, the only reasonable conclusion is that ‘that Day’ is fast approaching.