Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part I

/in , , , /by

There’s a graphic floating around Facebook that’s entitled, “So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful?” and it goes on to use a flowchart to suggest that it’s both logical and sensible to embrace Homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Biblical standpoint (see image to the right).

The first red flag is that it doesn’t reference any specific chapter or verse. Beyond that, there’s some stuff there that sounds plausible, but after you pop the hood and do some digging, you discover that it’s not credible at all.

Here we go:

Objection:  Jesus Never Uttered a Word About Same Sex Relationships.

Overruled: Jesus endorsed the Law as being valid and in so doing established homosexuality as being a sin. In addition, Jesus was God in the flesh and in light of the fact that God dictated the whole of Scripture, it is therefore nonsensical to claim that Christ had nothing to say on the matter.

Jesus Endorsed the Old Testament as Being Valid Correct. Jesus never taught on the subject, but Jesus endorsed Old Testament Law as being valid in Matthew 5:17 and that would include God’s specific outlawing of homosexuality. Take a look:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev 18:22 [see also Lev 20:13])

Homosexuality is Referenced as a Sin Throughout Scripture In addition, it’s referenced in the New Testament which demonstrates that this is a moral sin that rates a special emphasis in God’s mind in that it shows up throughout Scripture and not just in the New Testament.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom 1:27)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (1 Cor 6:9)

We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers,[a] liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (1 Tim 1:9-10)

Jesus is God Another thing to consider is that Jesus is God in the flesh:

I and the Father are one. (Jn 10:30 [see also John 1:1-2; 5:17-18;Heb 1:3])

When Jesus says, “I and the Father are One,” He’s saying that He and God are the same thing. The Greek word means “one and the same,” not “one person, “ but akin to two different names for the same thing. That’s why Calvary worked because it was God Himself Who was paying the penalty for our sins and not just a noble substitute. So if Jesus is God and vice versa, then to suggest that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality is pointless. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says the entire Bible is God-breathed so Jesus’ perspective on the subject is well represented throughout the Bible in that it is God’s Word and Jesus is God.

Objection: The OT also says it’s sinful to eat shellfish, to wear clothes woven with different fabrics and to eat pork? Should we still live by OT laws?

Overruled: God’s condemning of homosexuality is not limited to the Old Testament Law as has already been mentioned. In addition, the portion of the law that is being referenced here is the judicial law which was fulfilled in Christ. The moral law, however, endures and that includes the condemnation of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is Referenced Throughout Scripture Two things: First off, homosexuality is condemned throughout Scripture so to limit one’s scope to the Old Testament alone and attempt to justify homosexuality by saying it’s an Old Testament law and therefore obsolete is to ignore the way in which it is addressed in the New Testament:

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom 1:27)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:8-10)

We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching. (1 Tim 1:9-10 [HCSB])

While the Old Testament Law Pertaining to Ceremonial and Judicial Specifics Were Fulfilled in Christ, the Moral Law Still Applies In addition, it’s important to realize that while the ceremonial and judicial aspects of Old Testament Law having been fulfilled, the moral law still applies. Here are the OT passages that are deal with the wearing of clothes made of two different fabrics and the eating of shellfish:

Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. (Lev 11:9-10)

Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. (Lev 19:19)

And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. (Lev 11:7-8)

Why God prohibited the consumption of some animals or the wearing of certain types of clothing is speculative. But there are a couple of things about what was going on historically that allow these directives to make some sense.

Israel was surrounded by pagan nations whose practices included the combining of fabrics and different types of seed as part of religious rituals. Moses Maimonides (1135 – 1204) wrote that: “the heathen priests adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal materials, while they held in their hand a seal of mineral. This you will find written in their books.”1

So there’s good reason to believe that one of the reasons that God directed the Israelites to not mix seed or fabrics or different kinds of animals is because by doing so you were engaging in behaviors that were recognized as idolatrous.

As far as why you were to not eat marine life lacking in fins or scales, again it’s possible that due to the diet of the typical pagan, which included shellfish, God was putting up some guard rails that would make it difficult to even eat with those who despised the Lord.2

The point that’s being made the “So You Think Homosexuality is Sinful?” crowd is that if all of these instructions were valid in antiquity, yet not relevant in today’s world then why should God’s command pertaining to homosexuality be any different? If we no longer concern ourselves with combining different types of fabric or abstaining from eating certain types of food, why should homosexuality be an issue?

In the New Testament, Jesus addressed the dietary restrictions that had been established through Moses by saying that it wasn’t what went into a man that made him unclean, rather it was what came out of him that reflected the true condition of his heart. Consider the following:

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”) (Mk 7:17-20 [see also 1 Tim 4:3-5])

Jesus often qualified the Law by quoting it and then elaborating on it in order for people to get beyond the letter of the Law and instead obey the spirit and the original intent of the Law. That’s what he was getting at in Matthew 5:17:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matt 5:17)

Some will mistakenly interpret Jesus’ quoting the Law as His having a disdain for what He had Moses document centuries before in that He would often add some commentary to what was on the books. Here’s the thing: The word, “fulfill” doesn’t mean to fill out, as in to add something that was lacking. Rather, it means to fill up. In other words, the law was perfect in its content and purpose which was to identify sin. Paul states that in Romans 7:12 when he refers to the law as holy, righteous and good. Without the law, we wouldn’t recognize sin for what it is nor could we appreciate the need for a Savior and that was the ultimate purpose of the law.

When Jesus said that He wasn’t seeking to abolish the law, He was highlighting the fact that He was the Savior that law had been pointing to since its conception. He says in Matthew 5:18:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matt 5:18)

In this one verse, you have an amazing collection of Truths that represent the substance of the gospel. When Jesus died on the cross, the ceremonial part of the Law was fulfilled in that no sacrifices would ever be needed again to atone for sin because Jesus was God’s one time, sacrifice for sin. You see that in 1 Peter 3:18:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, (1 Pet 3:18)

The judicial aspect of the law was the way in which God uniquely dealt with Israel (Lev 26:46; Ps 147:19). It’s in the context of this law that you find the dietary restrictions and instructions pertaining to apparel. But when Israel rejected the Messiah and put Him to death, that was the end of Israel’s distinction as “God’s people” and the beginning of the church which was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. Hence the abrogation of judicial law, not that it was destroyed but fulfilled in Christ.

Take a look at some of what John MacArthur offers in the way of commentary on this issue:

Look at it this way; this is thrilling. Look at the judicial law and all the various rules that governed the behavior of Israel, all their legal codes, all the things they were supposed to do. Leviticus 26:46, “The statutes and ordinances and laws which the LORD made between Himself and the children of Israel.”

God made special laws with Israel. In Psalm 147:19, “He declares His word to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt so with any nation.” In other words, God had peculiar laws for Israel; this is His judicial law which set them apart. They had certain dietary laws, certail laws of dress, of agriculture, laws within their relationships with certain things they had to do. These set them apart.

You say, “How did Jesus fulfill that?” When Jesus died on the cross, that was the final, full rejection by Israel of her Messiah, right? That was it. And that was the end of God dealing with that nation as a nation. The judicial law that He gave to Israel passed away when God no longer dealt with them as a nation anymore and Jesus built His church. Praise God, someday He will go back and redeem that nation again and deal with them again as a nation. But for this time, when Jesus died on the cross, the judicial law came to a screetching halt. There was no more national people of God. There would be a new man, cut out of Jews and Gentiles, that would be called the church. The judicial law came to an end. That’s why Matthew 21:43 says, “Therefore I say to you, the Kingdom of God will be taken from you.” (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2209/christ-and-the-law-part-1)

The one aspect of God’s Law that still applies, however, is His moral law. Not that we need to concern ourselves with the penalty that comes when you disobey His moral law, but as far as how it defines what is right and what is wrong – that aspect of God’s moral law is still binding. John MacArthur elaborates on that point when he says:

The same thing is said in Romans 6:14, and we could spend forever on this principle. “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law.” What does he mean, that you don’t have to do anything any more? Do you not have to live a moral life or obey God? No! What he means is that you are no longer under the power of the penalty of the law. It can’t kill you anymore; you can only die once. That’s all, only once. Christ died on the Cross, and you, by faith, died in Him. That pays the penalty, so in that sense, you are no longer under the law. That is, the law has no power to slay you. The law had a penalty, the wages of sin is death, and Christ took the penalty. (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2211/christ-and-the-law-part-3)

The whole judicial system was only good as long as Israel was God’s people. When that was over, the system was over. The ceremonial system was only good until the final sacrifice came, and when it came, then the system was done away. That only leaves one element of God’s law abiding still, and what is that? The moral law. That’s what undergirded everything. That will be with us until we see Him face to face. (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2209/christ-and-the-law-part-1)

So to imply that the Old Testament laws which no longer apply to the New Testament church include God’s ruling against homosexuality is neither Biblical let alone logical.

Proceed to Part II by clicking here…

The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One: FIT

/in , , , /by

Facts

There are three kinds of “data.” “Facts” “Facts” are accurate statements. Think of them as headlines. For example:

  • Headline #1: Jesus Rises From the Grave
  • Headline #2: Pharisees Accuse Christ Followers of Stealing Corpse of Christ

Both of these statements are accurate. While we know Christ did, in fact, rise, the Pharisees also paid the guards that were guarding the tomb a large sum of money to back up the story that the disciples had stolen the body (Matt 28:11-15).

What’s significant is that for someone who’s just glossing over the headlines, the verbiage, albeit very brief, can still shape conclusions for those who don’t take the time to consider the full account.

That leads us to the second category:

Information

“Information” is the “facts” in the context of a limited perspective. A journalist could build a compelling yet misleading article by strategically citing the chief priests, the guards who had been bribed and any one of a number of like minded people.

Can you see the article in your mind’s eye (click here to read “Experts Doubt the Resurrection of Christ” to see an example)?

By steering clear of any testimony that differs from the accounts of the judiciously selected individuals compiled by the hypothetical journalist, you’ve got an article that’s legitimately accurate (facts) and informative (limited perspective). But because the perspective of the article is limited, while there’s nothing directly stated, there is nevertheless an implication that says Christ is dead and unless the reader is inspired to seek out a more comprehensive perspective, assuming he’s even aware that one is available, he’s waking around sporting a very cynical outlook on the first Easter morning.

Information.

Limited perspective.

Finally, the last category of “data” is…

Truth

Truth is an accurate statement that’s been elaborated on in the context of a full perspective. This is the well you want to be drawing your conclusions from. Here is where the right questions are being asked and full disclosure is the norm.

In the absence of “truth,” you risk formulating convictions that are fundamentally flawed. This is why you want to ensure that you’re aggressively and intentionally seeking out the “truth,” and not just the “facts.” You don’t even want to be content with “additional information.” The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The Treaty of Tripoli

If you’re familiar with the words of the “Marines Hymn,” then you’re familiar with the phrase, “…the shores of Tripoli.” That phrase refers to the “War with the Barbary Pirates” where Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon lead an exceptionally daring assault as part of the Battle of Dema. Prior to that war President John Adams issued a statement in an effort to assure the radical Muslims that comprised the Barbary Pirates that our country should not be perceived by them as a religious target in that we were not a Christian theocracy. He said:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (Treaty of Tripoli).

Most of those who try to take Adams words to mean that he was declaring that the United States was not based on Christian principles are required to leave out some context that is both obvious and crucial. But that is nevertheless the methodology that is often used by the person who has something to hide more so than they have something to say.

Thomas Essel, despite being among those who seemingly do not see God as central to our nation’s founding, wrote a great piece in 2016 entitled, “Secularists, Please Stop Quoting the Treaty of Tripoli” that elaborates on how citing that statement is irresponsible both academically and practically.

Consider this quote from John Adams:

“This would be the best of all worlds if there were no religion in it!”

On the surface, you have, what appears to be, a very valid piece of evidence that says our nation’s second President and a founding father was an atheist. Or, at least, a very cynical individual when it came to religion.

John Adams did say it. It’s part of a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson. When you consider the statement in its proper context, you arrive at a much different conclusion:

“Twenty times in the course of my late readings, I have been on the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all worlds if there were no religion in it!’ But in this exclamation I should have been as fanatical as [Adams’ former pastor Lemuel] Bryant or [his former teacher Joseph] Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company — I mean hell.”

In other words, Adams is exasperated when he ponders the way in which organized religion has resulted in so much tension. He says, tongue in cheek, that the world would be better without any “religion” in it. But then he’s very quick to say that the world would be, literally, hell on earth. Hardly the musings of a man who views religion with a contemptuous sneer.

Yet, this is the way in which atheists and progressives sometimes frame their “facts” and “information” when it comes to the religious disposition of America’s founding fathers (see also “The Treaty of Tripoli” on sidebar).

Richard Dawkins categorizes John Adams as a cynical deist, to the point of him being used by Dawkins as evidence of a collective disdain for religion shared by virtually all the founding fathers. He quotes Adams as saying:

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”1

But he fails to reference another statement made by Adams:

The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern Times, the Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and humanity, let the Blackguard [Thomas] Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is Goodness itself to Man.2

Facts.

Information.

Truth. You want to know the truth, you want to be aware of the facts, but more than anything else, you want to understand the truth.

A Toddler and a 285 Pound Benchpress

As a quick aside, don’t allow yourself to think that being obedient to God’s commands is a laborious drudgery.

It’s not.
When you’ve got the Holy Spirit living in and through you, you’re not flying solo when you’re confronted with a temptation to make compromises (1 Cor 10:13). When the lights aren’t on (aka, the Holy Spirit is not living in you), you’re approaching temptation the same way a toddler approaches a 285 pound bench press. It’s not going to end well.
But when it’s God’s Strength and His Truth that is allowed to animate your actions and your outlook, you now have more than you need to successfully negotiate the challenge that lies before you.

Bear in mind, it’s a choice. You can run the red light and plow head on into traffic if you want and God grants you the freedom to make those decisions (Josh 24:2, 15; Rom 8:12-13). As someone who doesn’t have a relationship with Christ, you don’t have the Spirit of God living in you (Rom 8:9), you’re on your own and you’re that overwhelmed toddler.
But when it’s God’s Spirit being deployed in the context of those situations, it’s one victory after another.

The Book of Proverbs

Scripture admonishes us to do as much. Proverbs 4:7 says:

Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. (Prove 4:7)

And wisdom begins with a reverence for God. That’s the top button.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Prov 9:10)

Understand that wisdom, from a biblical standpoint, is more than just knowledge. It’s the “ability to judge correctly and to follow the best course of action, based on knowledge and understanding.”3

While this “ability” is based in part on one’s discipline in the context of academic pursuits, it derives it’s true accuracy and application from an intentional pursuit of God’s Power and Perspective. In short, it’s a Divine Perspective properly applied (1 Cor 2:16; Col 1:29; Jas 1:5-8.

Here, then, is where you see the real distinction between having access to the directions and actually following the directions –  the difference between Facts, Information and Truth.  Anytime you buy something that requires some assembly, you can gloss over the instructions, believing that your intuition can more than make up for a careful study of the manufacturer’s counsel. More often than not, however, those instructions prove invaluable in being able to put your new resource together correctly. And however prudent it may be to follow the instructions in the assembly of your nephew’s new swing set, it’s absolutely crucial that you follow God’s Instructions when it comes to the whole of life (Jn 14:21; Rom 8:11).

And when you’re listening to people like Richard Dawkins, or people who think like him, use the same technique. Recognize the difference between Facts, Information and Truth.

Don’t let a carefully crafted platform based on an intentionally watered down perspective replace the full perspective and the truly accurate convictions that flow from that approach.

Click here to read “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part Two: What About Prayer?”

1. “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press, Great Britain, 2006, p65
2. John Adams, The Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L.H. Butterfield (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1962), 3:233-34
3. Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986, Nashville, TN

Who Makes the Rules?

/in , , , /by

So, here’s what happened: The “Gay Pride” Club at Independence High School built a float that was featured as part of the Homecoming parade that drove around the High School, down 31 and then made a lap around Heritage Elementary and Heritage Middle School.

It’s a big tradition and the Kindergarteners along with the Grade Schoolers are allowed to sit outside and watch what amounts to a big parade coming close enough to where those who are on the floats can throw candy and wave hello. But at one point, two of the individuals on the “Gay Pride” float kissed…

Some saw that and felt an overwhelming sense of disgust and threw a fit. Others saw it as a sign of the times and, while they don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle, accept it as a hill that’s not worth dying on because, after all, everyone has the, “…right to be happy.”

You can watch the clip and read the article by clicking here. It’s a volatile discussion, but there’s a key element that often gets overlooked that’s worth considering because in the end, there’s a lot more at stake than a person’s right to be happy. The real question is: Who Makes the Rules?

I) It’s a Strategy

First of all, the manner in which the Homosexual Agenda is advanced is done according to a strategy that’s characteristic of someone who has something to hide more than they have something to say. The moment you hear elements of that strategy being deployed, you can rest assured that what you’re hearing is not meant to champion the truth as much as it’s intended to distract from it.

Typically the Homosexual Activist positions themselves as a victim of a cruel and intolerant society that’s determined to prevent them from being able to exercise their right to be happy. However that may or may not be the case, the fact that you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled as insensitive and inappropriate is a handy tool in the hands of someone who needs to avoid those questions that have the potential to reveal their argument as being weak apart from a controlled collection of polls, pictures and personalities.

In this case, the issue isn’t whether or not the Homosexual has the right to be happy as much as they have the authority to redefine Moral Absolutes. That’s the question on the table. And that’s why it’s necessary to frame the entire conversation around the “victim,” because otherwise it becomes too obvious that there’s a resolve to either manipulate or dismiss the Bible in a way that’s neither accurate let alone appropriate. That’s why characterizing those who have a problem with Homosexuality as being guilty of “fear and hate” can be so effective because now you can divert attention away from what the real issue is: Who Makes the Rules?

click here to watch Frank Peretti’s
“God’s Way or My Way”

II) Who Makes the Rules

You’ve got one of two options: Man or God. Granted, for some, there’s a lot to unpack there. But the point is this: It’s not about a person’s “right to be happy.” You can conceivably assert that as a way to justify almost whatever you want to do. The question is, “Who Makes the Rules?” And while that’s not a question people want to entertain in the context of a Homecoming Parade, that’s the other piece of this that makes this whole campaign so diabolical. By positioning their agenda in the context of something that is traditionally processed as healthy, patriotic or philanthropic, they compel those who would otherwise object to be silent because of the way any criticism will come across as inappropriate given the obvious noble nature of the event. But if the issue isn’t so much about one’s rights as much as it’s about what’s True… …then regardless of the event or the situation, we’re now looking at a completely different issue. Who Makes the Rules?

A) It’s What You Do Believe

However passionate or dogmatic a person may be in insisting that God has no place in a civilized conversation pertaining to morality, it’s not about what you don’t believe… …it’s what you do believe. There is a “god” in this equation – there is someone who’s calling the shots and defining the standard that you deem acceptable. And it’s one of two people. It’s either the God Who created the heavens and the earth and validated His Identity by dying and coming back to life, or… …the person who’s staring back at you in the mirror every morning when you wake up.

B) There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist

Atheists want to be perceived as having an impartial approach to the various faiths represented by the American population by insisting on a “religion-less” perspective on morality. But there is no such thing as a “religion-less” approach to anything, let alone morality. From a purely philosophical standpoint, “religion” is the way in which you answer four basic questions:

  • Origin – how did the universe come to be?
  • Destiny – what happens when you die?
  • Morality – how are you supposed to behave while you’re here?
  • Purpose – what’s the point of your existence?

These are not lofty, theological issues or advanced, philosophical themes that only academic types bother to engage. The way you process yourself and the world around you on a daily basis is based on the way you answer these questions and from that standpoint, you are a “religious” person regardless of how often you go to church, if you go at all. And from that standpoint, there’s no such thing as an atheist. You’re simply your own god – you’ve established yourself as your own religion. So, when you hear critics of Christianity or social activists insist that they represent a more judicious approach to moral issues and social tensions by removing the Bible from the conversation, they’re not leveling the playing field as much as they’re giving priority to that “religious” school of thought that establishes the individual as his own deity.

C) Not All Religions are the Same

And before you allow yourself to think that there is more than one “god” to choose from, bear in mind that Christianity is the only faith where man cannot facilitate his own salvation let alone merit the favor of his chosen deity. Every other religion, be it Islam where you’ve got the option of Jihad, or as a Buddhist you have the pursuit of Nirvana or as a Hindu, you have Moksha – every other doctrine, save what’s represented by the gospel, positions the individual as the one who can achieve their own redemption. In other words, you don’t need a god to achieve the highest good or obtain a perfect existence. You can rise above the limitations of humanity simply by being, “better.” Christ, on the other hand, says there’s no amount of noble activity or disciplined sacrifice that can alter the fact that your capacity to sin translates to a perpetual willingness to rebel against the One Who created you to begin with. Solomon says as much in Ecclesiastes 7:20:

Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. (Ecc 7:20)

And Paul reiterates the same thing in Romans 3:10-18:

10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” 14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom 3:10-18)

In short, you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1-7) and it’s God and God alone that makes you alive. The only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that made it necessary (Jn 6:65).

D) There is No Comparison

So, no, not every religion is the same and although a person can sound articulate and even compelling as they elaborate on what it is that they don’t believe, it’s when they start elaborating on what they do believe in that the temporary and relative dynamics they they subscribe to are revealed as the veiled attempt to make mathematical absurdities, philosophical train wrecks and moral disasters sound fulfilling. Not only is not fulfilling, it isn’t even logical.

But you can’t expect anything more from a spiritual paradigm based on the limited and corrupt perspective that defines the human condition. On one hand, I have the option of believing I’m a lucky accident desperately trying to explain and validate my existence before my expiration date…

or…

I’ve been created with a purpose by an all-Powerful God Who loved me enough to sacrifice Himself in order to ensure a life that’s worth living.

There is no comparison.

I’ll take the option that defines me as an intentional creation that doesn’t depend on a human mechanism to grant me meaning, value and love.

III) Breakdown and Conclusion

So, while on the surface this issue appears to be whether or not a certain people group has the right to be happy, the real issue is whether or not they have the Authority to redefine Moral Absolutes.

Initially, that response doesn’t work because Moral Absolutes do not exist in the minds of those who maintain themselves as their own bottom line and to try and convince them otherwise is virtually impossible because of the way they frame their argument in the context of a victim. You can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain, let alone the person who’s trying to help without immediately be labeled as cruel and intolerant which gives the Homosexual Activist the ability to champion their platform without ever having to substantiate it.

But in order for your argument to resonate as compelling, you have to be able to base your reasoning on something other than personal preferences because if you don’t believe in God and the Moral Absolutes that He has established, then you’ve replaced every bottom line you would use to validate your perspective with a temporary and transient commodity that has no credibility apart from whatever substance you assign to it.

That may sound reasonable, but if everything is relative, than you yourself are relative and everything is therefore inconclusive. In short, you don’t have an argument, only a preferred alternative rooted in a self absorbed mindset that has no chance of being validated because of the way it attempts to make itself it’s own philosophical foundation. And not only is it an epic fail from a logical standpoint, the end result of a resolve to establish one’s self as their own god is an empty and altogether pointless existence compared to the Compassion and Intentional Design represented by the Message of the Gospel and the Power of God.

The Homosexual Platform is not a demand for equal rights or an innocent desire to simply be happy as much as it’s an instance of an individual going up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and telling Him to get out of their chair. They’re basically asserting themselves as the answer to the question, “Who makes the rules?” And when they do that, they’re ignoring what God has said, Who God is and who we are in relation to Him.

SCiPP (pronounced “Skip!”)

/in , , , /by

SCiPP

It’s difficult not to notice a common thread amongst all of the criticisms leveled at President Trump. Regardless of the subject matter, it seems to come down to one thing that’s far more profound than mere Politics.

It’s the extent to which you’re willing to acknowledge a bottom line that exists independently of the way an individual thinks or feels.

There are two ways in which a person is going to process themselves and the world around them.

They’ll see things either in the context of Standards and Consequences or…

Preferences and Power.

Think of it as “SCiPP” (pronounced as “Skip”).

This simple acrostic captures the tension that exists in our society today, regardless of the topic or the parties involved.

On one hand, you have a standard that functions either as a boundary or a benchmark. It can be a situation where if you cross that line, you’re responsible for your actions and you have to suffer the consequences. Or, it can be a standard of excellence that if you meet or exceed that standard, you’re able to enjoy the benefits.

Standards and Consequences.

On the other hand…

You have a perspective that’s determined to dismiss any concept of having to answer to something other than what you might prefer in that moment. And because you can’t logically defend what you believe and why you believe it without sounding either selfish or foolish, you instead work to secure the power necessary to ensure your preferences  are prioritized above any standard that might otherwise apply.

Preferences and Power.

Again, it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about.

You’re either looking at what’s real or the way you feel.

Standards and Consequences. Preferences and Power.

SCiPP.

Whatever the Topic May Be

Whether the topic is Illegal Immigration, Transgenderism, Abortion, Voter Fraud, the Separation of Church and State, or Militant Islam, the schools of thought that argue back and forth will inevitably fall into one of those two camps.

Standards and Consequences Preferences and Power
Illegal Immigration
National sovereignty is acknowledged and due process is applied accordingly both to those who have no criminal record as well as those who are engaged in criminal activity and / or are categorized as international terrorists. Border security is ignored and any criminal activity that would qualify an illegal immigrant for immediate deportment is overlooked.
Does the Attorney General have the legal authority to deport illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity?
Transgender
You can’t change the way the human species is designed just because you’re not happy with who you are. I can change who and what I am by changing my pronouns.
Question: Can a person change their gender by changing their pronouns?
Racism
I can’t shoot myself in the foot and then blame all my pain on the person or the principle that told me not to pull the trigger to begin with. As long as I can successfully position myself as a victim, I don’t have to answer any questions or take responsibility for my actions.
Question: Do you base the way a person is evaluated on their color or their conduct?
Abortion
If you have an abortion, your baby doesn’t get a chance to live. It’s not a baby until I decide it is.
Question: If you have an abortion, does your baby get the opportunity to live?
Voter Fraud
Fraud is defined according to the lack of integrity in the way votes are cast. Fraud is defined according to whether or not I win the election.
Question: Is voter fraud defined according to the person being elected or the votes being cast?
Separation of Church and State
The separation of church and state was designed to limit government’s influence on Christianity, not the other way around. I don’t have to pay attention to anything I’m not comfortable with.
Question: What is our national motto?
Militant Islam
You can’t take what doesn’t belong to you. Whether it’s a life or a piece of property, I can take whatever I want.
Question: What’s the difference between a thief and religious zealot if they’re both taking what doesn’t belong to them?

 

In order to have a double standard, you have to have a standard to begin with. This is why it can be so exasperating to talk with someone whose disposition is based on Preferences and Power. There are no standards, only situations.

All the boundaries otherwise established by logic, common sense, the rule of law, and historical truths are now subordinated to the idea that there are no realities apart from what the individual is willing to acknowledge. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed as either unreliable or irrelevant and truth isn’t an objective reality, as much as it’s a matter of opinion.

Facts Don’t Matter

Confronted with this scenario, you can’t hope to successfully champion what’s true simply by enumerating a list of facts.

The only facts they’re willing to acknowledge are those that can be manipulated to reinforce their bias, and their “fact checkers” evaluate what’s being said using only the criteria that translates to their desired conclusion. Nothing is “true,” in the context of being an absolute. There’s only what an individual is willing to acknowledge according to their personal preferences.

Everyone’s capable of ignoring what’s true in favor of what’s preferred. It’s human nature to protect yourself from either getting hurt or even corrected. No one wants to admit they’re wrong. But there’s a difference between someone who’s not convinced and the person who simply wants to be in control.

You can see that distinction in the way a person responds to something that’s being said. The person who wants to be in control can’t defend their perspective without being revealed as both selfish and nonsensical. So, instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they assault the character of the one who’s speaking. By casting those they can’t refute as being ignorant villains, they are now perceived as sophisticated victims, and you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain.

This is the signature tactic of the person who sees themselves as their own bottom line. I can’t get you to agree with me, so I get you to feel sorry for me by insisting that the only people who criticize me are either stupid or sinister, and this is how they obtain the power necessary to force society to adopt their insanity all in the name of being “sensitive.”

But you can reveal the flawed nature of their approach by asking the right questions.

Bottom Lines…

33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Rom 9:33)

Bottom lines – absolute truth – isn’t welcome in the bind of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. This is why there’s so much animosity in our culture today when it comes to anything that implies a Standard that exists independently of the way a person wants to process themselves and the world around them.

The Right Questions

When you ask a question, you control the conversation. A question requires an answer and a weak response is impossible to conceal. While it may not change the mind of the person you’re talking to, those who are listening are impacted and for that reason you want to always be ready to defend what’s True, not only with the data that reinforces the substance of your platform, but with the questions that can’t be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than the manufactured world you prefer.

Every one of the perspectives listed in the “Standards and Consequences” column in the chart above can be stated as a question. That’s what you see documented in the row beneath each issue. By asking the right question, it can be a game changer in the way it compels an answer that must recognize an empirical standard in order for it to make any sense.

Conclusion: These Are Spiritual Contests

Divisions (1 Cor 1:10) and Darkness (2 Cor 4:4) are spiritual contests (Eph 6:12) that aren’t won by reason alone. Wisdom is available (Jas 1:5), but it has to be chosen and it is not an option to the person who refuses to consider anything other than what they want to see.

You can’t convince someone of the truth if they’re philosophically invested in a lie. You’re not challenging their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to define what’s right according to what they prefer.

But you can nevertheless be effective in the way you champion what’s true by first of all recognizing the way people define truth.

Standards and Consequences vs Preferences and Power.

By identifying their mindset, you can be better prepared to ask the right questions and not just present all the relevant evidence.

 

Division

/in , , /by

People who complain about Division fall into one of two categories.

  • Those who focus on the presence of tension.
  • Those who focus on the absence of truth.

People who lament the presence of tension don’t want to be evaluated, they just want to be accommodated. By pretending to be in pain, they don’t have to prove that they’re right because you can’t criticize or correct someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel and intolerant. So, instead of focusing on what’s causing the division, as far as determining who’s right and who’s wrong, the truth is discarded in favor of simply insisting that we all just need to get along and silencing those who dare to assert the reality of a bottom line.

The Bible says…

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. (1 Cor 11:17-19)

You don’t resolve a dispute by pretending it doesn’t exist. Nor do you solve a moral dilemma by suggesting that there are no principles only preferences.

You don’t use legal sounding verbiage to validate a lie. Rather, you use the power of truth to enforce the law.

But those who are a law unto themselves will insist that there are no standards, only situations. They need a toxic and nonsensical environment in order to maintain the idea that they are accountable to no one other than themselves. In order to distract attention from the moral and practical ruin that inevitably occurs, they position themselves as victims of an oppressive society and they call it…

…division.

What is Truth?

/in , , , , , /by

Truth, according to the dictionary, is “that which is in accordance with fact or reality.” But if the world you live in is a manufactured reality where you are the gauge by which all things are measured than all the boundaries that are otherwise established by logic, the rule of law, and even common sense are completely abolished and the only thing that remains is what best promotes the idea that no one can tell you what to do.

Bear in mind, the question isn’t whether or not you have a choice, as much as it’s whether or not you have the authority to redefine the difference between right and wrong. Your “right to be happy” is now the clause you use to justify stripping the concept of Truth of all its original meaning and power and reducing it to nothing more than a word you use to certify yourself as your own absolute.

Listen to the way a Liberal attempts to defend the way they think.

You can’t force your beliefs on me

If there is no fixed point of reference, then the Truth is nothing more than what you want to believe. You can’t point out the flaws in a Liberal’s argument because, in the absence of a standard that exists independently of a way you want to think or behave, there is nothing to correct.

You have no evidence

However irrefutable your proof may be, it can be dismissed simply by declaring it to be either unreliable or irrelevant. Not because of its lacking in substance, but because of the way a Liberal has empowered themselves with the ability to acknowledge only what they want to see.

White Supremacist / Nazi / Right Wing Extremism / Fascist

When a Liberal is confronted with a platform that threatens to reveal both the philosophical and practical dead ends represented by the way they think, they attack the character of the one who is speaking in order to distract from the substance of what’s being said.

Constitutional Crisis / Rule of Law

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law. If the Truth has been drained of all of its meaning and objectivity, than a crime doesn’t have to be committed, it can simply be spoken into existence. And what is illegal can be exonerated simply by changing the way in which it’s evaluated.

You can’t change the way a Liberal thinks in the context of a debate, because there is a philosophical investment represented by the way they process themselves and the world around them. That investment is not something you overcome with an argument. That’s not to suggest you shouldn’t be prepared to defend what you believe, but you want to be aware of the territory that you’re in because there’s more to this than statistics and subject matter experts.

You can always find someone to tell you what you want to hear and a Liberal can rightfully accuse you of being no different than those you would criticize if you come across as someone whose principles are nothing more than personal preferences.

The key is to focus on the authentic definition of Truth.

“…that which is in accordance with fact or reality.”

The Greek word for Truth as it’s used in Scripture is alethia (uh-LEH-thee-uh) which means “…cannot be hidden.”

The Truth can’t be hidden. Regardless of how it either resonates with your preferences or irritates your sensibilities, the Truth simply “is.”

You ask those questions that can only be answered in a way that acknowledges the Truth.

  • If you have an abortion, does your baby get a chance to live?
  • Do you have the right to give away other people’s money?
  • Can you enter the US legally without going through Customs?

That’s the way Christ did it in the New Testament and it’s an effective way of circumventing all the tactics that are otherwise deployed for the sake of keeping the conversation focused on what’s what’s preferred as opposed to what’s True.

It’s not what you think, it’s not how you feel, and it’s not necessarily what you heard.

What’s the Truth?

And before you try to answer that question, how to you define Truth?

Start there and then you’ll have a better idea of who you’re talking to and what’s going to make an impact.

Garcia

/in , /by

You’ve got to ask the right questions in order to arrive at the right conclusions.

1) Is Kilmar Albrego Garcia an illegal immigrant?

If the answer to that question is, “Yes,” then he is subject to deportation. He admitted to being here illegally as is documented on the Homeland Security report dated April 16, 2025.

2) Is he entitled to a hearing or can he be deported immediately?

Illegal immigrants are allowed a hearing, unless their conduct is criminal and / or they represent a threat to national security, which is just one of the “classes of deportable aliens” documented in 8 USC 1227. At that point, the Attorney General can deport them immediately.

3) Is he a member of MS-13, a Mexican gang that has been labeled a terrorist organization by the current administration?

MS-13 was declared a terrorist organization in February, 2025. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was validated as a member of MS-13 in October of 2019, according to a Department of Homeland Security Report.

In addition, when Garcia was arrested, he was apprehended alongside two other MS-13 gang members. Two other judges have confirmed him being affiliated with MS-13, Intelligence reports that he was involved in human trafficking and, at one point, his wife petitioned that a restraining order be filed against him.

All of this qualifies Garcia as a criminal and is subject to be deported immediately. The only “due process” that he qualifies for is immediate deportation according to the authority vested in the Attorney General.

4) Is this a Constitutional Crisis?

President Trump’s Executive Order isn’t a “Constitutional Crisis,” as much as it’s a restoration of the legal guardrails designed to promote national security and define the rights and responsibilities of both citizens and non-citizens.

These laws have been in place for decades. United States Code 1325 identifies the penalties for attempting to enter the United States illegally and was established in 1925. The authority of the Attorney General to immediately remove illegal immigrants was defined in 1952.

5) Is President Trump Ignoring the Supreme Court?
A) Things Have Changed Since 2019

The Supreme Court decision stated that Garcia was wrongfully deported because of a 2019 court order that prevented him from being sent back to El Salvador.

This is a part of that ruling…

The United States Government arrested Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and flew him to a “terrorism confinement center” in El Salvador, where he has been detained for 26 days and counting. To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador because he faced a “clear probability of future persecution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.” The Government has not challenged the validity of that order. KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA, ET AL. [Apr 10, 2025])

Two things stand out immediately.

I) Garcia Isn’t Just an Illegal Immigrant, He’s an International Terrorist

First, the government has evidence that Garcia is a part of MS-13 and to say that his arrest is “warrantless” and there is no basis in law for Garcia being deported represents an insane disregard for the obvious.

The press continually uses the word “alleged,” as though the evidence that identifies Garcia as a member of MS-13 is somehow speculative. His tattoos are readily recognized by those who are familiar with Mexican gang culture as indicators of his being a member of MS-13. It’s not the kind of thing that you dismiss by saying, “…they are interpreted that way” or the photo showing Garcia’s hand was Photoshopped.

Beyond that, however, you have the report detailing Garcia being arrested in March of 2019:

On 03/28/2019 at approximately 1427 hours, Detective ______ with the Hyattsville City Police observed four individuals loitering in the parking lot of the Home Depot located at 3301 East West Highway in Hyattsville, MD 20782. As Det. ______ approached the individuals, two of the individuals reached into their waistbands and discarded several unknown items under a parked vehicle. All four individuals were stopped by Hyattsville officers. Det. _____ immediately recognized Chrishyan HERNANDEZ-ROMERO aka “Bimbo” as a member of the MS-13 Sailors Clique. Two small plastic bottles containing marijuana was located on scene. All four individuals were transported back to District I for interviews.

Member of the Prince George’s County Gang Unit MS-13 Intelligence Squad have encountered Chrishyan HERNANDEZ-ROMERO on multiple occasions. He has an extensive criminal history for multiple assault, concealing dangerous weapons, burglary , and many other criminal offenses. He has also been found guilty of gang participation in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in December of 2018. Offices know HERNANDEZ-ROMERO to be an active MS-13 gang member with the Sailor’s Clique with the rank of “Observacion” and moniker of “Bimbo.”

Officers also interviewed Jose Guillerno DOMINGUEZ. During the interview officers observed tattoos of skulls covering their eyes, ears, and mouth. Officers know these kind of tattoos are indicative of the Hispanic gang culture. The tattoos are meant to represent “ver, oir y callar” or “see no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil.” He also had a tattoo of a devil on his left leg which officers know only higher ranking MS-13 gang members are allowed to get a tattoo with the horns. This represents power with MS-13. Officers made contact with a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Jose Guillerno DOMINGUEZ is an active MS-13 gang member with the Sailor’s Clique the rank of “Chequeo” with the moniker “Manico.”

Officers then interviewed Kilmar Armando ABREGO-GARCIA. During the interview, officers observed he was wearing a Chicago Bulls had and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears, and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations. Officers know such clothing to be indicative of Hispanic gang culture. The meaning of the clothing is to represent “ver, oir y callar” or “see no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil.” Wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with the MS-13. Officers contacted a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Kilmar Armando ABREGO-GARCIA is an active member of MS-13 with the Western clique. The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of “Chequeo” with the moniker of “Chele.”

Officers interviewed Jason Josue RAMIREZ-HERRA. During the interview officers were unable to determine his gang afflilation. Officers know MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang. Officers will continue to monitor Jason Josue RAMIREZ-HERRA for further gang activity. He was sent on his way without further incident.

This report doesn’t mention Garcia’s tattoos. It goes beyond any tats and instead references an informant who identifies Garcia, not just as a member of MS-13, but someone who has an official rank within its membership.

Secondly, the 2019 court order doesn’t say that Garcia shouldn’t be deported. He was to be removed from the US based on his being a member of MS-13 and a flight risk. Rather, it simply says that he shouldn’t be deported to El Salvador.

DECLARATION OF ROBERT L. CERNA

On October 10, 2019, an IJ ordered Abrego-Garcia’s removal from the United States but granted withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). This grant of protection prohibited his removal to El Salvador.

8.During the course of his proceedings, Abrego-Garcia remained in ICE custody because the Immigration Judge (IJ) with the Executive Office for Immigration Review denied Abrego-Garcia bond at a hearing on April 24, 2019, citing danger to the community because “the evidence show[ed] that he is a verified member of [Mara Salvatrucha] (‘MS-13’)]” and therefore posed a danger to the community. The IJ also determined that he was a flight risk. Abrego-Garcia appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this bond decision in an opinion issued on December 19, 2019, citing the danger Abrego-Garcia posed to the community.

9.On October 10, 2019, an IJ ordered Abrego-Garcia’s removal from the United States but granted withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). This grant of protection prohibited his removal to El Salvador. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland)

The news has repeatedly referred to as an “administrative error” on the part of the Trump administration. The “error” comes from the sworn testimony of Robert Cerna, the ICE Field Officer responsible for Garcia’s deportation.

Cerna overlooking the restraint that would’ve prevented Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador in 2019 doesn’t apply in the same way in 2025. Since then, Garcia has been defined as an MS-13 gang member, not just according to his tattoos and his ballcap, but also by two judges. This supersedes the court order issued in 2019, as is explained by Tom Holman:

“I don’t accept the term ‘error’ in Abrego Garcia,” Homan said. “There was an oversight, there was a withholding order. But the facts surrounding the withholding order had changed. He is now a terrorist, and the gang he was fearing, from being removed from El Salvador, no longer exists.”1

Conclusion

Enforcing immigration law was neither the goal nor the priority of the Biden administration. However illegal immigration translates to a host of problems ranging from economic instability to national security risks, the Democrat party sees them as as voters that can conceivably change the political demographics of the country and help sustain the strength of the Liberal element within the US. Hence, the verbiage used by some in Congress to describe illegal immigrants as “asylum seekers” and others in the media referring to them as “undocumented immigrants.” By positioning illegals as victims and the Democrat party as those who are “trying to help,” the security, sanctity, and the solvency of the country are compromised in the name of a false compassion that is nothing more than a dirty quest for power.

Here’s the bottom line:

  • Kilmar Abrego Garcia isn’t just an illegal immigrant, he’s an international terrorist.
  • Because he’s an international terrorist, the only due process that he’s entitled to is an expedited deportation
  • The Supreme Court is basing its position on an Immigration Law that says the Attorney General can’t deport an alien to their original country if by doing so it would put that alien’s life or freedom in jeopardy because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or a political opinion (USC 1231 (b) (3)(a)).
    But since then, Garcia has been identified as a member of a terrorist organization and no longer qualifies for that provision and he is therefore deportable (see USC 1227 Deportable aliens (a)(4)(B)).
  • Those who say the evidence that identify him as a member of MS-13 is “thin” or “unsubstantiated,” are overlooking a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence as well as having been positively identified by a reliable informant.

To quote DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia Mclaughlin…

“I think this illegal alien is exactly where he belongs—home in El Salvador. He was in our country illegally, he is from El Salvador, was born in El Salvador, and, oh, the media forgot to mention: He is a MS-13 gang member. The media would love for you to believe that this is a media darling, that he is just a Maryland father. Osama Bin Laden was also a father, and yet, he was not a good guy, and they actually are both terrorists. He should be in this El Salvador prison, a prison for terrorists, and I hope he will remain there.”

1.”Trump “border czar” Tom Homan says Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador wasn’t a mistake”, CBS News, By Adam Thompson, Updated on: April 29, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/border-czar-tom-homan-abrego-garcia-maryland-el-salvador-trump/, accessed May 17, 2025

Speaking Up When It Matters

/in , , , /by

It amazes me how some want to believe that you can separate church and state. Our Founding Fathers put the First Amendment in place, not to restrict Christianity’s influence on government, but to prevent the government from influencing Christianity. That was the culture back then and that was the foundation upon which our country was built. Don’t forget that every reference to “Providence” and “Creator” and the “Supreme Judge of the Universe” in the Declaration of Independence was addressed to King George who was, not only King of England, he was also the head of the Anglican Church. He didn’t process those titles as references to a generic “higher power.” He heard them as references to God as He’s revealed in Scripture.

Every form of government is ultimately based on the way that system defines a human being. You are either sorted according to a human convention or you are created in the image of your Heavenly Father.

There’s only two options.

And if you want to argue that there is more than one religion, again, you’ve only got two religions in that every religious school of thought empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. You can do something to merit the favor of your preferred deity (Gen 3:5). Christianity, on the other hand, says that the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.

Ephesians 6:12 says that the “struggle” is always spiritual. When you look at the Democrat talking points, you see things that are contrary to God’s Word and, as a believer, you have a responsibility to point that out (Eph 5:11). You want to do it right (Eph 4:15). No one wants to listen to a jerk. But to remain silent, or to be hesitant, or to be less than substantial in the way you communicate is not piety.

It’s cowardice.

Here’s what I’m thinking…

When Nehemiah was in charge of building the wall, at one point he had the Israelites work with a tool in one hand and a weapon in the other (Neh 4:17-19). They weren’t doubting God for His Protection. Rather, they were being wise in the way they were prepared to defend what God had entrusted to them.

As far as “division” or “differences” are concerned, Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians 11:19. He mentions how those differences reveal who has God’s approval. In other words, those disparities reveal who it is that’s championing the Truth as opposed to their own preferences.

1 Chron 12:32 describes the men of Issachar as those who, “…understood the times and knew what Israel should do.” Defending the practical and economical wisdom of tariffs, promoting the morality of preventing males from competing in women’s sports, and pointing out how homosexuality represents a lifestyle that is contrary to the way the human species is designed, is not a defense of the gospel, nor does it change the heart of the one who’s determined to be their own bottom line (Jer 17:8-10; Eph 6:12).

But God hates dishonest scales (Prov 11:1), there’s only two genders (Gen 1:27), homosexuality is a pointless perversion (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:27), and Socialism inevitably translates to a violation of 2 Thess 3:10.

People who say, “You can’t force your beliefs on me” are indirectly forcing their beliefs on everyone else because they don’t want to be evaluated, they just want to be accommodated (2 Cor 4:4). They’re not interested in determining if what you’re saying is True, they just want to get their own way by demonizing you.

Ephesians 4:15 says to, “…speak the truth in love.” If anyone is going to notice that the tomb is empty, you witness needs to be evident in everything you say, think, and do (Col 3:17) and that includes being politically astute and speaking up when it matters.

A Time to Speak

/in , , , /by

I’m seeing several posts coming from well meaning people saying that we need to just love everybody and avoid any kind of confrontation.

Last year, President Trump narrowly missed being assassinated. This after several years of his opponents calling him a Nazi, a fascist, and a threat to democracy.

We need to just pray and not argue…

Where in Scripture does God tell us to be quiet and remain in our prayer closet while everyone else is voting, debating, knocking on doors, and basically pushing back against the narrative that says there is no absolute save the person who stares back at you in the mirror every morning?

This is the time to speak!

Here’s what I see:

First of all, to process Christ’s approach to the cross as our template for the way we confront evil is to forget that Jesus at one point said,

Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns. (Lk 22:53).

Jesus’ willingness to be crucified was not meant to be an example for the way we resist evil and fight back against corruption. He had to go to the cross in order for the Scriptures to be fulfilled and to pay our debt (Matt 26:54). While there may be a time when Christ asks you to sacrifice yourself, simply laying down and doing nothing in the face of being attacked or not standing up for what’s right, believing that you’re an example of piety, is not an accurate interpretation of the whole of God’s Word.

John the Baptist wound up in prison for rightfully confronting the current administration and calling out Herod as being an immoral dirtbag. Jesus said that no human being was greater than John (Matt 11:9-11; Lk 3:19-20).

How many times in the Old Testament did a prophet confront a king or an entire nation and tell them that they were godless and offensive in the sight of God? Was Nathan vague in the way he spoke to David (2 Sam 12:7)? Did Elisha mince words when he told the king of Israel what was going to happen to him and his wife as a result of doing evil in the sight of God (1 Kings 21:21-24)?

Did David give Goliath a brochure? Did Paul try to be extra sensitive when he spoke to King Agrippa (Acts 26:24-29)?

There’s a difference between righteous indignation and the kind of rage that springs from thinking of no one other than yourself. Ephesians 4:26 says to not let your anger provoke you to the point where you do something wrong. That’s obviously something you want to avoid. Simply exchanging insults on social media is not accomplishing anything.

But at one point, David said…

Do I not hate those who hate you, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies. (Ps 139:21)

What David is saying is that he hates the work of sinners, and for good reason. Nothing good comes from those who intentionally try to do the wrong thing. And when you consider the pain and the problems that come from doing the wrong thing, you have every reason to detest that kind of mindset.

But, how do you respond to the “wrong thing?”

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Eph 5:11)

Expose them!

The person who doesn’t want to be “exposed” is not going to want to listen to you, nor do they want others to listen to you. They will be antagonistic and that kind of reaction is difficult to endure, which is why it’s so important to know what you believe and why you believe it so when it’s time to “expose them,” you sound like you have a point.

It also takes courage. For those who cringe at the thought of being criticized, it’s easy and convenient to retreat behind a biblical sounding excuse to not say or do anything.

That’s not discipleship, that’s cowardice.

What would’ve happened had our founding fathers not stood up to King George?

On one hand, they could’ve referred to Christ’s command to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s as well as the biblical admonishment to obey those in authority (Matt 22:21; Rom 13:1).

But rather than base their perspective on a mere portion of Scripture, they looked at God’s Word as a whole and were able to justify separating from England due to the fact that we are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).

They stood up and they spoke out.

Your witness means very little if you smile at the things that send a person to hell and endorse the things that put Christ on the cross.

David didn’t just sing, Paul didn’t just write, and Jesus didn’t just pray.

There’s a time to be silent and there’s a time to speak.

This is the time to speak.

A Difficult Truth or a Convenient Lie?

/in , , , /by

 

When you’re talking with someone who sees themselves as their own absolute, they’re living in a manufactured reality where there’s no such thing as truth, only personal opinions. Truth only exists in the context of what they’re comfortable with – a preference that’s unique to every individual as opposed to an Absolute that applies to all individuals. That’s why when you try to tell them that they’re wrong, you’re heard as someone who’s just trying to force your beliefs on them.

All the boundaries represented by logic, common sense, morality, and even rational thought are now nonexistent because there’s no fixed point of reference. There are no Divine Absolutes, those are “your beliefs.” That isn’t irrevocable evidence, that’s just your perspective. Those aren’t indisputable facts, those are just your personal preferences. Truth is defined exclusively according to whether or not a person wants to believe it – there’s no kind of accuracy that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels. If they’re not comfortable with what’s being said, it is automatically untrue. There are no principles, only preferences.

That is the key difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. The Liberal gauges everything according to whatever best reinforces their core assumption that they are the standard by which all things are measured. Every resource, be it a news outlet, a personality, a poll, a statistic, a picture, or a study – however credible they may be – none of it is considered as admissible evidence if it resonates as a threat to the way they want to see themselves and the world around them.

The Conservative, on the other hand, believes in something greater than themselves which means that they are focused on a Standard that doesn’t change and is coming from a Source that is morally and intellectually flawless (“In God We Trust”). That doesn’t mean that the Conservative is never beyond reproach. What it does mean is that they see themselves as being accountable to someone other than the one who stares back at them in the mirror every morning. The Liberal, on the other hand, because they see themselves as their own bottom line, they are never responsible for their actions as much as their oppressed by a system that is corrupt. They may be different, perhaps they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.

What can make this exhausting is that when you accuse a Liberal of basing their convictions on preferences rather than principles, they will insist that you’re doing the same thing. They cannot process the concept of a transcendent reality that prevails over an individual’s desires and appetites. In fact, they see it as unhealthy distraction.

Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, captures that mentality in a presentation she made entitled, “What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs” featured on ted.com. At one point she says:

We all have different truths. They’re based on where we come from, how we were raised and how other people perceive us.

That perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start. In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.1

The problem with Maher’s approach, and the Liberal perspective in general, is that it contradicts the very definition of what truth is. The dictionary definition of truth is, “…the body of real things, events, and facts.”2. Truth is an objective absolute and is not something that can be established simply by speaking it into reality anymore than you can change your gender simply by changing your pronouns.

To insist that truth is relative is a self-defeating statement because if truth is relative than even declaring it as such is relative and is therefore meaningless.

Yet, this is a necessary premise in order for the Liberal mentality to function. Once you introduce the idea that truth is nothing more than a word that’s used to elevate your personal disposition to the level of a universal given, then everything from your testimony in court to the way you evaluate the behavior and the credibility of other people depends solely on how that scenario either weakens or strengthens your ability to maintain the illusion that your definition of the human experience is the only definition that matters.

This is why the immorality of a particular individual is labeled as heinous and the same behavior in another individual doesn’t even justify a headline. It’s not a “double standard.” To the Liberal, there are no standards, only situations. The Liberal isn’t as concerned with the behavior as much as they are in demonizing anyone who represents a philosophy that promotes the practical existence of objective truth.

This is why they can lie in court because, again, there is no truth apart from whatever is preferred in that moment. You can’t be lying if you have eliminated the standard by which your statement would otherwise by measured.

Inevitably, this is more than just a self-serving philosophy. This is a spiritual condition.

There are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or you are. Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. You can do something or abstain from something to the point where you can merit the favor of your preferred deity. This is the lie that satan fed Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:5:

“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:5)

Christianity, on the other hand, says you’re a spiritual corpse. The only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary. The gospel is the only religious doctrine that positions mankind as absolutely subordinate to his God.

That doesn’t work in the mind of a Liberal.

You can’t be your own absolute and be subordinate to a holy God at the same time. It’s one or the other and that’s why the separation of church and state is such a volatile issue.

It’s not just American History, nor is it a Sunday morning tradition. It is toxic in the mind of the person who is determined to be their own bottom line.

However unsustainable or nonsensical that approach may be, it can nevertheless be championed very effectively by insisting that, as Katherine Maher said, “We all have different truths,” and that it is ultimately a “distraction.”

But it’s not distracting, it’s stabilizing. And when that stability is in place, it’s liberating.

The death and resurrection of Christ aren’t certified as actual calendar events simply because I find the notion of a loving and forgiving God appealing. It either happened or it didn’t. However I “feel” about the empty tomb doesn’t validate its authenticity one way or the other.

The question isn’t, “How do you feel?” Rather, you need to ask, “Is it real?”

The question isn’t whether or not I can force my beliefs on you. The question should be, “Is what I’m saying…”

…true?

The word “truth” is used frequently in our society. Even in the context of swearing to, “…tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.”

But when truth is nothing more than one’s personal version of reality as opposed to that which is genuinely real, then you are attempting to function in a manner that is not only completely inconsistent with the way the universe operates, but you have cast off every reliable metric that would otherwise guide you in your pursuit of happiness, and redefined rights, not as gifts given to you by God to guard your way, but as weapons you use to get your way.

As long as you’re determined to ignore principles in favor of your preferences, you are missing the life and freedom afforded to you by what is, at times, a difficult truth, and exchanged it for the frustrated existence supplied by a convenient lie.

 

 

1. “What Wikipedia teaches us about balancing truth and beliefs”, ted.com, https://www.ted.com/talks/katherine_maher_what_wikipedia_teaches_us_about_balancing_truth_and_beliefs, accessed March 30, 2025

2. “truth”, “Merriam Webster Dictionary”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth, accessed March 30, 2025