Resurrection-Body or Spirit?

I had always understood that resurrection meant bodily resurrection. One of those things obvious to me like the Trinity; Father, Son, Holy Spirit. In early Christianity, there were a lot of debates about the latter. How could three things exist in one thing simultaneously? For me, it just is, I just accept it and understand, mind to heart to soul, this is true.

The Gnostics posited that Jesus was a spirit body manifesting itself in the material world. To me, that makes no sense. To make the idea even more incomprehensible is the spirit body of Jesus imparted some kind of esoteric knowledge, gnosis (Greek). What that secret knowledge leads to is a way out of the material world.

Once accomplished, according to this idea, you become a spirit body, you escape the physical, material world. The physical world is evil, the spirit world is good. The Church Fathers found this heretical. I agree. It’s clear to me Jesus is exactly what He said He is. What He said is clear and means exactly what He said. No big secret here.

When I said I had always understood that resurrection meant bodily resurrection means just that, I’m surprised to find out that a majority of Christians believe, like the Gnostics, that resurrection is spiritual resurrection, the body is separated from the spirit. I’m thinking, really? How did that happen?

It’s been infiltrating Christianity for a long time. For about a hundred years, give or take, the idea that being resurrected means leaving matter/material/physical behind, separating from it has been growing. It’s an escape from materiality. From Houston Baptist University, a guy named Arthur Travis, in 1974 wrote: “The fact is, we shall not live in physical bodies after death…we shall not need or desire the things associated with our present physical bodies, simply because we shall not possess physical bodies in heaven.” So seriously wrong. 

In the late 1990’s Time Magazine had an article stating a finding the two thirds of Americans did not believe they would have bodies after they were resurrected. It wasn’t clear to me if that was just Americans or American Christians, but either way, it’s disconcerting to me. There was a poll, Scripps Howard/Ohio University of “born again’ Christians, about 60% answered a question about resurrection, stating that it was a bodily resurrection. The rest, just a spirit was resurrected. It should be 100% of Christians should know beyond a shadow of a doubt resurrection is bodily.

It turns out many if not most of congregations are not taught about resurrection; the fact of resurrection has devolved into a belief like that of the Gnostics. Of course Secularists point out that Christians have “evolved” and don’t believe in bodily resurrection any more. From a book by Brian Innes Death and the Afterlife: “…current orthodox Christianity no longer holds to the belief in physical resurrection, preferring the concept of the eternal existence of the soul, although some creeds still cling to the old ideas.”

Of course the old ideas are traditional, orthodox Christianity, and any way to diminish those ideas is a good thing. Sadly, many people claiming to be Christians agree more and more with Secularists, and are less and less aware of scripture and the insights of the church fathers. 

Yet, in the face of all evidence. We celebrate Easter, that  there was the bodily resurrection of Christ. After His resurrection people touched Him, He talked, ate, drank, and on the road to Emmaus, Christ walked with the two men and was obviously at least semi-corporeal. We will have bodies like that when we are resurrected. 

There are a lot of ancient Greek words that were misunderstood or mistranslated that have (partially) led to this confusion of what resurrection entails. Words meaning the soul, and not the body, got mixed up. For example “psychikos” was translated to mean physical when in fact ancient Greek speakers understood it to mean soul. It just became a mess.

I had read that at one time Pastors were more local theologians, personal theologians to their congregations. It got to be the Pastors ended up doing a lot of home visitations, taking care of church business and the like, that they were having to keep paring back their religious studies. That was the main contributor to the formation of the Diaconate; to free up the Pastor for the important thing, the religion. Keep the main thing the main thing if you will. Would that Pastors could go back to being local theologians, and maybe we wouldn’t have guys like Baptist Arthur Travis giving out wrong information. I hear what a lot of Pastors are saying and doing, and just get flummoxed. I’m just a layman, and good grief, there are so many Pastors violating scripture in deed and speech and what they teach.

Between incorrect translations, secular influence, congregations that have not been correctly taught, the pressure on Pastors, what resurrection really is has been distorted so much it doesn’t bear much resemblance to what it really is.

When I look at the bodily resurrection of Christ, and all the things Paul said about resurrection, it cements absolutely that we have a body after death. Heaven is a place God has designed, not for just spiritual beings to float around, but there still are challenges and growth, always growing closer to God, but when bodily resurrected, we will be in His presence. There is a plan and a purpose in heaven, and resurrected bodies to accomplish God’s purpose, joy and glory for all eternity. 

Small Advocacy Groups Turning World On Its Head, & It's Not a Good Thing

Pondering our upside down world, where homosexuals are exalted over heterosexuals, where living alone or cohabitating is exalted over traditional marriage, where having the State raise kids (send to school, get fed, propagandized, indoctrinated, inoculated, suffocated, anything but educated), lip service paid to military service while undercutting them though PC social programs and underfunding and underpaying the people, where the secular is exalted over the religious, where Islam is exalted over Christianity.

Then I think, how is it possible that the gay population, about 3% of us, have gained so much control over how we speak, how much pop culture is controlled by that small amount of folks. How is it Blacks, about 12% of us, control how we speak, how much of our pop culture and politics are controlled by that small of a segment of the population. Most of our population, over 85% identify ourselves a Christians, yet a few percent of atheists and secularists are getting crosses torn down all over the country, Ten Commandments getting torn down, the government forcing religious institutions to violate centuries old beliefs and principles and forced to comply upon threat of jail, fines, or both. Small groups, huge impact, totalitarian mindset.

Mostly because the rest are regular folks going about the business of working, paying bills, having relationships and kids the traditional way, and those cares outweigh the eroding of what has traditionally worked over the centuries. Most just don't glam on to a cause; environmentalism, sexism, feminism, socialism, Marxism, racism (blacks' notion if you're white you're privileged and a racist by definition), secularism, atheism and all the rest. It's deconstruction. It's easier to tear down than to build up, and from there not just maintain but improve.

It's easier too to engage in labeling, stereotyping, and name calling than to apply what works: communication, tolerance, acceptance, forgiveness. The things all the advocacy groups mentioned above have in common is just that. If you disagree with gays, you're a homophobe, with Blacks you're a racist, if secularist or atheist you're intolerant, a bigot and forcing your [Christian] beliefs on others. The opposite of course is true. The racism, hatred, bigotry, labeling, stereotyping, intolerance is emanating from those advocacy groups. BTW, if you point out to environmentalists 'global warming' is not supported by any true science, you're a "denier". That of course is to put you in the category of being a holocaust denier. See how it works?

Going back to the 6th Century, how is it Christianity was the most powerful force throughout the Middle East, bringing charity, hope, love, institutions to heal the sick and wounded and helpless, was replaced by a top down brutal genocidal, totalitarian "religion" that advocated the murder of those that did not then, and now do not agree with them. We're going to allow that again, except now in this country, in Western Civilization? And now a small group in this country that for some reason reject the Christian principals and actions that, based on Judeo-Christian scripture, are the best, proven guide, for successful government and personally successful lives, are advocating for Islam over Christianity and totalitarianism over democracy.

I have this suggestion for Christians. Many of us bemoan the weakening of our Religion, the values and the attack on behaviors that work with a 100% success rate when applied. Take a page from the 3%, the 12%, the small groups that have had a profoundly powerful effect on us, on Western Civilization, and speak up, push back, and educate. Jesus gave us the Great Commission. We just aren't doing it. Take a note from the Apostle Paul. He never backed down one bit even after beaten, stoned, imprisoned.

Talk about your faith at work. Talk about it a gatherings and parties. Talk about it at political gatherings. Live it too; that's the biggest witness. See, the effect would be bigger than all the small advocacy groups accomplish through hatred, lies and bullying. Christians have the guide, the historical personal histories to model after. We have what the advocacy groups don't: love, faith, hope, charity. They do it the wrong way, and look how successful they've been. Think about engaging and doing it the right way.

The Great Commission. Previous thoughts here, here, here. 

Those Vile Ten Commandments

Connellsville Jr High, Ten Commandments

Secularists, Statists, Atheist Fundamentalists, and that whole cabal of anti-Christian, anti-Semite bigots are once again attacking the Ten Commandments, this time on a school ground. The monument was put there in 1957, outside of what is now the  Junior High auditorium; at the time Connellsville High School. It was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

The group suing is the Freedom From Religion Foundation which goes around the country, even to remote areas, finds religious symbols, and sues to have them removed. The ACLU, the well known anti Christian lawyer cabal, is their representative.  

The school said they would move the 5 to 6 foot monument to a nearby church, which was rejected by the intolerant bigoted hate groups, because it would be still be in view of the students while they were on school grounds. Really and truly? They need to demand the church be destroyed too then.

One would think these commandments, rules to live by, would be a good thing. The first of these about putting God before all else; think about that as not worshiping things in the material world such as money, sex, property, etc. It seems these bigots approve of putting the material above all else...relationships, love, caring.

Taking the Lord's name in vain. What you think is what you are. If you defile language, you're defiling yourself. Marcus Aurelius: "Our life is what our thoughts make of it." That, what to them is a horrible Book, predated the statement in Proverbs: "For as he thinks in his heart, so is he".  It seems these people reject having good clean thoughts.

Remembering the Sabbath. Take a day off, get some rest. I guess they don't want a day off. I recommend they work seven days a week, walk the talk.

Honor your father and mother. It's better to disrespect your father and mother?

Don't murder. Hmmmmm, murder is a good thing?

Don't commit adultery. So good ahead and cheat on your spouse, it's acceptable.

Don't bear false witness against your neighbor. By rejecting this I suppose lying and gossiping about your neighbor is a good thing.

Don't covet you neighbor's stuff. Being envious and wanting your neighbor's stuff is a good trait?

It seems Atheists and Secularists are pro adultery, pro murder, pro theft, materialist above all else, think and say vile things, advocate for a seven day work week, and be disrespectful of your parents.

Well, that's a good lifestyle.   

Secularists', Atheists' Anti Christian Hypocrisy

Can't give attribution, don't know where it came from.

Yet More Attacks on Christianity by Our Secularist, Bigoted President & His Party

This President and his political party have made it abundantly clear they are Secularists, and specifically anti-Christian. Here’s a few items to make the point.

I had written earlier that I’m disgusted by the use of Our Savior Jesus Christ being used as a political pawn. The anti-Christian bigot Obama did just that when he attended a prayer breakfast and used the time meant for communing with God to make a Marxist campaign speech, saying Jesus' admonition to help the poor means the government must raise taxes, especially on the rich.

Obama: “When I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling and at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income or young people with student loans or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone.”  … “And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.”

“But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that, ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’”

He added this even more appalling observation:  “…mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.” Since Christianity came first, and Islam imperfectly picked and chose what it wanted and needed to oppress people, I don’t think so.

http://youtu.be/jRA6l-VCttg

The quote, “Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required,” does not mean from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. Obama sees everything through Marxist lenses. It’s his religion.

Part of that religion is to ignore the establishment clause of the Constitution (and the rest of the Constitution too, but I need to stay on point), “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and the free exercise clause, "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The latest kerfuffle is his forcing the Catholic Church to adhere to his secular religion, which advocates the killing of babies, i.e., abortion, over the life of babies. Add to that forcing, against the teaching/values/beliefs of the Church requiring them to provide contraception. This Administration ruling forcing the church to provide abortions, sterilizations, and contraceptives as part of their health care programs is a requirement from Health and Human Services Department, not even legislation. They can get away with it because, contrary to what was said to the public by Obama and the Democrats, mandating abortion is in ObamaCare. This doesn’t only apply to the Catholic Church, but to all religious organizations; if the Catholic Church and other organizations stick to their guns on this, many religious funded hospitals, health facilities and companies will be forced to shut down. The Obama administration isn’t entirely insensitive to this issue; all the affiliated organizations have a year before being forced to comply or shut down.

Archbishop Timothy Nolan has published a letter to the president in protest, and there are several with some variations from many Bishops in America. A copy of one is at the bottom of this article.

He's also forbidden Chaplin's in the military to comment on this abuse of power, this ignoring of the Constitution, this forcing of Religion, specifically Christianity, to ignore and reject the teachings of their respective churches. He is Commander in Chief and has the legal right to do so, but not the moral right. 

Recently struck down by the Supreme Court, and not reported or under reported by the re-elect Obama press, was a ruling requiring Churches to adhere to equal opportunity legislation. This requires the Catholic Church to allow female priests, and Jews female rabbis. You may color me wrong on this, but aren’t elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution? If I’m right, the Secularists in power that took that oath are definitely ignoring both the establishment clause and free exercise clause.

Off on a tangent here; the first female ex-Speaker of the House, a professed Catholic, stated about the issue: “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.” Say what? She’s one of many Catholic politicians that are pro-abortion and contraception ignoring the teachings of the Church she professes to be a member of. For most of us practicing Christians, God comes first, and informs our beliefs and actions. If one is a politician, and speaks honestly about his\her Faith, they should let it be known and live by it. I think if a Catholic runs for office on a pro-abortion platform, or lives and legislates in opposition to the Church, they should renounce the Church. If not, and I’m not Catholic, so I don’t know how exactly this works, but if they stay in the Church and support the kinds of regulation written about here, they should be excommunicated. It shouldn’t bother these anti-Christian, anti-Catholic Catholics anyway since they apparently don’t believe or practice Church doctrine.  

There’s a whole section of the Bible discussing Spiritual Warfare, mostly in Ephesians 6: 10- 18. This is where it manifests itself in physical world. We have the leader of the free world leading an assault on Christianity (and supporting Islam). Good for the Catholic Church for standing up to these bigots and secularists.

A View of Gringrich

This is as clear an explanation of the difference between Liberty and Tyranny as you'll find, and as clear an explanation with history, wisdom and virtue that support Capitalism and the Constitution over Statism.

http://youtu.be/s9iURuZzXb0

Gringrich has many flaws, as we all do, but he's owned up to them, and as you'll see in the vid below he grieves and apologizes for what he's done. Heaven knows what pain we all caused some others, and what any of us has suffered because of others or what we've brought on ourselves.


http://youtu.be/m5nC9x8qg8g

This speaks to humility, that one can't assume so powerful a position without divine guidance. The body of this man's work for good; the time, energy and passion needs to be looked at, and we shouldn't fall into the trap the opposition wants us to, which is to focus only on his failings. God help me if I were viewed by only my failings.

Don’t dis them that brung ya to the dance

If you are against Christianity, yet care about children, charity, humanity, love, the old, the homeless, and the sick, why?

Secularists, in whatever form, anti-traditionalists, atheists, communists, statists, pagans, all claim to be charitable, care about the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill and the rest, at the same time saying hateful things about Christians. I’ve been reading quite a bit lately about the ancient world, especially about the ancient Mediterranean; their beliefs and behaviors.

In the pagan world infanticide, murder, slavery, letting the sick, poor, old people and children just die because of they were of no value or use, was the way of philosophy and life. Women had fewer rights than male slaves.

We in the West have the opposite view and practices. It all began because of what Jesus taught. Jesus Christ said to let the children come to Him, “Jesus took children in his arms and blessed them. ‘Let the children come to me; do not hinder them.’ . . . And He took them in His arms and blessed them, laying His hands on them.”   Even the Disciples were against this. Children at that time were seen as a burden, another mouth to feed. Girl babies were often left to die or outright killed right after birth, and any baby not seen as fully healthy was killed. Many were abandoned. As a result, over the centuries, abandoned children were taken care of by Christians. Christians created orphanages or cared for them in their own homes (precursor of the foster care system) rather than buy into the notion that children were of no value. Those against Christianity will point out all the failings of orphanages and foster care. I can only suppose then they approve of leaving abandoned children to die.

Leaving children to die, not seeing the worth and sanctity of human life extended to all people. Life had no value. Murder was acceptable. Infanticide was acceptable. Abortion (as it is now) was acceptable; thousands were slaughtered in the arenas of the Roman Empire, and human sacrifice was acceptable all over the world. Jesus taught all life was sacred. This was antithetical to the pagan beliefs of the time. Secularists and atheists claim to care for people. This is a Christian belief. Secularists and atheists being true to their rejection of Christianity, to be true to their beliefs, would advocate for murder, infanticide and human sacrifice.

Before Christianity marriage was for political and child bearing reasons. Men wanted an heir, and women’s purpose was to have babies. They were baby factories with no rights. Unmarried women were often, if not usually, prostitutes. Temples were glorified brothels filled with prostitutes. Jesus had many women followers, cared and ministered to them against the norms of His society. Jesus had women spread the news of His Resurrection. The early church met primarily in homes, usually run by women. In that society, such things were just not allowed. Women weren’t even allowed to speak in public, but in Christian services they were. Are atheists and secularists for the abuse of women, forcing them to be silent, forcing them into prostitution?

Marriage was not between equals in pagan society as it is now. Based on Jesus’ teachings, the Apostle Paul wrote extensively about the equality of women in marriage, that men should love and listen to their women, should share equally in the marriage. Divorce then was a one way street. The man could just throw his wife out on the street with no possessions or money; that was divorce. A husband could commit adultery as long as it wasn’t with another man’s wife. Not out of any concern for the wife, but because the wife was property, and adultery was using (stealing) another man’s property. Plus there were plenty of prostitutes around, so it was just insulting to use another’s wife.

Slavery was the social norm of the day. It was until the 19^th century. It was Christians, using the teachings of Apostle Paul and Jesus that put into practice the notion that we are all created in God’s image, so all equal before Him, and so to each other. In pagan times one was free man or slave (or woman). It was Christians that fought to free slaves all over the world. Do atheists and secularists endorse slavery, or embrace the Christian belief and practice that men are equal and slavery is evil.

There was no such thing as charity and compassion. There was no caring for the sick, poor, or homeless. If one were in such a condition, it was punishment from the gods. Based on Jesus’ teaching, Apostle Paul said, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others”. At that time looking after others was thought of as useless and a waste. The thinking of the time was that the poor and sick should be left to die if they can’t work. They weren’t worthy of help. Jesus showed compassion for the sick and poor. If atheists and secularists so reject Christianity, then they reject the notion of caring for the sick and poor, like those before Christianity did.

There were not charitable organizations before Christianity introduced them. There wasn’t any charity at all. Jesus said, “Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” An absolute contradiction to the mores of the time. Rejecting the teachings of Christianity, would secularists and atheists reject charities for the sick or the homeless, the poor?

Part of caring for the sick was the creation of hospitals, that didn’t exist in pagan times. Atheists and secularists accept this as just a part of modern society. Schools, the idea that everyone, even women, should be taught, regardless of class or ethnicity, was a Christian development and practice. Before Jesus Christ, education was only for the sons of free men. There was of course push back against this, even among Christians, but the idea became the reality we have today.

Art, music, architecture, literature all benefitted and improved as a result of Christianity. That’s a whole other posting. My point here is atheists and secularists all embrace, practice and benefit from the beliefs and sacrifices of Christians. Maybe they should reconsider their wholesale attack on Christianity since it is what gives them their own sense of humanity, care, compassion and love. Such things did not exist before Jesus Christ. Don’t dis them that brung ya to the dance.

Dems Using Religion to Attack Opponents

Secularist Leftists continually attack religion, specifically Christians, except when they think using religion can score political points. The results are pretty vile.

In the Kentucky senate race Democrat Jack Conway came out with an ad attacking his Republican opponent Rand Paul for a hazing event that happened when Paul was in college decades ago.  

Part the ad:

“Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible ‘a hoax’ – that was banned for mocking Christianity and Christ?” “Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up? Tell her to bow down before a false idol and say his God was ‘Aqua Buddha?’

 I’ve seen interviews with this Conway character, and he actually believes this is a legitimate campaign issue. Most importantly, a Democrat is using religion (or what he believes to be religion) to attack a political opponent. You can bet if this were a Republican using religion in a like manner it would be attacked by all the “separation of church and state” anti-Christian bigots in the Democrat Party and Jurassic Press.

This second example is especially vile. Democrat Russ Carnahan released a vid through a website “The Real Ed Martin” (Carnahan’s Republican opponent) that tries to link Martin to the pedophilia cover up in the Catholic Church. The vid on this page is direct and vile. Martin has done a lot of volunteer work with the Catholic Church, and apparently Carnahan thinks anyone in the Catholic Church supports and covers up pedophilia. I would suggest this is pretty much the view of most secularists and Dems.

Church and State separation is such a part of the indoctrination of the Left that when Republican senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell pointed out to her Marxist opponent that the establishment clause in the Constitution does not contain language stating there’s such a separation, her opponent, Chris Coons, derided and mocked her for her lack of knowledge of the Constitution. This was at a law school and the audience jeered at her ignorance. Obviously they are not being taught the Constitution in their Con classes. Of course the secularist bigots of the Jurassic Press sided with the ignorant Marxist and the indoctrinated mindless students.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nothing in there about separation of church and state, yet even though more than a week has passed, the Jurassic Press and Dems have continued to attack her as stupid and ignorant. Knuckleheads.

Rather than understanding, or even trying to understand Christianity, their intolerance is so bred into them, the only time the Dems bring religion up is to spread lies and attack the Church and Christians. They do support Islam though, and that makes sense because it’s totalitarian too.

Daily Kos Blogger Demands Abolition of Organised Religion

This is a rant from a character calling himself\herself "Blue Moon", totally rejecting the Constitution, tolerance, wisdom and good sense. Most atheists I know or read, reinterpret the Establishment Clause as meaning freedom from religion, not that the State can't impose religion. This Daily Kos writer wants to see established religion abolished. Statists must abolish religion because it's the only thing standing between liberty and totalitarianism. Examples are Soviet Union and Red China; atheist nations for a reason.

"The church of pedophiles that brought you Cardnal Law and the current head, Ratzinger dares open its filthy mouth again? To preach about morality?" The Apostle Paul, when writing about homosexuality, was actually talking about grown men sodomizing little boys. That was predominate in the pagan world of the time. He wanted this to stop because it was inhumane. This atrocity existed well before the modern Catholic Church, and Catholics are just as furious as anyone else that it happened, and that the Church turned a blind eye to it. The Church is not a "church of pedophiles"...that's just a stupid statement on the face of it. Let's turn an open eye to the judges in this country that let pedophiles and rapists go free to do their despicable acts over and over and get released over and over. Should we abolish the Judiciary?

"The Reverend Phelps dares picket servicemen's funerals? And tell us all that "Heath [is] in Hell?" And call Lady Gaga a 'proud whore'?" Phelps is the evil stupid man that leads the Westboro Baptist Church. His is an independent anti-Christian church, is not affiliated at all with anything other than their own hatred and stupidity. This is the hate group that stands outside of cemeteries protesting the military dead being buried. They've been fully shunned by the Christian community. This whole article is the standard deceptive practice of Secularists. Select out one bad actor, and paint the whole community with that brush.

"A variety of crazy wackos calling themselves the "Tea party" peddle vicious racism masquerading as christian faith." There is no connection, not one, between Churches and the TEA Party Movement. The is no evidence of racism in the TEA Party other than the claims of the racist Democrat Party, racist Obama Administration, racist NAACP, racist Black Congressional Caucus, and racist New Black Panther Party, (supported by the racist Attorney General Eric Holder). Of course the Left is losing the arguments about everything, so as a distraction lay in the claim all their opponents are racist. Of course, this statement paints all members of organized religion as racists.

"It is time to begin working actively to bring about the end of organized religion. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is a wonder that a group of ignorant, bigoted and hateful men (yes, mostly men) can preach against scientific progress and try to take this country and the world a few centuries back. It is time to face the truth -- THERE IS NO GOD." Actually, there's scientific progress because of organized religion, and European civilization was saved during the "Middle Ages" by organized religion. This writer is ignorant or willfully lying. The "New Atheists" religion is attacking organized religion. It's not enough to just say they don't believe in a higher power and move on. I'm interested to find out that the church is mostly men. With all the women ministers and church leaders, I found this "fact" astounding. Especially since the national president of my congregation is a woman. How'd that happen?

"**the church tells you that as long as you go to confession and pray to God, all the wrong-doing will be forgiven. Therefore, religion teaches us an inconsiderate, irresponsible behavior to our fellow humans. No, I do not want someone who wronged me to ask forgiveness from God. I want them to come to me, to face me and ask for forgiveness from me, not some abstract and supposedly all-forgiving god." Actually, to be forgiven, one must ask for it from the person offended, and there must be penance. Secularists project what they believe or want to be true, and state it as a truth.

"It is time to organize and take legal action against religious institutions. There are many avenues available to pursue lawsuits against churches and such. It is time to turn up the heat in the media and the blogsphere against this unnecessary and harmful atavism of the past." What is this character going to sue for? Specifically. $Billions given to those that suffer from AIDS in Africa? Homeless shelters and food kitchens that millions of volunteer hours and billions of dollars are offered? Hospitals (which were founded and developed by the Church)?

This character does not know the Constitution or wants to shred it. He's an intolerant bigot, who claims to have moral and ethical values. He doesn't, but the one's he does claim to have are all based in the values set forth by organised religion. The Pagan Society he wishes for instead of what we have now, advocated sodomizing little boys, women were used only for sex and breeding, two thirds of civilization were slaves, to name just a few things. Christianity lead the movement to abolish slavery, Jesus had many women as his confidants, and the early Church was lead by women. I'll take this culture that respects women, where slavery is abolished, and sodomizing little boys is absolutely rejected (except to Secularist judges).

There is too much in this uninformed, lying, intolerant, bigoted article to address in a short blog. Full article here.

So what's the beef? Are any Secularists or atheists forced to worship, go to church, or pray? Are churches forcing, or are able to force, anyone to do anything?

Willful Misrepresentation of the Bible

Atheists and other Secularists willfully misrepresent the Bible, taking stories out of context to prove whatever point they want. In my discussions with these people, the foundation of their argument is that what’s in the Bible is what’s advocated by Believers. So all the rape and sodomy, lies and other bad behaviors is what Believers justify as acceptable in their [atheists] view. A couple examples would be the story of Sodom and Gomorrah when Lot offers his daughters to the mob outside his house to protect the travelers he had as guests, or the story in Judges (Chapter 19) when there was a similar situation, and again daughters were offered. Ultimately, and oversimplified, these are stories of what happens when we turn our backs to God. In many of my discussions with atheists, they forward these stories as advocacy for demeaning and raping women, and other stories as advocating despicable behavior; as if religious people have that market cornered.

Here is a story from pagan, polytheistic society. Using the same advocacy principle, is this about it being sanctioned behavior?

Plutarch writes this story circa 730’s BCE:

“[Archias] could not win over the boy (Actaeon, with whom he was infatuated), so he decided to kidnap him. He gathered together many friends and servants and went on a ‘komos’ (a group of drunken men in the streets at night after a party) against the home of Melissus [Actaeon’s father] and tried to extract the youth. But the father and his people fought back, and the neighbors as well ran out and engaged the attackers in a tug-of-war, so that Actaeon was pulled apart and killed. Archias’s party then made themselves scarce.”

Usually these “komos” or “revellings” were tolerated. Would one, using the advocacy principle, say that this was advocating murder, homosexuality, pedophilia, or rape? I’m positing the absurd to show the absurd. This is only a story of a bad event. The stories at the beginning of this piece were also stories of bad events, representing unspeakable behavior by everybody involved. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, they represent what happens when humanity turns their back on God.

The Apostle Paul, stating what we get when we have a society rebelling against God:

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”

An atheist friend criticizing Christians’ behavior said she wished Christians would read their own Bible. I wish atheists would. Christians do read it at whatever level they can, and often fall short of the ideal of Christian understanding, belief and behavior. Often we misunderstand the Bible. That’s easy to do; it’s really complex, and rich, and full of everything about life. But they don’t willfully lie about what’s in it; and if it isn’t willful lying, then the criticizers should take some time to understand what’s being said themselves, before attacking what they don’t understand.

Lemons, Atheists, and the Establishment Clause

The unenforceable and mostly ignored "National Day of Prayer" was declared unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb this past week. This is a wet dream come true for militant atheists. If it goes to the Supreme Court, it'll probably get overturned though. It could be overturned by the 7th Circuit, but the judges there are, for the most part, anti-Christian bigots and secularists that have no use for the Constitution.

I love this line from Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Va., “If the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, then the Constitution itself if unconstitutional.”

Even Obama, who in his first year of office ignored the day, as have many presidents in the past, saying it's ceremonial and is just “acknowledgment of the role of religion in American life”. Militant atheists and their secular fellow travelers must drive religion out because only then can the power of the State become absolute.

While researching this unconstitutional ruling against what's in the Constitution's Establishment Clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” I came upon the "Lemon Test".

Militant atheists and their secular friends want the clause to mean that there can be no religion shown in the public square at all. In a recent debate on Facebook, one of my opponents said religion should be made illegal. So much for freedom of expression and freedom of religion, but Statists have to get rid of the Constitution along with religion.

Since Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), there has been a application, a test, questions written by Chief Justice Warren Burger for the majority opinion.
They are:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

These questions have been a solid legal guide for decades, and when applied to this National Prayer day ruling, it will have to be overturned. Unless of course, Obama's new Justice is sworn in, then the Constitution and the rule of law pretty much goes out the window for about a generation, if not forever. Then the secularist will have the individual beholden to the State in all things, and constitutional democracy will have seen its day. Atheism is a religion by the way. The Supremes have said so. Makes sense; they have faith there is no God, they (the militant ones anyway) proselytize, and go to meetings to support each other.

Thing is, since I'm a Christian, I hang out with a lot of similar thinking people as myself, and I've never had conversations saying the equivalent hateful things, and lies, about atheists and secularists than what they say about us. If the subject comes up at all, it's about their attacks on us, their intolerance and bigotry, and how to protect ourselves. One way, is to embrace the traditions that grew this country to be the most successful in human history, and the other is to obey the rule of law set forth in the Constitution. Atheists and secularists reject both.