Who Created Evil?

The debate about who created evil is an important one since atheists and skeptics use the existence of evil in their arguments against theism. It is incumbent upon all Christians to understand what the Scriptures say about the God they worship and the existancxe of evil in the world. If God created everything, and if evil is in the world, does it follow that God created evil? We are told as Christians to believe what the Bible says. Even the popular children's song, “Jesus Loves Me”, has in its lyrics,

“Jesus loves me, this I know for the Bible tells me so”.

So, let us read what the Bible says.

In (Genesis 1:1) we read,

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

The New Testament says in (John 1:3),

“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

So, we now know that God made everything through Christ, but are there any Scriptures that specifically say God is the author of evil? The closest we can get is (Isaiah 45:7),

“I make peace and create calamity”,

and (Amos 3:6),

“If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?”

Ok, can we then point to any passages that might elude to God condoning evil? Probably the best examples would be the time Joseph confronted his brothers who sold him into slavery,

“you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good”

(Genesis 50:20), and (Exodus 9:16) when God sent Moses to Pharoah with this message,

“.....I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”

There are those who claim that these and similar Scriptures prove that God is the author of evil.

Now, if you’re coming from the persuasion that God has foreordained the entire course of events in this world as Calvinism teaches, then reason and logic would suggest that God must be the author of sin. However, Calvinist who teach that God is the author of evil would be wise smart to pay attention to the following quote from (John Calvin) himself:

“It is helpful, I think, to understand that sin is not itself a thing created. Sin is neither substance, being, spirit, nor matter. So it is technically not proper to think of sin as something that was created. Sin is simply a want of moral perfection in a fallen creature. Fallen creatures themselves bear full responsibility for their sin. And all evil in the universe emanates from the sins of fallen creatures.” Calvin goes on to state unequivocally that, “God's role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things--including all the fruits of all the evil of all time--work together for a greater good.”

The biggest defenders of the idea that God created evil are followers of John Calvin's teachings. Seems to me that there is a bit of a schism in the ranks of the Calvinist movement.

Two verses used to defend the belief that God created evil are (Isaiah 45:7) and (Amos 3:6). In both instances the word evil, not calamity is used in 12 of the 21 Bible translations I have. It is important to note that all but one of the translations using the word evil were published before 1948. This is important because of the discovery of the (Dead Sea Scrolls) in the caves of Qumran in 1948. Fine tooth investigation of these Scrolls has revealed that the proper translation for these verses would actually be disaster or calamity, not evil. Now some may argue that a calamity is an evil, because it causes pain and misery and so they will still argue that God is the creator of evil.

When speaking of evil in regards to the nature of sin, it should be observed that there are three kinds of evil: physical, metaphysical, and moral. Physical evil is anything causing harm to man weather it be by order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists. I would say that accidents, sicknesses, and even most deaths would directly be caused by nature, while poverty, oppression and some diseases are the results of imperfect social organizations. Then we would have mental suffering, anxiety, disappointments, and remorse as a result of a both natural disposition and social circumstances. Metaphysical evil would be anything that limits an object in nature from attaining their ideal potential of existence. Some examples would be a lion killing a gazelle for food, harm or death to the gazelle would a metaphysical evil. Another metaphysical evil would be a tornado knocking down a tree thus limiting the tree’s ability to keep growing. Depending upon ones perspective, metaphysical evil can be a beneficial evil, the tree dies and becomes fertilizer for new growth, while the killing of the gazelle insures the survival of the lion. Finally we have moral evil, which is anything that would deviate from what society has deemed as normal behavior, usually by someone who knows what society has considered normal. Historically, these standards have been set by various religious communities and followed by the societies they influence. It should be pointed out that bad behavior due to ignorance would not be considered a moral evil, because a person must have an understanding of what is considered moral to be in violation of such morals. One could say that ignorance is an excuse for bad moral behavior. In conclusion, I would suggest that evil is essentially a negative, not so much in the acquisition of anything, but the loss or deprivation of something necessary for perfection. While there are certain evils that benefit us like the killing of a gazelle by a lion, or the pain of injury to alert us of bodily harm, most evil is bad. So we can say that in a world originally created by a perfect God, evil or sin is anything that falls short of the perfection of what God originally planned before the fall of man.

The term sin, in the ancient Greek language, means to miss the mark. We all sin when we miss the mark set by God. God's mark is perfection every time. Man can never achieve the ability to hit the bull’s eye every time so anything short of that perfect mark is sin. We can conclude that evil is the absence of perfection. In the same way that darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of warmth, and hate is the absence off love, evil is the absence of a perfect God. When I speak of evil as to whom or what is responsible for its creation, I mean the evil that is in the realm of morality.

So let's start with Satan and see if he is the creator or author of evil. Like men, angels were given free will and it was an angel named Lucifer who Isaiah wrote about in (Isaiah 14:12-16) when he said the morning star wanted to be worshiped like God and was cast down for his sin. Sometime following day one and two of God's creation of the heavens and earth, and prior to God creating man, Lucifer chose of his own free will to rebel against God. We can ascertain, then, that evil as we know it began at the spiritual level first as committed by Satan. That does not mean however that Satan created evil, because as we learn from the book of Job, outside of God’s will Satan has no power. (Job 1:9-12) So we can conclude from this that Satan is not the author of sin, or evil, because he cannot create anything.

Next we must investigate Adam to see if he created evil. In the beginning man, nature, and God were all in a perfect tri-unity of harmony, communing with each other as man was given dominion over all that was in the world. Paul tells us that it was not until after Eve was tempted by Satan to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that sin or evil entered into the world. (Romans 5:12) Like Satan, man was given free will to either follow God or not, and man choose not to. We can surmise then that just as Satan was the first to commit sin at the spiritual level, man was the first to commit sin in the physical world. However like Satan, man cannot create anything without the will of God, and even then only with what God created for man to use in his inventions and discoveries. So our investigation leads us to the conclusion that, like Satan, man may have sinned but he is not the author of it. In Paul's letter to Romans, we learn man's offense allowed evil to come into the world, but Paul does not suggest he is the author creating it. (Romans 5:18)

We have examined the obvious choices and still do not have an answer. Maybe this little analogy of a father who gives his son a baseball and bat will help. Now I realize this is not a perfect analogy, but it does help to look at things from a father's perspective. As a gift of his love for his son, a father gives a baseball and a bat to his eight-year old boy. The boy goes outside to play with his new toy. He grabs the bat with his hand, rests it upon his shoulder and throws the ball in the air with his other hand. As the ball descends he swings the bat at the ball. To his complete enjoyment, the boy hits the ball squarely and it goes sailing into the air. As the baseball flies across the yard, it enters the neighbors yard and smashes into their living room window. As would be expected the neighbor confronts the boy about his window, and tells the boy he needs to fix that which he broke. The boy’s father gets involved, apologizes to the neighbor and promises to fix his window. The father must do this because the boy has no means of rectifying the mistake he made. While the father himself did not break the neighbor’s window, he does accept the responsibility for giving his son the ball and bat that allowed for the possibility that something bad could happen. In return the boy will have to suffer the consequences of his actions by mowing lawns to pay for the window or even loosing the chance to play with his ball and bat. The boy himself will not pay for or fix the broken window, his father does, and so it is with our father in heaven.

We have all been given the gift of free will and with it is comes the potential for committing sin, and we will. God has already accepted the responsibility and paid for our sins even though He himself did not commit the sin that enabled the whole of mankind to fall. (Revelations 13:8) We cannot do anything on our own that would satisfy God for our sins, just as the little eight year old has no way to satisfy the neighbor for breaking his window. Our father in heaven did what a loving father would do, He paid for the window we broke. He became man and fulfilled the requirements needed to become the perfect sacrifice to pay for our sins. (Philippians 2:7-8)

I have concluded that evil is not a thing created, rather, evil is a the result or byproduct of disobeying God's law, and the Scriptures tell us, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.” (1 John 3:4) God desires for us to choose Him willingly, He is not some kind of a cosmic rapist that would force His love upon us. However, if we choose not to love God, than an emptiness is created in our hearts, and sin or evil will fill that gap. Evil is a natural probability when free will is allowed to exist in ones nature, and like Lucifer, we were given free will to make that decision possible. Thus, evil is the absence of God's love and only the receiver can deny that love. John tells us that God is love, and that we did not love Him but that He loved us first. (1 John 4;19) That being said, we also then must conclude that, a perfect and responsible God must take responsibility for the actions of His creations. So even though God did not create sin, He did pay the price for it like a truly loving Father would, so that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

I pray that those who have ears to hear will hear His voice and call upon the name of the lord Jesus Christ.

Amen

They Say a Picture is Worth a 1000 Words

Homosexuality : Defiance of God and the Truth

With the recent success of proposition 8 in California, and the polls showing a majority of Americans across the country opposed to giving marital status to homosexual couples, one would think that the same sex-marriage debate would have faded away. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Every week we hear of another state either passing laws that allow gay marriages, or judges of those states ruling by fiat to force it upon society. 

As a logical Christian, I look at the many prophecies God has given us throughout the Scriptures, and I can see the writing on the wall. In the near future we will be living in a society that not only allows same-sex marriage but also accepts it as a normal way of life. It really should not surprise anyone, especially when you consider our society has allowed its high court to banish God from the class room and rule a woman has a right to abort her children. 

While I admit this is a battle we will inevitably lose, it is still one we must fight in the hearts and minds of every man and woman in America and abroad. As a Christian I stand behind the Bible that clearly states, homosexual behavior is a sin. It is this battle line we must make our stance upon as we continue to fight and advance the truth of the gospel in America and around the world.

Paul told the believers in Rome, that we have all sinned and thus fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23 ) So if homosexuality is considered a sin, then an explanation of what sin is would be needed. The best definition I have ever heard to describe exactly what sin is would be, “anything that falls short of the perfection of a perfect God” I bring this up because many churches and Christian leaders allow those caught up in the gay lifestyle to believe they are not sinning. These false teachers are under the assumption that God has made them the way they are so obviously He would condone their behavior. They also teach that the Bible does not really condemn homosexual behavior or that Jesus would not condemn this behavior. The reality is that these claims are just more lies by Satan to convince an individual to continue practicing behavior that keeps them away from God. However, if they insist upon twisting Scripture to justify their behavior, it is our duty to point out their errors.

The Bible contains nine specific references to homosexuality: four in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:1-25); ( Judges 19:22-30); (Leviticus 18:22); and ( Leviticus 20:13) and five in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-28); (1 Corinthians 6:9-10); (1 Timothy 1:8-11); ( 2 Peter 2:6-10); and (Jude 1:7) Paul wrote the passage in Romans in such a simplistic manner that one would think he wrote in anticipation of the debate we are having today on homosexuality. Unfortunately, those who wish to lead others astray go through quite a few twists and turns to convince others of their beliefs. Along with the above mentioned Scriptures there are other references that can help the reader understand God's view upon marriage and family, promiscuity, and sexual purity. These Scriptures are as follows,( Genesis 2:18-25); (Proverbs 18:22); (Mark 7:21); (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5); (Romans 6:13); (Romans 13:13); (1 Corinthians 6:13); (1 Corinthians 18-19); (Galatians 5:19-21); (Colossians 3:5); (Revelation 21:8); (Revelation 22:15).

Throughout history, Christian theologians have been consistent in their interpretation that the Scriptures consider homosexual behavior to be sinful. We even derive our modern word sodomy from the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah. It should also be stated that while the act itself is condemned by the Bible, personality traits such as feminine feelings on the part of a man or masculine feelings on the part of a woman are not. There has always been and there always will be men and women who have traits that could be misconstrued, but it does not change the fact that we are created as man and woman and can only reproduce by the union of a man and a woman. God said be fruitful and multiply, and there is only one way to achieve that goal. (Genesis 1:28) & (Genesis 8:17 )

There are those who attempt to use the Scriptures I listed above to prove that God did not really mean to condemn homosexuality. These false teachers attempt to distort the plain meaning of Scripture by taking ancient historical languages and reinterpreting them with the mindset of today's hedonistic views. However, their arguments fall short, and with a minimal amount of study it becomes clear that they only wish to confuse their followers into believing they are not sinning. We must avoid interpreting Scripture in light of our tendencies and desires and instead interpret our desires and tendencies in light of the Scripture. God's word is the rule, we must not make our rule God's word.

Another way they obfuscate the truth is by claiming the biblical view of sexuality is not valid in the modern word. They point out that the law in Leviticus was intended for the ancient Hebrews and does not apply today. By claiming the Levitical law was intended for the ancient Hebrews, they use examples of many things condemned as evil in the Old Testament that are commonly accepted in the modern world, like eating pork. While I do admit that civil or ceremonial laws do often change from country to country and year by year, moral laws do not change. The New Testament may have repealed various Old Testament ceremonial Jewish laws like eating unclean foods and circumcision, (Acts 10:12-15); (Colossians 2:11-16); (Romans 14:17)), but the Bible is consistent throughout the Scriptures on its teaching about morality, which includes the practice of homosexuality.

Those who advance the gay agenda attempt to normalize their behavior to the public by claiming Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in any of His sermons. Obviously, they reason, we cannot ascertain His position on it. However, Jesus never mentioned other blatant sexual sins like rape, incest, or pedophilia either. Now does anyone think that Jesus would condone any of those behaviors? I think not. Just because Jesus does not mention them, does not mean that it is all right to commit these offenses against God and each other. 

There can be no mistaking about the teachings of Jesus when it comes to the proper marriage relationship of a man and a woman. In (Matthew 19:4-5) Jesus reiterated the same thing about marriage and family that Moses taught when He wrote the account of creation in the book of Genesis. (Genesis 2:24) It is very clear from both Moses and Jesus that any sexual relationship outside of a committed marriage relationship between one man and one woman not only demeans the institution of marriage, but also insults our heavenly Father.

Besides being quite clear in his contempt for sexual immorality (Mark 7:21), Jesus was even more strict than the teachings in the Old Testament. He went so far as to state that sexual immorality extended to even the lusting in ones heart. (Matthew 5:27-30) These were very tough standards compared to what Moses taught, and He knew we would find it difficult to accept them. Throughout His life Jesus met people who were caught up in different sinful behaviors, yet nowhere does He ever condone the behavior of those that sinned. After Zacchaeus had spent some time with Jesus, the tax collector pledged to pay back fourfold all he stole from his fellow Jews. (Luke 19:1-9) These were very tough standards compared to what Moses taught, and He knew we would find it difficult to accept them. Throughout His life, Jesus met people who were caught up in different sinful behaviors, yet nowhere does He ever condone the behavior of those that sinned. 

When the woman caught in adultery was brought before Him, Jesus forgave her, but also made it clear she was to sin no more. (John 8:1-11) Also Jesus specifically stated that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, (Matthew 5:17) and Jewish law was quite clear on homosexual behavior. So to suggest that Jesus would have condoned homosexual behavior is twisting Scripture for personal gratification and reasons of political correctness.

In our attempt to show how God is a loving and forgiving God we must not forget that He is also a God of justice. Justice means that there will be punishment for those who do not obey His precepts. Jesus says more about hell and eternal punishment than anyone else in the entire Bible. The teaching comes from his own lips and we must take it with utmost seriousness. (Matthew 5:48) Examples of the wrath of God's judgement: (Genesis 2:17); ( 2 Kings 17:18); (Psalm 74:1); (Psalm 79:5); (Psalm 90:11); (Proverbs 10:16); (Micah 7:9); (Zephaniah 3:8); (Matthew 5:29); (Matthew 7:13); (Matthew 25:46); (Romans 1:32); (Romans 2:8); (Romans 6:23); (Acts 3:19); (1 Corinthians 6:9); (Galatians 6:7-8); (Philippians 3:19); (2 Thessalonians 1:9); (James 1:15) and (Revelation 20:12-15).

Those who attempt to mislead others about what the Scriptures say, suggest that God is a God of love and accepts people just as they are. This is a very dangerous thing to teach, because it leads people to think they do not need to believe in Jesus so be saved. However Paul specifically told the Romans that all have sinned and thus fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23 ) and Jesus tells us that no one but God is good. (Luke 18:18) We are an unclean people who sin continually, and God demands that we repent of those sins. (Acts 2:38) When we create a god that fits our lifestyle we are in direct violation of the Second Commandment, “Thou shall have no other gods before Me”. (Exodus 20:3)

Regardless of the excuses we use for our sins, sin is still sin, and we will all be tested throughout our lives by our flesh and the world in which we live. Some of us will be given a thorn in our side to remind us of God's grace which allows us to look to Him for the strength we need to defeat our weaknesses. (2 Corinthians 12:7- 10) Those weaknesses can either lead us to find pleasure in the world, or comfort in the knowledge of Christ and His power to save us. The question we all must ask ourselves is, can we sacrifice those pleasures that keep us from God upon the cross with Christ, or will we risk eternal damnation because of our desire to practice behavior the world has legalized?

I pray that those who have ears to hear will hear His voice and call upon the name of the lord Jesus Christ.
Amen

APA reverses itself on Claim of "Gay Gene"

In the last 30 years, the American people have been fed lie after lie that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living and that there was just a matter of time before scientists would even prove that a person was born gay. So the idea that the gay lifestyle is natural has been successfully propagated by promoting a "victim" image and by the pseudo-science alleging a 'gay" gene. We were fed report after report that scientists are getting closer to proving a gay gene exists.

Then in a well publicized report put out by the APA in 1998, it was stated,

"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

With a crescendo of approval the MSM touted this report while the left used it to make major inroads with the public to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. There were those whom the media and politicians catered to who claimed this proved that homosexuals are victims of a society that will not allow them to be what they have no control over being. After all, they were born that way. Just as a Black person has no control over the color of their skin, neither can a person born to love another of the same sex.

The only problem is that in all the so called scientific reports that science is getting closer to proving the existence of a "gay" gene, not a single one ever survived scientific peer review. Now in a complete reversal the APA has backed off their previously held stance that there was evidence that abhorrent sexual behavior is genetic. Now the APA has revised that statement and omitted the above sentence. The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality." The newly worded statement is as follows;

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

So now the APA is in agreement with those who have said time and time again, there is no "gay" gene. However, I will admit that study after study have shown that homosexuals are victims, but they are victims of their own perverted behavior.

Something most people do not think about when considering homosexual behavior is the very unsanitary behavior they practice. Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners, tragically reversing several centuries of learning about cleanliness. It is the better understanding of germs and sanitary practices that have led members of our society to live a longer lifespan. Thus homosexual behavior, through the very nature of achieving sexual pleasure, reverses the advancement of longevity among those who practice it. All available evidence indicates that the lifespan of practicing homosexual persons is drastically shortened by their behavior. There is no reliable study that indicates otherwise. Added to this is the sad reality that the shortened lifespan of homosexuals is taboo subject among homosexual advocates. The evidence is damaging to the case that it is as normal as heterosexual behavior is.

This is what the Scriptures tell us about why men and women practice the behavior of homosexuality.

"For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Romans 1:25-27

In reality, men and women who practice such abhorrent behavior do it out of their own desires. It is, in a real sense, a choice. That choice is to reject God and His laws upon which HE [God] then in turn punishes the offender. Its not a genetic flaw but is in fact exactly what the Scriptures have always said it is: SIN. And its not a mental illness. It is a willful rejection of God. The shortened lifespan they have, along with the diseases all men and women get from sexual immorality is a punishment from God. Lest anyone think otherwise though, sin is sin regardless of who practices it. Heterosexuals sin also when they practice any behavior not sanctioned by God as normal sexual behavior between a married man and woman.

One last point I must make. I love all God's people and even those who do not want Him I am called to love. Sin is anything that falls short of the perfection of God, and we all fall short of His glory and thus need the blood of His Son to wash away our sins. It is love to warn those who practice sinful behavior, it is hate to allow someone to wallow in sin and loose their soul. I warn homosexuals they are in danger of hell, just as I would warn a heterosexual who is engaged in sexual behavior outside of a marriage. Both must repent and change their behavior. Failure to warn those living in sin would be a sin in itself. That would be the sin of neglect, and we are told to tell the truth at all cost, even if it means it would cost me my life as it did all but one of the disciples of Christ.

Religious Leaders Win Right to Speak Out on Politics

by Chuck Ness

Every election year religious leaders across America have been warned not speak out from their pulpits about candidates or issues up for a vote. Now in a major ruling that supports their 1st amendment right to free speech, the IRS has given Christians across the country a victory in their battle with the left.

““The Liberty Legal Institute has announced today that the IRS found that pastors who gathered in 2006 for a series of public policy conferences had every right to do so, and that the organizers of the event did not violate any tax laws that govern non-profit organizations.”

Now can we get back to what the founding fathers of this country meant when they ratified all the amendments to the constitution? Remember, the Bill of Rights was adopted to limit the government’s control over the people. It is not a document that tells us what we can do, but what the government cannot do! When the government says you cannot speak out on anything or anyone then it is violating the 1st amendment right to free speech.

Any and all Americans should be free to spend whatever amount of their hard-earned cash to influence politics and legislation. For too long the left has dictated to Christians what it is we can and cannot speak about, now the IRS has finally leveled the playing field.

Scratching Those Itchy Ears

Whenever I would grab a book to read and sit on the couch, and I could always count on my dog to come over, jump up and settle down next to me. Just about the time I kicked back to relax, she would lay her head on my lap and give me that look. Oh, how good she was at letting me know what she wanted!


Inevitably, this would lull her into a calm, relaxed state of mind until I thought she had fallen asleep. I would stop pampering her, and pick up my book to start reading again. That’s when she began pushing her head towards my hand in an attempt to take my mind off my reading. So, I would indulge her for a bit longer in the hope that she would settle down so I could read my book. Eventually I came to the conclusion that I would either have to give her what she desired, or else she would get down and go find someone else to scratch those itchy ears.

Continue Reading

The Ugly Result of Convincing Christians That Christ Was A Socialist

These numbers go to the heart of the reason I felt the need to write my article on Jesus not being a Socialist and why Christians need to learn the truth.

A recent survey of Protestants was released in early March of 2009. The CVS (The Mainline Protestant Clergy Voices Survey) surveyed senior clergy from the seven largest mainline denominations:

United Methodist,
Evangelical Lutheran of America,
American Baptist USA,
Presbyterian USA,
Episcopal ,
United Church of Christ,
Christian (Disciples of Christ)

The survey found significant differences across the denominations on religious and political measures.
What follows is their findings on social and political issues. The results will stun you.

Percent of women in the clergy:
1989: 7%
2008: 20%

Agree that "gay couples should be allowed to marry legally":
Women clergy: 58%
Male clergy: 27%

Agree that "abortion should be legal in all or most cases":
Women clergy: 78%
Male clergy: 44%

Agree that "the federal government should do more to solve social problems such as unemployment, poverty, and poor housing":
Women clergy: 90%
Male clergy: 76%

Agree that "more environmental protection is needed, even if it raises prices or costs jobs":
Women clergy: 80%+
Male clergy: 66%

Agree that "support the government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes":
Women clergy: 85%
Male clergy: 63%

Agree that "social welfare problems, like poverty, education and health care are the most important issues in the country that the church should address":
Women clergy: 50%
Male clergy: 34%

In regards to politics, identify with the Democratic Party:
Women clergy: 75%+
Male clergy: 50%

In regards to politics, identify with the Republican Party:
Women clergy: 11%
Male clergy: 40%

In regards to politics, self-identify as "liberal":
Women clergy: 74%
Male clergy: 42%

After the last election we were all stunned at the numbers of Christians who voted for Obama and the Socialist agenda the Democrats offered. Now we no why this happened. the concerted effort to convince Christians That Jesus was a socialist and would have supported their Socialist agenda. What follows is the final statistics of how the Religious and nonreligious voted for president. You will notice I listed the numbers starting with those which John McCain carried to Obama in a sliding graduation


xx% McCain, 23% Obama - White Evangelicals age 30-64

75% McCain, 25% Obama - White7,10 Born Again Evangelicals

73% McCain, 26% Obama - Evangelical/Born-again Protestant

xx% McCain, 32% Obama - White Evangelicals age 18-29

65% McCain, xx% Obama - Weekly church-attending Protestants

65% McCain, 34% Obama - White Protestants

65% McCain, 34% Obama - White Protestant/Other Christian

62% McCain, 35% Obama - State of Utah

59% McCain, 40% Obama - Working-class whites

57% McCain, 41% Obama - White men

55% McCain, 43% Obama - Weekly mass-attending Catholics

55% McCain, 43% Obama - "White voters"

55% McCain, 44% Obama - Non-evangelical Protestant

54% McCain, 44% Obama - Weekly church-goers

54% McCain, 45% Obama - Protestants

53% McCain, 46% Obama - White women

52% McCain, 47% Obama - White "regular-mass-attending" Catholics

52% McCain, 47% Obama - White Catholic

51% McCain, 47% Obama - White college graduates

xx% McCain, 47% Obama - White independent voters

51% McCain, 49% Obama - White Catholics

46% McCain, 52% Obama - Non-Evangelical Protestants

46% McCain, 53% Obama - Protestant/Other Christian

xx% McCain, 53% Obama - Monthly church-goers

44% McCain, 54% Obama - "Young whites"

45% McCain, 54% Obama - Catholics

45% McCain, 54% Obama - Catholic

xx% McCain, 59% Obama - Semi-annual church-goers

38% McCain, 61% Obama - Occasional churchgoers

37% McCain, 61% Obama - Non-weekly-mass-attending Catholics

28% McCain, 62% Obama - Other faiths

30% McCain, 67% Obama - Hispanics

xx% McCain, 67% Obama - Hispanic Catholics

xx% McCain, 67% Obama - Hispanic Protestants and other Christian

xx% McCain, 68% Obama - Don't attend church

22% McCain, 73% Obama - Other faiths

23% McCain, 75% Obama - Unaffiliated with any religion

23% McCain, 75% Obama - Unaffiliated

21% McCain, 78% Obama - American Jews and other faiths

21% McCain, 78% Obama - Jewish

xx% McCain, 94% Obama - Black Protestants

xx% McCain, 96% Obama - Blacks

Now you might understand the urgency with which we need to address the problem of truth about how Jesus believed and taught. If we cannot educate those who have faith on the truth, how can we expect to reach the unsaved with the truth?

I wish to thank Alex Murphy for the statistics.

Was Jesus A Socialist?

It has been the aim of the Democrat party since they lost the Presidential election in 2004 to subvert the Christian doctrine with the claim that Jesus was a socialist. Their goal is to convince Christians that their Social agenda is morally equivalent with the teachings and life of Jesus Christ.

Considering the lack of historical and Biblical knowledge most Americans have, it is not surprising that many have fallen for the misinformation on what Jesus taught (and for whom the teachings were given). These Biblical revisionists have become especially adept at cherry picking Scripture to suit their agenda. Hence, many have come to misunderstand the gospel of Christ by equating it with modern day Socialism.

My first point of contention with the idea idea that Christ was a socialist, is His teachings and the example of His life.

Throughout the time Christ lived with His disciples, He never worked. Instead he was dependent upon the charity and good hearts of those who surrounded Him. Now that is not to say Jesus was lazy or a bum. Jesus was always about His fathers business, and that business was the salvation of mankind. Nowhere in the Scriptures, does Jesus tell His followers to rely upon those who are not willing to hear the gospel or share what they have. If the people refused to hear the gospel or be charitable with them, Jesus told His disciples to rebuke them and go to others who are willing to hear the teachings, as when He sent them out by pairs (Matthew chapter 10)

I must emphasize that all the lessons Jesus taught were for those who followed Him, or would listen to His teachings. When a person asked for healing or for forgiveness, Jesus always told them that their sins were forgiven and to go and sin no more.

As for money, there was only one time He mentioned the wealth of an individual and that was because that individual treasured his wealth over God. Jesus used the incident as a lesson to tell His disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to get into heaven. Not impossible, but more difficult. He tells us elsewhere that where your treasure is there too is where your heart will be. (Matthew 6:21)

Jesus also taught that we should not let our charitable work be publicly known (Matthew 6:1-4) Those who love to brag about all the good they have done for others through the Social programs of the government would NOT be true followers of Jesus or his teachings.

hen Jesus did finally have His big chance to influence the government and it's rulers, he did not broach the subject of socialism or it's supposed glory. Not only did He not enlighten them upon the benefits of Socialism, He would not even share the Gospel with them If Jesus was the great Socialist leader the left wants you to believe, then why would He not get the government to follow His lead. After all, the perfect time to influence the government was when he was in front of Pontius Pilot or Herod. He did not. The Scriptures tell us that He kept silent in front of Herod.(Luke 23:6- 12)

He said only a few words to Pontius Pilot, (John 18:33-19:11) and that's because Jesus did not come to influence the government, but the people who needed salvation. Christ wanted men to believe in Him not some social agenda that would get the government to do what Christians were called to do. These are the lessons His disciples continued to teach after he was gone, and those lessons would come into play in the Book of Acts.

Most people have heard the story about the early days of Christianity, where everyone sold their possessions and distributed the proceeds to other Christians in need. (Acts 4:34-35) This is one of the main Scriptures used by the left to convince people that the early Christians practiced Socialism. Unfortunately, many people do not realize that this is something that happened mainly among the Christian believers.

By taking into consideration the historical setting of the Book of Acts, you will begin to better understand the reason why there was a need for this kind of outpouring among the early Christians.

During the time when Christ walked among us and taught His disciples, and later after His crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into Heaven, Jerusalem was an economically depressed area. Most of the employment opportunities centered around the building of Herod's Temple, and the only ones eligible to work on the Temple were Jews. The only Jews that were allowed to work on the Temple were those who were ceremonially clean. Anyone that was unclean or found to be unfit by the priests were barred from working on the Temple.

There were various reasons one could be considered unclean or at odds with the Priests who controlled the work force. A Jew who openly confessed faith in Christ and followed His teachings, was automatically considered a Heretic and unfit for consideration of employment in the Temple. Those professing faith in Jesus, the One crucified by the Jews, were also ostracized by their close relatives and the community, and soon found themselves unable to support themselves or their family.

It was under these conditions that the first Christians came together and pooled their resources so that the many who lacked the basics to care for themselves could be taken care of in the face of such harsh treatment in their communities. These early Christians were not only shunned by society, but many like Stephen, were stoned to death for their faith in Christ. All they had was other Christians to depend upon.

So while we do read in the Book of Acts about communal living, where all things were shared, it was from the excess others had that those in need could be cared for. That does not mean that all were equal, or that those who had much shared all they had with those who did not have anything. Rather they provided for the necessities of those who could not do so for themselves. What the Book of Acts records is how early Christians stepped up and did what Christ called them to do.

We can also see in the Book of Acts that a Christian could give as much or as little as they wanted, as in the account of Ananias and his wife Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10) The Scriptures tell us they were put to death by the Holy Spirit for lying about how much they received because they wanted everyone to believe they donated all the proceeds from some possessions they sold.

The lesson we learn from the incident is that they were not required to give everything but to be honest about their donation. Later when it was prophesied that a famine would come to the land, the disciples in Antioch collected money to send with Paul and Barnabas to be delivered to Jerusalem. (Acts 11:27-30) You cannot read in the Scriptures anywhere that that they ask Herod, Caesar, the Jews, or unbelieving Gentiles for help, they collected the money from other Christians.

For those who wish to equate this outpouring of sharing with the idea of modern day socialism, I would suggest a short course in Biblical Theology. Christianity teaches that it is up to the individual to care for others, whereas, Socialism demands forced equality enacted by the government.

Another misunderstood moment in the New testament is where we are told to look after the widows and the poor. However, they conveniently ignore the time Paul specifically told the Thessalonians in his 2nd letter to them, that if a healthy able bodied brother will not work he will not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) Socialism on the other hand, not only promotes but demands that those who work will feed those who are lazy and will not work. This is not what Christ taught.

In his lesson of the Good Samaritan in Luke's Gospel, Jesus did not say that the Samaritan went to the government to have them care for the injured man. No, the Good Samaritan gave of what was his own willingly to care for the man. His money was not taken under duress of the state. (Luke 10:25-37)

Throughout the life of Christ, He always emphasized personal responsibility and love. That is because Christ came to save mankind from the penalty of sin, which is eternal death. It is through the substitutionary death of Christ and His resurrection that we are provided with the means for justification and thus salvation. Jesus said that all who believe and receive Him through faith, will be born again and saved to become children of God.

Christ could care less about the governments and their so-called compassion. That is why you will not find anywhere in the Scriptures a verse that says, “Jesus died for the salvation of the state.”

Jesus died for the salvation of man and it is men's hearts that will be judged on judgment day. No man will be judged according to how much he paid in taxes, or how many government programs he supported. We are told to pay tribute to our rulers if they ask, but charity starts and ends at home with each individual. That is why Christ said, “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” Notice that He said, as you did, not as the government did. (Matthew 25:35-39)

Make no mistake about it, Jesus was not what politicians and their mimics in the media claim He was. He was not, and He did not teach, Socialism. He said I am the way, the truth, and the light, no one comes to the Father accept through Me.

Christians are called to be the light of the world. We should influence the world through our lives and share the gospel with those who are receptive. As I stated earlier, we are to share the Gospel with the lost, if it is rejected by those we whom we share it, then we are told to kick the dust from our shoes and go on.(Mark 6:11) We are not instructed to force them to be loving and charitable through the power of a Socialized government.

I pray that those who have ears to hear, will hear His voice and call upon His name.
Amen

The Religion of "Global Warming"

For those who do not understand the blind loyalty of people who follow Al Gore and his "Global Warming' crusade, you must understand that to them it is nothing short of a religious belief. That's right, "Global Warming" is a religion who's god is "Mother Earth". To really explain what it is I mean, I need to first define the term religion. Then I can show you how "Global Warming" fills all the needed requirements of a religion. To begin with, not all religions refer to God or gods, they do not all base their systems upon morals or some belief in an afterlife. Also, not all religious followers can properly explain exactly what it is they believe. The groups, practices and systems that we identify as religions are so diverse that it is no easy task to bring them all under one simple definition. Of course, this difficulty has not stopped people from attempting to define religion. The definitions are quite wide-ranging, with some religions emphasizing a personal indwelling kind of relationship, while others emphasize the social, more outward type of awareness of their personal being as it relates to their surroundings. Then there are those who emphasize their beliefs as handed down through the generations and others the structures preserved from past generations. We see religions based upon their functions whether they be private or public. Some dwell upon the mundane and others the transcendent, then we have religions that focus their concentration upon the truths as defined by their leaders or writings, and finally I would also add that there are those who focus upon illusions that can be mustered up through meditation or drugs. In many cases, a person's definition of religion is actually a definition of his or her own religion. As you can see there are many facets of religion that, if a person is not already grounded firmly in their belief, they could easily be lured into a different faith then they grew up with. However, the one common theme among all types of religion is faith. You must ultimately have faith that what you believe is true, even though you cannot ultimately prove it, and faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. For the most part humans are hot wired with a religious component to our souls, even agnostics and atheists have faith in what they believe. Another way to explain this would be to say we have all been created with an addiction gene. Until we find the one true God, our Creator and Father, we will go from one addiction to another never feeling as fulfilled or satisfied as we would like to. Like other false religions, those who follow the religion of “Global Warming” put their faith in the idea that something exists that they can not ultimately prove exists. When you look at the lack of provable evidence for “Global Warming” and see that this lack of proof does not blunt the faith of those following it, you will come to the conclusion that it is a religion. "Global Warming" cannot be proved, but those who follow it don't care to even consider the overwhelming evidence that proves it does not exist. I don't care what's in the 'Union of Concerned Scientists” report, they haven't gone through the proper steps to prove their belief. There is not an hypothesis they can prove. Therefore, there is no proving "Global Warming" in a scientific way. Global Warming believers must rely upon faith, just as Christians rely on faith that there is a heaven. Now, like many religions, “Global Warming” has its basic principles. One of those principles is that there is a sin component involved. Like its close relative the “Environmental Wacko” religion, it follows many of the same rules against sinning, because they worship the same god, “Mother earth”. Thou shall recycle. Thou shall not allow second hand smoke. Thou shall not cut down redwood trees, develop mosquito infested wetlands, or engage in any number of activities in ones daily life that would be "sinful". Corect behavior must be followed religiously. “Global Warming” sins include using fossil fuels, driving SUV's, burning wood , using too many electric appliances, drilling for oil, those are just a few of the sins that can be committed against “Mother Earth” in the “Global Warming” religion. Like Christianity “Global Warming” relies feverishly on one thing to keep everybody in line, and that is the apocalypse, the last days, the day when hellfire and damnation will fall upon all of us who have sinned. For those who put their faith in Christianity, they believe there will one day be an apocalyptic final end to everything. The "Global Warming” followers also have their belief in an end times. To them the apocalypse is the destruction of the world due to the use of fossil fuels that will ultimately destroy the planet through extreme warming. We are told by their prophet of doom, Al Gore, that the world is doomed and that we have only a certain amount of years left. A cursory look at the many stories we are fed about our ultimate demise, due to “Global Warming”, will help prove this is a religion based upon faith and not facts. If it were based upon scientifically proven theories, there would not be 20 different stories in 25 different days over what's happening with "Global Warming", and how long it's going to take to wipe us out. All this makes "Global Warming" a religion who's length and breadth of influence is as great as any major religion on this planet. Just look what they do to anyone who dares to tell the truth or even demand a debate about the facts. Now, unlike the theologians of Christianity, Al Gore refuses to debate anyone who disagrees with him. This refusal puts the religion of “Global Warming” in the same category as cults like that of Jim Jones, who's "Peoples Temple" religion demanded unquestionable faith and demanded that all his followers drink the kool-aid with out question.

Clarification of my error in "Obama's UnGodly Youth Corp"

To everyone who might have a problem with the statement in my article, that all religious activity is barred under this legislation


I'll begin by admitting my error the way I worded my claim. I offer no excuse accept to say I should have used the phrase, "Could be interpreted by a court that non volunteer religious related activities are banned".

In my preparation for writing the article, I looked at the probable intent of the law, which is meant to limit the volunteer services to completely secular endeavors - in keeping with the authors understanding of the constitutional requirement for religious neutrality. Remember Courts are constantly ruling upon "original Intent" when they interpret a law.

I also should have pointed out the original language before it was changed to give the reader an understanding of the authors original intent, which was to exclude all religious activity regardless of when it was done. In court, a judge will look at original intent of the legislation like Justice Black claimed he did in his landmark case. In this case the original intent was to ban all religious activity regardless of when it took place. The original text of 125 contained the phrase, "A participant in", which was dropped from the later text.

Now, in looking to original intent, Justice Black claimed that while it was not written in the constitution, Thomas Jefferson's letter proves what the intent originally was. That is how we got the "Separation of Church and State" clause we are bound by. Remember also that Thomas Jefferson was not present when the Constitution was written so he would not be a good candidate to get any intent from. The activist courts have gone out of their way to find any reason to claim the intent of a law is what they want it to be.

These activist judges have shown time and time again that they will use non Constitutional literature to base their opinions on such intent, as Black did. We only have to look at the current members of the Supreme Court who admit they look to foreign laws to base their opinions upon. Where in the constitution does it say we should look to foreign laws to interpret what the founding Fathers wrote in the constitution?

Another problem with the Bill is it is against the EEOC rules to limit religious freedom in the workplace. Courts have upheld the rights for free religious expression even in the workplace as long as they do not interfere with anyone's ability to properly carry out their task. Here is what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), say on religious freedom at the workplace.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964
(“Title VII”)
prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that:

* Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
* Employees cannot be required to participate -- or refrain from participating – in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
* Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
* Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
* Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.3

Now, we know that liberals often claim that proselytizing at work is not allowed. However, while the law is constantly changing with every new court challenge, it is currently permissible to a point. An employee does have a right to engage in religious conduct to the extent that it is not an undue hardship on the employer. Harassing another employee is likely to be an undue hardship. Recall, however, that harassment is a fairly high - but not impossible - standard. So, while the line between permissible proselytizing and workplace harassment is blurry, important factors that bear on the analysis include,

* the pervasiveness of the proselytizing
* its impact on coworkers (e.g., harassing them) and work performance (including profitability)and
* the capacity and willingness of the employer to take steps to accommodate the aggrieved parties, such as by moving the proselytizing employee and the offended employee to different work stations.

The Supreme Court, and lower courts have routinely upheld the language of the EEOC regulations on Freedom of religion in the workplace. The language in the legislation that Obama signed into law is not only unconstitutional, but it goes against the very laws put forth by the EEOC.

What this Bill represents is the over-reaching of an administration that wants to get it all done in the first 3 months, so we end up with an 86 page, shoddily written document that leaves way too much open for interpretation. It is my belief that this legislation is unconstitutional in the way it is written, and will face a court challenge in the future. If history is any indicator we can expect different judges to rule differently.

Another thing to take into consideration, is that Obama only needs one extra judge on the Supreme Court to tip the balance of the court in his favor. So like I said I did error in my assertion about the extent of this Bill's control, but it is already unconstitutional the way it is written, and only one bad ruling away from being what I warned about.

Remember to think about what my "original intent" was, and you can find that by reading the second paragraph of this comment. Again I apologize for my error in the wording of my statement.

Obama's Ungodly Youth Corp

by Chuck Ness

What is it about socialists, that makes them despise religion? It seems that whenever a Socialist wins an election that gives them the ultimate power in a country, the first thing they try to do is remove religion as a force in that society. Oh it's not done in a way that the people realize it is happening. No, it's more covert and insidious in the way it is brought about. Usually it's done right under the noses of the very people who claim their ruler would never do such a thing. In America, religious persecution by the government has been brewing for a few generations.

The shot over the bow of religion was fired by Hugo Black, a former Ku Klux Klan member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR. In 1947 when Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion for Everson vs. Board of Education., he reinterpreted the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution by taking completely out of context a phrase used by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. By using the phrase “separation of church and state,” in his opinion, Justice Black limited the religious liberty of all Americans. Now after 62 years of constant government attack, Obama and Congress are about to take their godless agenda forward by disallowing college students the right to worship as they please.

Americans have been told that this is just a simple expansion of the national service programs. However, if the truth is to be told, Obama plans to build a million youth movement, who's members will be denied their right to religious freedom. (Think Hitlers Youth Core from NAZI Germany) This bill is sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from NY. The Bill, HR 1388, was passed by the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. The Bill moved to the Senate where it passed by a vote of 79 to 19 with one present vote, and on April 21st Obama signed it into law.

The “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act”, or GIVE. It is also known as the, “The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws." This Bill will, for all intents and purposes, combine John Kennedy's Peace Corps, Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and Obama's new “Youth Brigade” programs all together into massive program. The idea is to create a volunteer movement among the junior high, high school, and College aged youth of America. This movement will be a precursor of his larger plan for a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military. Obama’s plan begins with his requirement that anyone receiving school loans or who volunteer to serve at least three months as part of the brigade.

This all sounds fairley innocuous until you read the part of the bill that forbids any student in the program to participate in religious activities. The exact wording from section 132A of HR 1388 is as follows.

”Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization. “

In layman's terms that means, "This Bill could be interpreted by liberal courts that members of the Corp are disallowed from attending church services of any kind and never are they to witness about their faith to others."

Now I realize that leftists will try to say I am crazy for making such a statement. However, we have seen time and time again where schools and liberal judges have stopped students from sharing any and all religious (read Christian) related messages, and have disallowed all clothing with religious (read christian) statements on them along with prohibiting students from reading religious litterateur (read Christian) during their free time while at school.

My biggest frustration should be that so many Americans allowed the Democrats to get a super majority in both Houses of Congress while electing a President from the same party. Thus until we reduce the Democrat's super majority or put Republicans in control of one of the two houses of congress, the Democrats cannot be stopped from doing anything they so desire without any checks or balances. However, this bill got overwhelming support from both party's, since the Republicans joined the Democrats and voted for it. Thanks to Congress, Obama was able to tell God, "Leave Our Children Alone", with one stroke of his pen. Hitler did a similar thing when he told the church to worry about God and that he would take care of the people.

Now we could argue about whether Obama is a communist or if he is a fascist, personally I do not see much difference between the two philosophy's. Both destroy the will of men, because politically, both ideologies strive for an omnipotent, totalitarian, bureaucratic state that is the god of the people. Man exists at the behest and for the will of the state.

Economically, Communism totally abolishes private property, while Fascism on the other hand will allow you to own your property for the purposes of maintaining it for the state. Communism owns all industry, while Fascism owns the most important industries that have national interests, but allows citizens to own most of the less important businesses. (sound familiar?)

When it comes to religion, communism attempts to destroy all forms of it. Fascism on the other hand could care less about religions as long as the citizens do not hold their religion to be more important than the state. Christianity is dangerous because it is the only religion who's devout followers have proven through the years that we will not reject our God nor violate His laws to appease the state.

The greatest obstacle for those who have constantly tried to move America from capitalism to socialism, has been our adherence to our Judaeo Christian beliefs. The founding fathers gave credit to the Christian God in the preamble, not the state, for our rights. They started a tradition where they began all official government business with prayers to a Christian God. The children were raised to know and believe in the Christian God. For many years, the Bible was the only reading material in most of the schools of early America.

It wasn't until after Hugo Black reinterpreted the meaning of the phrase, "Freedom of Religion" in 1947 that the Bible, Christian literature, prayer, and even the name of Jesus Christ Himself began getting banned from the schools our children attend. Now, we learn that with the stroke of a pen, we are but one Judge away from the high court ruling that this legislation in fact does stop our children from attending a church as long as they are taking government money to go to school, or if they volunteer for Obama's “ Ungodly Youth Brigade”.

Ephesus; The Loveless Church

The first church Christ mentions to John in the book of Revelations is Ephesus, which means darling. With over 300,000 people, Ephesus was the largest city and the Capital of the Asian Province. Founded by Paul around 50 AD it was also the location of the third ecumenical council in 431 AD. With an important seaport it boasted of being the home of the Greek goddess Diana, known to the Romans as Artemis the moon goddess, and to the Asiatic as the nursing mother of gods, men, animals, and plants. The Temple of Artemis was one of the seven ancient wonders of the world whose goddess was commercialized as a trinket god supplying great wealth to the local silversmiths. Paul’s preaching interfered with the commerce of this idol and aroused violent opposition from the merchants (Acts 19:23-25).


At the time when Paul founded this church hardly anyone there knew of the true Gods temple. Now, two thousand years later, no one knows of Artemis. This ancient wonder was burnt and rebuilt and finally destroyed, and the world is better for that destruction. Meanwhile the true temple is majestically nearing completion with new members being added to the Lambs Book of life every day. Christ recognized the Ephesians tireless perseverance in bearing up under trial for His name’s sake, and how they opposed false apostles like the heretical Nicolaitians; (Rev 2:2-3; Rev 2:5). However, he reproved them for having left their first love, (Rev 2:4) and admonished them to remember where they had fallen from, (Rev 2:5). They are warned to repent and return to their first works or else He will come and remove the candlestick out of its place, (Rev 2:5). As a reward to all those who overcome and persevere, the fruit from the tree of life is offered. Those who allegorize the churches to represent the different ages match Ephesus with the early church age roughly from 33 AD to 70 AD, marking the fall of Jerusalem.

Politics and Religion

Most people would agree that politics and religion are the two most likely topics that divide even the best of friends. Websters dictionary says that politics is the political opinions or sympathies of a person, while it says that religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. I don’t see the difference between the two.

When I watch elected officials on the floor of the US Senate or House, I am reminded of an old friend of mine who pastors a church in Columbus, Georgia. He will flail his arms all around as he preaches his views on the Holy Scriptures. If your in agreement with their opinion, you could easily get engrossed as you listen to them share their deep-seated and fervent beliefs in such an animated way. Continue reading

Politics & Religion, Do They Mix?

by Chuck Ness

Most people would agree that politics and religion are the two most likely topics that divide even the best of friends. Websters dictionary says that politics is the political opinions or sympathies of a person, while it says that religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. I don’t see the difference between the two.

When I watch elected officials on the floor of the US Senate or House, I am reminded of an old friend of mine who pastors a church in Columbus, Georgia. He will flail his arms all around as he preaches his views on the Holy Scriptures. If your in agreement with their opinion, you could easily get engrossed as you listen to them share their deep-seated and fervent beliefs in such an animated way.

Delusions of Evolution

It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, most who believe these words cannot answer the questions raised by the thousands of fossils that archeologist's have dug up and claim are millions of years old. We are told that such methods as Radiocarbon tests to find the levels of Carbon-14 remaining in fossils, U-Pb dating of volcanic materials to determine how long ago lava cooled, helioseismic dating to get a helium diffusion age in the field of astrophysics, and many more scientific fields and the methods they use can baffle the minds of even the most educated believers of God. Depending on what poll you read, this vast amount of technology has convinced 30% to 40% of believers that God must have used evolution in His creative process.

However, what if I told you that many scientists, archaeologists, biochemists, physicists, micro biologists, and astronomers disagree with most of the findings and conclusions by today's evolutionist experts? Some of these men even go so far as to challenge the very idea that the universe is billions of years old. It is important to remember that the age of the universe is directly related to the science used to convince people of the age of planet earth.


Other then a few probes and the space station we cannot physically investigate anything but earth and maybe some small samples from the moon and what asteroids have hit the earth. All the evidence we have for the age of the universe is tied directly to their theory of the earth's age. So if the earth is proven to be young, then the evidence for an old universe crumbles. Then along with the age of the universe crumbling, so does the possibility of evolution. Now that is where these many learned men come in to the picture. These scientists have presented so much evidence that points to intelligent design, that they have put into question the very methods used by evolutionists.


Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalezand his collaborators have created the concept of the Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ). The GHZ defines the region of the Milky Way Galaxy that is most habitable to complex life. His concept involves a number of situations that must exist for life to occur. When taken into account we see that we are not only unique but special in our planets ability to sustain life and to discover what is in the universe. Gonzalez's investigation has proven that Carl Sagan was wrong when he said there are millions of other earths full of life like ours.


What Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys, has done is taken those who base their theories of age on helioseismic testing to task. After repeatedly ran experiments that measure how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated helium escapes from tiny radioactive crystals in granite-like rock. The data shows that most of the helium generated by nuclear decay would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian2 age of the rock, and there would be very little helium in the crystals today. But the crystals still retain large amounts of helium, amounts these experiments show are entirely consistent with an age of only thousands of years.

Then we have biochemist Michael Behe, author of “Darwin's Black Box” who points out that molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex. Like a mouse trap that can not function without all the parts available to work at the same time, so to do the machines at the molecular level of cells. This irreducible complexity discounts minute changes that needs to be done for evolution to work.


Add to them such scientists as nuclear physicist Robert Gentry, geophysicist John R. Baumgardner, and many other highly educated scientists and professors from a vast array of fields that have evidence the earth is either not millions of years old or that evolution is a bad theory at best? All these men have another thing in common besides their work that proves a God created us and everything we see. They have all at one time or another been persecuted and attacked for there stance by secular academia and the media.

Now it is very understandable that they would get heated debates about there findings, but to be targeted and threatened with the loss of their very livelihood, reminds one of what the church did to Galileo for daring to say the earth revolves around the sun. Like the many scientists and experts who come out against the idea that global warming is caused by man, these men should be hailed as heroes. If, for no other reason then they dare to question the modern day evolutionists I call, “The Flat Earthers”.