Why a Christian Category
I will start this thread with an explanation for its existence.
First of all, Christianity and politics can not be separated. To say that a person cannot carry their standards, values, and principles into the office they serve is irrational and unreasonable. The "separation of church and state" was never intended to demand one to leave morality and common sense at the door when entering into the halls of government or education. Rather, the constitution was drawn in an effort to keep the state from dictating religion or beliefs. Unfortunately the forefathers did not forsee the twisted interpretation that has come to play, resulting in just the opposite of their original intention.
Before you raise an objection to this claim, realize that religion is nothing more than a set of principles and beliefs which dictate a lifestyle. Atheism, therefore, is just as much a religion as Bhudism, Mormanism, or Christianity. Now you can see the deception—Since the government has placed their endorsement on Secular Humanism (because this belief system tolerates just about anything anybody would want to do) through various types of legislation, our public education, and our judicial system, it has emphatically declared that those beliefs and principles are what is necessary to be polically correct. Any system that diametrically opposes Secular Humanism (such as Christianity) must therefore be censured or banned. Ripping the moral fabric from the elected officials who do have a Christian heritage is both foolish and ultimately destructive, not to mention unconstitutional.
Secondly, the Declaration of Independence is grounded in the precepts of Christianity. In this founding document, the inalienable rights are granted by "The Creator." Without this authoritative statement, the document crumbles to meaningless dust. The Creator was clearly and unquestionably the God of Jews and Christians alike. This premise defines who we are as a nation. It grants freedom to the nation's masses by an authority that transcends the government.
Finally, the standards have to be absolute and unchangeable. To base a system of government on principles that bend and sway to the waves of public opinion, or in the case of today, a loud, and demanding minority, is as illogical as building a sand castle near the water while the tide is out. Eventially, the constructive efforts will be destroyed as the waves swing back the other way. Our founding fathers knew this. That is why they chose Biblical standards and moral absolutes as the basis for this nation's development. An authoritative book that can stand over several millenia with no compromise, no change of any kind, and empirical inherency in its preservation was the best choice then, and the best choice now for such a foundation.
To suppress and remove Christianity from the hearts and minds of our government leadership damages, maybe fataly, the very soul of the nation. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the government should dictate "absence of religion" anymore than it should dictate a specific religion. The government is suppose to be made up of the people it represents, and that overwhelming majority is based on the Biblical truths of our foundation. Obviously, RepublicLost needs a Christian Category.
I'm Been Franklin
Cheap Grace
I have a growing concern of a phenomena that is occuring across the churches in the United States today. It is what I call "cheap grace." A grace that is treated as a one-time gift that can be later forgotten or minimized for convenience, but still awarded at the end of time. I believe that it has been birthed and fostered with the deceptive promise of "just saying a prayer."
No where in scripture will you ever find a reference to a "sinner's prayer." As a matter of fact, there is only one place that refers to calling out to God for a clear conscience and receiving Jesus as your Savior. It is found in 1 Peter 3:21 which states: "Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn't save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life. (God's Word Translation)" Salvation is not just an invitation for Jesus to come to you, but rather a response to His offer of grace by immersing yourself into His Lordship. Even though it is a free gift, it is not cheap!!
Jesus says "If anyone wants to be one of my disciples, he must deny himself {get rid of your own desires} take up his cross {crucify who you are}, and follow him {become obedient to his will and direction}." (Commentary added by me.) Of course, you can't earn your way into salvation, that's the grace part--it gets you past that. But you do need to live and act like you appreciate it, and above all, do not disappoint the Holy Spirit in your life-style, for Jesus again says, "Everyone who says something against the Son of Man will be forgiven. But the person who dishonors the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." (Luke 12:10). Realize that the Holy Spirit is the seal of your salvation (Ephesians 4:30) given to you when you are baptized (Acts 2:38), and you do not want to send that seal away. Scripture is very reassuring that the Grace of God can not be taken from anyone who receives it. However, Scripture also states that it can be carelessly discarded or lost through neglect to keep hold of it (Hebrews 6-12).
The Great Deceiver, Satan, has been running this "cheap" campaign for some time now, and has deceived many well-intentioned Christians into preaching this false doctrine. Not only does it give people false hope, but it minimizes the importance of the other part of Christ's commission: making disciples. Let's be more diligent in "teaching them to observe ALL that" Jesus commanded.
I'm Been Franklin
Green Tainted Yellow - Part 1 Critical Thinking
After raising three children through the public school system, I have acquired more evidence which suggests that the nation's powers-that-be want un-apposing, unconditional, and unquestioning puppets to serve and propagate their delusional power and authority.
One of the primary ways I have seen this objective pushed is through the practice of suppressing critical or logical thinking in the classroom. Playing on the natural tendency of most kids to be lazy (a tendency present for centuries), the education system doles out answers and paths of thought to life's questions smudging out any opposing ideas through sarcasm, lies, misdirection, or simple omission. They ridicule any student who might question them, and manage to eliminate time for any public discussion or dialog.
The problem with this one-track mindedness, is that it often is on the wrong track and headed for a catastrophic collision with truth. If our children were given the tool of logical thinking at an early age, as they grew and learned they would see through the double-talk, double standards, and double-minded agendas that are put before them.
Imagine how much work and effort would be needed to actually represent the people if they weren't programmed to think and act the way the official wanted them to. That elected person might have to be opposed to something they are personally for. But instead, the elected officials tend to take their office with an agenda in place which will further their own goals. They not only close their ears to the masses, but also indoctrinate them on what they should believe and want.
You see, by raising up a generation of non-critical thinkers, the government can easily convince the masses that it is government that can manage and guide your life better than you. One of the areas where this is happening is in the pseudo-science of environmentalism. In my next entry on this subject I'll deal with the "suppressed" facts of this political gold mine.
I'm Been Franklin.
Health Control
The more I think about this national health care endeavor the more I see an underlying layer that has conveniently been left out of the debate. As a former worker for Sun Oil Petroleum, and years of research into oil companies for other possible work, I have seen a growing trend that could tie this whole legislative mess together with an invisible rope. I'm not sure how it is today, but in the 70's and 80's it was about 35% of the medical industry money had direct ties to the oil companies. You see, they understand that fossil fuels are not forever, and are hedging their future on other profitable ventures. They hold numerous medical patents and are the decision makers for a lot of the research that is being done.
Enter in the government. If this health "reform" becomes a reality, the government will only have a face on the control of medical care, but it will actually fall on the decisions of the ones who stand to make money, or not. If these interest holders determine that the government has too much of a stranglehold on the profitability of the medical industry, they could decide to pull out and go to greener pastures. That is what they have always done when the government tries to control them through environment restrictions, energy constraints, and other regulations. We could very well see the same issues that Canada and other countries operating government medicine where the masses are unable to get the treatments they need when they need it, and have to seek other means.
Has anyone asked why so many Canadians cross the border to the USA to seek doctors and treatments that are very common and readily available here? It is because those types of treatments or medications are deemed unnecessary under the government control, and the patients can do nothing about it. Yes, the poor now have some sort of medical care guarantee in Canada, but it is substandard, and not pro-active at best. If this plan goes into effect, 80% of the breast cancer findings of today will go away, because, the government has decided that high risk at young age isn't really a risk, and they won't fund those tests. This is just one example of the many changes to care we have assumed will be available, but will be denied because the government doesn't want to fund it, or does not deem it necessary.
As more and more government restrictions cause illness outbreaks and deaths from lack of diagnoses equipment or lack of test funding, and the dirth of medical research, less people will be willing to be a part of it. Doctors, nurses, and medical technicians will quit and seek other more satisfying professions.
The bottom line: 1) Medical industry will suffer technologically because it will no longer be profitable to the companies that fund it, and 2) Tests, medications, treatments, and equipment access will be unavailable in many cases because of government decision to fund politician and bureaucrat pockets rather than needed medical attention.
I'm Been Franklin
Green Tainted Yellow - Part 2 The Facts
In part one of this series, I discussed the concern I have for the suppression of critical thinking. This time I want to tell you some environmental facts that give quite the yellow tint to the whole "green gospel."
- Mt. St. Helens—There are still those around today who remember the day, and months afterward, that Mount St. Helens blew its top. The ash fell nation-wide, the ambient temperature dropped several degrees over the entire hemisphere, and the residual effects lasted for years. What is not commonly known is the amount of green-house gas emissions resulting from the eruption. In order for mankind to duplicate the amount of green-house production that this volcano spewed forth in 24 hours, we would have to run all of our oil refineries at maximum capacity, 7 days a week, 24 hours per day for the next 20,000 years.
- Water Level & ice—One of the evidences that is said to be proof of global warming is the measured rise in ocean levels. However, this overlooks a fundamental property of water. Run this experiment (yeah, I'm actually saying you can try this at home): Get an empty 20 ounce plastic bottle, and fill it roughly half full. Put the cap on and freeze it solid. After it has frozen, get a sharpie or equivalent and put a horizontal line on the outside of the bottle across the top of the ice block. Set it out on the counter and let it thaw completely. Now note the water level in relation to the mark you previously made. With this simple demonstration, the melting of the ice in our oceans should show a reduction in water level.
- Cycles of the earth—Greenland, a land-mass that is today laughed at because of its name. There is not much "green" about it. Rolling icy tundra, and stark winter wilderness. So why is this continent called Greenland? A short trip into history will find voyagers from northern Europe traveling across the Atlantic and finding this lush, green continent, unlike much of their own homeland of Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Erickson was so impressed with its lure of vegetation and life, that he dubbed it Greenland. Of course, over the next few centuries, the ambient temperature began to drop, and glaciers began to encroach upon this continent until we see the vast arctic wilderness of today. Archeology shows much evidence of this type of weather pattern fluctuation. And the same Archaeological studies show no evidence that mankind ever has anything to do with it.
- Plant-life thrives in a greenhouse—When winter rolls around, nurseries and other landscape businesses just close up shop, and take a long vacation, right? Wrong!! They move their plants and produce into "greenhouses" because they will thrive and grow there. The humidity is easier to keep at a constant level, the natural solar energy that is filtered through the greenhouse canopy, enhances the photosynthesis, and the oxygen-carbon dioxide levels work at maximum efficiency. It is a vegetation paradise! So what's the hang-up? Why are we trying to stop this from happening? Doesn't this solve our "rain-forest problem?"
- Life, in general, is extended—It has also been documented through experiments, in Arizona, and other enclosed greenhouse laboratories world-wide, that life, in general, lasts longer, growth is enhanced, and fauna, not just flora, is stronger and more resilient. So, what's the hand-up? Why are we trying to stop this from happening? Is it because we would rapidly over-populate the planet, due to living a couple of hundred years?
Suppose we were to grant that global-warming is an issue (and I'm not), and that we are rushing toward a "Greenhouse Effect."?
These last two items, of course, are sarcasm due to the idea that I do not believe there is an issue with "global warming". There are just too many evidences and explanations that point to natural earth cycles, or natural catastrophic occurrences (did I mention the massive underwater volcano the Norwegians discovered in Antarctica recently, which has melted a lot of that continent?) that explain some of the concerns. It is quite arrogant and self-focused to think that mankind can have anything to do with global degradation over time. Nature itself, has far superior methods of wreaking havoc with the environmental systems, and in a short amount of time. Can anyone of us claim to be master of nature and the elements? Anyone?....Anyone?...Gore?
I'm Been Franklin
Meaningless Language
dude: 1) an individual with a western air about them, 2) a greeting, 3) an exclamation of surprise, 4) a statement to declare disbelief, 5) agreement affirmation, 6) a name for a friend, 7) a name for one held in contempt, ...
Shall I go on? So I ask you, what is the point of using this word? Just by changing the inflection or facial expression the word takes on a new meaning. It is such an ambiguous word, that it can really no longer be used in the written form. Unfortunately, there are many words falling to this level in the English language today. Each generation keeps insisting on being independent of the previous generation by changing the definitions of commonly used words, so that it becomes "theirs." Of course, when they get in the work force and find out they can no longer communicate with their boss, most of this nonsense goes away.
But today, however, this is not always the case. The new generation is so headstrong with its definition ambiguity campaign, and coupled with technology advances, the effect is becoming persistent. I would almost venture to guess that half the people reading this cannot understand or misunderstand most of the content. There is an old saying, "a shoe by any other name is still a shoe." Words should fit this mold--in other words, they should never lose their original definition. If they do, then all previous writings and texts which used it, become undecipherable, or gibberish. My daughter constantly complains about some of the authors she is required to read in school, (Dickens, Steinbeck, Wells, Shakespeare), because she has to keep an "old" dictionary handy to understand it. At this rate, The English Classics will soon be defined as books that were written in another language.
Not only is this a generational thing, but the media coupled with politician double-talk is making a big impact on this phenomena. See my previous article on the terms liberal and conservative.
A language that becomes too ambiguous ceases to be useful as a tool for communication or recording of history, science, or any type of knowledge. In fact, a society that is fractured by its language no longer produces, no longer defends itself, and eventually, no longer exists. Don't believe me? Ask the descendants of a city called Babel, but then again, you probably wouldn't be able to understand them anyway.
I'm Been Franklin
