The Stop Sign, Part 5
He said it with a particular sense of awe and reverence. It was the word he had long before vowed to avoid in his conversations, in his classes, in his life. But he knew, deep down, this was the answer; it was the answer he had been avoiding for his thirty years of teaching because he knew that what he had been teaching about evolution had only eliminated the word, but not God Himself. He knew that the idea of evolution was questionable at best but he had been teaching it anyway, hoping against hope that he would never be called on the carpet to defend it. In the end, he knew, the real answer to the great questions of life did not come from something that emerged from a slimy pit eons ago, but came from God. As though emerging from a moment of silent prayer, Professor Wilson raised his eyes to the fourth row, fifth seat where Billy Lynch remained standing, hands in his pockets.
“Is that the answer you wanted,” asked the professor with a voice, though a whisper, it could be heard by everyone.
“Thank you Professor Wilson. That is the answer but I have to wonder where you received information about God. This does not seem to have an evolutionary source. If the idea of God has also come through evolutionary processes, it would make His existence no different from any other idea we might hold. I mean, it is maybe easy to say the word GOD but saying it doesn’t make something exist, does it?”
The professor moved away from the chalkboard and stood again in front of his gray metal desk, the kind with two drawers on either side of the place where a person sits, the kind the University administration seemed to think is befitting a lecture hall. Pushing aside his briefcase and several books, the professor sat on the desk edge with his feet, encased in a pair of Brown penny loafers, dangling several inches from the floor. With his left and right hands grasping the desk edges to his sides, he seemed lost in his thoughts. ‘Where do I go next with this discussion,’ he wondered. Raising his head, he scanned across the audience and looked into the eyes of his students, these young people who had been listening to him talk about evolution. He also had a flash back to those thousands of students which had been in those same seats for the many years of his teaching, students whom he had failed because he hadn’t spoke to them about really important things but instead had told them a fairy tale about life and they had bought it, as they should have, in order that he would give them a passing grade and allow them to move on to additional studies. He, at the moment, felt he had let them down and he was beginning to sense the harm he had done to so many.
After looking into the eyes of those who were staring at him, his focus returned to Billy Lynch, this young man who remained standing, a lone figure among a sitting crowd.
“Yes,” he finally said. “Yes, God is more than a three letter word on a University chalkboard. Even if I had not written that word, God would still exist. He exists, not because I say so, but because the Bible says so. It is there we learn about such an important matter.”
Dan Schobert, W9MFG@charter.net
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Families – Threats – Pornography
From our Introductory Post:
“The righteous have sat back and allowed the wicked to take over our relationships to God, families, churches, governments, schools and colleges, journalism, entertainment, sports, sciences, and a whole litany of other endeavors in our society.”
Families – Threats – Pornography
In our previous post we considered the topic of Threats to Families, specifically Cohabitation Before Marriage. We will now take a look at another threat to the family, Pornography.
We continue looking at areas that may create some ire among certain readers. Generally, when pet sins are exposed, even professing “christians” take exception. I am really not concerned about sparing feelings at this point so will be as objective as I can about this topic and other topics as they present threats to the family. Those who take offense need to deal with it between themselves and God.
How often have we heard, "Men, women and sometimes even children are saturated by sexual content, and more significantly, are told that it has no real effect. It's just a little amusement."? This quote from Pat Fagan, senior fellow of the Family Research Council, reveals the tension caused by the proliferation of pornography throughout our culture. Dr. Fagan in the same article, http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091202 , details some of the negative effects of pornography summarized by the statement, "pornography corrodes the conscience, promotes distrust between husbands and wives and debases untold thousands of young women."
Jill C. Manning, M.S., in testimony before a U.S. Senate committee in November, 2005, detailed the negative effects of pornography as related to the family.
“1. Increased marital distress, and risk of separation and divorce,
2. Decreased marital intimacy and sexual satisfaction,
3. Infidelity
4. Increased appetite for more graphic types of pornography and sexual activity associated with abusive, illegal or unsafe practices,
5. Devaluation of monogamy, marriage and child rearing,
6. An increasing number of people struggling with compulsive and addictive sexual behaviour.” ( http://www.heritage.org/research/family/tst111405a.cfm?renderforprint=1 )
With all of these negative effects documented and intuitively known it is fair to ask why pornography continues to be tolerated by our nation. First Amendment considerations aside, a report from PBS’s Frontline is insightful here:
“It's one of the hottest industries in America. Easier to order at home than a pizza, bigger than rock music, it's arguably the most profitable enterprise in cyberspace. AT&T has been in the business. Yahoo! has profited from it. Westin and Marriott have made more money selling it than selling snacks and drinks in their mini-bars. And with estimates as high as $10 billion a year, it boasts the kind of earnings that most American businesses would envy.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/view/ )
It would seem the real bottom line regarding pornography, as with most things, is the bottom line. There is simply too much money being made from this industry to get anyone in authority to do anything substantive about.
The solution here is found in the Biblical admonitions, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:17) and “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” (1 Thessalonians 4:7) among others. By simply saying no to many of the offerings of the media and the Internet and replacing them with God’s Word, wholesome books, DVDs, downloads, films, etc. we can overcome the negative effects of the plague of pornography in our families.
Summary
This post has examined Pornography as a major threat to families. We discovered that the solution is found not only in observing Biblical injunctions but providing positive practical alternatives to the programming offered by the typical media outlets and the Internet. Our next post will take a look at another threat to families, Morality not Being Taught in Schools.
I remain yours in the name of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Name above every name.
“Mr. Phil”
“The righteous have sat back and allowed the wicked to take over our relationships to God, families, churches, governments, schools and colleges, journalism, entertainment, sports, sciences, and a whole litany of other endeavors in our society.”
Families – Threats – Pornography
In our previous post we considered the topic of Threats to Families, specifically Cohabitation Before Marriage. We will now take a look at another threat to the family, Pornography.
We continue looking at areas that may create some ire among certain readers. Generally, when pet sins are exposed, even professing “christians” take exception. I am really not concerned about sparing feelings at this point so will be as objective as I can about this topic and other topics as they present threats to the family. Those who take offense need to deal with it between themselves and God.
How often have we heard, "Men, women and sometimes even children are saturated by sexual content, and more significantly, are told that it has no real effect. It's just a little amusement."? This quote from Pat Fagan, senior fellow of the Family Research Council, reveals the tension caused by the proliferation of pornography throughout our culture. Dr. Fagan in the same article, http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091202 , details some of the negative effects of pornography summarized by the statement, "pornography corrodes the conscience, promotes distrust between husbands and wives and debases untold thousands of young women."
Jill C. Manning, M.S., in testimony before a U.S. Senate committee in November, 2005, detailed the negative effects of pornography as related to the family.
“1. Increased marital distress, and risk of separation and divorce,
2. Decreased marital intimacy and sexual satisfaction,
3. Infidelity
4. Increased appetite for more graphic types of pornography and sexual activity associated with abusive, illegal or unsafe practices,
5. Devaluation of monogamy, marriage and child rearing,
6. An increasing number of people struggling with compulsive and addictive sexual behaviour.” ( http://www.heritage.org/research/family/tst111405a.cfm?renderforprint=1 )
With all of these negative effects documented and intuitively known it is fair to ask why pornography continues to be tolerated by our nation. First Amendment considerations aside, a report from PBS’s Frontline is insightful here:
“It's one of the hottest industries in America. Easier to order at home than a pizza, bigger than rock music, it's arguably the most profitable enterprise in cyberspace. AT&T has been in the business. Yahoo! has profited from it. Westin and Marriott have made more money selling it than selling snacks and drinks in their mini-bars. And with estimates as high as $10 billion a year, it boasts the kind of earnings that most American businesses would envy.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/view/ )
It would seem the real bottom line regarding pornography, as with most things, is the bottom line. There is simply too much money being made from this industry to get anyone in authority to do anything substantive about.
The solution here is found in the Biblical admonitions, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:17) and “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” (1 Thessalonians 4:7) among others. By simply saying no to many of the offerings of the media and the Internet and replacing them with God’s Word, wholesome books, DVDs, downloads, films, etc. we can overcome the negative effects of the plague of pornography in our families.
Summary
This post has examined Pornography as a major threat to families. We discovered that the solution is found not only in observing Biblical injunctions but providing positive practical alternatives to the programming offered by the typical media outlets and the Internet. Our next post will take a look at another threat to families, Morality not Being Taught in Schools.
I remain yours in the name of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Name above every name.
“Mr. Phil”
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Stop Sign, Part 4
The Stop Sign, Part 4
There, he thought…he had actually used that word, the one he dreaded to say because saying something is ‘absolute’ meant it came from somewhere outside of himself though his college education in science had forced him to believe that nothing existed that could not be tested. He knew that the only source of absolutes was God but God had been far from his mind since entered the education field.
Lifting his eyes, raising his eyebrows toward Lynch, he said: “Is that the answer you wanted?”
The class, though anxious to leave the hall and get to another room, sat in their seats as though they were glued in them. There was little movement except the turning of heads from the professor to their classmate who had suddenly become the focus of attention, something they thought a little strange since few had given Lynch much notice. Now they looked at Billy and began to wonder about him. What gave him the strength to stand up to a professor? Wasn’t he concerned about getting a lower grade?
Lynch, still standing as the other students sat and gazed at him, kept his eyes on the professor.
“Thank you professor, that is part of the answer I was seeking,” said Billy. “Can you tell me, tell us (motioning with his hands), what might be the source of this absolute value? That is…during your course lectures you have repeatedly said that all of what we see…reality. . is the result of time + chance. In such a situation of happenstance, there doesn’t seem to be any way for something to be absolutely true. It seems to me that anything we say and anything we do would be like a toss of dice. Who can truly say that something like an absolute exists when the word itself may simply be an expression of some interesting, chance connection in the brain?”
The class was stunned to hear such a thing. Many of Billy’s classmates had not given such thoughts any consideration before this moment. They had failed to see that the idea of evolution was more than biology; it was more than physics or chemistry. There was more here than they had realized and they remained in their seats, not so much concerned with their next classes but wondering where this face-to-face discussion was going to lead.
Professor Wilson, himself somewhat stunned by the student’s courage and intrigued by the ongoing expression of Lynch’s mind, looked down from the audience. His head bowed, as though in deep thought, he moved toward the chalkboard and picked up a new, three inch piece of chalk. Slowly, and with as much care as possible, Wilson slowly wrote three big letters on the board. G-O-D is what he wrote, with a broad white underline for emphasis.
“That is the source of my, of our, absolute statement(1),” said Wilson.
Dan Schobert, W9MFG@charter.net
Note
(1)In a recent national survey conducted by the Barna Research Group, people were asked if they believe that there are moral absolutes that are unchanging or if moral truth is relative to the circumstances. By a 3-to-1 margin (645 vs. 22 %), adults said truth is always relative to the person and the situation. Among teens who were polled, 83% said moral truth depends on the circumstances, and only six % said moral truth is absolute. Born-again Christians were more likely than others to accept moral absolutes. George Barna, head of the research group, noted that substantial numbers of people who call themselves Christians believe that activities such as abortion, gay sex, cohabitation, drunkenness, and pornography are morally acceptable. “Without some firm and compelling basis for suggesting that acts are inappropriate, people are left with philosophies such as “if it feels good, do it,’ ‘everyone else is doing it,’ or ‘as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, it’s permissible.’” Barna went on to say that based on these findings the church is in trouble and that failure to address this issue at its root, and to do so quickly and persuasively, will undermine the strength of the church for at least another generation and probably longer. (cited in Church Around the world, May 2002, from Tyndale Publishers)
There, he thought…he had actually used that word, the one he dreaded to say because saying something is ‘absolute’ meant it came from somewhere outside of himself though his college education in science had forced him to believe that nothing existed that could not be tested. He knew that the only source of absolutes was God but God had been far from his mind since entered the education field.
Lifting his eyes, raising his eyebrows toward Lynch, he said: “Is that the answer you wanted?”
The class, though anxious to leave the hall and get to another room, sat in their seats as though they were glued in them. There was little movement except the turning of heads from the professor to their classmate who had suddenly become the focus of attention, something they thought a little strange since few had given Lynch much notice. Now they looked at Billy and began to wonder about him. What gave him the strength to stand up to a professor? Wasn’t he concerned about getting a lower grade?
Lynch, still standing as the other students sat and gazed at him, kept his eyes on the professor.
“Thank you professor, that is part of the answer I was seeking,” said Billy. “Can you tell me, tell us (motioning with his hands), what might be the source of this absolute value? That is…during your course lectures you have repeatedly said that all of what we see…reality. . is the result of time + chance. In such a situation of happenstance, there doesn’t seem to be any way for something to be absolutely true. It seems to me that anything we say and anything we do would be like a toss of dice. Who can truly say that something like an absolute exists when the word itself may simply be an expression of some interesting, chance connection in the brain?”
The class was stunned to hear such a thing. Many of Billy’s classmates had not given such thoughts any consideration before this moment. They had failed to see that the idea of evolution was more than biology; it was more than physics or chemistry. There was more here than they had realized and they remained in their seats, not so much concerned with their next classes but wondering where this face-to-face discussion was going to lead.
Professor Wilson, himself somewhat stunned by the student’s courage and intrigued by the ongoing expression of Lynch’s mind, looked down from the audience. His head bowed, as though in deep thought, he moved toward the chalkboard and picked up a new, three inch piece of chalk. Slowly, and with as much care as possible, Wilson slowly wrote three big letters on the board. G-O-D is what he wrote, with a broad white underline for emphasis.
“That is the source of my, of our, absolute statement(1),” said Wilson.
Dan Schobert, W9MFG@charter.net
Note
(1)In a recent national survey conducted by the Barna Research Group, people were asked if they believe that there are moral absolutes that are unchanging or if moral truth is relative to the circumstances. By a 3-to-1 margin (645 vs. 22 %), adults said truth is always relative to the person and the situation. Among teens who were polled, 83% said moral truth depends on the circumstances, and only six % said moral truth is absolute. Born-again Christians were more likely than others to accept moral absolutes. George Barna, head of the research group, noted that substantial numbers of people who call themselves Christians believe that activities such as abortion, gay sex, cohabitation, drunkenness, and pornography are morally acceptable. “Without some firm and compelling basis for suggesting that acts are inappropriate, people are left with philosophies such as “if it feels good, do it,’ ‘everyone else is doing it,’ or ‘as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, it’s permissible.’” Barna went on to say that based on these findings the church is in trouble and that failure to address this issue at its root, and to do so quickly and persuasively, will undermine the strength of the church for at least another generation and probably longer. (cited in Church Around the world, May 2002, from Tyndale Publishers)
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Stop Sign, Part 3
The Stop Sign, Part 3
“Thank you professor but it still isn’t clear to me why you wouldn’t like someone to get hurt or killed. Is this an opinion you have? Maybe there is someone in the world, even someone in this room who would be delighted if someone was hurt or killed for failing to stop at a stop sign. What would make your thought any more valid than that thought? Is your position on this seemingly strange question one of absolute truth, or is it an opinion?
Professor Wilson, stalling to ponder the issue on the floor, continued to put away his lecture notes, stuffing them into the black leather brief case, the one he had been given 30 years ago when he began his teaching career. The case was showing its age; the handle needing some repair. He snapped the case shut with a click, left it on his desk and slowly moved to the front of the desk, his hands behind his back. He had long ago been aware that a question like this might arise; he had expected it but had hoped that he could get through his teaching career without having to address the thought behind the question. He remembered that long ago, before college, he would have had a quick answer to this kind of question but his college education had changed his mind. He had known & been aware that the things he was teaching about evolution had a moral concern but he had put the problem aside, so that he could accept this position at the University and live a good life. He simply wished to maintain his career with the least amount of confrontation, accepting his comfortable paychecks without having to deal with questions that bothered him. Wilson was keenly aware that much of what he taught about evolution was nonsense but he did it anyway. What would his colleagues think of him if he didn’t spew the usual story? He would be laughed at; he might even lose his position. No, he thought, during his 30 years of teaching…he would teach what he had been taught to teach and not worry about other things. But here he was, facing a crowd of some 600 eyes…all wishing to have some word of wisdom from the old professor.
He stood in front of his desk for a long time, his eyes focused on young ‘Billy’Lynch. Not that he was at a loss of words but he wondered about the connection between this strange question and the many lectures that preceded it, though he feared where the question might be leading. What was the connection between stopping for a stop sign and the hours of telling the students about evolution? In all his years of attending school himself, he had never found himself in this kind of situation.
Wilson was not a big man, as men go. His 200 pounds were spread over a frame that would hardly qualify for a football team. Most of his hair was gone, not that he was bald but he had, several years earlier, decided to keep his hair short, not skin-head short but clipped very close. He wore steel rimmed glasses; bifocals. They sat on his broad nose just above a thin line mustache. His chin was now beardless though he often sported a beard, a goatee of sorts. He had recently shaved it off, giving him a new look, even a freshman look, perhaps fitting for the retirement he had envisioned with Sally, his wife, as they made plans to visit Europe as soon as things on campus were wrapped up. He was wearing a light blue denim short-sleeved shirt, one with a banded collar, unbuttoned at the top. The shirt was tucked into his dark blue Levi trousers, and he had a wide western style belt with a large buckle, the kind many cowboys wear.
He lowered his hands to his sides, realizing that he had to say something.
“Yes,” he said. “It is absolutely true that it would not be a good thing for someone to be hurt or killed at a stop sign.”
Dan Schobert, W9MFG@charter.net
“Thank you professor but it still isn’t clear to me why you wouldn’t like someone to get hurt or killed. Is this an opinion you have? Maybe there is someone in the world, even someone in this room who would be delighted if someone was hurt or killed for failing to stop at a stop sign. What would make your thought any more valid than that thought? Is your position on this seemingly strange question one of absolute truth, or is it an opinion?
Professor Wilson, stalling to ponder the issue on the floor, continued to put away his lecture notes, stuffing them into the black leather brief case, the one he had been given 30 years ago when he began his teaching career. The case was showing its age; the handle needing some repair. He snapped the case shut with a click, left it on his desk and slowly moved to the front of the desk, his hands behind his back. He had long ago been aware that a question like this might arise; he had expected it but had hoped that he could get through his teaching career without having to address the thought behind the question. He remembered that long ago, before college, he would have had a quick answer to this kind of question but his college education had changed his mind. He had known & been aware that the things he was teaching about evolution had a moral concern but he had put the problem aside, so that he could accept this position at the University and live a good life. He simply wished to maintain his career with the least amount of confrontation, accepting his comfortable paychecks without having to deal with questions that bothered him. Wilson was keenly aware that much of what he taught about evolution was nonsense but he did it anyway. What would his colleagues think of him if he didn’t spew the usual story? He would be laughed at; he might even lose his position. No, he thought, during his 30 years of teaching…he would teach what he had been taught to teach and not worry about other things. But here he was, facing a crowd of some 600 eyes…all wishing to have some word of wisdom from the old professor.
He stood in front of his desk for a long time, his eyes focused on young ‘Billy’Lynch. Not that he was at a loss of words but he wondered about the connection between this strange question and the many lectures that preceded it, though he feared where the question might be leading. What was the connection between stopping for a stop sign and the hours of telling the students about evolution? In all his years of attending school himself, he had never found himself in this kind of situation.
Wilson was not a big man, as men go. His 200 pounds were spread over a frame that would hardly qualify for a football team. Most of his hair was gone, not that he was bald but he had, several years earlier, decided to keep his hair short, not skin-head short but clipped very close. He wore steel rimmed glasses; bifocals. They sat on his broad nose just above a thin line mustache. His chin was now beardless though he often sported a beard, a goatee of sorts. He had recently shaved it off, giving him a new look, even a freshman look, perhaps fitting for the retirement he had envisioned with Sally, his wife, as they made plans to visit Europe as soon as things on campus were wrapped up. He was wearing a light blue denim short-sleeved shirt, one with a banded collar, unbuttoned at the top. The shirt was tucked into his dark blue Levi trousers, and he had a wide western style belt with a large buckle, the kind many cowboys wear.
He lowered his hands to his sides, realizing that he had to say something.
“Yes,” he said. “It is absolutely true that it would not be a good thing for someone to be hurt or killed at a stop sign.”
Dan Schobert, W9MFG@charter.net
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Open Letter to Candidates
During this 2010 election year I have decided to send an open letter to each candidate for each office for which I will cast a vote. I have reproduced that letter in this blog. The writing of this document took me a number of days of reflection and prayer.
I truly believe that this document reflects the type of individual we need in elective office. Everything in this letter reflects either a Biblical or truly traditional American principle. I did not make up any of this. Any person who decides to reject the principles in this document is likely either ignorant or evil or both and is not worthy to seek elective office in this country.
I encourage you to copy this letter and, after customizing for your situation, send it to your newspaper or online editorial section or office seekers in your area.
I remain yours in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ,
“Mr. Phil”
“Dear . . .,
I appreciate your interest in serving as . . .
When an individual decides to seek elective office at any level in our great Republic, it is understood that a wonderful opportunity is available to educate the public, especially traditional families, through that campaign. The American election process is more about passing on the American tradition of governance and free enterprise than winning individual elections or shifting the “balance of power” at the local, state, or national level.
Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence said, “. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .” Modern statists, insisting rights are granted by a central government, would not agree with Mr. Jefferson’s belief that rights are derived from God.
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” In Jay’s day, “Christian” had a rather different meaning than it does today. He would likely write, “persons of Biblical faith” in today’s language.
Jay was a Founding Father, member of the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses, President of the Continental Congress, instrumental in the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, a writer of the Federalist Papers, involved in the writing of the Constitution of New York state, Governor of New York, and had many other accomplishments. John Jay was a man who should be studied and emulated by our children.
John Adams, second President of the U.S. said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Adams also stated in correspondence to Thomas Jefferson, "I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." He went on to say, "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." Modern secularists, insisting that “religion” should remain within the four walls of a church, would not agree with Mr. Jay or Mr. Adams. At the same time they are doing all they can to promote their religion of evolutionary secular humanism through the government school systems.
The colonists of Plymouth Plantation despaired of working “for the common good” and gave up the idea of expending effort so that others, who would not work, could share in the benefits. This resulted in poverty and starvation. William Bradford, Governor, replaced the failed collectivist economic system of the London sponsors of that colony with a system of free enterprise. After the implementation of free enterprise, in which each person retained the fruits of his labor, the situation turned around and led to further colonization by others of like mind from the European continent. A system of trade with the local native population was developed, resulting in greater prosperity for all concerned.
Therefore, considering that we are likely less wise than our Founding Fathers, I would encourage use of the campaign pulpit to teach from their ideas our families and children, along with the general voting public, what it means to be an American, a Christian or person of Biblical faith, and an entrepreneur. Please read publicly, first from the Bible, and then from our Founding Documents without shame and embarrassment. As Adams said, our system will work “only for a moral and religious people.” The wisdom of William Bradford prevailed in ensuring a free enterprise approach in the founding of an economic system within the new Republic. We are all responsible to promote that kind of society.
Thank you for caring.
Sincerely,”
I truly believe that this document reflects the type of individual we need in elective office. Everything in this letter reflects either a Biblical or truly traditional American principle. I did not make up any of this. Any person who decides to reject the principles in this document is likely either ignorant or evil or both and is not worthy to seek elective office in this country.
I encourage you to copy this letter and, after customizing for your situation, send it to your newspaper or online editorial section or office seekers in your area.
I remain yours in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ,
“Mr. Phil”
“Dear . . .,
I appreciate your interest in serving as . . .
When an individual decides to seek elective office at any level in our great Republic, it is understood that a wonderful opportunity is available to educate the public, especially traditional families, through that campaign. The American election process is more about passing on the American tradition of governance and free enterprise than winning individual elections or shifting the “balance of power” at the local, state, or national level.
Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence said, “. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .” Modern statists, insisting rights are granted by a central government, would not agree with Mr. Jefferson’s belief that rights are derived from God.
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” In Jay’s day, “Christian” had a rather different meaning than it does today. He would likely write, “persons of Biblical faith” in today’s language.
Jay was a Founding Father, member of the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses, President of the Continental Congress, instrumental in the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, a writer of the Federalist Papers, involved in the writing of the Constitution of New York state, Governor of New York, and had many other accomplishments. John Jay was a man who should be studied and emulated by our children.
John Adams, second President of the U.S. said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Adams also stated in correspondence to Thomas Jefferson, "I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." He went on to say, "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." Modern secularists, insisting that “religion” should remain within the four walls of a church, would not agree with Mr. Jay or Mr. Adams. At the same time they are doing all they can to promote their religion of evolutionary secular humanism through the government school systems.
The colonists of Plymouth Plantation despaired of working “for the common good” and gave up the idea of expending effort so that others, who would not work, could share in the benefits. This resulted in poverty and starvation. William Bradford, Governor, replaced the failed collectivist economic system of the London sponsors of that colony with a system of free enterprise. After the implementation of free enterprise, in which each person retained the fruits of his labor, the situation turned around and led to further colonization by others of like mind from the European continent. A system of trade with the local native population was developed, resulting in greater prosperity for all concerned.
Therefore, considering that we are likely less wise than our Founding Fathers, I would encourage use of the campaign pulpit to teach from their ideas our families and children, along with the general voting public, what it means to be an American, a Christian or person of Biblical faith, and an entrepreneur. Please read publicly, first from the Bible, and then from our Founding Documents without shame and embarrassment. As Adams said, our system will work “only for a moral and religious people.” The wisdom of William Bradford prevailed in ensuring a free enterprise approach in the founding of an economic system within the new Republic. We are all responsible to promote that kind of society.
Thank you for caring.
Sincerely,”
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Families – Threats – Cohabitation Before Marriage
From our Introductory Post:
“The righteous have sat back and allowed the wicked to take over our relationships to God, families, churches, governments, schools and colleges, journalism, entertainment, sports, sciences, and a whole litany of other endeavors in our society.”
Families – Threats – Cohabitation Before Marriage
In our previous post we considered the topic of Threats to Families, specifically Absentee Fathers. We will now take a look at another threat to the family, Cohabitation Before Marriage.
Now we move into areas that may create some ire among certain readers. Generally, when pet sins are exposed, even professing “christians” take exception. I am really not concerned about sparing feelings at this point so will be as objective as I can about this topic and other topics as they present threats to the family. The usual argument goes something like, “You wouldn’t buy a pair of shoes unless you tried them on!” Excuse me; trying on a pair of shoes does not equate to a lifetime commitment to a man or woman in marriage. Those who take offense need to deal with it between themselves and God.
Before considering the effects of this phenomenon, we should investigate the extent of it. The United States Census Bureau has reported that “. . . the number of cohabiting households increased from 1.1 million in 1977 to 4.9 million 20 years later in 1997. Cohabiting households made up 1.5 percent of all households in 1977, increasing to 4.8 percent by 1997.” A more ominous aspect of the extent of the problem of cohabitation is revealed when we consider that “. . . in 1997, 43 percent of unmarried couple households contained children . . .” and “. . . the proportion of unmarried couple households containing children has increased from 29 percent in 1977 to 43 percent in 1997.” The entire report, Historical Estimates of Cohabitation by Lynne M. Casper, Philip N. Cohen, and Tavia Simmons, may be read at:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0036/twps0036.html
The June, 2003, Catholic Update reports numerous negative effects of cohabitation such as “higher risk of divorce, less satisfactory adjustments in marriage, harmful effect upon children, ducking tough issues, repressed anger, avoiding criticism of each other’s annoying behavior, failure to develop realistic and satisfactory financial habits, suffering strained relationships with parents, close family members and treasured friends, and struggling with an undercurrent of guilt by this violation of one's conscience or religious upbringing.” See the report, Cohabitation Before Marriage by Joseph M. Champlin, at:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0603.asp
The Washington Post is hardly a religious publication. The August 16, 2009, piece, Force of Cohabit: Making or Breaking a Marriage? by Ellen McCarthy, discusses the phenomenon of cohabitation in a somewhat more balanced fashion but is surprisingly negative. Scott “Stanley, a University of Denver psychologist, has spent the past 15 years trying to figure out why premarital cohabitation is associated with lower levels of satisfaction in marriage and a greater potential for divorce.” Stanley discovered that “. . . almost 19 percent of those who lived together before getting engaged had at some point suggested divorce, compared with 10 percent for those who waited until marriage to live together.” "Cohabitation may not be making some relationships more risky," Stanley says. "What it may be doing is making some risky relationships more likely to continue." Read the whole article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081304118_pf.html
What is the solution to the problem of cohabitation? It may be nothing more than old fashioned preaching against sin. See “Flee also youthful lusts:” (2 Timothy 2:22) and “Flee fornication.” (1 Corinthians 6:18), among others.
Summary
This post has examined Cohabitation Before Marriage as a major threat to families. We discovered that the solution is found in observing Biblical injunctions. Our next post will take a look at another threat to families, Pornography.
I remain yours in the name of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Name above every name.
“Mr. Phil”
“The righteous have sat back and allowed the wicked to take over our relationships to God, families, churches, governments, schools and colleges, journalism, entertainment, sports, sciences, and a whole litany of other endeavors in our society.”
Families – Threats – Cohabitation Before Marriage
In our previous post we considered the topic of Threats to Families, specifically Absentee Fathers. We will now take a look at another threat to the family, Cohabitation Before Marriage.
Now we move into areas that may create some ire among certain readers. Generally, when pet sins are exposed, even professing “christians” take exception. I am really not concerned about sparing feelings at this point so will be as objective as I can about this topic and other topics as they present threats to the family. The usual argument goes something like, “You wouldn’t buy a pair of shoes unless you tried them on!” Excuse me; trying on a pair of shoes does not equate to a lifetime commitment to a man or woman in marriage. Those who take offense need to deal with it between themselves and God.
Before considering the effects of this phenomenon, we should investigate the extent of it. The United States Census Bureau has reported that “. . . the number of cohabiting households increased from 1.1 million in 1977 to 4.9 million 20 years later in 1997. Cohabiting households made up 1.5 percent of all households in 1977, increasing to 4.8 percent by 1997.” A more ominous aspect of the extent of the problem of cohabitation is revealed when we consider that “. . . in 1997, 43 percent of unmarried couple households contained children . . .” and “. . . the proportion of unmarried couple households containing children has increased from 29 percent in 1977 to 43 percent in 1997.” The entire report, Historical Estimates of Cohabitation by Lynne M. Casper, Philip N. Cohen, and Tavia Simmons, may be read at:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0036/twps0036.html
The June, 2003, Catholic Update reports numerous negative effects of cohabitation such as “higher risk of divorce, less satisfactory adjustments in marriage, harmful effect upon children, ducking tough issues, repressed anger, avoiding criticism of each other’s annoying behavior, failure to develop realistic and satisfactory financial habits, suffering strained relationships with parents, close family members and treasured friends, and struggling with an undercurrent of guilt by this violation of one's conscience or religious upbringing.” See the report, Cohabitation Before Marriage by Joseph M. Champlin, at:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0603.asp
The Washington Post is hardly a religious publication. The August 16, 2009, piece, Force of Cohabit: Making or Breaking a Marriage? by Ellen McCarthy, discusses the phenomenon of cohabitation in a somewhat more balanced fashion but is surprisingly negative. Scott “Stanley, a University of Denver psychologist, has spent the past 15 years trying to figure out why premarital cohabitation is associated with lower levels of satisfaction in marriage and a greater potential for divorce.” Stanley discovered that “. . . almost 19 percent of those who lived together before getting engaged had at some point suggested divorce, compared with 10 percent for those who waited until marriage to live together.” "Cohabitation may not be making some relationships more risky," Stanley says. "What it may be doing is making some risky relationships more likely to continue." Read the whole article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081304118_pf.html
What is the solution to the problem of cohabitation? It may be nothing more than old fashioned preaching against sin. See “Flee also youthful lusts:” (2 Timothy 2:22) and “Flee fornication.” (1 Corinthians 6:18), among others.
Summary
This post has examined Cohabitation Before Marriage as a major threat to families. We discovered that the solution is found in observing Biblical injunctions. Our next post will take a look at another threat to families, Pornography.
I remain yours in the name of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Name above every name.
“Mr. Phil”
Friday, January 1, 2010
The Stop Sign, Part 2
The Stop Sign, Part 2
Encouraged by the professor, and hoping to stand his ground in what he felt would be a decisive give and take, Billy Lynch pushed on.
“No disagreement there professor. We put up stop signs to encourage people to stop. So my next question, if I may, is this: Why do you want people to stop?
Although he was feeling the urge to quickly do away with the question, Dr. Wilson sensed that he should continue.
“I would want people to stop because if they didn’t stop, they might get hurt, even killed,” he said. The students’ attention switched from Wilson to Lynch, wondering where this was leading.
“True enough,” said Lynch. “I believe we can agree that this would be likely. I simply wonder why you care that people not be hurt or killed if they fail to observe a stop sign.”
The professor quickly responded: “You don’t want people to get hurt or killed, do you?”
Billy Lynch began to feel pressured to respond as the professor expected but he knew there was a better way.
“Meaning no disrespect Professor Wilson, but it is not my role to provide an answer since you were the one who asked for questions. It is to you that I am looking for an answer to my concern. Here I am wondering why you care if someone gets hurt or killed at a stop sign…and your answer should not be in the form of a question to me. I know how I would respond but I wonder about your response.”
The class was a little stunned at Lynch’s bravado. He was actually putting the professor in the hot seat and this fact was not lost on Professor Wilson. He was being asked something very important, but didn’t really know what to say. Neither Professor Wilson nor the other students knew much about Billy. They didn’t know that he was a brilliant young man, having entered college at the age of 16, after quickly going through a home school program taught by his mother. It was at her knees that he had learned to be alert and to think deeply about ideas. He had, at her insistence, heard all about evolution and its many faults. He had been encouraged to study carefully the evidence for evolution and, in the process, had come to see that the evidence for evolution was actually interpretations which had been turned around as evidence; that the concept of evolution was nothing more than a clever scheme to deny the existence and work of God. He had a big advantage over his classmates who had been nearly forced to accept, what some have called, “an adult fairy tale” in order to graduate.
“You are right, absolutely right Mr. Lynch. I did ask for questions and this is what you’ve done. It is up to me to provide answers. When it comes to not wanting anyone to be hurt or killed because they fail to observe and obey a stop sign, I believe my answer is that I wouldn’t like it. And that is my final answer.”
This brought a few laughs from throughout the lecture hall as they recalled the now famous line from a popular TV quiz program.
Dan Schobert, W9MFG@charter.net
Encouraged by the professor, and hoping to stand his ground in what he felt would be a decisive give and take, Billy Lynch pushed on.
“No disagreement there professor. We put up stop signs to encourage people to stop. So my next question, if I may, is this: Why do you want people to stop?
Although he was feeling the urge to quickly do away with the question, Dr. Wilson sensed that he should continue.
“I would want people to stop because if they didn’t stop, they might get hurt, even killed,” he said. The students’ attention switched from Wilson to Lynch, wondering where this was leading.
“True enough,” said Lynch. “I believe we can agree that this would be likely. I simply wonder why you care that people not be hurt or killed if they fail to observe a stop sign.”
The professor quickly responded: “You don’t want people to get hurt or killed, do you?”
Billy Lynch began to feel pressured to respond as the professor expected but he knew there was a better way.
“Meaning no disrespect Professor Wilson, but it is not my role to provide an answer since you were the one who asked for questions. It is to you that I am looking for an answer to my concern. Here I am wondering why you care if someone gets hurt or killed at a stop sign…and your answer should not be in the form of a question to me. I know how I would respond but I wonder about your response.”
The class was a little stunned at Lynch’s bravado. He was actually putting the professor in the hot seat and this fact was not lost on Professor Wilson. He was being asked something very important, but didn’t really know what to say. Neither Professor Wilson nor the other students knew much about Billy. They didn’t know that he was a brilliant young man, having entered college at the age of 16, after quickly going through a home school program taught by his mother. It was at her knees that he had learned to be alert and to think deeply about ideas. He had, at her insistence, heard all about evolution and its many faults. He had been encouraged to study carefully the evidence for evolution and, in the process, had come to see that the evidence for evolution was actually interpretations which had been turned around as evidence; that the concept of evolution was nothing more than a clever scheme to deny the existence and work of God. He had a big advantage over his classmates who had been nearly forced to accept, what some have called, “an adult fairy tale” in order to graduate.
“You are right, absolutely right Mr. Lynch. I did ask for questions and this is what you’ve done. It is up to me to provide answers. When it comes to not wanting anyone to be hurt or killed because they fail to observe and obey a stop sign, I believe my answer is that I wouldn’t like it. And that is my final answer.”
This brought a few laughs from throughout the lecture hall as they recalled the now famous line from a popular TV quiz program.
Dan Schobert, W9MFG@charter.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)