Gay marriage and Polygamy

I believe God created and sanctioned marriage as one man-one woman. Throughout history marriage has always been defined by the majority of people, cultures and countries as, one man-one woman. Recently the SCOTUS has been hearing two cases revolving around the definition of marriage and the States or Federal government’s recognition of said marriages.

I have long held that the Federal government has no business recognizing marriage beyond any other legal contract. There should be no special rights or privileges granted based on marriage. I knew several “couples” in the military that got married solely for the benefits that marriage brought. They received more pay, free housing, and more privileges.

Whit the current argument, I can’t see how any of the pro-gay marriage crowd can deny polygamy. What argument can they possible present against it? If it is okay for a man-women, man-man, woman-woman to get married why not man-man-woman, man-woman-woman. Why stop there why not man-woman-daughter. Does it have to be two humans? Can I marry my dog?

Someone please give me a valid reason why if we can redefine what marriage is, why stop at two people?

At this point I say fine, Let whoever marry whoever. The government gets completely out of the marriage business. No marriage certificates, not divorce, no benefits for getting married, no tax advantages. Marriage again would be a vow between God and those involved.

JUST AS GOD INTENDED. God never gave authority to government to sanction marriage.

Stop all government interference in marriage period.

Do not read if you if you are pro-choice (pro-murder)

Let me be clear, I believe that abortion is murder. I am not condemning anyone who has had an abortion, Only God can do that. I am simply stating my opinion. Members of my own family disagree with me, but I have to go with what I believe.

Abortion is pure and simple murder, life begins at conception and to believe otherwise is delusional. Whether you are a Christian, or not whether you believe in Creation or Evolution, Science proves that once the sperm enters the egg, and the cells divide, an unstoppable chain of events lead to a baby looking you in the eye. Unstoppable that is unless you “terminate” the pregnancy; and by that I mean Murder the child. I don’t care what your reason is I consider all abortion murder. Before you try to say my opinion does not matter because I am a man; that is a straw man argument, I am human. And don’t they to tell me I would feel different if it was my daughter that was raped, been there too.  And don’t try and say who will adopt all these babies? There are so many couples out there waiting that that would not be a problem, (I have also adopted 3 precious girls). If it is not a baby at three weeks, a month, two months, then when is it. I have had some tell me until it takes a breath it is not a person. That is ridicules; by that logic the day before birth it can be killed. Others have said when it is viable outside the womb. That is equally crazy since a baby that is otherwise not able to survive outside the womb, sucks it thumb, moves has all its body parts and looks like a tiny little baby. It is a baby. Also applying that logic a newborn is not able to survive without constant intervention for months. Are they a person? Can we snuff them out at will too?

Unwed pregnancies are a big problem, America has far too many single mothers. The answer is not murder. The answer is personal responsibility, both the man and the woman. The answer is NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE, ( that would also cure all STD’s if everyone applied it). Is that going to happen? No, we are fallen and sinful creatures that are ruled by our flesh. Still murder is not the answer. I have known many couples that have sorely desired to be parents but were unable to conceive. The waiting list for a newborn is gigantic; many couples wait for years to get their baby.

Below is a news clip from MSNBC. The host is claiming that by murdering his child he saved his live. His act of murder was not because of rape, incest, violence, or the life of the mother. It was selfishness. He said he was not ready to be a dad. He was ready for sex apparently; just not man enough to take responsibility. Later in the story he said he is the father of two kids, I wonder; will he tell them one day how he helped kill their older sibling?

Read below if you have a strong stomach:

MSNBC Host: ‘I Thank God and Country…Abortion Was There to Save Me’

Jan. 25, 2013 7:00pm Jason Howerton

During MSNBC’s “The Cycle” on Friday, co-host Toure celebrated the 40th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion by telling the story of when he and an old girlfriend decided to have an abortion 15 years ago.

“In some ways that choice saved my life,” Toure said.

He said he was extremely thankful abortion was an option because wasn’t ready to be a dad and going through with the pregnancy would have just made “a mess of three lives” because she “wasn’t the one.”

“I thank God and country that when I fell into a bad situation, abortion was there to save me and keep me on a path toward building a strong family I have now. And I pray that safety net stays in place,” Toure said.

Being able to choose to have an abortion makes for a “stronger America,” he concluded.

Acts – Tongues and the Holy Spirit

Acts – Tongues and the Holy Spirit

Kyle Anderson

“Acts 1:8?”

Acts 1:8 is a promise and a command from Jesus. The assembled Apostles were Jews and the Jewish perspective was that they were God’s people and the message was to the Jews. Jesus here lays out a promise of the coming Holy Spirit and the command to preach the Gospel to the world, starting in Jerusalem and spreading to the World. This was surely not the first time the Apostles had heard this message. They were witnesses to Jesus’ work with the Samaritans, (John 4), and other teachings of Jesus to reach the world with the Gospel. The point was brought home again here and shortly after the events at Pentecost the Gospel will spread to the Gentiles. “This text contains the promise of Pentecost and the mandate to witness for Jesus in the following geographical areas: Jerusalem, Samaria and the World (Kistemaker 1990, 53). The Apostles will receive power and will carry the Gospel to the World; ^” But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Holy Bible (NKJV) 1982)”

“Brothers and Sisters”         

            From the context of verse 1:16 Peter is addressing the other 10 Apostles present, there are certainly other believers present, and they are witnesses to the event, but Peter is addressing the remaining 10 regarding Judas, who is no longer with them. The majority of Bible translations translate the first two Greek words in Acts 1:16 “Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (Marshall 1998, 464)” as “Men, brethren” or simply as “Brothers”. The minority translate the verse as “Friends” or something else. While it is certain that there were women present in the group of believers, Luck mentions Mary and women, I do not agree with a gender neutral or inclusive translation. Luke writing in the social norms of his time and the Apostles speaking to the group of believers with an emphasis on the primacy of the male role used the term, “Men, brothers” I believe that in Acts 1:16, a straight forward interpretation is proper and right and conveys the original meaning of the text better the “Brothers and sisters.” While societies norms have changed and women are certainly not of lesser importance. The Greek used addresses men and should be translated as such. See also the following verses with the literal English translation of the Greek: 2:14 “Men, Jews”; 2:22 “Men, Israelites”; 3:12 ”Men, Israelites”; 5:35 ”Men, Israelites”; 17:22 ”Men, Athenians”; 17:34 “men”; 19:35 ”Men, Ephesians”; 21:28 ”Men, Israelites” in most of these verses it is certain that women are present, Peter or Paul address the crowd using the masculine “Men.” I disagree with Dr. Bock that translation of the word “Ἄνδρες” in verse 17:34 includes a woman. Reading the verse it says, “ But some “men” (Ἄνδρες) joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and “a woman” (γυνὴ (Marshall 1998, 548)) named Damaris and others with them. (Holy Bible (NASB) 1995)” Some men, and a women.

 “Tongues”

            What are the “Tongues” spoken of in Acts 2:4? At the Pentecost celebration the believers were filled with the Holy Spirit. They received the power and the gifts of the Spirit. One of the gifts was the gift of tongues. The Apostles, mostly uneducated or simple men from Galilee, started to speak, or were perceived to speak in languages that there was no reasonable expectation for them to know.  The “tongues” mentioned are spoken languages of the assembled believers and not some “unknown, or heavenly” language that men do not know. Simon Kistemaker said, “The word tongue is the equivalent of the concept spoken language (Kistemaker 1990, 77). The literal translation of the Greek word “διαλέκτῳ (Marshall 1998, 466)” is “language” and is the root word for our English word “dialect”. Verse 6 clearly states that each believer present was hearing their “heart” language, not some unknown language. Each was hearing the message in as clear a language as they could so the that full intent and import could be conveyed, there could be not possibility of a poor translation or misunderstanding in the word. Thus the Glory of God was shown through the power of the Holy Spirit. Assuming that all 12 Apostles were present and that they were all preaching to the gathered, there were at least 15 different language groups represented. Verses 9-11 detail 15 nations represented in the gathering with the possibility of more. Later in the Bible Paul admonishes believers that the gift of tongues is useless unless there are some present that can interpret. If nobody understands what is being said who gets the Glory? God or man?

Bibliography

Bock, Darrell, L. Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Halley, Henry H. Halley's Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1965.

Holy Bible (NASB). The Lockman Foundation, 1995.

Holy Bible (NKJV). Thomas Nelson, 1982.

Kistemaker, Simon J. Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990.

Marshall, Alfred. Interlinear NIV. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

John - The most Jewish Gospel

Israel Abrahams was perhaps the most distinguished Jewish scholar of his time.  In 1924 he gave a lecture where he proclaimed that John was the most Jewish of the four Gospels.

John is my favorite of the four Gospels because of its simplicity, yet is has a much deeper often overlooked side. Dr. Elmer Towns said “The Gospel of John seems to be the simplest of all books…. But at the same time, it is the most profound book in the Bible. (Towns, 2002, p. xi)”

Why does Israel Abrahams say it is the most Jewish of the four Gospels? While John is a simple and beautiful picture of the Christ, it has many deep and subtle points that are often overlooked by the modern reader. John alludes to the Old Testament throughout his Gospel, relying heavily on Isaiah, assuming that the reader is already familiar with the Messiah and the prophecies in the Old Testament. John also dates Jesus ministry based upon the Jewish Festivals and feasts (Towns, 2002, pp. xix-xx). Israel Abrahams calls the Gospel of John the most Jewish of the four because is so intrinsically Jewish. John does not have to explain the customs or explain the importance and meaning of the feasts. He assumes that the reader already knows. Another strikingly Jewish reference that could be lost on Modern readers is the “I AM” discourses. John is affirming and Jesus is declaring that he is the messiah (Morris, 1989, pp. 107-125). The most Powerful and direct declaration of his deity is in chapter 8 where Jesus says “⁵⁸ Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (Holy Bible (NKJV), 1982). Here Jesus is declaring the he is the God of the Old Testament.
Lastly, John uses the landmarks of Jerusalem in a way that can only be relevant to a Jew of the time that is familiar with them. John’s use of the geography and description of sites also proves that John he was very familiar with the Israel of Jesus’ time. “There are no errors in geography or history found in John. Instead, we find that John is intimately acquainted with Palestine's land, cultures and traditions. (Roberts, 2009) “

The Gospel of John is a simple and beautiful presentation of the Gospel that can be easily understood by a new believer today. The Gospel of John is an incredible deep look into Jesus the Messiah. The Gospel of John is the Word. That is why the Gospel of John is my favorite of the four Gospels.

Bibliography:

Holy Bible (NKJV). (1982). Thomas Nelson.

Morris, L. (1989). Jesus is the Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Roberts, M. (2009). Is John's Gospel Historically Accurate? Retrieved January 18, 2013, from Westside Church of Christ, Irving Texas: http://static.justchristians.com/abundantLife/051996/6.html

Towns, E. (2002). John. Chattanooga, TN: AMG.

TULIP

Have you ever heard of the acrostic TULIP used to expound upon the Doctrines of Grace? Do you agree? You might be surprised to see that you do. While you might not use the same terminology you might actually believe in the doctrine.

Total Depravity - Almost all Christians will agree that we are all sinners and need a savior. If we have sinned we have violated at least one point of the Law. The Bible teaches that if you are guilty of one violation you are guilty of ALL.

James 2:10 (NKJV) “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.”

Romans 5:8 (NKJV) “⁸ But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Unconditional Election – Again almost all Christians will readily admit that there is neither a sinner so bad nor a sin so terrible that God can’t forgive them. They will admit that God will save anyone, so there are no human conditions needed for Salvation. The sticking point is who does the choosing. If it is God all Glory to God. On the other hand; if I have chosen God and it was the volition of my own will that saved me then who gets the Glory?

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NIV) ^“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

John 1:12-13 (ESV) “¹² But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, ¹³ who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Limited Atonement – Most Christians have an objection to this doctrine, yet they will almost all agree that there is at least one, and probably many more people in Hell. Therefore whether they will admit it or not they believe that the Atonement of Christ was limited to those that are or will be in heaven. Therefore; they believe in Limited Atonement rather they will admit it or not.

John 10:25-26 (ESV) “²⁵ Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, ²⁶ but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.”

John 6:64 (ESV) “⁶⁴ But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)”

Irresistible Grace – If God has called us who can resist? If we can resist are we greater then God’s will? Almost all will agree that God can harden hearts to unbelief. Why not then can he not soften our hearts and call us to him. If he calls how can we resist.

John 6:65 (ESV)“⁶⁵ And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

John 6:44 (ESV)“⁴⁴ No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”

Perseverance of the Saints – For my Christian brothers and sisters that believe that we have a choice and through our own free will can choose to believe in Christ, Jesus and receive the gift of Salvation; this is a very tricky doctrine. Many who say we choose and make a decision for Christ will also say, “Once saved, always saved.” Yet, if I chose God of my own free will then why can’t I then un-choose him and decide not to believe? If all that is required for me to lose my Salvation is my will then where is my hope. My Salvation now rests on me and me alone. It is not God who saves but my will. If on the other hand if God chose me then it is him who keeps me by his will.

John 6:37-39 (ESV) “³⁷ All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”

John 10: 27-30 (ESV) “²⁷ My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸ I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. ³⁰ I and the Father are one.”

T -- total depravity. This doesn't mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one's being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.

U -- unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.

L -- limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.

I -- irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.

P -- perseverance of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.

Praise God

Watch the whole video to the right. You will be blessed.

The Cost of Justice

Cost of Justice

Kyle M. Anderson

Introduction

What is the cost of justice? How can we even qualify that? Justice should and must be served at any cost. There is no cost/benefit analysis that can be conducted that will truly be representative of  the true cost of justice. We can look at the cost of running our jails and prisons. We can examine the cost in dollars and man-power in our court systems. We can study the perceived benefits and social cost of our system. We can quantify and plug in statistics until we are blue in the face, yet we still have not defined the cost. Has justice been served? That is the only true cost/benefit analysis that matters. God demands that justice be served, Deuteronomy 16:19-21 “Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent. Follow justice and justice alone, so that you may live and possess the land the Lord your God is giving you.” (Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV), 2001).

As we can never fulfill perfect justice here on earth and since we must quantify the cost of justice in terms we can define I shall examine the cost in dollars, man-power, and the social cost of operating our justice system.

The Cost: defined

             To define the cost we must define the terms we are using. We have several costs involved. First is the monetary cost: the cost in dollars. Second we have the man-power cost: the amount of time our corrections, courts and legal personnel invest in serving justice. Third we have the societal cost: the cost that society bears in the confidence of our system and the feelings of security it brings.

The Benefit: defined

            To define the benefit we need to clarify what we define as the benefits of our system. There are several factors to examine in defining the benefits. First and primary is that justice is served. Second; provide a safe and secure environment to incarcerate the offenders. Third; remand the offender away from the public in order to rehabilitate them prior to release so that they will not re-offend.

The Cost/Benefits Analysis

Cost

            Monetary Cost: In fiscal year 2010, North Carolina spent $1,095,395,000 in direct prison costs, $109,272,000 in prison costs outside the corrections budget, for a total taxpayer amount of $1,204,667,000 or slightly over 9% of the state budget (Henrichson, 2012). Of the forty states that participated in the VERA study the total expenditures were: $38,903,304.000 or approximately 13.9% of the budget (Henrichson, 2012).

            Man-Power Cost: The cost of man-power is to broad a spectrum to quantify. Countless hours are spent by criminal justice personnel in running our system. Form the police officer on the street to the corrections officer in the prison there are thousands of people behind the scenes that the public never sees.

            Societal Cost: When the public loses confidence in the integrity of the system there is an unidentifiable societal cost. Cases such as the OJ Simpson murder trial and the more recent Casey Anthony trial erode the public’s confidence that justice can be served. Both of these cases cost the tax payers and extreme amount of money for negligible results.

Benefit.

Justice Served: How can we quantify if justice was served? The simplistic model would say the guilty were convicted and the innocent were freed. Overall we do a pretty good job of that. A study conducted in 1996 suggested that the number of innocents convicted of serious crimes was estimated conservatively at 0.5 percent. Of the 1,993,880 convictions for index crimes in 1990 that means nearly 10,000 innocents were wrongfully convicted (Huff, 1996). Still that is a 99.5% success rate and we are only human.

            Safe and Secure: In terms of safety and security of our jails and prisons no other country can even come close to our system. So we succeed in this area, but is it worth the over $30,000 we spend per inmate. Yes, when inmates are in our custody they are our responsibility.

            Remand/Rehabilitate: This is another are to diverse to define effectively. The national recidivism rate is around 70% (Bureau of Justice Statitics, 2012). This would suggest that perhaps we are failing in the rehabilitation of the inmates.               

Analysis

The benefit is much harder to determine. Simply in terms of cost per inmate, with the 2010 prison population in North Carolina, (not counting prison inmates held in local jails), of 40,116 (Guerino, 2011) the cost per inmate is $30,029. Unfortunately this still does not count the whole cost as there are many prison inmates housed in local jails at a cost to the taxpayer as well.

Summery

            It is my belief that there can be no realistic cost/benefit analysis of Justice. God demands us to seek justice and God is just. We cannot achieve perfection but a 99.5% conviction is pretty good. The cost of justice is high, but the cost of injustice is even higher. 2 Chronicles 19:7 "Now let the fear of the LORD be on you. Judge carefully, for with the LORD our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.” (Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV), 2001)

Bibliography

Bureau of Justice Statitics. (2012). Recidivism.

Guerino, P. H. (2011). Prisoners in 2010. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Henrichson, C. a. (2012). The Price of Prisons. VERA Institute of Justice.

Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV). (2001). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Huff, C. (1996). Convicted But Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy. Sage.