Separation Between God and Man

The following is part of a discussion between myself and a fifteen year old boy. This started a few days ago over the subject of Obama and worked into a discussion regarding slavery. While this insert has nothing to do with slavery it is laying the basis for punishment of sin. Until we recognize the gravity of sin it is hard to accept the punishment for it, so here is the installment that was recently sent. I might come back later with more of the conversation.

Ok, I am going to take a step back as we are beginning to attempt to cover too many subjects at once and while I will answer each of them I think we first need to start at the very beginning as it is the only way to understand what God has done, is doing, and what He intends to do in the future. In order to understand this, there must be an understanding of the thing that separates us from God.

From the very beginning man was created to have close personal relationship with God. This was not the relationship that we now have but one in which God’s presence was visible and audible. We know that by the words recorded by Moses that no man could look upon God and live, while on Mount Sinai God hid Moses in the cleft of the rock so that he could see His glory after He had passed. Later the children of Israel were afraid to even look at Moses because he shone from the countenance of God. Now let’s go back to the relationship with God; because it is what we have to look forward to in the future. At this time in the garden there was no sin. Man was still in his perfect state which is why he could enjoy that relationship with God, however once Satan deceived man and man sinned there was a separation between God and man. The relationship that he enjoyed with God was no more because God cannot be in the presence of sin.

At this time God could have destroyed His creation right then and there but His love for His creation kept Him from doing so; instead He allowed man to make their own choice as whether to glorify Him or not but because all of the angels who rebelled against God with Satan were present on the earth that by the time of Noah mans thoughts were completely evil. You see God’s standards are so far above our standards that looking at a woman to lust after her, or to fantasize about her is the same as actually committing the act of adultery; to tell one lie is to be a liar, and to take something that does not belong to you makes you a thief. The problem was during this time is that the thoughts of man became their actions. They did these things with out hiding the deeds. They committed adultery in the broad daylight, they killed without being accountable for their deeds, they committed acts against children and no body saw anything wrong with their actions. However God was still loving and did not want to just wipe them off the face of the earth so He gave them another 120 years to repent of their sins. All they had to do was to turn from their actions and turn towards God. All the evidence they needed for the judgment to come was Noah building the ark during this period. He told them it was going to rain but because it had never rained previous to this point, no one believed that it would. He told them God was going to judge them for their actions, but because they had not been judged previously, no one believed him. They had committed these same heinous acts for all these years and there had not been any repercussions before because God’s love suffered long. He could not bring Himself to destroy His handiwork because He loved them beyond our own comprehension. In fact when someone wrongs us we can’t wait to get back at them and yet here was His creation, destroying each other. Then as the rain began to fall they suddenly began to realize that perhaps what Noah had been saying was true but their opportunity had passed because God had already shut the door of the ark. They were not repentant towards their acts but the fact that they were going to have to face the punishment for their acts. Up until this point they were not concerned about the judgment to come because they had continued with the same things that they were doing up until the time that the judgment actually came.

This judgment from God was just. Not just because they deserved the punishment but because they denied that He had any control over them, they refused to recognize Him as God and because their sins were so gross that they no longer resembled the creation that they once were. The thing that really makes you wonder is how bad it must have been if seeing the condition of mans heart today, He has not yet determined to return yet. This very act against His creation grieved Him so much that He made a promise to never destroy the earth in this manner again and yet man’s relationship with Him quickly slipped into another great low. By this time however the most wicked of the fallen angels were bound so as not to be able to sway the hearts of man in such a manner, yet man did not need their help to sway their hearts against Him. All they needed was a little push. Just a little nudge in the area of pride to get them to think themselves above God and attempt to build a tower that would reach into the heavens so that the gods would come down to worship with them.

Through out this entire period God continued to make His presence known and yet they denied Him in both word and deed and yet His love was such that He could not exact judgment upon them in the manner that He had done before. He therefore decided to set Himself apart a people who would be called by His name that would honor and glorify His name that other nations might look at them and recognize that they were the children of the most high God and would repent of their sins and turn to Him.

Now from the flood forward we saw a continuance of sin. Sin will never stop on the earth until Christ sets up His kingdom but God cannot allow it to get as bad as it had done prior to the flood, yet His love for us is such that He will not destroy as He did with the flood. It is that love that generates punishment towards people that hopefully results in repentance, however if repentance does not come then a stricter punishment or possibly death might come upon them. Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of God’s longsuffering and love for as long as Lot chose to live in the city God had His hand upon them in order that they might repent of their sins and turn towards Him. A neighboring king attacked them and took the people as slaves. Abraham went at God’s request and rescued them, yet the people would not repent, finally God determined to destroy the cities and Abraham pleaded for God to consider not doing so if he could find 50 righteous people and then it was 20 and so on until it was obvious that the only righteous people was Lot. The example of the hearts of Sodom and Gomorrah was when God sent His angels to lead Lot and his family out of the city and the men of the city came to literally attempt to drag these angels out into the streets that they might know them in a sexual sense.

The city of Nineveh is an example of a city that faced the same ending as Sodom and Gomorrah. The people of Nineveh were hated by the Israelites because of their wickedness and when God called Jonah to go to the city to preach, he ran from God. I am sure you have heard the story of Jonah before. The ending of course is what is important because when the entire city repented and turned to God the city was spared from destruction much to Jonahs dismay. He felt that it was unfair to that they were allowed to escape certain judgment. This example of God’s love is extended to us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

The problem is that we have made the word sin seem as if it is really no big deal. We downplay the seriousness of it because we don’t want to feel as if we are so bad. We don’t want to think that the acts that we commit against others are worthy of any type of punishment. The problem is that our actions directly affect others and encourages them to go even further that we had gone. This is obvious from one generation to another, with each one pushing the boundaries even further away from God. The land that God gave to Abraham was the land of Canaan, and from the time that he first stepped foot on the land until the time that the children of Israel actually took over the land these people had the opportunity to turn to God yet never did. Even after everything that they saw God doing for His people in Egypt and after their departure from Egypt. You might ask why would God want to destroy a whole group of people and the answer is that when a people becomes so evil that their acts possibly run the risk of affecting others that it becomes urgent to God to eliminate that evil that others might turn to Him. The people of Canaan had gone so far that they would sacrifice their own children to their false gods and since God loved them so much that He could not exact judgment upon them without providing enough time for them to repent, other people groups had begun doing the same thing.

Today almost every people group who had deteriorated to the point of human sacrifice has either been subdued or eliminated so that God could continue to be longsuffering toward us because of His love for us. Europeans, Asians, Africans, The Mayans, The Incas, The Aztecs, certain tribes of the American Indians, and on and on it goes. The question then becomes does He now see abortion as human sacrifice to the god of pleasure or selfishness and do we then run the risk of His judgment upon us because of the sheer numbers that have been aborted? You see sin is not just a three letter word but it is enmity between us and God. It is a gross act against the One that gave us life, against the One who loved us enough that He was willing to take on the form of man and to sacrifice Himself on the cross that we might be covered in His blood to be seen as righteous before God. You see sin requires a blood sacrifice because nothing shows sacrifice as much as blood. Without the shedding of blood repentance does not carry the same weight because you are basically saying that I am sorry about what I did but I am not willing to turn from it. Think about it for a moment. When animal sacrifice was introduced for repentance of sins, what was required? If a person only had to take an animal in for sacrifice, what we he take? Most of us would do what we do today. Provide the least that we can. We would take the weakest and poorest excuse for an animal to offer as a sacrifice and leave the best for ourselves; therefore God requested that it would be the first born without spot or blemish. It was to be the best of the best because that is what true sacrifice is. The best of the best because anything less says that He is just not that important to us and when we give Him the leftovers and keep the best for ourselves we are saying the exact same thing. When we focus our energies on the things that we want instead of what He wants we are telling Him that it doesn’t matter that you have loved us enough to be patient with us nor does it matter that you created us, what matters is that I am happy doing the things I want to do in the manner in which I want to do them. You see until we actually can see sin as exceedingly sinful then we do not see the need for judgment for sin, nor do we see the need for a Savior.

Consider for a moment that you are arrested and taken before the judge and the judge says that you owe fines over $100,000 dollars. Of course your response is that that is ridiculous. You have never done anything that would cause you to even get a ticket. (Pretend you have your driver’s license) The judge says to you as a matter of fact you did and begins to explain that on your way to school they had a special handicap area that had 10 mile an hour speed zones and your car was filmed going 35 through each one of those ten zones to which the total cost of the fines totaled the $100,000 dollars and if you did not pay it in full you would have to go to jail. Suddenly you remember that day of the handicap conference and you realize that yes you were guilty and you admit to the judge that you are guilty but you don’t have that kind of money. You ask for leniency because you have never been in trouble before. He tells you that taking that into consideration he still must enforce the law because of the injuries that could have incurred if there had been an accident. As you stand there dreading the outcome you plead one more time crying out “I learned my lesson judge it will never happen again,” but the judge calmly ask you if you have the money to pay the fine and when you reply no, he orders the bailiff to take you into custody when some stranger walks in and tells the judge that he will pay the fine for you. This is how it is with God’s judgment. It doesn’t matter if you think it is right or not because He loves you and because He loves you He must be just, not only with you but with everyone and because He is just His sentencing is just and we are deserving the penalty. Yet because of His love He provided the ultimate payment for the penalty in the form of Jesus Christ and while we might not deserve it, He still died for us, He still shed His blood for us that we might not have to pay the penalty ourselves because that would require total separation from our Creator. The one who has waited patiently for us to turn to Him, the one who had loving persevered while we blatantly and willfully sinned against Him, who could have taken our lives at any moment but allowed us to live in the hopes that we would recognize Him for who He is, that we would finally understand that regardless of all the good that we had done, we still needed a Savior and just like the human judge cannot let someone who has broken the law go free because He is a good judge neither can a Holy God allow us to go free, without a penalty being paid.

When asked what the greatest commandment was Jesus answered, “To love God with all your heart, soul and spirit and the second is like unto it, to love your neighbor as your self. Upon these two commandments hang all of the law and the prophets.” When we refuse to obey these two then we are open to whatever thoughts that may go through our heads. When we refuse to love God with all we have we take no consideration of His love for us or others and this is what causes man to act the way that he does towards others. This lack of love for Him is what causes people to rape, murder, and steal. It is what causes people to commit terrible acts against children. It is what is responsible for all the atrocities that have happened throughout history and until we can admit to it and acknowledge it there is no way that we can understand the things that He has written in His word because as He tells us they are foolishness to those who do not believe.

You see I don’t have all the answers for you. Only He does and while I may be responding to your questions it is only through Him that you can truly receive the truth. I really appreciate all that you are doing right now because it drives me to find the explanations for you and pushes me into His Word even more, so right now you are being His instrument to draw me even closer to Him. He will use it later with others that might have the same questions. I pray that this has helped you in some way and that through it you might come to recognize that, that which separates us from God carries a punishment that must be exacted and that His love for us keeps Him from exacting that punishment immediately in hopes that we might repent and turn to Him.

I will send you some research regarding your questions about slavery in the bible. I found many things that I did not realize at first but after rereading many of the scriptures I saw it in a different light, but please be prepared because they are quite intense and very long, not that this is short. Anyways I hope that you have had a great weekend and wish you an even better week.

Stephen

PS: More on the other points later.

Failing the Test

I have been having a discussion with a young man whom I have developed an enormous amount of respect for. At 15 he is more mature than most of us on here and has brought several points to light where we have failed the test. You see Jesus said, "By this men shall know that you are my disciples, that you love one another." This enormous test epitomizes the true believer. Yet we deny the very essence of this command. Oh' we have no problem loving those who are lovable but everybody can do that and what profit is there if you only love those who love you, as Jesus pointed out, even the world does this. We claim to love our family, yet many of us spend more time away from them at work than we do with them and then we wonder why we can't communicate with our children. We claim to love those who go to church with us, yet many of us have never been to their houses nor have they been to ours. We claim to love our neighbor but we reserve that love only for those of the same nationality as we are. No, the truth is we have failed the test. As we have walked down the street we have crossed over to the other side so that we couldn't see the man lying in the ditch. We have done this so we wouldn't have to feel guilty for not helping him. Jesus got down on His knees to wash His disciples feet yet many of us won't even shake hands with certain people. We walk around as the Pharisee wearing our cloak of righteousness and then wonder why we don't have revival in our churches. The test was not seeing how many bodies they could get into the church, the test was how their love affected those coming to Christ. Jesus didn't ignore the prostitute caught in the act, He forgave her. He didn't turn away the adulterous women, He gave her living water. He didn't condemn the ten lepers, He healed them even though only one would return to give thanks. He didn't congregate with the wealthy, He ate with the sinners. He didn't give us what we deserved, He spread His arms and allowed them to nail Him to the cross. Oh, many of us would have refused to go to the cross after all they aren't appreciative. Their not going to use the gift the way we think they should. Oh, they'll just run and hide as soon as it all begins. These people don't deserve the sacrifice I am willing to give, it just ain't worth it but He remained. He shed His blood! He endured separation from the Father so we wouldn't have to and all He asked was for our obedience and we can't even do that, and we consider others to be ungrateful. We look at where they come from and judge them based upon that and leave them hanging at the edge of the cliff ready to plummet into hell while we sit back and claim that if they really wanted to change they could get out of their situation, after all, I pulled myself up by the bootstraps. I worked hard for what I have and I am not sharing it with anybody. We pat ourselves on the back for having a food pantry but once we hand out the food we don't go see those we have served. We brag about our rebuilding of houses in disaster areas but ignore the neighbors house that is falling down around them. We interact with people at church but the rest of the week we dread Sunday because we might have to talk to them and hear their problems. We shut our parents up in nursing homes so we can have a life without worrying about them. Yes we have failed the test because if that is the way people know that we are His then there aren't many of His disciples in the world today. I am ashamed! I am ashamed at the way that we have blasphemed His name among the Nations and the way that we have treated people. I am ashamed that we don't have people on the streets every night attempting to reach out to a lost and dying world and I include myself in that shame. I am ashamed that we refuse to reach into our pockets ourselves and rely on the church to take from the tithes and offerings which was meant for the spread of the gospel and not the meeting of the needs of others. I am ashamed that we have 15 year old kids who cannot see the love of God being reflected in the faces of those who are supposed to be called by His name. It is no wonder people can't see the truth in the word of God, it is because we have aided in blinding them. We walk around all pious looking as if we just got done sucking on a lemon and wonder why people don't want to be like us. We make disparaging remarks against the man that God put into the white house and wonder why we are under attack by others when David repented for cutting a section off of the robe of God's annointed. Paul tells us that not even the angels speak against those who God has put into power, yet we are bent on bad mouthing them to the detriment of the gospel and wonder why we can't reach these people. We failed the test! We fail the test because instead of putting our trust in God we put it in our 401K or our jobs and investments. We tell people they should be content with what they have but we are busy gathering up all we can and then wonder how people could get into financial difficulties. We refuse to pay an honest wage for an honest days work yet we want top dollar for our products. We overcharge those who go to church with us because after all they are paying for the privilege of hiring a Christian. Many of us have betrayed Christ for a lot less than thirty pieces of silver and the result has been countless souls lost. We have failed the test but if He hasn't already cut you off of the vine there is still time to begin to produce fruit. There is still time to repent and be obedient to His commands but it is going to take complete surrender to Him because if you aren't willing to give all you are simply taking up space on the vine. Consider the fig tree that produced no fruit for three years. The owner commanded that it be cut down but the servant requested another year. He said he would dig around it and ferilize it and then after the year if it didn't produce fruit he would concede on having it dug up. Are you in that final year of being fruitless? The evidence is condemning against many of us and I pray that we will turn to Him. We have enough of these pointless blogs being posted preaching a prosperity gospel that is from the pits of hell because all we are promised is that if the world hated Him, it will hate us. He told Paul that He would show him the things he must endure for His names sake. What are you willing to endure?

The Wrong Side of the River

The Wrong Side of the River


Recently during our Sunday evening service Pastor was reviewing the message from the morning service, which he had not been able to finish due to the leading of the Holy Spirit. The message had began in Joshua chapter one but was tied in to many other passages concerning the children of Israel. As confirmation regarding where God has had me, he used this to show how we, the believers are compared with the children of Israel; in fact Peter uses the same terminology that Moses used when he calls us a royal priesthood, a chosen generation, and a special people. Paul speaks of us being grafted in to the vine, but if He did not spare the natural vine, how much more will He not spare us. As you read both Old and New Testaments you can see the harmony between the two and see the behavior of Christians today in the actions of the children of Israel; and that is what we see as Joshua is preparing to cross the river Jordan and enter into the promise land.

In Numbers chapter 32, we see;

Num 32:1 Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was a place for cattle;

Num 32:2 The children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spake unto Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and unto the princes of the congregation, saying,

Num 32:3 Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Shebam, and Nebo, and Beon,

Num 32:4 Even the country which the LORD smote before the congregation of Israel, is a land for cattle, and thy servants have cattle:

Num 32:5 Wherefore, said they, if we have found grace in thy sight, let this land be given unto thy servants for a possession, and bring us not over Jordan.

John speaks of this in I John;

1Jn 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

We today are doing the same thing. We have the promise but we are not willing to cross over the Jordan because we have great possessions and the land where we are is good for those possessions. We might have truly placed our faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ but the moment we reach the river Jordan we refuse to cross over to serve Him. As you look further on in chapter 32 of Numbers you will see the arrangement they made with Moses. They would send their men at arms over the Jordan to help subdue the land if they could but build cities and sheepfolds for their families and their livestock.

I want you to think about this for a while. In order to justify our disobedience to Him, in spreading the gospel we willingly give our tithes and offerings to missionaries and ministries, but when times get rough those are the first things we stop giving to. After all we need to worry about our own families on this side of the river and as long as we have peace on this side of the river, as long as we have success on this side of the river we are content but when things start to get rough, when neighboring kingdoms begin to invade, when famine begins to hit, we call our men at arms home to help. Oh, we might go down to the edge of the river but we will not cross over because we might get our feet wet or muddy. You see we were there when the priest began to carry the ark across and God began to push back the waters. We saw the wall begin to get higher as the ground began to dry. We saw our brothers and sisters begin to walk across on dry land but it wasn’t enough to cause us to follow because the land on this side was good for our own purposes and we continue to do the same thing today. Oh, we receive some blessings but we never achieve the richness of His blessings because we refuse to cross the river. We refuse to sacrifice our own wants and desires required to receive the full inheritance that awaits us and therefore the ones who we send across the river to help, receive our blessings, they receive the rewards that God had intended for us and thereby we will stand before Him empty-handed, achieving the promise by the skin of our teeth only. John tells us of those who receive the inheritance, saving their lives only. He tells of the tears that will be shed for a thousand years because of the lack of service to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and the countless numbers of lives that were lost because we refused to cross the Jordan.

I am reminded of the movie “The Mummy” in 1999 with Brendan Fraser. During one of the scenes the boat that they are on catches fire during a battle. There are two groups attempting to reach the destination of a dig, as the boat starts to sink both groups jump into the river and swim for safety. We see them both reach land when one hollers out, “O’Connell, it looks like we have all the horses.” O’Connell replies, “Benny, it looks like you’re on the wrong side of the river.” Benny looks around and realizes that they are on the wrong side. We have all of our possessions, we go to church every Sunday and we holler out, it looks like we got all the horses, to a lost and dying world, thinking that if they could just be like us, then they wouldn’t have the problems they have, but Jesus his calling back, your on the wrong side of the river, to be in complete obedience to me you have to leave everything over there and cross over in order to receive the full inheritance I have in store for you.

He never promised them that it would be easy, in fact He told Paul that He would show him all that he must suffer for His name sake, but his inheritance would come not here but when he reached his final destination, when he would see Him in heaven, the true promise land. The difficulty is not found in the task but in the completion of the task. There was just as good of pasture on the other side of the Jordan but it was what might await them there that kept them from crossing. They had already won some battles over here, they had already defeated some of their enemies and those who they had not done battle with had known what happened to those who they had defeated but those on the other side probably did not know nor would they give in without a battle and they might just lose what possessions they already had, so the thought was why risk it? The early church experienced the same thing, just as we do today and the one thing that has plagued us has been the infiltration of the enemy and our unwillingness to remove him from the church because after all it sounds good. It is enough to just send our men at arms while we stay here where the battles have already been fought and then as Samson watched as the Israelites went into the city of Gaza without any judgment falling upon them we watch as the world slowly moves into our churches and sets up housekeeping and before you know it we are walking into their gates without being noticed because they have seen our kind before. Oh, and by the way did you know that so and so goes to church on Sundays? Then before you know it the power is gone and the enemy has your eyes put out and you spend the rest of your life going around in circles amusing the crowd until one day He returns and exacts His judgments upon the earth.

It is true that those who crossed over eventually disobeyed God and He allowed them to fall into captivity; it is true that many of the early churches disobeyed and allowed false teachers to spread their deceits without hindrance and it is true that many once strong churches have all but lost their power, it is equally true that God will exact His judgment upon all, judging us by His standards and not ours.

“It looks like we got all the horses.” “It looks like you’re on the wrong side of the river” Ask yourself, which are you hollering?

The Sky is Falling

Every since Christ was raised again people have looked for His glorious return and while others believe that wait to be in vain those who have their trust placed firmly in Him know that nothing is in vain when done for the glory of God. You see even He told us that the angels know not the hour or the day that He will return. The message is to be always ready, always prepared that it could be today. The other side is that many have used the fact that He has not returned yet as claim that He will not return or the He was not who He claimed to be in the first place and that brings us to the manner in which we live our lives. If our lives do not reflect Him then how can those who come after us believe or see the truth. The day in which He returns will remove all influence of Him from the earth and all that will remain are those who have denied Him and the influence that we had on them. I do not believe that it will be impossible for people to come to Christ during this period because we are assured that those who come to Christ during this time will be called Tribulation Saints, but it is not to assure you that there is time for you then because the more that you deny Christ now the easier it will be to be deceived during that period.

You see it was because of this always being ready that the early church so eagerly spread the word. It is why they received the name the Way because their lives reflected Christ and showed that there was another Way, the Only Way and all others were merely false. There was no longer a need for blood sacrifice because His blood covered it all. There was no longer a need for a high Priest because He is the High Priest who sits on the right hand of the Father. We all con go into the Holiest of Holy's because He tore down the wall that separated us from the presence of the Father. There needs not be any other intercessor for us because He is the only intercessor for us. Muhammad can not lead us to Him, Buddha can not lead us to Him, our good works can not get us there, Mary can not lead us to Him, only Jesus Christ can lead us to Him and that requires one thing from us and that is sacrifice on our behalf. It is sacrificing ourselves for Him. It is relying on Him and not our selves that He desires. You see every day that He does not return brings us one day closer to His return and that time should be spent for Him and in assuring that others hear about Him and see His work through us. If all we leave behind are dusty Bibles and a life that did not reflect Him, who are those who were left behind believe?

A Christian in Name Only

Over the past several weeks I have been working on a family tree, which has been extremely fun and yet at the same time difficult. You see I have been married three times and while it was not my decision to do so it was my choice, which I will explain later. The other difficulty is that the wonderful man who raised me and provided my last name is not my biological father, he adopted my brother and I after he married our mother. So not only do I have children from 3 lines that I must research I also am researching my biological and adoptive lines and the lines of my current wife and her children's parental line. In doing so however both on her side and my two older children's maternal side I have been able to take their line back, in some cases 106 generations simply because of who their ancestors were.

The one thing that I have always rejected even while running away from God was that we came from the Catholic Church and yes I know that the organized Protestant Church was separated from the Catholic Church but as the body of Christ we did not come from any organized religious establishment. Many of us may have been truly born again but just as many have not been and are merely a Christian in name only, much in the same way that we are categorized with all the acts that have been attributed to the title of Christian through out history and this is how I have come to write this. In reading many of the historical documents that have been preserved regarding history and the ancestors of my wife and children I have seen the gradual transition from the teachings of Christ and that of the infiltrated organized church. Pliny the younger wrote of the difference in the Christians that were in his territory and requested aid in knowing how to handle them. His account was one of admiration because of the difference in them from others. We saw the same difference in the book of Acts because Luke recorded that they not only turned the world upside down but the new believers had a good report from ALL men, even from those of pagan beliefs. This was not because they were self serving but because they were serving Christ using the example that He provided and not one of mans own devices. Even as the Catholic Church grew and expanded these first believers had already gone before them and many of the countries that early Catholic priest went into were not totally barbaric or of pagan belief because when the early believers were scattered they preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ where ever they went. Thia has been recorded by their accounts often time known as Chronicles.

Paul nor any of the original Apostles taught anything but Christ and Him crucified and rose again and yet we claim homage to the Catholic Church who from the beginning paid much homage to Mary, who was nothing more than the vessel chosen to bear the Savior. Jesus did not put her on a pedestal, for we read when she and His brothers were hoping to speak to Him that He said, pointing to the crowd, these are my mother and my brothers, anyone one that is willing to do the work of the Father is my family. I am paraphrasing here simply to make a point that the title Christian is not just in name but must be in heart and spirit. Further more He said that anyone not willing to forsake all is not worthy of Me. That sounds more like a total commitment then the Christianity that we claim today.

The disciples did not use their teaching to dismantle governments nor to create riots in the cities nor did Paul use it to destroy the Roman Empire while awaiting trial and the persecution that he knew would eventually come. When Jesus said that He came to bring the sword it was not the sword that everyone thinks of but the very words that the Father intended for Him to speak because those words are what divides people. Those are the words that cut to the heart and convict man of their deeds against a Just and Holy God who while not willing that any should perish can not be in the presence of sin. His words were the sword used to defeat the temptations of Satan in the wilderness during His fasting before beginning His ministry. They are the words that have caused many dissensions through out history because man can not bear to be convicted of his sins. It has been mans design at the instigation of Satan to cause the terrible deeds of the Crusades and other wars in the name of Christianity because the result was not one that pleased God or furthered His kingdom. The results were that false religion were able to prosper and man himself was lifted up. You see they were Christian in name alone and just as my adopted name does not make me blood to the family line calling yourself a Christian does not make you part of the family of Jesus Christ and just as my actions did not always bring honor to my adopted name neither do our actions bring glory to God when we refuse to surrender all to His Son and do the will of the Father. You see it was my will that caused the failure of two marriages and it is my will that still gets in the way of Him working. We are always looking for Him to move when it is us who have to move. We must get out of the way that He might be able to perform in us and when we do that the result is as it was in the early church and that is when true persecution comes because others are convicted by your life not just your name. We are not Baptist or Catholic or Church of God or Methodist or any of the other organized religions we are the Body of Christ. Jesus said that by this men shall know that ye are my disciples and that is if you love one another as I have loved you. The name Christian means nothing and that is why it has been destroyed, because the actions have not reflected Him nor has they glorified the Father.

There is not other way to heaven but by Him. It is not through our church affiliation nor by the name or title we bear, it is through Jesus Christ and Him alone. It is only through our repentance and turning away from sins and towards the perfect sacrifice whose blood was shed upon that tree that we can truly call ourselves by His name and the reason that that is so difficult for so many of us is that we know that it requires sacrifice on our part. Dr Tony Evans preached an awesome message the other day on the radio, which moved me in a tremendous way because it was confirmation of what was being laid on my heart. It not only mentioned what I am saying in a different way but it went further to say that just because we have possessions does not mean that we are being blessed by God especially when they keep us from a relationship with Him. You see the early church did not just meet once a week, they met daily in each others house, breaking bread or fellowshipping, today we would look at that as an invasion of privacy, we would see it as other people getting into our stuff because we have our hidden stash in our house. We have our secret sin closet where we keep all the things that prevent us from serving Jesus Christ in our house and we don't want others to see it because they just might judge us or is it that they might realize that we are not as pious as they think we are? We enjoy walking around in our fine robes as the Pharisee's did and with the solemn look of the early Quakers so people would know that we are serious about God and all the while it is merely a facade so they can not see the truth that lies in our hearts that the only reason we took the name of a Christian is because it presents us with some prestige. In the past it looked good on a resume to be able to put that you were a deacon or an elder in the church. Today it doesn't bring as much recognition unless you are running for political office and that is only so you can gain the votes of Evangelicals in your precinct. No, today we are more worried about what the neighbors might think or that our parents might leave us out of the will or that we simply need to go to build up our brownie points with God so He will look at us favorably. Actually, there is no reason for us to go to church anymore because no one looks at us any differently anymore and that is why the church buildings are empty unless the people there are actually moving themselves out of the way so that God can work through them and the thing is that they are growing and God is blessing because it is not about them, it is about Jesus. They are not just a large church. Oh they may still have a few sour apples but you can spot them by their faces. They are not Christian in name but part of the body doing the work that God had prepared for them to do. They are not perfect, just willing to allow God to use them. They are willing to pour themselves out and allow Him to fill them up. The question becomes will you pour yourself out and allow Him to fill you up or will continue in name only hoping that it will be enough?

Cause and Effect

Cause and Effect
Or is it vice versa



As I have been studying several papers on philosophy and Kant; I came across a paper entitled: On the Way to a World Republic? Kant on Race and Development. The remarkable thing that I found in this was the accusation that Christians were responsible for slavery and racism. The thought process is that if people who claimed to be Christians were responsible then Christianity promotes slavery and racism. That would be like us saying that because non-Christians commit murder then all non-Christians are murderers. The purpose in doing this is to promote their own way of thought and in doing so they break the rules of their own argument. The problem with this is that we do not argue the fact because we know the Bible to contain passages on slavery, especially in the Old Testament. However there were specific rules regarding slavery and in many cases the slaves were actually people who had sold themselves into bondage to people to whom they owed money to. This was the same as tenement farming where I settle on your land and work for you in order to one day own the land I settle on. The rules put into place in the Old Testament limited service to 7 years at which time, the debt if it had not been repaid would be released. We have a similar thing today called bankruptcy in which if we file for it remains on our records for at least 7 years and then it is supposed to be erased from our credit rating. We also have slavery today in the form of debt because if we owe anyone money we are slaves to that debt until it is paid off but the majority of us will not be released from that bondage for at least 30 years and while we don’t work directly for the lender all that we work for goes to cover that debt and to keep up the collateral for that debt. The other difference is perspective. When we view certain words in other languages they might have several different meanings so we choose one that best describes what we assume the word to be and since bond men is not one that is used regularly another word that describes a bond man is a slave, one that is indebted to another.

1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another

Chattel: an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property.

One also has to interpret their objective for making such claims especially in light of their denial of God. If there is no supreme being then it is not Christians who are making others slaves but mere men utilizing their own free thought. The other observance is that other nations practiced slavery long before the Israelites came on the scene and who themselves were slaves before they actually became a nation. Now to fully understand their actions we have to understand their agenda and that agenda is to discredit not only God but all who claim to be His and the easiest way is to indoctrinate these beliefs into the minds of our children and in doing so they can build up the case against God, which generates the doubt that He really exists, because if God is love how could He endorse such things or how could His people do such things and by altering their perception they then continue to do so by portraying all those who were instrumental in the abolishing of slavery as actually humanist. This now reinforces everything they are being taught and anyone who appears racist is now clumped together and defined as Christians. This is helped along with the false believers and teachers that Satan has had infiltrate the body of Christ who make radical claims or bomb abortion clinics or any of the other senseless acts that are carried out by them. All of this is so he can make his claim against Christ and us to justify the persecution during the Tribulation. Once we have realized this then it is up to us to live as Christ asked us to live regardless of outside situations because all of the accusations against us now are a result of us living as we are of the world and not of Him. They are able to judge based upon our actions, which confirms their perspective that God does not exist. And we do the same thing when it comes to obedience to Him. We rationalize that as long as we go to church and tithe it is enough. We rationalize that as long as we look but don’t touch it is okay and meanwhile your son is sitting right next to you saying to himself, ‘ if it is okay for dad to look and not touch because he is married, then it is okay for me to look and touch because I am not married and if that is okay for him as a Christian then God’s word must not be the truth in fact it is possible that he doesn’t exist at all therefore because I am attracted to my girl friend in a sexual sense then that makes it okay and once they have gone the whole way and nothing happened it keeps building up. They may still attend youth group and be involved in church but that does not mean anything because dad looks at other women even though the bible says, he who looks after a women to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart,’ dad is still active in the church. Maybe he is a deacon or maybe he holds some other position within the church but if his son sees anything that is against what the bible claims then in his mind it is not true because dad does not live it. The same goes for money or taxes. It does not matter where we fail at because that is the point that they are going to begin with and from there who knows where they will go. It includes our relationships with others and grudges we may hold against others because if they don’t see us as loving and forgiving how is God supposed to be loving and forgiving. It doesn’t matter that we are only human. That is the same philosophy that they preach and it doesn’t hold water because we are called to be different. We are called to lights in the world and if a light is hidden by any human characteristics it can’t be seen by any one.

Yes we are under grace but grace does not exclude works and since we are under grace we are to provide grace to others regardless of the results, especially regardless of the results. The grace is evident the greater the sacrifice especially when it affects us personally. The greater we are hurt by others but we continue to show grace towards them the greater our example becomes to our children. However the more we resort to vengeance or the greater the grudge we hold the more it tells our children and others that God does not exist. We are the evidence that they are seeking. We are the proof and the reasoning that they seek. Consider for a moment an empty glass. It is useful if you have something to put in it, if I were to put ice and filled it up half way with water it would be refreshing but if I were to fill it up the rest of the way with vinegar it might look refreshing but the taste of it would disgust you and that is how we are. We look good outside and we have the presence of the Holy Spirit but it is the rest of us that makes Jesus disgusting to others. It is why they have a bitter taste in their mouths towards Christianity and God. The glass is still usable, it still has purpose but it has to be emptied out, cleaned and filled back up again with good water and that is what God is asking us to do. He is asking us to cleanse ourselves from our own will and desires. He is asking us to let go of those preconceived self centered notions and be filled up by Him. It is only then that we can be seen truly as His children by others because now all they see are; people who believe in someone who is not there and the reason is that while we acknowledge Him with our lips we deny Him with our actions. Thus the effect is the result of the cause.


Truths of Grace


Grace is a gift of kindness given to someone who does not deserve it.

Grace is not reciprocal. It goes one way

Grace is costly. Someone has to pay the price for it.

Grace looks at what people can become and seeks to help them reach their potential.

Grace does not condemn those who have not yet arrived.

Grace focuses on solutions, not problems.

Grace leads to action.

Grace is what motivates God to relate to us moment by moment with perfect love.

Grace is the lubricant that eases the friction in any relationship.

Grace expects the best but offers the freedom to fail.

Grace celebrates success and does not keep score of wrongs.

Playing By Their Rules

Playing by Their Rules


There is a constant that is required to partake in any venture or experiment and that is there are rules that must be followed. However in any discussion that involves God or the existence of God they set the rules and the rules continually change in order to fall into their own thought process. So if we are to have an every changing set of rules based upon our own free thought concerning God then should we not change the rules that apply to their concepts and ideas? The idea of this is neither preposterous nor unfair because it allows all aspects of their own standards for reasoning. When evidence is revealed, said evidence is quickly discounted based upon the rules that they have set or the rules are changed to dismiss the evidence. Their basis for this is that our knowledge is ever increasing so therefore new information changes the outcome of the argument and thereby changes the rules that first applied. However this only applies in the realm of religion or moral beliefs and not in any other area of discourse. If you were to consider that if evolution was held to the same standards then it would not only fail but fail miserably because the evidence presented is merely speculation and has no beginning by which to build on. The answer from them would be that it was a scientific fact which is false because there is no substantial evidence that would hold up to the scrutiny that they place upon creation so the facts becomes merely circumstantial and relies totally on the common thought of those who believe it to be a fact therefore claiming the majority and because the majority believes it to be so then it must be true, which denies their allegations against us that belief does not constitute truth.

The aspect of experimentation also fails regarding evolution because no experiment can prove that something can be created from nothing, even if you were to use one single cell ameba it would not turn into something without any outside influences and regardless of the amount of time that it was left to itself it would not become an intelligent being. The case for evolution was made during the Scopes Monkey trial using the concept of a human embryo to prove evolution as believable. However if we accept this as truth then they must deny the claim that abortion is viable because the embryo is actual being and not just tissue. If we are to follow their rules concerning logic we cannot accept both of these as being truths because they cancel each other out. One argument must be false. If you are to accept the result of Scopes then you must reject Roe vs Wade but if you accept Roe vs Wade then you must in fact deny Evolution, which thereby also discredits Roe vs Wade. The argument then becomes that we have made great strides since then so the decision to cancel out either argument does not alleviate the other. Now the change of the rules begins and that being the case we know that by reasoning that if we have learned more since then, then that means we were wrong then. Therefore if we were wrong then, what is the probability that we are wrong now? The reasoning we had was based on the wrong data therefore corrupting the conclusions of the argument making any new information also corrupted because it relied on the data given during Scopes and once again if you throw out Scopes then you must also throw out Roe because the two are linked based upon the precepts of life and what constitutes life.

While the basis of Roe vs Wade is about the right of privacy to her own body it was determined that the embryo was not yet a being, totally denying Scopes claim that the single cell was in fact a being thus proving the evolutionary process that something could come from a single cell. Of course the argument was made that as a single cell it had not yet developed into a being but that does not alleviate the fact it was living. In order for anything to become it must have life since a single cell removed from any outside influences will not continue to grow and when you add the fact that the heart begins beating after 21 days you end up with a clear case of euthanasia. In getting back to Scopes as proof of evolution it would then stand to reason that if the evolutionary process is indeed fact then a single cell ameba left alone without outside influences should begin to have a heartbeat at the same time an embryo does. Of course the response to this is that the conditions have to be right in order for it to happen to which I ask, what are the right conditions? If it happened once then it should continue to do so. Plus where did these conditions come from? These questions cannot be answered nor will it change the minds of anyone to whom they are asked because it is not about proof when it comes to this subject it is about reasoning and logic which is only accepted when it is apart from a thought of a Supreme Creator. The problem I see with any evolutionary ideas concerning the earth is that it just does not work. Everything in nature screams against it from trees to animals they all produce after their own kind. Oak trees do not make apple trees nor do monkeys make dogs and dogs don’t fly. The very evidence they claim that supports their ideas screams out in disagreement because they know where they come from and they don’t have to reason about it. They don’t have to use a false logic to determine their origin. Man is the only one who has to wonder and then determine based on his own reasoning. And the reason for this is because he refuses to accept the logic that is before him relying on his own logic which is flawed.

The flaw is not in the right to think but in the direction of the thought, with direction meaning purpose and ultimate conclusion in regards to the affects on others. It does not mean that we don’t have the right to question because we need to question and that right extends to all proposed thought not just ones of a religious nature. The concept that has been developed is that any thought that does not agree with the proposals of those against religion in any form is therefore wrong; is this not the same thing that the Catholic Church did in times past? The very bondage that was placed on people then is being placed on them once more. The ideas of the Catholic Church were not biblical ideas but mans own ideas which lusted after power and wealth. Their purpose was not to promote God but their own agendas and to keep people under their power they set up rules and regulation which restricted free speech and kept people in the dark. This same concept was extended during the reign of Hitler and all other communist regimes in which those who opposed were persecuted or executed. If we truly look at the logic that they propose we see the limitations being set in place that would relinquish our rights to the freedom of thought that they propose, but by creating a mind set that we are the ones limiting free thought they make it politically correct to be intolerant of our beliefs. The only way to accomplish this is to indoctrinate the concept into the minds of the children at an early age and then convince others that their rights are being violated by us. By generating chaos they expect to be able to create order.

Is there any way possible to reach those who are convinced that their logic is correct? In my mind there is nothing that we will be able to do to reach these people for Christ and neither is it up to us to do so. It is up to us to but be obedient in being able to answer every man and it is up to the Holy Spirit to do the rest. I admit I get discouraged as I write these things and as I study these different principles but then I am reminded it is not up to me. I get discouraged as I see the influences within the body of Christ and how we so eagerly invited it in not just into the church but into our homes and I am reminded it is not up to me but to Christ. The only thing I am to do is to be obedient to what He lays on my heart to do. We are not going to be the losers in this battle but the victors. We need to realize that it is not just faith, that we have been given the very evidence that He has provided to us since Creation that justifies that faith. We have confidence in that evidence because we have seen each creature procreate after their own kind; we have confidence because the seeds we plant produce after their own kind; we have confidence because two cells meet and begin to create an unimaginable feat that takes shape over a period of nine months and provides the purest example of love between man and women; we have confidence because on the third day He arose, defeating death and providing a promise of eternal life with Him. We have confidence because if He did not rise we would never have heard about Him; we have confidence because we know that He IS coming again to gather His own unto Him, and we have confidence because His glory is manifested throughout all His creation. Do we use reason? Yes, we do but we also use evidence and that evidence is provided in every secular means possible. It is historically sound; it is confirmed not only in documents but in architecture. It is cosmologically sound; regardless of their claims and regardless of equipment we find solid truths concerning the cosmos recorded in the scripture and while they claim that it was written much later Isaiah has been confirmed to be written earlier than they contend based on archeological findings. It is scientifically sound; even though they attempt to discredit the translation claiming it to be misquoted it has encouraged every early scientist to push the envelope in their experiments and while they claim that these scientist were really humanist, if one were to read their actual works they would find that their devotion was to God. It is sound logically; as the Creator of logic we will never while on this earth be able to comprehend His logic and try as we might we cannot achieve a fraction of it. It is sound morally; the desire to remove morals from society does not detract from Gods viewpoint of the requirements of morals. Regardless of the belief or unbelief of a person we must all one day stand before Him and be accountable for the things that we have done. Our reasoning will not matter, our logic will not matter, our denial of Him will produce the judgment deserved and the sentence will be just and the punishment will be eternal. If every nation of people had some concept of a higher being and while not acknowledging Him as God knew that there was something more would it not stand to reason that there is One who is there. Even though the entire city of Jericho heard of what He had done; they still did not repent save one family. We hear it, we see those who will stand for it, but we do not want to acknowledge it because then it would mean that we will have to be accountable for all that we do.

Logic and reasoning put aside
I could not deny Him, although I tried
Though all around me put Him down
No fault in His Word could be found
With all creation screaming His Name
To believe in myself would be a shame
So on my knees I shook and cried
His love for me is why He died
A new life for Him I now begin
And eternal life since He rose again
So how can I deny He Exists?
And others so readily resist
With all creation screaming His Name
To rely on ourselves is a shame.

Refuting Humanism

Refuting Humanism

Much of this will be response to what I pulled off of a humanist blog page. What I write will be bold italicize so that you will be able to tell the difference. The battle we are engaging in has been ongoing and has reached into our own thoughts and hearts. It will not be quickly won nor will it be our doing that wins the battle but it does require each of us to stand in the gap. To get you in the right frame of mind I want to pose a question to you. Do not answer quickly because while you might think the answer is correct let me assure you that someone will think it is not. How can you claim the bible to be true and Christians to be right when other religions have their own beliefs that they claim to be right? After all the bible is full of bloody wars and promotes hatred towards others, what evidence is there that shows anything different?

I'd like to expand a little on a couple of these, if that's all right.
"And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in God is the problem of evil, does the concept of evil itself not suggest a standard of goodness or a design plan from which things deviate, so that if things ought to be a certain way (rather than just happening to be the way they are in nature), don't such 'injustices' or 'evils' seem to suggest a moral/design plan independent of nature?"
The problem of evil is usually posed as being the incongruity of a loving god creating a universe with evil acts so woven into its fabric. The question is not intended to be, "How is it that evil exists in the world?" - which does beg a religious answer, because it presupposes that the concept of evil is a natural and integral part of the world - but "How do you reconcile the contradiction between an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity and those things which exist which cause pain and suffering?" It's not implicit recognition of evil as a universal concept, it's an attempt at getting inside your worldview and showing the contradiction inherent in it. It's the same as asking, say, a Scientologist how they reconcile Xenu with scientific observations of the earth's age. Asking about Xenu does not imply recognition of Xenu.
That's not to say that I or atheists in general don't believe in the existence of good and bad human behavior; but atheists tend to think these concepts are based on the social instincts of our progenitors, and thus on utilitarian notions of group survival, not on divine mandate or design.

The main problem with this thought or concept is that it in fact denies itself. If the concept that all men are inherently good if left alone without input from either government or religion then there would be no need to determine that evil would in fact proceed from these men. This contradicts itself for the simple reason that if it were true then there would be no need of laws to keep men from committing crimes. The other variable is that the presuppositions that they claim Christians are supposing are the same ones that they themselves suppose from the other end of the spectrum. This removes the entire argument of social instincts of group survival. It does however enforce their belief of survival of the fittest and gives them the justification for their beliefs. In other words if the claim is true and man if left alone is good then anything that man would decide to be right would be good regardless of its affect on other men which begs to differ with their own humanistic belief because it does not coincide with the concept that they have concerning all men being considerate of the happiness of other humans which even in a social instinct setting it would consider their own welfare above the happiness of others. Can they be good people? Yes they could be but it does not mean that their goodness is evidence of their own presuppositions. Furthermore in order for their hypothesis to carry any weight it would need to insure that the goodness of man would ensure the life and liberty of all man regardless of circumstances or deformities. In most cases when considering the notions of group survival one would sacrifice the weak in order that the strong would survive thereby defeating their claims because in a society where one would consider the benefit of others thereby displaying goodness it would require the sacrifice of the strong to insure the survival of the weak.
I'd also like to thank Mr. (Dr.?) Licona for offering a question which was not an attempt to poke holes, but rather to engage the answerer in reflection.
In re: to Mr. (Dr.?) Koukl's question, I think it's really imperative to read the link on the cosmological argument Ebon posted. The brief blurb showing on this page doesn't do much towards explaining why a supernatural explanation is not a decent theory, while the words written on this page alone seem to indicate a "there's no positive evidence for anything so all explanations are equal right now and I just like mine better" sort of feel - which I know you didn't mean, but an apologist could easily twist it.
On the last issue - the perception of truth - I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective from the one you offer.
I didn't email Alvin Plantinga, considered by many to be among the greatest philosophers of modern times. But based on his assertion that naturalism is self-defeating, we could formulate this question (thanks to William Lane Craig for some of the concise wording): If our cognitive faculties were selected for survival, not for truth, then how can we have any confidence, for example, that our beliefs about the reality of physical objects are true or that naturalism itself is true? (By contrast, theism says God has designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that, when functioning properly in an appropriate environment, they deliver true beliefs about the world.)
You offer arguments to support the idea that we have evolved in a way to perceive truth relatively correctly, and to display to the theist that people's vision is not as well-formed as they think. I'd like to pass up the question of whether we do perceive the truth correctly entirely and get to the heart of the argument, which even if we accept his premises is a real bear of an affirmation of the consequent wrapped in an irrelevant conclusion wrapped in a non sequitur.
First, I take exception to your assumption that having an intelligently, benevolently designed brain/sensory complex necessarily means our perception is accurate. If you're familiar with psychological horror, you're familiar with the idea that knowledge and true perception can break your brain and make your life a lot worse than it used to be. In this sort of world, a benevolent designer would have made our brains to keep us from the truth. That's the non sequitur - the belief that a designer would design us to see clearly. But let's assume this isn't secretly a Lovecraftian universe and move on.
The two possibilities are put on the table - maybe human perception was undesigned, and thus has a chance that it's fundamentally flawed; or maybe human perception was designed, so on the whole it means we can perceive the truth. The first thing to note is that the askers give no evidence as to whether perception is fundamentally flawed or not; indeed, they've given a criterion for proving the lack of a designer (flawed perception/mental processes) but not one for proving the presence of a designer, since even perfect perception would not falsify either choice. Their argument, then, isn't (A --> B) ^ A --> B, it's (A --> B) ^ B --> A. You can't possibly draw any conclusions about the converse, only the contrapositive. That's the affirmation of the consequent.
The only reason you give for why you would believe in design over mindless selection is that it makes you feel good - if you were designed, then you're perceiving things correctly! If not, you can never be sure. Just because something would be nice doesn't make it true. That's the irrelevant conclusion.
Good answers Ebonmuse, sorry I had to stick my big nose in, couldn't resist ^^;.
Comment by: AnonaMiss | February 2, 2009, 9:41 am
(Sorry about the pronoun switching in the last bit, I got a little carried away with my logic. Honestly, symbolic logic should be a required course in elementary school; or at least an annual tutorial on logical fallacies, like we got with recycling.)

Here again they attempt to intertwine two separate concepts in order to prove a point, which to use their argument would be nice but it would not be truth. The essence of truth was challenged during the Age of Enlightenment and carried over from there to the time we currently live in. The perception of truth today is not what is actual but what it means to each person allowing the reasoning of each individual to generate its own concept of truth and while that might be nice it still does not make it the truth. If you don’t believe me then go take their car or move into their house and see what the response would be. The truth all of a sudden becomes relevant and their entire argument goes out the window. The main objective again is to create an idea in their own thought process which works for them because that is what they determine truth to be so by generating an act that would be deemed unworthy of them they would in fact see that what they claim to be logical is actually illogical. The fallacy of their argument is that they consider their thinking to be logical when in fact they talk circles around the argument. In order to be accepted by others it must cause them to rationalize thought and in most cases with Christians we do not understand how to rationalize or generate an argument that would cause them rethink their arguments. The other thing is that we must realize it is not us that has to convince them it is God that calls them we simply plant the seed, water or reap the labor of others however if we are to provide an answer we had better be doing our homework and be ready to give an answer that is both logical and sound doctrine. To argue scriptures with someone who does not believe in God or the bible to be His word is illogical. The other illogical approach is to attempt to use science to convince them that they are wrong and the reason that neither of these approaches work is that they both revert to the truth and since they feel truth is a matter of perception you must then determine where their perception lies.
In the discourse above their perception of the truth is ever changing and follows no logical path. Therefore we must assume that they have some idea of relevance to truth and then need to establish their stand regarding the subject and then refute it logically. Since any quotes or directions from scripture would quickly be disavowed we would have to attempt to do so from a worldly viewpoint. During the age of Enlightenment men pushed the boundaries of reasoning by generating questions that would expand the concepts of mans intellect. The purpose in doing so I believe was Satan’s influence on man to once again convince Him that he did not need God and that intellectually he could be a god and this is the mind that we are working with or against so to convince them that they are wrong is the last thing that should be on your mind regardless of the anger that you might be feeling. Remember this, it is our fault that man looks upon us the way that they do. It is because God’s chosen people have determined to blaspheme His name by our manner of living that they have begun to see Christianity as not working. We allowed the legalism of the Old Testament into the age of grace of the New and completely dismantled the “Way” that so mightily changed the people around it. When our children messed up we sent them away instead of lovingly supporting them. We condemned rather than forgave wrong doing because it affected us and this is what the world has seen from us for so long and it is no different than how they act and yet we claim to be children of God and followers of Jesus Christ so if it doesn’t work for us why should they fall into the same mindless trap that we are in because right now they can live the same way we do and they don’t have to worry about guilt or following any rules and all they do is look in our pious faces and see that there is no joy there. So if you are thinking about attempting to debate with any of them or if you have a child or grandchild that has turned their back on their beliefs then you had better be willing to surrender all that you are to Jesus Christ. You had better be ready to back it up with a godly example and if that means taking money out of your 401k to help them then you had better do it because at the moment in their eyes that is your god. You had better be willing to forgive them as God forgave you and regardless of what people say about forgetting it you had better do it because it is ultimately your fault that they are where they are and if that creates guilt on your part imagine what it might feel like if your standing on the right hand of Jesus and that child or grandchild is standing on the left. Then you had better get on your knees and begin praying. Pray for the wisdom and the boldness to speak. Pray for the words to say and be sure that you are prepared to give an answer. Begin a daily relationship with your Savior not just a passing acquaintance with Him but one that causes you to spend hours in His word because He is the creator of logic and He is the Truth and His Word is filled with examples of that Truth and provides the location of evidence. Then when you have done all of that research some more, look at the arguments that they are making and then pray about them and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and then pray some more that He would be working in the heart of the individual or in the heart of anyone else that may hear or see the debate because if He isn’t calling that person there is someone else that He is calling. Just look at the message of Stephen. The longest message recorded in the New Testament and not one person came to salvation during or after it. We read of no great addition to this beautiful message but the message had a purpose and that purpose was found at the end of the message in the form of a man holding the coats of those who stoned him and later we find that man on the road to Damascus is blinded and accused, then we see his name being changed and the ministry that he performed as the Apostle Paul so don’t worry if you do not see any fruit let God worry about that you just be obedient.
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts.[1][2] It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems. Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation and as such views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial. (Wikipedia)

First off to be able to properly debate anyone in this regards you must be knowledgeable with what you are debating. Notice the definition listed above and we will break down each section separately so that you can see how each one of these things were purposely introduced to us and the affect that they have on us.
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people
Notice that humanism is considered ethical philosophies. They are not a form of written propaganda but philosophies; a manner of thinking that allows each individual to determine what works for them. Take a look at the second part; that affirm the dignity and worth of all people. Remember when they first began to institute the whole everyone is a winner agenda? They no longer gave grades because they didn’t want anyone to feel left out or unimportant. This whole concept carried over into early sports where they simply played for a period of time and no score was kept. The reason was to generate a whole generation that would believe in this philosophy in order to control the minds of that generation and we all blindly followed their new manner of teaching. The problem with this concept is that it disallows their own belief in survival of the fittest but what it does do is to remove truth from action. If convinced that life does not begin at conception then it is not a moral issue to eliminate that fetus if it is deemed unwanted or if there is anything physically or mentally wrong with the child. The other area it denies itself is that it also allows for the euthanasia of the elderly due to their condition based upon their future production for society as a whole.
based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts
Their entire basis of rationality is completely unjustified by their remarks and again denies their claim of being for the good of all people. By inserting illogical conclusions into rational thought we will inherently make the wrong decision based upon our concept of the truth. If it is in fact an invasion of privacy as quoted in Roe vs Wade that we chose to allow abortion does that make it right? When appealing to the universal qualities of man particularly rationality one cannot insure that the outcome will be for the good of all men. It then becomes necessary to interject outside influences into thought that would promote an idea or concept to sway the outcome of the decision.
Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation and as such views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered.
Once again we have illogical concepts that deny the very claim that they attempt to make in justifying their refusal to accept the truths provided in scripture. The very claim that man is good and does not need restrictions set upon him is disproven in their assumption that he can chose for himself what is good when you add the new knowledge and information that is discovered. If man is capable of deciding what is right or wrong then what need would there be for new knowledge or information to change his perspective of what is moral?
In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
If we therefore endorse universal morality based upon the commonality of the human condition we are in reality foregoing the self-determination and placing the dependence on action without reason. However because it is widely accepted we will be encouraged to believe in the illogical. The denial of logic using this manner of reasoning creates the potential for a completely socialistic society and will call for the extermination or persecution of any and all who do not fit into their collective reasoning. In reference to the belief without reason, if one is convinced that that any thought outside of the realm of thought of the world as a whole is without reason. The evidence within these claims alone point to the inability for man to determine right from wrong or good from evil. What it does suggest is that there is no evil, that all things are good in the proper perspective given the commonality of the human condition.
Religion
Humanism rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in human affairs. Humanism has had an impact on some religions which have in recent times adapted a more humane stance than their original versions. Humanism is generally compatible with atheism[4] and agnosticism[5] but being atheist or agnostic does not make one a Humanist. Although the words "ignostic" (American) or "indifferentist" (British, including OED) are sometimes applied to Humanism, on the grounds that Humanism is an ethical process, not a dogma about the existence or otherwise of gods, many Humanists are deeply concerned about the impact of religion and belief in a god or gods on society and their own freedoms. Agnosticism or atheism on their own do not necessarily entail Humanism; many different and sometimes incompatible philosophies happen to be atheistic in nature. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere, and not all are humanistic.
As Humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical thought, it allows it to fulfill or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance. For more on this, see Humanism (life stance). In a number of countries, for the purpose of laws that give rights to "religions", the secular life stance has become legally recognized as equivalent to a "religion" for this purpose.[6] In the United States, the Supreme Court recognized that Humanism is equivalent to a religion in the limited sense of authorizing Humanists to conduct ceremonies commonly carried out by officers of religious bodies. The relevant passage is in a footnote to Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). It is often alleged by fundamentalist critics of Humanism that the Supreme Court "declared Humanism to be a religion," however the Court's statement, a mere footnote at most, clearly does not in fact do so; it simply asserts an equivalency of Humanists' right to act in ways usual to a religion, such as ceremonial recognition of life's landmarks.
While denying religion it allows itself to become a religion in order to further its own expanse. The purpose in doing so is to unite itself with those who have become discouraged in their beliefs and allows its agendas to be carried into places where they would not have been able to go before. In aligning itself with certain religions it infiltrates to remove the very essence of the truth. The denial of the truth however does not confirm the nonexistence of the Truth.
Knowledge
According to Humanism, it is up to humans to find the truth, as opposed to seeking it through revelation, mysticism, tradition, or anything else that is incompatible with the application of logic to the observable evidence. In demanding that humans avoid blindly accepting unsupported beliefs, it supports scientific skepticism and the scientific method, rejecting authoritarianism and extreme skepticism, and rendering faith an unacceptable basis for action. Likewise, Humanism asserts that knowledge of right and wrong is based on the best understanding of one's individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental truth or an arbitrarily local source.
In their search for truth they continually deny all evidence for the truth and by claiming logic they deny the very Creator of logic. They again deny their claims by demanding all people believe their own message and avoid blindly accepting unsupported beliefs. Every statement they make erases their claim of good for all men and extends their own agendas. Their claim of tolerance is limited only to those who readily accept their concepts of truths denying tolerance of those who disagree with them.
Optimism
Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that all people can live up to the Humanist ideals without help. If anything, there is the recognition that living up to one's potential is hard work and requires the assistance of others. The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species, also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings and the planet as a whole. The focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world a better place for those who come after.
Hopefully you are getting an idea regarding the difficulty of the task that is before us. Their idea of help is imposing their ideals upon all of man regardless of their own desires. It is a belief of illogical conclusions because they can’t even make up their minds where they will stand. It is a belief that regardless of its claims does not consider what is good for others but what is good for themselves as individuals. It does not encourage rational decision based on evidence as they claim but the blind following of the ideas of the few by the many. It is not a new belief but one that has been around since the beginning of time and it is the belief that has caused the very wars and riots that they claim Christianity is responsible for. It infiltrated the Garden of Eden in the form of a serpent deceiving Eve. It affected Cain when God was displeased with his sacrifice. It defined the world during the days of Noah in that all men did what was right in their own eyes. It was the very essence of the Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyle and infected the heart of Lot’s wife because she could not but look back. It plagued the hearts of the Israelites during the years in the desert wandering and invaded them once they received the promise. It almost destroyed the heart of David when he saw Bathsheba across the roof at the window. It typified the Pharisees and other religious leaders while Christ was on the earth. They were not following the tradition of the scriptures but traditions of their own that benefited them. On and on you can go and if you truly look at the Truth in light of God’s word you will see that humanism has been at the root of everything. It is the ingredient that claims that man does not need God and can achieve godhood on his own. It is what separates the races because it fuels hatred of those who do not agree with it. It generates intolerance of those who are opposed to its concepts and while claiming to be for the furtherance of the good of the people it has no problem exterminating the weak in body or mind for the survival of the fittest; when the Truth that they claim to seek is only found in the very book that they deny and that is that the strong sacrifice of themselves for the weak. It is why they must deny the Truth of Jesus and His resurrection because as the Son of God, as God Himself, He being strong provided the ultimate sacrifice, His self and this denies the self-centeredness of their core values and proves that the survival of the species is not based on the protection of the strongest but in the preservation of the weakest.
History
Contemporary humanism can be traced back through the Renaissance to its ancient Greek roots. The term humanism was coined in 1808, based on the 15th century Italian term umanista, meaning "student of human affairs or human nature," as coined by Ludovico Ariosto.[8] The evolution of the meaning of the word humanism is fully explored in Nicolas Walter's Humanism – What's in the Word.[9]
Greek humanism
Main article: Greek philosophy
Sixth century BCE pantheists Thales of Miletus and Xenophanes of Colophon prepared the way for later Greek humanist thought. Thales is credited with creating the maxim "Know thyself", and Xenophanes refused to recognize the gods of his time and reserved the divine for the principle of unity in the universe. Later Anaxagoras, often described as the "first freethinker", contributed to the development of science as a method of understanding the universe. These Ionian Greeks were the first thinkers to recognize that nature is available to be studied separately from any alleged supernatural realm. Pericles, a pupil of Anaxagoras, influenced the development of democracy, freedom of thought, and the exposure of superstitions. Although little of their work survives, Protagoras and Democritus both espoused agnosticism and a spiritual morality not based on the supernatural. The historian Thucydides is noted for his scientific and rational approach to history.[10] In the third century BCE, Epicurus became known for his concise phrasing of the problem of evil, lack of belief in the afterlife, and human-centered approaches to achieving eudaimonia. He was also the first Greek philosopher to admit women to his school as a rule.
Renaissance humanism
Main article: Renaissance humanism
Renaissance humanism was a movement that affected the cultural, political, social, and literary landscape of Europe. Beginning in Florence in the last decades of the 14th century, Renaissance humanism revived the study of Latin and Greek, with the resultant revival of the study of science, philosophy, art and poetry of classical antiquity. The revival was based on interpretations of Roman and Greek texts, whose emphasis upon art and the senses marked a great change from the contemplation on the Biblical values of humility, introspection, and meekness.
The main initial focus of Renaissance humanism was on the linguistic and academic curricula, with little tension between humanism and Christianity as such. Writers such as Francesco Petrarch in Italy, Rodolphus Agricola in Germany, and Sir Thomas More in England, are notable for their studies of latin or greek classics and the application of such knowledge to the church. Several Popes, such as Nicholas V, Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Leo X were notable humanists,[11] and many more members of the clergy. However apart from the linguistic, literary, and artistic influences of the classics on the Renaissance period, there was also growing influence from pagan and secular philosophies. As humanists increasingly opposed the strict Catholic orthodoxy of Scholastic philosophy, some began to intermingle pagan virtues with Christian virtues, and revive religious ideas from the late-classical Greek world, and some risked being declared heretics for distancing themselves from the church.[12] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy describes the secularistic flavor of classical writings as having tremendous impact on Renaissance scholars:
Here, one felt no weight of the supernatural pressing on the human mind, demanding homage and allegiance. Humanity—with all its distinct capabilities, talents, worries, problems, possibilities—was the center of interest. It has been said that medieval thinkers philosophized on their knees, but, bolstered by the new studies, they dared to stand up and to rise to full stature.[13]
Renaissance humanism's divergence from orthodox Christianity was in two broad directions. Firstly there was the secular world-view of writers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Francesco Guicciardini, the agnosticism and skepticism of Francis Bacon and Michel Montaigne, and the anti-clerical satire of François Rabelais[14]. Secondly there was Renaissance Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism, which through humanists like Giordano Bruno, Marsilio Ficino, Campanella and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola introduced new and wide-ranging ideas of supernatural forces, and sometimes came close to constituting a new religion itself. Of these two directions, the first has had great continuing influence, while the second proved largely an intellectual dead-end, leading to the fringe movements of Theosophy and New Age thinking; however it was not obvious at the time that this would be the case.
Though many humanists continued to use their scholarship in the service of the church, by the mid-sixteenth century, the sharply confrontational religious atmosphere following the Protestant reformation resulted in the Counter-Reformation that sought to silence all such challenges to Catholic theology,[15] with similar efforts among the Protestant churches. Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus, known as the "Prince of the Humanists," had contributed Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament to the church. Nonetheless, his writings were listed on the Index of Prohibited Books after his death.
Renaissance humanist thought was also a crucial ingredient of the history of science in the Renaissance, so that human-centric philosophy evolved to include not only the literary works of the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, but empirical observations and experimentation in the observable universe, which laid the groundwork for scientific inquiry in the Age of Enlightenment and into modernity.[16]
Modern era
The use of the word "humanism" in English to indicate a philosophy opposed to Christian orthodoxy dates to its first use in 1812, when it was used to indicate "mere humanity," rather than the divine nature, of Christ.[17] Subsequently, the Humanistic Religious Association was formed as one of the earliest forerunners of contemporary chartered humanist organizations in 1853 in London. This early group was democratically organized, with male and female members participating in the election of the leadership and promoted knowledge of the sciences, philosophy, and the arts.[18]
In February 1877, the word was used, apparently for the first time in America, to describe Felix Adler, pejoratively. Adler, however, did not embrace the term, and instead coined the name "Ethical Culture" for his new movement – a movement which still exists in the now Humanist-affiliated New York Society for Ethical Culture.[citation needed]. In 2008, Ethical Culture Leaders wrote "Today, the historic identification, Ethical Culture, and the modern description, Ethical Humanism, are used interchangeably."[19]
Active in the early 1920s, F.C.S. Schiller considered his work to be tied to the Humanist movement. Schiller himself was influenced by the pragmatism of William James. In 1929 Charles Francis Potter founded the First Humanist Society of New York whose advisory board included Julian Huxley, John Dewey, Albert Einstein and Thomas Mann. Potter was a minister from the Unitarian tradition and in 1930 he and his wife, Clara Cook Potter, published Humanism: A New Religion. Throughout the 1930s Potter was a well-known advocate of women’s rights, access to birth control, "civil divorce laws", and an end to capital punishment.[20]
Raymond B. Bragg, the associate editor of The New Humanist, sought to consolidate the input of L. M. Birkhead, Charles Francis Potter, and several members of the Western Unitarian Conference.
Bragg asked Roy Wood Sellars to draft a document based on this information which resulted in the publication of the Humanist Manifesto in 1933. The Manifesto and Potter's book became the cornerstones of modern humanism. Both of these sources envision humanism as a religion.[citation needed]
In 1941 the American Humanist Association was organized. Noted members of The AHA included Isaac Asimov, who was the president from 1985 until his death in 1992, and writer Kurt Vonnegut, who followed as honorary president until his death in 2007. Robert Buckman was the head of the association in Canada, and is now an honorary president.[citation needed]
After World War II, three prominent humanists became the first directors of major divisions of the United Nations: Julian Huxley of UNESCO, Brock Chisholm of the World Health Organization, and John Boyd-Orr of the Food and Agricultural Organization.[21]
Humanism (life stance)
Main article: Humanism (life stance)
Humanism (capital 'H', no adjective such as "secular")[22] is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world union of more than one hundred Humanist, rationalist, secular, ethical culture, and freethought organizations in more than 40 countries. The Happy Human is the official symbol of the IHEU as well as being regarded as a universally recognised symbol for those that call themselves Humanists (as opposed to "humanists"). In 2002 the IHEU General Assembly unanimously adopted the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 which represents the official defining statement of World Humanism.[23]
All member organisations of the IHEU are required by IHEU bylaw 5.1[24] to accept the IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism:
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.
Other forms of humanism
Humanism is also sometimes used to describe humanities scholars (particularly scholars of the Greco-Roman classics). As mentioned above, it is sometimes used to mean humanitarianism. There is also a school of humanistic psychology, and an educational method.[citation needed]
Educational humanism
Humanism, as a current in education, began to dominate U.S. school systems in the 17th century. It held that the studies that develop human intellect are those that make humans "most truly human". The practical basis for this was faculty psychology, or the belief in distinct intellectual faculties, such as the analytical, the mathematical, the linguistic, etc. Strengthening one faculty was believed to benefit other faculties as well (transfer of training). A key player in the late 19th-century educational humanism was U.S. Commissioner of Education W.T. Harris, whose "Five Windows of the Soul" (mathematics, geography, history, grammar, and literature/art) were believed especially appropriate for "development of the faculties". Educational humanists believe that "the best studies, for the best kids" are "the best studies" for all kids.[citation needed] While humanism as an educational current was widely supplanted in the United States by the innovations of the early 20th century, it still holds out in some preparatory schools and some high school disciplines (especially in literature).[

In providing all of the information above I hope that you have been able to see how they were able to shape not only the minds of our children but ours as well. The core value center of humanism has been so engrained into our minds that it shuts out the light of the Holy Spirit. This is why much of the message has not been received over the years especially concerning finances. When you truly study the Old Testament with an open mind and surrender your preconceived notions you will see the plan that God had set out for us. The Israelites were told that if while gleaning their fields they missed any of the crops that they were not to go back and pick it up but were to leave it for strangers and the poor. This was commanded to show the difference between Gods chosen people and the humanistic nations. This difference was so that they would see the God of Israel as God and draw other men to Him. The New Testament practice of selling what they owned and providing it to the poor was not a communal living practice but was moving them back to the original idea God had in mind at Creation. It was not a humanistic look at things but a God’s truth look at what is supposed to set us apart from the rest of the world and look at what it did, it caused them to live at peace with all men. God added to the church daily and they turned the world upside down because the focus wasn’t on themselves but on God first and others second. This is why they manipulate the Word so much because it reveals the truth and if we were to ever truly grasp the truth then we too would turn the world upside down and as the Pharisee’s sought to kill Christ because He turned so many away from them, they will seek to do the same to us. Look at all this in context of what is happening and what we know to transpire during the tribulation and then look at it again. If the humanistic mindset is not too engrained into your thinking you will have to see the harmony of the scriptures between Old and New Testament. If the Holy Spirit has not been so grieved that you are unable to hear His truth, you will begin to understand the cries of Paul not to be so taken with these wolves in sheep’s clothing who are able to sway you from the truth. And perhaps if you are not so hard hearted you might see the complete mess we have allowed to happen while we were asleep at the wheel and maybe you will begin to understand why so many of our children deny the very existence of God, maybe you will see that our treasure is not our earnings but the very souls of those first in our families, (Jerusalem) our neighbors, (Judea) our communities, (Samaria) and then the entire world. Maybe, just maybe, you may begin to understand what Paul meant when he said by ‘my example’ for he did not but preach the gospel but lived the gospel. If we are going to debate these issues we have to do so not just in words but in deeds. They need to see Jesus in us with a pure heart before they will hear us or the Holy Spirit. I firmly believe that we do not have much time left and I also believe that there will be many who come to Christ during the tribulation based upon scripture and if we do not reach them now it will make it easier for them to recognize the truth when they saw examples of it. The only truth they will have is what we leave behind until the two prophets arrive on the scene.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.