After my radio program, the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, completes on Sunday evenings, I normally head straight to bed. I am usually up for work between 2:30 and 3:30 in the morning, and staying up past nine leaves me in a position where I am fighting all day to keep my wits about me.
Last night was a little different.
The industry I work in has slowed down. The economic downturn is worsening, despite the rosy "recovery" news that the current administration in Washington tries to paint. This morning I received no work from dispatch. Therefore, knowing I would probably get to sleep in pretty late, like until 5:00 or 5:30 in the morning, I stayed up later to listen to my colleague's radio program, the Ken Pettigrew Show.
A couple folks that listen to my program were in the chat room, but for the most part it was a whole different group of folks. One woman, however, in the chat room was a former listener to the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution. She agrees with me on fiscal issues, and the importance of maintaining our war footing against the nazis of our generation, Islam. However, the woman quit being a listener of my program because she was completely disgusted by my Christian belief system.
Imagine that.
Ken dared me to call in and bring up a topic, so I did. When you call in to his show you are supposed to begin your call with, "What pisses me off is. . . " and then go into your rant about whatever it is that has got you spittin' fire. I began mine with the article about the Michigan woman that was forced to have an abortion at an abortion clinic after she had decided she didn't want to go through with it after all, with it even getting to the point of her being held down by nurses, and her mouth covered to muffle her screams, as the doctor proceeded with the procedure.
What followed was a deep discussion, or you may even wish to call it a debate, on the abortion issue.
Ken and I agree on a lot of things, and usually the U.S. Constitution is the basis of those agreements, but apparently abortion and euthanasia are not among those things we agree upon.
He used the usual argument about rape and incest, which are a very small percentage of total abortions, and is not indicative of the true nature of the abortion problem in America. I indicated that the heart begins to beat at 21 days in the womb, and the neurological system is in place prior to that, so in less than three weeks in the womb unborn children feel the pain of abortion, and have been documented to actually hold their hands up in a defensive posture to fend off the barbaric method used to snuff out the lives of countless children.
Ken dragged the argument about choice into the conversation, and that if I were a Constitutionalist I would understand that the government should not be telling a woman what she can do with her body. My response was to ask a question. "Which has the greater need to be protected? The choice to kill? Or the choice to live?"
By the end of the discussion we agreed to disagree, would have shook hands on it if we could, and Ken took his next caller.
The woman in the chat room that used to be my listener responded by saying something about how she hates religion, and I am assuming that comment was based on my pro-life position. If I am willing to defend the sanctity of life, I must be some religious nut.
Of course, as a former listener of my show, I am sure she knew I am a Christian.
Nonetheless, I took the bait.
What ensued after that was a tense discussion that took the chat room by storm. Ken Pettigrew's handling of a whacked-out conspiracy theorist went nearly unnoticed by the live listeners in the chat room because they were too involved with reading the jabs going back and forth between myself, and the woman that hates religion.
I agreed with her that religion is not a good thing. Anytime humanity organizes and creates an organizational power structure, our very nature to sin screws it up. Corruption and greed for power enters the equation, even to the point that pedophiles, such as in the Catholic Religion, have been defended and reassigned to other parishes, rather than be brought to justice - just to save the power structure of the system of hierarchy. The evidence has been covered up, and the true nature of the program in the church has not been revealed. I am not a religious man, per se, or at least not in the sense of being willing to fall into the trappings of man-controlled religion. I am a man of faith, and I believe that Christ sacrificed himself on the Cross for the salvation of the individuals of humanity.
An observer in the chat room inserted that it took religion to lead me to that decision, therefore I am religious.
Ken and I agree on a lot of things, and usually the U.S. Constitution is the basis of those agreements, but apparently abortion and euthanasia are not among those things we agree upon.
He used the usual argument about rape and incest, which are a very small percentage of total abortions, and is not indicative of the true nature of the abortion problem in America. I indicated that the heart begins to beat at 21 days in the womb, and the neurological system is in place prior to that, so in less than three weeks in the womb unborn children feel the pain of abortion, and have been documented to actually hold their hands up in a defensive posture to fend off the barbaric method used to snuff out the lives of countless children.
Ken dragged the argument about choice into the conversation, and that if I were a Constitutionalist I would understand that the government should not be telling a woman what she can do with her body. My response was to ask a question. "Which has the greater need to be protected? The choice to kill? Or the choice to live?"
By the end of the discussion we agreed to disagree, would have shook hands on it if we could, and Ken took his next caller.
The woman in the chat room that used to be my listener responded by saying something about how she hates religion, and I am assuming that comment was based on my pro-life position. If I am willing to defend the sanctity of life, I must be some religious nut.
Of course, as a former listener of my show, I am sure she knew I am a Christian.
Nonetheless, I took the bait.
What ensued after that was a tense discussion that took the chat room by storm. Ken Pettigrew's handling of a whacked-out conspiracy theorist went nearly unnoticed by the live listeners in the chat room because they were too involved with reading the jabs going back and forth between myself, and the woman that hates religion.
I agreed with her that religion is not a good thing. Anytime humanity organizes and creates an organizational power structure, our very nature to sin screws it up. Corruption and greed for power enters the equation, even to the point that pedophiles, such as in the Catholic Religion, have been defended and reassigned to other parishes, rather than be brought to justice - just to save the power structure of the system of hierarchy. The evidence has been covered up, and the true nature of the program in the church has not been revealed. I am not a religious man, per se, or at least not in the sense of being willing to fall into the trappings of man-controlled religion. I am a man of faith, and I believe that Christ sacrificed himself on the Cross for the salvation of the individuals of humanity.
An observer in the chat room inserted that it took religion to lead me to that decision, therefore I am religious.
Religion did not lead me to the decision to follow Christ. The Word of God did.
The statement by the chatter assumes that Christianity itself is a religion. But if religion is man-made, how could the God-made opportunity to follow Christ be "religion." Religion is the organizational system that has emerged by the hand of humans. Sure, we use the word "religion" as a generic term to describe faith, but in the strictest sense Christianity is not a religion. However, there are many religions that claim Christianity as their faith.
The woman typed that religion is evil and that she had been assaulted by Christians, and even received Emails that were death threats from these people, because she was not willing to proclaim faith.
I wrote that if they made death threats, they are not Christians. Such actions are not biblical. There are many that claim to be Christian, but there are few that truly are. This is why even after the Rapture occurs, the idea that it was indeed the Rapture will not be an accepted explanation for the disappearance of the many Christians. There will be folks who claim to be Christians that will be left behind after the Rapture Event occurs. Even pastors will be left behind to experience the Great Tribulation Period. The presence of these people during that period of tribulation will be enough to convince the folks still inhabiting the Earth that the mass disappearances was something else. I don't know what the excuse will be. Some Christian scholars have suggested a mass alien abduction will be blamed. Perhaps it will take on a mystical explanation, or perhaps a scientific theory will emerge that seems plausible to the inhabitants of Earth. Nonetheless, the Rapture will not be recognized for what it is.
"The Founding Fathers were deists," she wrote.
I responded by indicating that even the renowned Ben Franklin, a man well known for not being a man of faith, saw the importance of recognizing the inspiration of God on the Constitutional Convention. As per James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, when things got to the point that they were making no progress, of all people, Ben Franklin suggested they pray before each session. Besides, most of the Founding Fathers had seminary degrees.
The woman responded that they had seminary degrees because all of the colleges were religious.
That, then, is evidence that Christianity can be largely credited with the existence of our institutions of higher learning.
Rather than respond to what I wrote, the woman typed, "Man wrote the Bible."
I tried to explain she is partially correct. The Bible did not fall from the heavens and land in our laps as the Muslims would argue the Koran did, or Mormons claim the Book of Mormon did. Indeed, the hands of men wrote the Bible. 44 authors wrote 66 books, but they did so through the inspiration of God Himself.
The Holy Spirit of God guided the human writers in the production of Scripture so that what they wrote was precisely what God wanted written. But the men still wrote the Bible, and even their writing styles remained in the text. God's superintending of the human authors enabled them to use their own individual personalities, yet they they composed and recorded Scripture without error. So the Bible has divine origin and causality, yet was produced through human hands. Because the Scripture is inspired, it is inerrant, and since Scripture is inerrant and inspired, it alone has final authority.
The word inspiration literally means "God-breathed" in the Greek. And because Scripture is breathed out by God, it is true and inerrant.
Supporting text from the Bible tells us that "God is true" (Romans 3:4), and that "God breathed out the Scriptures" (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, with those, and many other verses that testify to the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and to the evidence the Bible is inerrant, we conclude the Scriptures are true (John 17:17), and that the inerrancy of the Scripture stands up against any scrutiny when tested in context.
In the historical texts of the Bible the prophets made prophecies that came to pass, most of which were fulfilled through the life of Christ. Second Peter 1:21 tells us that "prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The word "moved" in this verse literally means to be "borne along" or "carried along." Even though human beings were used in the process of writing down God's Word, they were all literally "borne along" by the Holy Spirit, and the fulfillment of prophecy confirms that.
Muhammad (Islam) and Joseph Smith (Mormonism) are prophets without prophecy, and as Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of the leader of Hamas who had converted to Christianity, tells us, Muhammad's only miracle was that he rode on a flying donkey - and Muhammad was the only witness.
God did not permit the will of sinful man to divert, misdirect, or erroneously record His message. God's driving, directing, and carrying the human authors of the Bible as He wished was the force behind the creation of Scripture.
The Old Testament recognizes that it is the Holy Spirit who speaks through its writers (2 Samuel 23:2-3). Indeed, many Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament are said to have the Holy Spirit as their author, even though a human prophet actually spoke the words in the Old Testament (Mark 12:36; Acts 1:16; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7; 10:15-16).
Acts 1:16 is a significant verse in this. "Men and brethren, this scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to the those that arrested Jesus."
2 Samuel 23:2 provides from David: "The Spirit of the lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." Here is a clear reference to a human being used as a mouthpiece for the spirit of God.
Also, in Isaiah 59:21, "As for Me, says the Lord, this is My covenant with them; My spirit that is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth." Though God used human beings in the process of communicating His words, it is clear that the Holy Spirit was in charge of the process so that no human error or opinion entered into the picture.
Jeremiah 1:9 reads, "Then the Lord put forth His hand, and touched my mouth. And the lord said unto me, Behold, I have put My words in your mouth." More Scriptural evidence that God is in control of the process of communicating His word to man.
Jesus promised His followers that it would be the work of the Holy Spirit to provide an accurate recounting of the events of His life (John 14:26), and Second Timothy 3:16 tells us, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," thus, providing evidence of the inspiration of the New Testament.
Paul's indication in his letters to the churches that "all Scripture" is inspired did not have in mind only the Old Testament.
The woman in the chat room parried by saying that the Old Testament and the New Testament are not consistent with each other, and therefore there is error. For example, she said, Jesus' teachings do not condemn homosexuality, and there are no condemnations against gays in the New Testament.
I immediately punched into the chat that she is in error. A couple examples of New Testament condemnation of homosexuality is Romans 1:24-27, and I Corinthians 6:9-10.
As if I had typed a couple of Old Testament references, she typed, "What are you? Jewish? See, you can only come up with Old Testament verses."
I typed, "Those references are in the New Testament. When values are turned upside down and moral anarchy appears, men burn with lust for other men and women burn for women, and they will receive in their own bodies the punishment for their actions (Romans 1:22-27), and that is undeniably a New Testament reference.
The fact is, I understand the revulsion people have towards religion. Religion, as it is guided by man, just like government, can be (and is) used for evil purposes. Whenever humanity is given control over anything, our tendency to move toward sin ruins it.
A great example are the politicians and pastors who claim they are all about family values, and then get caught in some kind of sex scandal. From Larry Craig to Governor Mark Sanford, from Ted Haggard to Catholic Priests, we are all fallible if we try to do it "man's way."
Religion is "man's way." Religion under the control of men has the potential of evil. Islam, and various other religions, trying to push God through man's methods, always result in disaster. Men are corrupt sinners. We have all sinned, and we all fall short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23).
When I was asked to run for City Council my first response was, "No." I then joked and said, "I don't want politics to corrupt me."
One of the gals present who has been instrumental in helping me with the Constitution Study I hold every Thursday said to me, "Oh, Doug, you are not corruptible."
I turned to her, very serious in my demeanor, and said, "We are all corruptible. It is only The Lord, in the end, that keeps us truly on the right path."
We are naturally attracted to sin, corruption, and the potential for various lusts that include greed, and sexual sin. When left to our own devices, we naturally sin against God. That is our nature. We are not little children inside desiring to do the right thing. We are sinners that are hard-wired to sin, and without Christ we have no hope.
Last Friday night on my radio program my guest said, "I don't believe that Washington DC corrupts men. I believe the corruption of Washington DC attracts corruptible men."
I think there is some truth to that, but if we are all corruptible, then it is not a matter of Washington attracting corruptible people, or that Washington corrupts people who would not have been corrupt to start with. It all lies with us as individuals. Either you give in to your nature that is one of sin, or you don't. My chances to be "incorruptible" are heightened if I keep my eyes on the Lord, and only follow His Will, and lean on His teachings, and make my decisions based on His inspiration. So, I decided to go ahead and run for office, only because I know I can place it all in the Hands of the Lord, and let Him guide me from that point.
So to answer the woman in the chat room. Yes, in the hands of man, religion can be evil. And yes, men did write the Bible, but the inerrancy of the text, and accuracy of the prophecies, are evidence that the Scripture was divinely inspired, and because it is inspired and inerrant, it alone has final authority. Therefore, it is wise that I place my faith in God's Word.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I think there is some truth to that, but if we are all corruptible, then it is not a matter of Washington attracting corruptible people, or that Washington corrupts people who would not have been corrupt to start with. It all lies with us as individuals. Either you give in to your nature that is one of sin, or you don't. My chances to be "incorruptible" are heightened if I keep my eyes on the Lord, and only follow His Will, and lean on His teachings, and make my decisions based on His inspiration. So, I decided to go ahead and run for office, only because I know I can place it all in the Hands of the Lord, and let Him guide me from that point.
So to answer the woman in the chat room. Yes, in the hands of man, religion can be evil. And yes, men did write the Bible, but the inerrancy of the text, and accuracy of the prophecies, are evidence that the Scripture was divinely inspired, and because it is inspired and inerrant, it alone has final authority. Therefore, it is wise that I place my faith in God's Word.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment