No Fish On My Car

As I write this, the news is that the Supreme Court precedent of "Roe v. Wade" may be overturned. What this means is that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion will no longer be a Federal issue, but will be left up to the individual states. With many states already pushing laws limiting, or in some cases eliminating, abortions, you can see why this is such a hot topic.

Let me be clear, I really don't care whether or not "Roe v. Wade" stands or falls by the wayside. Why? Because, according to high school civics, the Supreme Court does NOT make the laws. That's the job of Congress. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret those laws in accordance with the Constitution. "Roe v. Wade" is not a law; it is a precedent. Like an Executive Order, it does not have the weight of a law and can be overturned by future courts (or Executives, in the case of the latter). 

Many on the "right" (Republicans / conservatives) have been playing footsie for years with challenges to the precedent. Such are the laws in the individual states. However, Congress has never made a LAW that states that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body, including the right to an abortion. What is really needed is an amendment to the Constitution. But really, who wants to go to all that trouble (see the 18th and 21st Amendments and you'll understand the drug war)? 

Let me be clear: I am a Caucasian male who identifies as a Christian. Got it? Okay, continue. 

Christians are considered anti-abortion/anti-choice/pro-life (depending on which side of the subject you stand). And here is why: If abortions were "normal", Jesus may never have been born. 

Luke 1:35 - "The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'" 

What you just read is what Catholics call the "Immaculate Conception", because it was a conception and it was immaculate - no mess. 

According to Christian doctrine, every pregnancy is due to immaculate conception. If a woman has an abortion, she is killing something holy and pure. 

I'm kidding. The reason they call it the "Immaculate Conception" is that there was no penis involved (thus "no mess"). 

But apparently, those on the "right" believe the doctrine joke above. Why? Because EVERY law limiting a woman's right to choose has no impact upon the penis-bearer involved. And that too is Christian doctrine: 

John 8:3-6 "As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd. 'Teacher,' they said to Jesus, 'this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?' They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger." 

The Bible does not state what Jesus wrote, but I've heard a few speculations. The best was He was writing the name of the MAN she was caught in adultery with. Think about it: it takes two to tango. 

We in the United States are anti-Sharia Law. It is Islam's legal system, derived from their holy book (Quaran) and other writings, and states such things like a woman has to be covered head to foot in public, a woman cannot walk around in public without a male family escort, and in many cases, cannot receive an education. I understand the reason behind Sharia Law: Islamic men are WEAK, COWARDLY, and have NO control over themselves. Instead of making laws to limit the MEN, they make laws to limit the WOMEN because the men can't control themselves. This is also known as a patriarchy. 

We too have a patriarchy for the same reason. We men here in the United States are also WEAK, COWARDLY, and have NO control over ourselves. Most of those involved in writing our laws are men, which explains the laws in the states impacting a woman's right to choose. Which is why we blame the woman for getting pregnant - as if they did it all by themselves. 

If you are a Christian reading this, the rest is directed at you. If you are not a Christian, and know a Christian, please pass this onto them as well. 

The title of this post is "No Fish On My Car". You may have seen a fish symbol decal on the back of the car in front of you. This symbol is stating that the person driving this car is a Christian. I have no such symbol on my car, though the driver is a Christian. Why? Because I don't always DRIVE like a Christian. 

2 Corinthians 3:2 "You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men;" 

Or, as Francis of Assisi said, "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary."  

Ever see those protesters outside of an abortion clinic with signs stating life begins at conception (apparently WITH a penis)? Some even hold pictures of aborted fetuses. They, my friends are what are known as "hypocrites".  

James 2:15-16 "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?" 

Want to claim to be pro-life? Want to legislate your religious morality? Then put your religion where your mouth is. Go to these women and tell them, "Here is a legal contract between you and me. You agree to carry this baby to term and I will PAY all of your expenses, drive you to all of your medical appointments, and hold your hand during the delivery. Afterwards, I will ADOPT this baby and raise it as my own. If you DO decide to keep it, I will PAY all of your expenses, drive the child to soccer practice, dance recitals, etc., and provide all needs until the child graduates college."  

If not? Shut your pie hole.  

How many are planning on removing that fish? 

©Emittravel 2022

Christians Love A Whiner - er - Winner

Several days ago I posted the following on Facebook and Twitter: "President Trump is the winningest President ever! He is the ONLY President to be impeached ... TWICE! Now THAT'S winning! Let the door hit you in the a** on the way out!"

I admit, my Facebook and Twitter feeds aren't my blog; however, the "My Humble But Accurate Opinion" theme does tend to carry over to other parts of my online life. 

I really don't get that much social interaction from my posts on Twitter. On Facebook I get loads. Especially when they have even a hint of a derogatory emphasis on President Trump. And mostly from my friends of Christian faith. Which got me to thinking: why are so many Christians so enamored with President Trump?

Before I go any further, I want to state that I am a Christian. If you have read some of my older blog posts, you will also realize that I am not a "religious" Christian. I do recommend you check out some of those posts if you need more of an explanation. Go ahead. I can wait.

Finished? Okay, I'll continue.

From what I can tell, Christians (I'm going to use them as a group - even though I know many Christians do not consider President Trump to be all that awesome. If you are a Christian and don't think Trump to be the Second Coming, don't worry - I'm not referring to you.) think that Trump is the most Christian President we have ever had as a nation. He stands for family. He's pro-life. And he stands against evil (the mainstream media, Democrats, China, etc.) Any comment that would detract from that message is considered anathema. 

Well, if you ARE a Christian who believes Trump walks on water, you may want to stop reading.

(As you might have noticed, I dropped the "President" and refer to him just as "Trump". No disrespect is meant by this. It is simply to tighten my verbose writing.)

I believe that if you ARE a Christian, Trump should be the LAST person you should adore. And here's why:

Let's start with the "stands for family" bit. Trump has the honor of being the President with the MOST divorces - more than any other President in history. To quote the Elite Daily, "In 1990, Trump's first wife Ivana divorced him after his affair with model Marla Maples was revealed. Trump later married Maples in 1993, three months after she gave birth to their daughter Tiffany Trump. The couple was married for four years until they separated in 1997. That brings us to first lady Melania Trump, previously Melania Knauss, who met Trump at a party in 1998. The couple dated for six years before tying the knot in 2005. Melania gave birth to their son, Barron, nearly a year later." Tiffany was conceived and born out of wedlock. A very Christian ideal indeed.

Okay, let's look at his being "pro-life". This may come as a shock, but Trump was pro-choice (for Christians "PRO-ABORTION") up until he decided to run for President in 2015. Why the big change? Did he suddenly decide that every sperm is sacred? Doubtful. More likely he decided that he had a better chance of winning as a Republican than as a Democrat, and running as a pro-choice Republican would not even get him out of the Primaries.

How about that he stands against evil? Surely, that's a good reason to faun over him. Actually, no. The very Democrats that he calls evil were his brothers and sisters up until he decided to run for President in 2015. Again, see the above paragraph.

The only thing Trump values is Trump. His name is the sweetest sound in the world. That's why he puts it on his steaks and the top of towers. As President, he even refused to use the official @POTUS Twitter account, preferring his @realDonaldTrump account BECAUSE it had his name in it.

I also find it difficult to "worship" the guy who said it was okay to "grab them by the p*ssy", and use chemical agents against protesters to make a path for him to go to a church he never attended for a photo op of him holding up a Bible UPSIDE DOWN.

I think it's not too far from golden toilets to being a "golden calf". (I know, he didn't actually have a gold toilet, but it makes this funny!)

Was he an idiot? No. Actually, he was quite smart. One of the main ways to unite people is to give them a common enemy. Trump provided them in truck loads, and his "followers" gobbled them up. One of my Facebook friends made it a point to tell me that they were at the pre-Capitol riot speech and that he did NOT incite the crowd to insurrection. I'm sure the members of Jeremiah Wright's church didn't hear any "god damn America" language either. I got through about half of the transcript of Trump's speech. I gotta say, there was a quite a lot of "enemy" language spouted. Of course, about a quarter of the way through I kept getting mental images of Jim Carrey's Ace Ventura:

The Bible says that a person is "…not to think of himself more highly than he ought…" (Romans 12:3). Yet, Trump thought so highly of himself that BEFORE the 2020 election even happened he was stating that he won the election, and the only way he could lose was by voter fraud. Maybe he was a prophet too.

Speaking of the 2020 election, I'm not at all surprised that it has become the clusterf*ck that it is. Trump repeatedly told his followers that they should vote in person and not by mail. Since the coronavirus was of no concern to Republicans, all the Democrats would be too scared to go out and vote. And since Democrats would then vote by mail, all of their votes should be considered invalid. 

No surprise then, when after the polls closed many states then started counting the mail-in ballots and most went for Biden. Which is why Trump's "lead" started to disappear. That's not fraud. That's the system working as designed.

By the way, in the typical "do as I say, not as I do" Trump mentality, he voted BY MAIL.

When it comes to election fraud, I'm going to quote NPR: "The largest case of election fraud in recent U.S. history took place during the 2018 midterm elections and involved third-party ballot collection. A GOP operative illegally collected and potentially tampered with ballots in a U.S. House race in North Carolina, eventually leading state authorities to overturn the election results." As you can probably guess, Trump voted by third-party ballot collection for the 2020 election.

Of course, this also means Trump got all his election fraud tips from a reliable source: the GOP! (Or, did the GOP get the tips from Trump? Chicken? Egg?)

As far as the voter fraud allegations are concerned, Trump and his legal team have failed to provide ANY credible proof of fraud. Oh, they had a lot of theories, but no proof. During that pre-Capitol riot speech he mentioned the list of inmates who voted. To quote Monty Python in "Life of Brian" when Brian said to the crowd, "A man had two sons," and a member of the crowd yelled out, "What were their names?", I ask concerning those inmates, what were their names?

The list of individuals Trump has fired (or have "requested" letters of resignation from - same thing, by the way) since losing the 2020 election is quite extensive. If you weren't completely loyal to him, you were on the short list. 

As an example of Trump's inability to accept defeat, Chris Krebs, formerly the most senior cybersecurity official, was fired by Trump (via Twitter, no less) when he declared the election secure. Why? Because Trump wanted him to find proof of election tampering and he didn't. Because it's all about Trump, and Trump cannot stand to lose.

But firing people should come as no surprise. I think Trump may still believe he is in his reality show. 

Dominion Voting Systems has been so disparaged by Trump and his team, that they are suing. And unlike Trump's legal team, this isn't a frivolous lawsuit. We're talking defamation and slander.

Trump says that there is no way "Sleepy Joe" got more votes than him. And I have to agree. There is nothing about Biden that makes one think, "Now THERE'S a leader!" But that's the thing: people didn't vote FOR Biden; they voted AGAINST Trump. In 2016 we had to choose between two terrible candidates. Not so in 2020. 

(Full discloser: I didn't vote for Biden and I didn't vote for Trump. I believe that voting Democrat or Republican only reinforces bad behavior.)

Think about it. In order for the Democrats to overthrow the election in the way Trump says they did, it had to be a coordinated effort that knew WHICH counties would need to be impacted to turn the election, WHICH courts the legal team would file charges against so they could be thrown out, and how to get even the Trump-loving FOX News to admit that Biden won. Seriously, if the Democrats are THAT coordinated, maybe they SHOULD be in charge! 

Back during the 2016 election, Pastor Max Lucado posted the following to his blog:

"I don’t know Mr. Trump. But I’ve been chagrined at his antics. He ridiculed a war hero. He made a mockery of a reporter’s menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter. He referred to the former first lady, Barbara Bush as “mommy,” and belittled Jeb Bush for bringing her on the campaign trail. He routinely calls people “stupid,” and “dummy.” One writer catalogued sixty-four occasions that he called someone “loser.” These were not off-line, backstage, overheard, not-to-be-repeated comments. They were publicly and intentionally tweeted, recorded, and presented.

Such insensitivities wouldn’t be acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian faith?" Read the rest here.

I find Max Lucado a much better example of Christianity than Donald Trump. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

I know of quite a few Christians who have left churches over less anti-Christian behavior, yet still suck from the "Trump teat" on a regular basis. (You know who you are...)

I’m not a perfect example of Christianity. I like the philosophy of "not perfect, but forgiven". The Bible says we are to be "…living epistles, read of all men" (J.P. paraphrase of 2 Cor. 3:2). I don't have a fish symbol on the back of my car because I know how I drive. And I don't have a Trump bumper sticker either!

Why do Christians insist that Trump is the best thing since unleavened bread? Maybe it's because they are tired and angry and want a change from the usual. The rhetoric, no matter how divisive, is captivating to them.

I don't know. But I can say for certain that the only thing Trump and Jesus have in common is the number of letters in their name.

©Emittravel 2021

Giving God a Bad Name

Is it just me, or has news of crazies doing things in the name of "God" been increasing? Recently, a police officer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was shot at point-blank range by a person citing he did it in the name of Allah. Last year a "pro-life" individual attacked an abortion clinic (which means that the lives of the doctors and patients aren't of value) in Colorado Springs, Colorado (I cite this because the majority of Christians confess to be prolife).

It doesn't seem to matter if it's standing outside of a Planned Parenthood with signs of aborted fetuses on display for children of all ages to view, or if it's someone strapping a bomb to himself and walking into a crowded market. I’m sure God (by whichever name) is really proud of His followers.

In case you missed it, that last sentence was swimming in sarcasm.

For those who have been reading this blog for a while, you are probably aware that me and religion have had a bit of a falling out. Not me and God, mind you, me and religion. Two different things. Completely. (And you don't need to write to me about the bad grammar - it was on purpose.) And the more I hear about wackos doing such heinous things to their fellow human beings, the less interest I have in religion.

Attention: harming people in the name of your religion is NOT an effective recruiting tool. You can't convince me that the God of all things has chosen nut jobs like that as a means to bring more people into His "fold". I don't care if it was Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, or Peter, Paul, and Mary. ANYONE that claims your needing to harm another life is God's way, is a FALSE voice of God.

Since my knowledge of Islam is limited, I'm not going to devote too much time here to it. You can watch the pundits on FOX News for all of that. What I am going to do is focus on Judaism and Christianity.

No one can read the Bible (I'm capitalizing "Bible" after a thoughtful exchange with a friend. "That's for you, Mike!") and not walk away without a mixed understanding of who God is. We see a vengeful God in the Old Testament, and loving, sacrificial God in the New.

There are parts of the Old that make me doubt the validity of it being "of God". Those parts are those specifically where God seems to use individuals to do his "bidding". You know, when He uses the Israelites to wipe out cities (including women and children), or when He uses other nations to "punish" the Israelites. Why do I have trouble believing those are of God? Because elsewhere you find God doing things without other individuals. You know, like the flood that took place in Genesis where He wipes out almost all living creatures (outside of Noah, and his family, and some animals, and the fish in the sea), or raining fire and brimstone down upon Sodom and Gomorrah.

In the New, God sends Jesus to take upon Himself the sins of the world and pay the price that mankind cannot pay. To make a point, you can read where it is emphasized that man cannot do it on his own, that he NEEDS a savior. And if God makes it a point of bringing salvation upon all mankind by His own hand, why did He need The Spanish Inquisition?

If you find yourself following anyone who claims to be the voice of God, RUN!! The God who created all of the universe, things seen and unseen, does NOT need the likes of anyone else to get anything accomplished. Especially if the accomplishment requires harming or taking the life of another.

Quit giving God a bad name. Especially IN His name.

© Emittravel 2016

NO REL PREF

I recently had a visit to a local hospital for some "lab work". That's a nice way to say that I had to go and get some blood drawn. I'm an absolute freak when it comes to needles. When I was a kid (pre-teen, early teen), I needed to have some surgeries, and one of the things they would do is give two shots in either the hip or upper thigh as part of the anesthesia. It would take FIVE nurses to hold me down for the shots. As an adult I say that only two were necessary (WINK!!) I even have trouble watching one of my all-time favorite TV shows: M*A*S*H. Whenever they show a needle I have to turn my head. Pretty phobic!

While at the lab, the staff had to update some of my records in their system, and one of the questions I was asked was what was my religion.

When I joined the Navy at seventeen years old, one of the many questions asked, in the multitude of paperwork, was the same thing: what was my religion. I grew up Roman Catholic, so that is what I put down. Later, when I turned eighteen, I announced to my parents that I was no longer considering myself a Catholic and was no longer going to church. They didn't like it too much, but since I was eighteen, they accepted my decision. That meant that I wanted/needed to contact the Navy to correct my "religion" on the paperwork, which is what I did.

When you arrive in boot camp, one of the things you receive are your dog tags. Dog tags are flat metal plates strung on ceiling fan pool chains that you wear around your neck. There are two tags. One on the main chain, and one on a much smaller chain that is hanging on the big chain. This smaller one is known as a "toe tag". Anyone familiar with shows like CSI should be familiar with the term. On the tags are your name, ID number, branch of service, blood type, and religion. Where it said "religion" it said "NO REL PREF": No Religious Preference.

Here, as I find myself at the end of a sabbatical, I find myself faced with defining the religion I ascribe to. This sabbatical has brought many things to light of where my head/heart/belief structure is, as you can read in past blog posts. I find that labeling my beliefs is much more difficult than it once was. I no longer consider myself Catholic. I've been going (for many years) to a church that jokingly/lovingly calls itself "Bapticostal" (the diligence in study of the bible as the Baptists, with the embrace of the movement and involvement of the Holy Spirit as the Pentecostals). They have been called Charismatic and Non-Denominational. And I have called myself the same.

I could have said "Christian", but the question was concerning my religion. "Christian" literally means "Christ follower", a disciple of Jesus. A relational word that describes a child to their parent. There is a big difference between calling yourself a Christian and calling yourself a Catholic (or Methodist, or Lutheran, or even Bapticostal). And, due to my journey during this sabbatical, I am having a lot of difficulty ascribing myself to one of them.

I turned to the lady and told her NO REL PREF: No Religious Preference.

©Emittravel

B.I.B.L.E.

Occasionally, there is a knock on the door - usually the front - and my wife answers it. Standing before her are usually two nicely-dressed individuals, with the purpose of introducing her to the ways of their religion. She smiles politely and says, "I'm sorry, but my husband is a minister at our church and we are happy in our faith." That is usually enough for the two nicely-dressed individuals to turn and head for the next-door neighbor's front door.

"A minister at our church." The reason she would say that is that, because I am on the worship team - in the "music ministry" - I am therefore a "minister". I'm neither licensed nor ordained, yet, I AM a minister by association. I like that.

As I've mentioned in a previous blog, I believe I am coming to the end of my sabbatical. The question remains: where do I go from here?

During this time of separation, I've visited a friend's church where I've had the opportunity to join in on their worship team, and have visited my "home" church a few times (worshipped from in the congregation and departed prior to the sermon). I have continued to read the bible (not as intensely as before) and assorted devotionals, so I haven't gone "cold-turkey Christianity".

Here is my conundrum: Can one be involved in a church ministry, when one disagrees with a major belief of that church?

I don't know when it started, but at one point the pastor of my church started praying the following when praying with those who wanted to become Christians: ". . . and I will attend Your church, and I will read Your book." That statement may indeed have been the proverbial straw for me. Taking it from the viewpoint of the person standing before him, "Your church" sounds an awful lot like THIS particular church is Your church - and that is bad enough. The part that hit me the most was the "I will  read Your book" part. My church, like many Protestant style churches, teaches that the bible is the Word of God. As I've stated previously, I've come to the conclusion (and fervent belief) that the bible CONTAINS the Word of God, but is NOT, in and of itself, THE Word of God.

(You can go back and read some of my recent blogs and see some of the details of that statement, so I'm not going to take up too much space here.)

There used to be this cute acronym made from the letters of "bible": Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. You'd see it on bumper stickers, t-shirts, and, of course, bible covers (gotta protect that faux-leather cover). The first I heard of it was back in 1998. It was a song by a Christian band called Burlap to Cashmere. I don't know if they were the ones to coin it, but they were the source to my ears. Being one who also believed that the bible was part of the "Holy Quartet", I reveled in the cleverness.

During a breakfast conversation about this with my wife, I got to thinking: It's called "Basic Instructions". Not "Critical Instructions", or "Intricate Instructions", or "Complete Instructions". "Basic Instructions". My Jeep has an owner's manual. Every time I read it (no really, I DO read it), I get some good tips on how to make my Jeep experience more efficient and enjoyable. It does NOT contain the complete details of every aspect of the Jeep experience. You have to "experience" it (and, if you haven't, do yourself a favor and DRIVE one!! Oh wow!) Yet, there is this "doctrine" that the bible contains the complete, inerrant word of God, and there is nothing else needed. You can find all the answers to this life in it. As Colonel Potter used to say, "Horse hockey!" It's a guide. In it you can find the stories of a lot of other people's experiences in their walk (a.k.a. "relationship") with God, and those things can help you as well. But it is a guide.

So, is it even possible to go back into the music ministry of the church that I disagree with on this? I still love God. I'm a Christian. I just won't put the "Basic Instructions" over that experiential relationship. I guess the question is, what does it take to be a Christian? Belief in Jesus the Christ, or belief in the bible?

© Emittravel 2015

Be Careful WHAT You Worship

Today I went to church. Being a Sunday (the day I'm writing this blog), I'm sure that comes as no surprise to a lot of my readers. But if you have been reading for a while, you know that I've been on a sabbatical for the last several months. I had a lady ask me this morning what church I've been going to, since I haven't been around, and I told her "None. I'm on a sabbatical." That, of course produced a puzzled look, but that's expected. More on the sabbatical later.

I got to the church early. As I was walking from my Jeep to the building, I could hear the music team rehearsing. I found a seat in front, stage right (as a former theater person, "stage right" is the right side of the stage, from the perspective of the actors ON the stage looking out at the audience. Since the stage directions are normally for those ON the stage, this makes sense.). I wanted to be there early enough to be there for the rehearsal. I didn't think I'd have the opportunity to actually join the team; I just wanted to be there and "absorb" as much of the praise and worship as possible.

Outside of a few interruptions of people stopping to say hello and ask where I've been - both during the rehearsal and during the actual music portion of the service - I was able to focus on praising and worshipping God.

For the non-Christian, the terms "praise" and "worship" may be a bit confusing. Simplified, "praise" is the jump/shout/dance/run-about portion of the music. It is usually the part where you are expressing your joy of the one you are praising. "Worship", on the other hand, is usually quieter, more tender, and is an expression of adoration. There are times during worship when one may experience an almost tangible feeling of "presence". Usually, it takes "praise" to shed the stresses of the week, and allow one to open oneself to the possibility of getting close to God.

After the music portion, the minister welcomes newcomers, and then there is a period of fellowship, which I like to call the "meet and greet". This is where everybody goes around hugging and shaking hands. I took this as a good time to make my exit.

The sabbatical started initially as my taking a break from "intellectual Christianity". The church I've belonged to for many years refers to itself as a "Family Church, Charismatic Teaching Center, and a World Outreach". I wanted to make my next sentence "There is a heavy emphasis on the 'Teaching Center'," but that would be in error. The church does do a pretty good job of balancing the three, it's just that the sermons, by default, tend to fall heavy into the teaching portion. And that's where I've had to step away, for the health of my Christianity.

I said "started initially" above. What has happened during these few months is that it has become more defined as an intellectual/spiritual crossroads with what I call "bible worship". This is the practice of holding up the bible as something of EQUAL standing with God. I say this because I did exactly that. When I became a Christian, all those years ago, I not only read the bible, I carried around (and used) a Strong's Concordance (a dictionary containing every word in the bible, its English/Hebrew or Greek definition, and every location in the bible it is used). This sucker is bigger than the New York City Yellow Pages (ask your parents). I followed the Finis Dake philosophy of bible reading: "Take the Bible literally wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Preface, © Copyright 1963 by Finis Jennings Dake)

And I wasn't alone. Most of the Christians I hung around with followed this same "adoration" of the bible. Since it was considered "The Word of God", it was equal to God.

As I've stated in a previous blog, I have come to believe that the bible CONTAINS the Word of God, but is NOT in and of itself THE Word of God. And I don't think I'm alone. Even St. John (the writer of the Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John) stated "I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face." (3 John 13). If John, who was called "the one Jesus loved" in the Gospel of John, and the only one of the twelve at the cross (who got protective guardianship of Jesus' mother) didn't think it valuable enough to WRITE down what he wanted to say (scriptures that are considered holy and inerrant), does it not reason that the bible is not the complete "Word of God"? I mean, weren't those things he did NOT write have equal value to what he DID write?

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (Gospel of John 21:25)

Be careful of what you worship.

© Emittravel 2015

Do You Desire the Right to Choose?

At the end of my last blog, "Walkin' the Line", I quoted from the first verse of Johhny Cash's "I Walk the Line": "I keep a close watch on this heart of mine. I keep my eyes wide open all the time. …I walk the line." My hope was that it would have the same impact upon you as it did to me.

We all like to think that we keep our "eyes wide open all the time", but do we? It is very easy to find yourself stuck in a groove (a throwback cliché referencing vinyl records that would have a scratch, and the needle would replay the same sound bite over and over and over and … ). Watch too much FOX News and soon you'll start sounding like Bill O'Reilly. I'm no different. That is why I try to bring different things into my arena of thought that will challenge me.

A few things that have effected, or are currently affecting, my thought processes are podcasts like We Have Concerns, The Cracked Podcast, and JuRY; and books like Freakonomics, and anything written by Malcolm Gladwell. I highly recommend any of those - and if you have suggestions, let me know!

One example of challenge came from The Cracked Podcast. I'm a Second Amendment kind of guy. I fully believe in the right to "bare arms" (yes, I LIKE short-sleeved shirts. So sue me!). During one of their podcasts covering the topic of statistics, my (hardened) opinions concerning gun ownership were taken to task.

Did you know that statistically, the chances of your house being broken into is slim?
Add to that the chances of your house being robbed if you have a security system, with obligatory sign on your front lawn, are slimmer?
Add to that the chances of your house being broken into, with a security system, with you there at the time, is even slimmer?
How about the chances of your house being broken into, with a security system, with you there at the time, where you would be able to successfully deter the robbery with your gun is even slimmer?

What about the statistics that say that if a person owns a gun, they probably own more than one? An acquaintance of mine had his house robbed - no security system, and he wasn't home - where the thief got away with a large portion of his gun collection. Ever wonder where thieves get all of these "illegal" guns?!?

One of the major arguments for gun ownership is self-protection. If you look at the statistics regarding the chance of someone being injured or killed by a gun in the home, does the above idea really make sense?

Again, keeping your eyes wide open all the time.

Another challenge came while reading Freakonomics. One of the things the authors were looking at was the fall in crime, with New York City as the focus. Obvious reasons were looked at. And then, one not so obvious. One that pushed my "needle" out of its "groove".

The passing of Roe v. Wade.

According to the data, the majority of people in prison came from broken homes, unmarried women, and poor/impoverished environments. According to the data, the majority of abortions after Roe v. Wade were by single women in poor/impoverished environments. Once abortion became legal, the crime rate dropped (albeit, it took a decade or two for the impact of those abortions to affect the crime rate). You see, the people who were most-likely to commit those crimes were no longer around to commit them.

Please understand, the above has been challenged, but not refuted. Challenge is good. Eyes wide open and all.

As a Christian, I have, for years, followed in the mantra of Pro-Life. All life is sacred. ("Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great." - Monty Python) Who knows, that one abortion might have eliminated the one person who would cure cancer.  Now? I have to ask my Christian Pro-Life spouting cohorts: If you are pro-life, are you pro-crime? Notice that I didn't mention the level of crime. I really don't think it matters.

Okay, as a reminder, the name of this blog is My Humble But Accurate Opinion. I am now going to give some of that opinion to you. Remember, the Humble But Accurate part is tongue-in-cheek.

According to the data, if you are pro-life, you have to be pro-crime. If you are anti-crime, why are you so against the most-capable of deterrents?

Why are the pro-lifers so anti-choice? We look at the Christmas story and see the angel coming to Mary. Did Mary have a choice? Of course she did. That's what made her decision so valuable (WHY she is called "blessed")! Let me ask you, do you think Mary was the first person the angel came to? Maybe the first person said, "No." What if SHE had said "yes"? "Hail Gertrude, full of grace, the Lord is with thee …" I'm not mocking. As the saying goes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Just because the bible didn't say it, doesn't mean it didn't happen!

If you are anti-abortion, do you believe it is okay to use contraceptives? If so, YOU are a hypocrite! What is the difference between eliminating the joining of sperm and egg, versus preventing the joining of sperm and egg? Aren't both the elimination of life? Isn't it possible that that condom prevented the possibility of the person who would cure cancer? At least the Catholics are consistent: they not only do not believe in abortion, they don't believe in contraceptives either!

For one thing, do you think that only ONE person would be able to come up with the cure to cancer? Hardly. Most cures today come from research TEAMS, not any one individual. And for another, if God is ultimately in control, and contraceptives are not 100% effective, don't you think that if a certain joining of sperm and egg "needed" to take place, God couldn't use the 1% ineffectiveness of that condom to allow it to happen?

And finally, let me ask you: Is God pro-choice? Okay, I'll clarify: Does God want you to have the freewill to make choices, or does He want to control everything you do? Be careful. Think about that before you answer. If you want help, read my blog "I Grasp It, But It Keeps Slippin' Outta My Hands!" for some assistance.

(Assuming you stopped to read that blog … )

If it takes freewill for us to openly love God, and anything less would make us, in a sense, robots, why do we feel it is okay for us to want to legislate the ability of others to make choices?

Why is it okay for Christians to want legislation that would make it illegal for a woman to MAKE THE CHOICE whether or not to have an abortion, but not okay for followers of Islam to want Sharia Law forced upon people? What makes one limitation of ability to choose anymore right than the other?

Everyone should have the right to the consequences of his or her decisions.

Don't be mad at me, if you are. I only want you to stop being so hypocritical.

And for those of you wanting to bring up the death penalty, perhaps we should save that for another blog.

Keep your eyes wide open ALL the time!

© Emittravel 2015

Oh to be Ignorant

There is probably nothing more irritating to an old Christian, than a new Christian. They are so excited. It's Jesus this, and Jesus that. Every prayer seems to be answered without delay. And they are simply oozing with sticky, sweet, joy. You know what I mean, don't you? Better yet, you remember BEING that, don't you? Now you are in the group that tells them to calm down. Not to be so obnoxiously evangelical. You're already a Christian - you don't need to hear them singing every new Christian song, and don't want to see them wearing all of those obnoxious t-shirts covered with clichés and slogans. You've matured. You've grown. You've become stale.

How do I know this? Because I'm stale.

What happened? How did I get this way? My story from when I first became a Christian to now is rather long and detailed, so I won't go into it too much here. Let's just say that the saying is true: the more you learn, the less you know. Let me explain.

Have you ever tried Google Earth? You start off looking at the Earth, and start zooming in. Click, by click, by click you get closer and closer to the Earth's surface, and see more and more details. Pretty soon you went from a big ball of blue to your driveway. That's so cool. Tell that to the crew of the Apollo 8 mission. As they orbited the moon, they watched the Earth "rise" and quoted the first ten verses of Genesis: "In the beginning, God … " The beauty and majesty of the Earth from space has had similar impacts upon those fortunate enough to "… have danced the streets of heaven, and touched the face of God." (Cuthbert Hicks) It's not the minute details of the streets, it's the overall beauty of the Earth seen from 100 miles above it.

(I have used the phrase "Five thousand foot level" several times in previous posts in reference to viewing the Bible. It sounded good, but in retrospect I should have used something more akin to 528,000 feet. But to be consistent, I'm going to continue using five thousand.)

Christianity, at least in the varieties I'm familiar with, starts off looking at God from such that low Earth orbit (100 miles). As you read the Bible, expose yourself to sermons, books, and other sources of knowledge, you get "closer and closer" to God. Soon you find you've broken through the clouds and gotten right down to your driveway. Some would say that is a good thing. At one point in my life I would have agreed. Today? Oh to be ignorant.

Let's look at it with another example. Have you ever looked at a painting? Not a print of a painting. Not a picture of a painting on the internet. A real, honest-to-goodness painting? Gotten so close to it you could see the individual brush strokes? That is where I am in my Christianity. I've heard so many sermons, read so many books (including the Bible, over and over), that I've gotten right up close to the brush strokes of God. The problem? I've forgotten what the overall picture looked like. I forgot the beauty and awe of God that I first saw when I first saw Him. I've spent so much time getting to know about Him, that I've forgotten Him. And what's worse, without my reading glasses, I can't even enjoy the individual brush strokes!

I want to be ignorant again. I want to wipe out all of those years of study and go back to that simple joy of meeting Him. If you had asked me what made going to church such an impactful part of my life, I would have told you it was the sermons - the powerful preaching. Not today. Today I would soon as much leave before the sermon starts. Go from worship to the offering to the car. I don't even mind the offering - to me it's an extension of the worship.

I'm a little biased: I happen to be on the worship team of our church. I sing, and play blues harmonica and a little percussion. For me, I find it "easier" to worship God from the platform than from the congregation. I find I worship God through the instruments. There was a Sunday a few weeks ago that the worship leader (who happened to be sitting at the piano) had tears running down his cheeks while he played. He was worshipping God through his playing. If the church asked me to step down from the worship team, I'd find I'd have very little reason to keep coming.

To be honest (if that above wasn't honest enough), if it wasn't for the fact that I'd end up leaving my instruments still on the platform, I'd leave right after the offering anyway. Its not that the sermons are no longer good - they are still phenomenal. I just find that I'm so empty sitting there. I am no longer interested in one more "nugget". One more Greek translation of some amazing truth of the Bible.

Jesus said to "Come unto me like little children." (Matthew 18:3). Some believe that that means that you come to Jesus as a little child and grow up from there. What is the most "popular" prayer in the Bible? It's called the Lord's Prayer. It starts off with "Our Father, Who art in Heaven. Blessed by Thy name." Do you know what that really says? "My Daddy, Who lives in Heaven. Blessed is Your name." Daddy, not Father. It's a word of endearment. Those who have translated it "Father" have done a great disservice. We are to come to Jesus, and continually come to Him, as a little child.

When I was a child I would reach up my arms to my daddy. He would pick me up and place me on his lap, and hold me. Today? We go out to breakfast and talk man-to-man. The thought of him picking me up and holding me on his lap is absurd.

I want to go back to climbing into God's lap. I want to be a child again. Oh to be ignorant.

© Emittravel 2014

Stuck in Beta?

I just recently made the jump and installed the Developer Preview version of Windows Phone 8.1 (WP8.1) on my Lumia Icon phone.

(For those of you "non-tech-geeks" still reading this, don't worry - this isn't necessarily a "tech article", so you can keep reading.)

One of my co-workers was installing it on his phone and, through a chat, I decided to do the same thing. Only took about two hours in total (if that). There were multiple downloads and reboots that took place. Again, this is the Developer Preview version. When the "official" version gets rolled out via the cell phone carriers (I'm a Verizon customer), it should be the "complete" version (including updates and patches) and consist of only one download.

One of the neat features that came with WP8.1 is Cortana - a Siri / Google Now type interface. Previously, when you touched the search button on the phone, Bing search would launch and you would type your search (or, select the microphone icon and speak your search). Bing always provided textual results - like searching with Google on your desktop. Cortana replaces Bing (Bing is incorporated into Cortana), so Cortana launches when you click the search button. You can either type or speak your search. If you type, you get a textual result like before. If you speak, Cortana will respond verbally (and/or give you textual results if warranted.)

I noticed in the top right corner of the screen when Cortana is "running" the word "Beta". This is one of those terms that floats around that belong to the inner world of geeks and techies. I looked up a Wikipedia article on the Software Release Cycle that has a simple graph showing the testing and development periods of software. They are as follows:

Pre-alpha (a.k.a. development releases nightly builds)
Alpha
Beta
Release Candidate (a.k.a. Gamma Delta)
RTM (Release to Manufacturing) (a.k.a. Release to Marketing)
GA (General Availability)
Production or Live Release (a.k.a. Gold)

WP8.1 is either in RTM, GA, or Production - being that it is in the hands of carriers. As of this writing, AT&T has started rolling out 8.1, whereas Verizon still shows as "under testing". There is a firmware (software that directly affects the hardware - like drivers and such) update called "Cyan" that is due to be available at the same time as WP8.1, which was not available to download with the Developer Preview. When Verizon releases 8.1, it will include Cyan. But back to the Beta of Cortana.

One of the reasons I've read for how long Cortana will remain in Beta concerned the ever-evolving nature of the software. As more people use it, and it's database grows (and the software is tweaked with more features), Cortana will continue to become "more". At what point will Cortana leave the Beta stage is difficult to determine, mainly because of this type of growth.

Like I said in the second sentence of this article, the focus here is not "tech".

My question to you is, are you still in Beta? And if so, for how long?

Like Cortana, are you ever evolving? Are you constantly growing? Do you look for new experiences (and people) to facilitate this growth?

The bible makes reference to three basic salvations (being born again, born anew, or born from above - Greek shtuff). It says you've been saved (Ephesians 2:8), you are being saved (2 Corinthians 2:15), and you will be saved (Acts 15:11). It says you are saved by faith (or acceptance of…), not of works (you can't please your way to God - salvation is a gift, freely given, from God alone) (Ephesians 2:9). It also tells us to "work out your own salvation" (Philippians 2:12). Of course, this kind of "confusion" helps provide one of the reasons for all of the different denominations in Christianity. And yet, I don't think this is what the 5,000 foot view meant. And how does this connect with Beta? Continue!!

The bible considers that we are triune beings, made of Spirit (the part that is "like God"), the Soul (your will, intellect, emotions), and the Body (the physical part of you). When a person accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior, his Spirit is saved - or made new. That is the "been saved" (since the above references are from the letters written to Christians). When the rapture occurs (rapture is a word not in the bible - it is referred to in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17) the person receives a new body like the kind the risen Jesus has). This is the "will be saved". What about the "being saved"? This is where we get the "work out your own salvation" part. This is your Beta state. This is where you develop your Soul (your character, your intellect, your emotions, etc.).

You see, the Spirit part of you is pure - like God. You become "separated" from God by an act of your will (known as the age of "understanding"). When you are too young to understand the gospel (good news), your Spirit is still "connected" to God. Have you ever heard someone speaking in tongues? Sounds just like baby talk. Ever wonder why?

The Soul part is the part that communicates between the Spirit and the Body. We really see the connection with the Body. When any of the three parts is out of balance, there are problems. Mental illness, for the most part, is both a problem of the Soul AND the Body (issues with the brain that are often "adjusted" via medication).

This is why you and I are still in Beta - and will be for the rest of our lives. The only other way to get out of Beta is to stop updating. But, would you really like to consider yourself "perfect" at this point and stop experiencing new things in life?

I wouldn't.

© Emittravel 2014

The Bible Paul Uses

Many years ago I held a part-time job at a Christian bookstore. Back then I would wear t-shirts with phrases best left to bible tracts people would hand out on busy streets. I had one that had a picture of Jesus on the cross with the words "If I'm okay, and you're okay, explain this" on the front. On the back it said "The righteousness that He requires is the righteousness His righteousness requires Him to require". Yeah. I know. But that was me back then.

Back to the bookstore. A common item looked for in this type of store, besides Precious Moments figurines, is the bible. One day a lady came in shopping for a bible and I took her over to where they were located. There was practically an entire wall of them, with many, many translations you could choose from. So I asked her what translation she was looking for and she replied, "The original. The King James Version (KJV), of course." So I reached over and grabbed the only copy of the 1611 KJV we had in the store, opened it randomly, and handed it to her:

"For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life." (John 3:16)

She took one look at that and said, "Maybe not THAT original." I said, "Oh, you want and updated translation," and handed her a modern KJV bible.

(And as a side note, the KJV has received updates periodically over the years. Unless it is the 1611 version, it is NOT the original KJV.)

I tell that story to make a point (outside of the fact that I like to "poke things" with a stick): Unless you can read, and comprehend, the original TEXT of the bible, EVERY bible you pick up will be an interpretation of the text. And, since all translations are the work of people, bias is included. That is why I keep switching the translation I'm reading.

My pastor makes the joke that he reads the KJV because that's the bible Paul used (the apostle Paul - who is credited with writing the majority of the New Testament epistles). A lot of people say the KJV is the only authorized translation and should be the only one used. Maybe because it says it's "the authorized translation" as part of the title page. But authorized by whom? It was authorized by King James. I don't think there was a burning bush moment here.

One thing I've noticed, after all the years of listening to sermons, is that the KJV is not the best translation to use. Here is an example:

"Suffer the little children to come unto me." vs. "Permit the little children to come to me." Every time I hear a minister read that verse he follows it with the "Permit" version. If the KJV was so perfect, why do we need the minister to re-interpret it into modern-day language? Once the minister starts to dissect a verse, he/she IS giving you a "new" translation. A translation based on his/her interpretation of the scripture - just by putting it into a language the listener would understand.

I use the above example because it is so blatantly obvious. When we hear the word "suffer" we don't think "allow or permit". So to have the word updated to use a term that is more in line with our language should be welcomed. Do we have the same issue with a bible translated into Spanish, or German, or Swahili? Of course not.

So, not only do Christians argue about what the bible says, and how it applies to the world around us, they argue about what version of bible they should use to beat one over the head with.

Me? I prefer to use a soft-bound edition - less damaging than a hard-bound.

© Emittravel 2014

Ashamed to Be a Christian

I've come to the point in my life where I have to declare that I'm ashamed to be a Christian.

I was listening to a podcast where a well-known astrophysicist was talking about Copernicus, and how he had moved the sun into the center of the universe, and how this was heresy, because the Bible declares that the earth is the center of the universe. Now, he wasn't considering Copernicus' viewpoint as heresy, the Church was. Since this astrophysicist is well known, a lot of people who listen to him will go away with the same viewpoint: the Bible is an archaic book that is scientifically flawed, and Christians who claim the Bible to be without error are flawed as well.

I've read the Bible through a number of times. I've read the King James Version (more times than I can remember), The Living Bible, The New King James Version, Youngs Literal Translation, the Douay-Rheims Version, the Modern King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Weymouth New Testament, the Voice in the Wilderness Bible, the Amplified Bible, and am currently reading the Darby translation. I've been a devout Catholic, been in the Charismatic movement, the Word and Faith movement, and the Prosperity movement. All that and I've come to the realization that I'm ashamed to be a Christian. Am I ashamed of Jesus the Christ? No! I'm ashamed of Christians.

Christians have done more to push the world away from Jesus than anything the world can come up with on its own. Christians have taken the Bible to be this inerrant book that has ALL of the answers to life within its pages, and have trumpeted it to the world. Really? All you need to do is watch the recent "debate" between Bill Nye (the Science Guy) and Ken Ham (young-earth Creationist), and to read about current "trends" in Christianity (like "Grave Sucking"), to find yourself trying to remove the fish from the back of your car.

I will go into a lot more detail in an upcoming post called "Science is the Answer. What's Your Question?", but to touch on at least one point:

The Bible is best viewed from the 5,000 foot level. When looked at from this vantage point, you see what the overarching topic of the Bible is: God's relationship to Man, and Man's relationship to God. The problems come when we find ourselves dissecting every verse and creating doctrines out of them.

Let's take the "creation" account in Genesis. Again, I will go into much greater detail in "Science is the Answer … ". Do you really think God was trying to get across a detailed description of how everything started so we would understand the intricacies of the universe? Go up to the 5,000 foot level. From that vantage point you see that the "creation" account is to give Man a starting point to the relationship - a rough synopsis, if you will.

Look at this example: "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.' - Genesis 1:14-17 (NKJV) Let me ask you: what was the greater and lesser lights? Think about it. Take your time. I'll wait. I've been taught that the greater light was the sun (to light the day) and that the lesser light was the moon (to light the night) - and the stars are referenced separately.  Think about this: The sun is the greater light for the day. The sun actually PRODUCES light. The moon is the lesser light for the night. The moon DOES NOT PRODUCE light - it only REFLECTS that from the sun. And besides that, when the moon is in the New Moon phase, there is NO light reflected - there is NO light for the night. So, either God was wrong, or the Bible was not trying to lay down scientific explanations.

The passage above does reference time and seasons, but no details are given. Why? "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,  But the glory of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2 (NKJV) God WANTS us to explore and understand. He gave us the very intellects, and hunger to know, to search out His creation. The Bible says that all creation shows forth the glory of God. That is ALL creation: from the micro to the macro. God does not give details concerning the speed of light, neutrinos, the atom, or the cell in the Bible. He DID give us the tools (brains) to seek those things out. Like a parent watching their child open a gift at Christmas, the joy for the parent is not the gift, but it is in the discovery FOR their child.

The Bible is NOT a scientific treatise with detailed information on the universe. It is a relational book first and foremost. If you parse it too much, guarantee you will find yourself in grave-sucking error!

I've heard it said that you should always look at scripture in the context in which it was written. Again, look at the scripture from the 5,000 foot view and see if it lines up with the overarching story. If it doesn't, you may not be lined up with what God is trying to tell us.

So, please, if you are a Christian, STOP giving the world excuses. I, for one, do not want to be the reason someone does not get to know Him.

© Emittravel 2014

D.O.M.A. is D.U.M.B.

The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is back in the news once again. The Supreme Court will  be deciding whether or not it is constitutional. And like so many things, DOMA has its supporters and detractors. In a nutshell, DOMA states that marriage is recognized by the government as between one man and one woman. The question is, should it?

Let me remind my readers of the title of this blog: My Humble But Accurate Opinion. This is my opinion, and one that I think has merit. You may disagree. That is fine. I'm speaking for ME. I am coming at this as a bible-believing Christian. And if you haven't shut me off yet, you will find that those this particular article will most-likely offend ARE Christians. For those of you who know me, you know that I tend to poke things with a stick - because I think we should.

I'm no Supreme Court Justice, but I think DOMA is dumb (clever title, eh?). For all of the screaming about the (so-called) Separation of Church and State, there is this seeming need to have the government validate a religious preference when it comes to marriage. According to our Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " Marriage is not a religion, nor is it an exercise of an established religion. It is the definition of a union between a man and a woman, recognized in the eyes of GOD. It is not a union recognized by a particular church, nor is it a union recognized by the STATE. Therefore it falls outside the "jurisdiction" of the government - and should not freak out religious folk.

"Wait a minute, J.P., the state DOES recognize marriage. I have a marriage license to prove it!" You are correct, and incorrect. In this case, we are dealing with semantics. The state licenses the union of two people for one main reason: recognition of shared benefits. Oh, another reason may be is that they charge for the license . . . you know . . . taxes! The state calls it "marriage" for lack of a "better" or more "accurate" term.

I was having a discussion on this topic with a friend at work and he had THE solution to the whole debate: the government should state that they will no longer recognize marriages. They will only recognize civil unions. For the government's purposes, whether you are in a union recognized in the eyes of God, or whether you stood before the Justice of the Peace, they only need to know that you have a legal civil union.

Let me put it this way: civil unions vs. marriage. One recognized by the State; one by God.

"What about 'gay marriage', J.P.? As a Christian,  aren't you supposed to oppose it." I am? What is the main issue here? Is it the fact that two individuals want to have all of the benefits and responsibilities of civil unions, or that their relationship is recognized by God? If we are talking civil unions and NOT marriage, then does it really matter if the union is heterosexual or homosexual?

I remember a minister friend of mine talking about a time when he was out with a friend picking up hitchhikers, getting on the freeway, running the car up to 80+ miles per hour, and telling the hitchhikers they must be saved (I think he was kidding, but it's a good story nonetheless.) One time a hitchhiker was smoking a cigarette and wanted to pray to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior. This minister's friend said to put out the cigarette first. The minister said, "God can hear through the smoke!" He said that sinning was the "job description" of a sinner. Once they got saved, THEN we can "skin 'em alive!" (He's a funny guy, my minister friend.)

Christians have this view that the world needs to function within the framework of Christian morality, ethics, and rules of conduct. Why? Does it really matter if a sinner sins? At that great day of judgment, will God be concerned that a non-Christian behaved outside of Christian dogma? Or will His only concern be that they knew Him and His Son Jesus? There is only one sin that is worthy of eternal damnation (a.k.a. "eternal separation from God"): denying Jesus Christ. No other sin will matter. Once a person becomes a Christian, THEN will the sins that you commit have weight. The letters of correction (Epistles of the New Testament) that the apostles wrote were for the church, not the world. It is we Christians that must live our lives in accordance with God's ways, not force that upon the world.

I'm not anti-gay. I'm not pro-gay either. When it comes to the world, I'm ambivalent-gay. I don't care one way or the other. Just don't call a civil union "marriage" - God doesn't recognize it between two people of the same gender (that's clear in scripture.)

Listen, DOMA is already on the books. The only two possible options: enforce it, or rescind it. Don't ignore it. If the Supreme Court determines it unconstitutional and wants it struck down, so be it. Marriage in the eyes of God won't change either way.

Of course, removing the word "marriage" and changing it to "civil union" would eliminate the argument and give politicians one less thing to bludgeon each other with . . . which is precisely the reason why it will never happen!

© Emittravel 2013

Stuff My Brain Says #4

I'm perfectly fine with someone burning the flag, the Bible, or Koran. I wouldn't do it myself, but I'm fine with someone else doing it. Think about it: the flag REPRESENTS our nation. Our nation is founded on liberty. The First Amendment guarantees us the right to free speech. Burning the flag is a statement that one disagrees with this nation in some way. It is only a piece of cloth. If you take away the right to make that statement you have done more damage to liberty than the burning of that piece of cloth. What it represents is intangible. You can't hurt liberty by destroying a symbol of it.

Same with the Bible or Koran. I don't care if someone buys a copy and burns it. Doesn't matter. What did they do? They burned paper, ink, and possibly a leather binding. That's it. Christians claim the Bible to be the Word of God. It is a holy book. What makes it holy? That particular copy, or what the words represent/say? Would a copy published by a Christian company be any more holy than one published by a secular one? The Word of God is not so fragile that it will fail if a copy of it is burned. Same with the Koran. Muslims believe it is a holy book as well. Why do they get so upset if a physical copy is burned? Don't the words live beyond the printed page? Would deleting the Bible or Koran app (is there such a thing?) from your iPhone be considered the same thing as destroying a physical copy?

© Emittravel 2011

Why Muslims Should be America's Biggest Supporters

I've been a Christian since the early 1990's and have read the Bible more times than I can count, read more books than I care to remember, and have listened to more sermons than most ministers have preached in a lifetime - usually more than once. The Bible says to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15). It is with this background and understanding that I present this edition of My Humble But Accurate Opinion:

In all my years of study, I have never found the United States represented in scripture. Oh, there are the few vague inferences that some have presented. And if you close one eye, and squint the other really hard, you may actually see it. I haven't. Especially when it comes to scriptures that deal with what has been called "The End Times".

Now understand, the Bible can be broken up into several sections of history beyond just the "Old" and "New" testaments. I'm not going into a great amount of detail here, because, as the title of this article suggests, I've got a point to make. I will say that, in the New Testament, the historical records of the events that were occurring during that time, come to an end at the end of the Book of Acts. There are letters (or "epistles") that follow, but for the most part they fall historically during the times of the Book of Acts. Until you come to the book of Revelation.

Okay, I did it. I mentioned that book of books that makes people either get their hearts a'pumpin' with excitement, or makes their eyes glaze over. And to be honest, for the most part, I tend to fall into the latter group. There is an awful amount of imagery there. In some aspects those images lend themselves to the coming of the fall of Rome; in others they present a time that is historically down the road. But understand: the locations represented there are local to the areas around the Middle East. There is not even a remote reference to any nation to the west. No great "eagle" across the great pond. Nothing. The center of the world, in view of the Bible, is Israel - especially the city of Jerusalem.

There are two main books of the Bible that specifically deal in end times events: Daniel (Old Testament) and Revelation (New Testament). I'm not saying that those are the only references; just the main ones. And, read them yourself, you will not find the United States in either.

What's my point? Think about it. Nothing takes place in the world without the involvement of the United States. Our currency is the basis for the world's economy. We are the biggest ally of Israel. You can't find a peace process initiated in the Middle East without the hand of the United States all over it. Good or bad, the United States is intricately involved in everything that goes on in this world. So, how can you have an infallible book that has proven itself over and over to be accurate (historically, archaeologically, prophetically, etc.) completely miss the existence of the United States in the "current affairs" of the events taking place at the "end times"? Did God say, "Oops!"? I don't think so.

Something has to take place that removes the United States as a world power; eliminating any need for its involvement in the events of the end times.

Take a moment to absorb that. I'll wait.

Now don't get me wrong: I love this country and want nothing more than to see it prosper, grow, and be an ever-driving force for good. I believe that this nation was founded by men and women who loved God and sought His guidance in their affairs. More evangelism (a.k.a. "soul winning") has come forth from the United States than any other nation. But something has to happen in order for the end time events to take place. In other words, Jesus isn't coming back until the United States "goes away".

There are many possible causes for the removal of the United States as a world power/influencer, but I think they can all be whittled down to three possible scenarios: The Rapture takes place, economic collapse, or massive terrorist attacks beyond the scope of 9/11.

The Rapture takes place. The Bible says: "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18)

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them…" That is a instantaneous mass exodus. When this takes place there is going to be an immediate and drastic drop in the population of the United States. At this point there will be chaos. The United States will implode trying to handle it. Just imagine what will happen when a large portion of our armed forces disappear - around the world! This country will pull every one back within its borders and "circle the wagons".

Economic collapse. Already the dollar has lost so much value due to the non-stop printing presses. Understand, we have a LOT of debt. Some say that we should tax the "rich" and that would solve everything. Honey, if you take the total net worth from everyone that is $250k or greater, you wouldn't even dent the amount of debt we have. And if they don't change the amount being spent, the amount recouped by taking it from the "rich" will be forgotten in a year - and then just who do they go after? The "new rich" - a.k.a. "the rest of us"! In order to pay the multiple trillions of debt due annually they crank out more dollars out of the printing presses. And the more they do, the less value those dollars have.

That's right boys and girls, you can blame the "evil oil companies" for the high gas prices, but understand that it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of oil. Ask your parents how much a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, or a gallon of gas cost them when they were kids . . .

Not only are we in such a deep hole financially, but the world is already looking at replacing the dollar as the world recognized currency. Heck! With the President's "apology tour", for one example, how can you blame them?

Massive terrorist attacks. This one is (hopefully) the least likely, but you can't rule it out. Look what happened immediately after 9/11. Yes, I know it got us fired up, but not until after we first went fetal. A terrorist attack now doesn't have to be a plane in a building. You can pretty much take out a couple of city blocks with a nuclear device in a suitcase. A dirty-bomb would take out even more - make Japan's nuclear reactor woes seem more than mild. Getting them into the country wouldn't be impossible either - we all know how secure our borders are (insert sarcasm HERE). Since 9/11 we have full-groping by the TSA at our airports. Can you imagine what this country would be like after multiple, simultaneous, attacks?

Of the three, the first two are most likely to take place. And keep in mind, the scripture referenced above does consider the Rapture "comfort". I think that the second, economic collapse, is most likely to take place first, though there aren't any prophetic scriptures that have to take place before the Rapture can.

Now let's tie this column's title into this.

Muslims believe Jesus is coming back. That's right. They believe in the end times of the Bible. I know they say they follow the Koran, but as the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." The picture below (and please follow the link after you finish this article to read the information that the submitter graciously provided with it) shows the East Wall of the holy city of Jerusalem. In particular one of the gates to the city known as the Golden Gate.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tianderson/3328112168/

Notice what is front of the gate? A cemetery. There is a cemetery, of Muslim graves, put there to prevent Elijah, who is to arrive before the Messiah, from going through the gate upon Jesus the Messiah's return. You see, they believe that a holy man would never step upon the ground of a dead person - they would become defiled and "unclean". Do you get it? They planted graves to prevent this event from happening. I hate to say this, but Muslims believe Jesus is coming back more than some Christians I've talked to over the years.

My point: It is in the best interest of Muslims that the United States remains a world power. They should stop trying to take it out. They should do everything in their power to keep the United States a world power, or the Messiah WILL be coming back and they KNOW it! And when He does, an offensive cartoon will be the least of their worries!

Stop the Jihad, I want to get off!

© Emittravel 2011

Ground Zero, Mosques, and You

I've been catching the "discussions" on TV and I want to hit this from a different angle: If the area that they want to build in is zoned to allow churches, they have every right to build there. We have a freedom of religion in this country - and that means a freedom of religions we may not like. I've heard comments such as "when they allow a Christian church to be built in their country, then we will allow a mosque at Ground Zero." Isn't that the point? You CAN'T build a Christian church there because they HAVE NO freedom. So, stifling our freedoms, even when inconvenient, is a step towards living in their country - and them WINNING!

If the area IS zoned for churches, the city may be able to vote a change in zoning. But, if the land has already been purchased, it may be grand-fathered in and they can build anyways. If the area is NOT zoned for churches, the argument is over. But understand, the arguments I've heard have been totally based on emotion. We are not a nation of emotions, but a nation of laws. What if an area, like say Utah, decided to not allow Catholic churches to build there? What would be the arguments be for, or against, that? I'm just saying . . .

©Emittravel 2010