REVISIONISTS
07/19/2010 2:27
I LOATHE REVISIONISTS
That is my title. I know of no better way of saying it. Among those who want to rewrite history are many of the leaders of secular universities and their goal is to either not teach about some of this nation's founding fathers (because they might have actually … GASP … owned slaves, took land from the “Indians,” etc. etc. etc.) or they are quite willing to make up history to suit how they think things should have been? And for this they completely make up a story out of whole-cloth in order to help substantiate their false beliefs. The sad truth is that most people are too lazy to do any reading on their own so they end up believing what they have heard, even if it is patently and in most cases provably untrue.
Today's blog will not be about those particular liberals though... today's blog will be about a quote that I support: however, it is attributed to a man who most probably never said it. (The problem is that it was only quoted by one source and years after it was supposed to have happened.)
All-in-all I am a person who likes history... the good and the bad, and EXACTLY how it happened! I like reading about the successes and the failures of real people. It is one of the things I love about the Bible... God, sugar-coats nothing! He simply had things recorded exactly how they happened; that is the way I like to read secular history as well, foibles and all!
Even when a history rewrite adds value to what I personally believe or support, I am still against it. I don't need what I stand for propped up with false teachings or lies. Besides, what I believe... I believe: regardless whether or not I have the support of anyone else. I suppose I am just either sure enough, or arrogant enough (take your pick) to not really care about or feel like I need vindication by my peers.
I read an article in the Courier Journal about ten days ago. (Before talking about the article I would like to explain that I never buy a copy of their paper. They are quite liberal in their reporting and I would never do anything to help them continue on in their business. However, whenever anyone leaves an old paper in the break-room I do read many of the articles.)
There was an excellent and well-written article on the editorial page: it was titled, FARM ANIMAL RIGHTS. If I were grading the content I would give it a mark in the high 90's for making some salient points without going overboard in what was being said. Overall I thought the article showed some good common sense. But, you knew a “but” or “however” was coming... didn't you?
In closing the gentleman from Indiana used a quote from one of my seven favorite presidents... Abraham Lincoln. I won't tell you, at least for this blog, who all of the other six are or their order, I will say though that John Adams and Ronald Reagan are also on that list. (And of course I mean the sixth president “Quincy Adams” and not the second president John senior who was a lost reprobate. In this case the apple fell far from the tree... thank God!)
Because I like history and often read about our leaders I was somewhat surprised to read the following quote that Abraham Lincoln was supposed to have said. “I'm in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of the whole human being.” In one sense such a quote would not have been out of character for him.
He was known to NOT BE A HUNTER. Which in the 1800's was mostly unheard of for a man not to kill animals. Also, Mr. Lincoln appointed Henry Bergh to a diplomatic post in Russia and upon returning home Mr. Bergh started the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (ASPCA) This was done in 1866. Mr. Bergh gave many speeches about cruelty to horses, dogs, and he was adamantly against cock-fights and the such.
Many of Lincoln's friends wrote stories about times they were with him and he would deter from whatever he was doing to help an animal that was in need. One example was that while riding horses with a friend, Mr. Lincoln got down to help a little pig that was stuck in the mud and crying. And in extricating the pig he got muddied himself. He also was the first president who began the practice of pardoning a turkey at Thanksgiving. In addition, while at the White House he had cats and a dog as personal pets.
All of these things were known to me... yet, the quote in question I had never heard. (Mr. Lincoln) “I'm in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of the whole human being.” So, I searched the best that I could and I CAN NOT FIND THAT HE ACTUALLY MADE THAT STATEMENT!
I don't think, given his history with animals, that it was necessarily wrong to imagine Lincoln might have thought something like that... but it is clearly wrong to report him as having said that unless you can find a good source for it. Again, I loathe revisionists... even if it supports my own position.
Originally that is all that I intended to write, I just wanted to correct a wrong in an otherwise good article. Because I am on the subject (animals) I thought that I would like to write just a little more. At least two more thoughts for the day that I found to be interesting. “How did the Pilgrims interpret the dominion of man over animals in the Book of Genesis?” And, in our country, “when was the first law recorded that gave animals certain protections?
The Pilgrims felt that dominion meant, “responsible stewardship, rather than ownership.” In their constitution and recorded in rite number 92 and passed by the Massachusetts Bay Colony they stated: "No man shall exercise any Tirrany or Crueltie toward any bruite Creature which are usuallie kept for man's use."
Although other countries had made similar laws to protect animals (from people) before the Pilgrims did in our own country... the first laws written in America for the protection of animals... drum roll please... the year... 1641! Can you imagine that? 460 years ago laws were written where men saw the need to take care of animals. And (of course) that was 135 years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
So, the next time you hear someone say that no one ever saw the need to protect animals until the crazy people from PETA showed up... you can with full assurance say they are wrong. It was the “crazy” Christian Pilgrims (Puritans) who first saw the need!
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com
PART TWO... RELIGION AND POLITICS
PART TWO --- RELIGION AND POLITICS
July 14, 1:15 pm
In part one I explained why I wanted to write on this subject: in essence it is just because some Christians falsely believe that God “ordains” individual (political) office holders... He does not! God only ordained the institution of human government, that is where certain men would rule over the affairs of other men.
For a clear example of this let's briefly look at the two other “God ordained” institutions: marriage and the church. If God actually ordains the man and the woman who are married, then that would mean that every single marriage since creation unto the present day was ordained by God. That is each marriage was the perfect choice for the man and for the woman. Of course, we know that is certainly not the case. The marriage institution is God ordained, and it is perfect: however, individual marriages are quite often not of God and certainly not “ordained” by Him. If you believe otherwise let me set up a clear example of this. Is a believer in Christ permitted to “marry” a non-believer? (II Corinthians 6:14: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”) And there is no greater “yoke” on Earth than the marriage relationship. Now, have there been millions of marriages between believers and non-believers? The answer is yes! So, did God ordain an individual marriage that Scripture already forbade? The answer is no! Again, just like in politics, God does not ordain individual office-holders nor individual marriages, He does ordain the institutions of both.
Before I move on let me explain a salient point to those who apparently only know enough Bible to be able to twist and misunderstand it. In I Corinthians 7:10-16 some believe this gives permission for the lost and saved to be married... it does not! Keep in mind, the Bible is not written to or for lost men. The only place the Bible is for lost people is where it tells them how to be saved. Other than that, all of the ordinances, laws, and teachings are for the redeemed of God! The above verses (I Corinthians 7:10-16) are for two people who were lost and had gotten married. Then, sometime during the marriage one had become born-again: those people are permitted to remain married, the wheat and the tare growing together... but a person who was already saved is never permitted to marry a child of the devil. And according to God's Word, that is every person on Earth (John 8:37-44) above the age of knowing who has not been born-again! That is why you can have lost, God-hating men holding the office of the President of the United States and you can have agnostics married to followers of Christ.
The other God-ordained institution is the church. Again, like the other two the church itself is ordained by God... NOT the individual pastors! Let's look to see if this is true? If God ordains every single pastor of every single church, then regardless how heretical their teachings are, according to some, they have been “ordained” by God and that is EXACTLY the person God wanted to head up the local body of believers. Of course, we know that is hogwash. As with the other two institutions, human government and marriage: the church as the institution is what has been ordained and not the individual leader!
People who believe that individual politicians holding office are exactly who God wanted are nothing more than hyper-Calvinists in a political spectrum. (Will someone please find Doris Day and coax her tired old body out of retirement and let's all hold hands and sing, “Que Sera, Sera.”) Think about it, why vote? I mean, God already ordained who he wanted and of course we all have the exact leader He wanted. What a load of garbage that is!!!
From the VERY FIRST king over Israel (Saul) until this present day, we have had and do now have evil men who hold office and by their actions are God-haters and Christ deniers! I Samuel 8:7: “And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” God's plan for man (human government) was to have Godly men (judges) rule over His people. However, because men are sinners they did not want to have God rule over them. So, they looked around and saw how the heathens did their government and they wanted to do the same and also have a king over them. Samuel, God's prophet, was rebuking the people when the above verse was given. “And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, (Samuel) but they have rejected me, (God) that I should not reign over them.
Now, will those who apparently have little Bible understanding at least admit that this WAS NOT AN OFFICE HOLDER THAT GOD HAD CHOSEN! He allowed Saul because of the hard hearts His people had, but Saul was not God's choice! We now have and have had in the past many presidents who, by their actions, are God-haters. This does not mean that God chose them to be leaders. He allows them to be leaders because of the sinful hearts of His followers.
There are times that God specifically will raise up an evil leader, and in that sense He does ordain them at that time and for that period. He did it with Pharaoh and a few others in the Bible. Beware though, if that is what has happened in our country at this time: that is, if Obama was “ordained” or picked by God and God Himself set Obama up... then America is about to be severely punished for its sins. In that sense we get what, as a nation, we deserve!
Look what God promised would happen to Israel if they chose Saul to be king; I Samuel 8 verses 5b-22: “ ...now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee, Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.”
All of these bad things happened to Israel... and all because of a terrible choice by them as to who their leader would be. America and its citizens had better be ready to repent and see if God will still be merciful to this nation? You can not elect a man to lead who by his actions is a God-hating Christ denier and expect God to “bless” this nation? Ridiculous!
Americans, more than any other people seem to want to accept someone is saved simply because they say they are. Of course, that is an un-Biblical approach. The Bible knows nothing of accepting a person because of their words only, the Bible expects “proof.” (This is also why there are some mixed up in a works doctrine. It seems they cannot grasp the difference between trying to do “works for your salvation” which is false and “showing works because you are already saved” which is correct.)
In I Timothy chapter five we are told to, “Lay hands suddenly on no man...” Paul, inspired by the Holy Ghost wanted to see some “proof” of salvation. John the Baptist called this proof... “fruits.” When throngs of people (in John's day) came to be baptized by him in the river Jordan... he did not throw his arms open wide and welcome them into the fold. Luke 3:7: “Then he said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” HE CALLED THEM NAMES AND SENT THEM AWAY!!!
He would not baptize them until he saw actual repentance. How do you suppose he expected to see this repentance... by deeds or fruits. John wanted evidence! Obama can say until the cows come home that he is saved, but if all of his fruits (works) are bad, that is evidence of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is a pretender!
If a lost man like Jon Voight has enough sense to see that Obama is a Jew-hater, why does not those who call themselves children of God (born-again) not see it as well? In part his open letter to the Washington times stated: “You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies...”
You can not willfully kill un-birthed children around the globe as Obama promotes and push the homosexual agenda as he is doing and hate God's chosen people (Jews) as he does and be born-again. That brings me to the last part of this blog. When I pray for the president, and I often do, I never pray that God be with him, or help him, or prosper him, or anything else that could be construed as some sort of blessing on his life. That would clearly be sin for any believer to do this. Until he shows proof of true conversion, BY HIS ACTIONS AND WORKS, I always pray for his and his families souls to be saved! And I do not mean “saved” as the blasphemous teachings of black liberation theology teaches. I mean the only type the Bible knows anything about, getting born-again because of your acceptance of the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, God's Holy Son!!!
II John 1:10-11: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” Now, those verses are particularly speaking about someone who is teaching false doctrine as it related to Jesus the Christ. However, I would not be willing to chance it and ask God to bless any heathen in any of their actions. Think about this. Why would any Christian want a person who hates Jews, kills, un-birthed babies, and promotes aberrant lifestyle choices to be “blessed” in anything that they do?
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com
Singing in the Rain?
07/09/2010 11:47 am
WALKING IN THE RAIN
I know that I owe a part II to a short series I started, however, I decided this morning to write about something that is really important: my walk a little while ago with my “little guy” … Virgil.
Rainy days have fascinated me for as long as I have memory of anything in my life. I especially like what happened today: getting caught in an unexpected and hard shower. It's funny, but typically I see people running for cover whenever a rain begins and I always wonder why? It's certainly not going to hurt anyone and it can even be fun.
I took him this morning to granddaddy long-legs spider park. I suppose it has a different name, but the one I gave it is more apropos; besides, I don't know its real name. There is also a state park in Charlestown that I only know as “tick park.” It is an absolute impossibility to spend more than ten minutes in any area of that park without being covered with ticks. That is why I prefer walking Virgil in granddaddy long-legs spider park.
From the beginning to the end of the first trail you start down it is not possible to look on the ground and not see these little spiders crossing the ground in numbers that are impossible to keep count. I once stopped to count what I saw crawling on the ground in only a 60 second period: then I figured that they must be crawling in similar numbers all over the park. Based on how long it takes me to cover the three trails I tried to estimate the size of the park. If I was even close in my mind to the size of the park and the number of spiders that are covering the ground it was an amazing number. It's funny, but both Virgil and Stella totally ignores these little guys.
Though I have always loved rain, for the life-of-me I couldn't remember if I ever liked jumping in puddles? Two of my older grandsons will go well out of their way to find a good puddle to splash in. Since it was just he and I and no one else around to question why I would do something like that... I found some good puddles to splash through. It wasn't bad, but all that I really got out of it was wet feet.
Virgil's a trooper. Mostly he never seems to care one way or the other what the conditions are like outside. He neither tried to find shelter on the trail, nor did he seem to seek out the rain... he just walked until some scent would catch his attention and he would go off-trail to investigate. The only two types of weather that terrifies and seems to exhilarate are thunder (with lightning) and snow... in that order. He trembles all-over at an approaching thunderstorm (in that regard he is far better than any barometer at telling me when a storm is coming) and he loves bounding and plunging into and through deep snow. He was a treat to walk and watch play last year with all of the snow that we had.
In just a matter of a few minutes this morning my shirt and shorts were plastered to my skin and water dripped from my hair. I looked down at Virgil and I noticed that (peculiarly) as he gets older whenever the top of his head gets very wet, it turns as black as his muzzle. I don't know why this never happened when he was a younger... this look makes him even more handsome as a dog. In dog years he would be nearing retirement and soon would be eligible to draw a Social Security check: yet, his chest is still deep, and thick, and he is lean in the haunches. He has aged well and gracefully.
A deep forest-green is my favourite color, and this morning and at times on the trail there was no color but green in every direction that I turned. All-in-all it was a marvelous walk. At one point as I left the trail and was nearing my car I thought about Gene Kelly and his famous, “I'm singing in the rain.” I thought about it... really thought about it. Two things stopped me from trying... no, make it three. I didn't see any poles around, I can't sing, and I dance like Elaine Benes on Seinfeld. Other than that, I might have tried it... honest.
I want to finish this with some helpful information for all of my readers. Ponce de Leon sought for a Fountain of Youth. I believe I have found it and you need not go far to enjoy its magical benefit. Several years ago I saw an episode of Outer Limits or Twilight Zone, I'm not sure... but it was called “Kick-the-Can.” It centered around a home for the aged. An elderly black man joined the ranks of those already living there and only waiting day-by-day for death to overtake them. He taught those who would believe that the secret to being young was to just do the things that you did when you were young. In this case, it was a simple game of kick-the-can.
Some of the elderly refused to believe and would not join in this game that was set for the middle of the night on an appointed evening... others though cast aside their doubts and joined in the game. I will not tell you what happened. However,f you ever get a chance to see it... you won't be disappointed.
I will tell you my version of kick-the-can. The next time it rains... find an opportunity to go outside and play... don't avoid it. Do you remember what it was like when you were a child?
In this way, as the years go by and you look in the mirror and you see the inevitable crow's feet, and the graying hair, you won't mind, because you still carry a part of that child from long ago with you: now you know the secret that escaped Ponce and his buddies... because you still like to play in the rain!
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com
POLITICS AND RELIGION
July 4, 2010 5:15 pm
Part one of a (short) two part lesson
I have a few ideas that I want to discuss and the ideas are centered around the two main topics which all people are told to refrain from whenever anyone is socializing: religion and politics. However, I firmly believe you ought not ever have a discussion about politics without discussing the role that God has in it. Religion must have a role in such a discourse because even a politician's right to exist is first found in Genesis chapter nine, as God was setting up human government.
Let me give you a couple of definitions of the word: politics. The word (politics) comes from the Greek word politika and that word means: “the art or science of government.” Another definition is: “the total complex of relations between people living in society.” I'll say it another way; beginning with the writings of Moses the Bible gives commands that teach men how to set up government on Earth: therefore, a politician's only right to exist is given to them by the teachings from God which are found throughout the Bible.
There are only three institutions still practiced on Earth today that can be traced directly to teachings from God: these concepts and decrees were faithfully recorded for posterity by holy men of God as they dutifully recorded words from the Holy Spirit and God preserved them for us in His Bible. The three institutions are: MARRIAGE... HUMAN-GOVERNMENT... CHURCH. (All Bible verses for this blog, as always, will be from the KJV. It just makes sense to me that since we are talking about the Bible we ought to use verses from the Bible... the KJV!
I decided to write this because of a message I heard preached earlier today: all-in-all the message was solid and presented well. Afterward I asked the visiting preacher if (after greeting everyone) I could speak to him? I had two questions I would like for him to answer. “Of course,” he said.
It is not my intention to divulge his answers to my two queries, as our conversation was private. I have decided though to write this today just to be certain that everyone understands sound Bible teaching about human-government, and our role (as believers) in it.
My first question to him was about Romans 13:1: it states, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” (My question was primarily concerned with the third truth in that verse.) I asked, “Do you believe the Bible teaches that these powers are the men in office, or just the office itself?” (THE POWERS THAT BE ARE ORDAINED OF GOD.)
Of course, nowhere in Scripture has it ever been taught that the “powers that be” was ever speaking about the man or woman holding the power or the office: it has always been the office itself that has been ordained by God. (If anyone believes otherwise, please keep reading and I hope to show with companion verses that this is true.) I am going to now type the following verses in Romans 13 down to verse seven, then let's see which the Bible supports... the “man” or the “office” as what has been “ordained” by God.
Please read carefully what follows. Romans 13:1-7 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: (4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (6) For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. (7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
Now, read again verses three and four. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: (4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
Keep in mind the following fact. If God “ordained” the man holding office, then these verses are patently false! And that would mean the Bible has error and is not worth carrying or studying. Because if these verse are found to be untrue, then how do we know that John 3:16 is true?
But, when you understand properly that God never ordained a particular man to an office, rather He ordained the office itself, then it makes sense and of course we can trust that the Bible is factual and always true! Simply stated, the office is good, but there might well be evil and lost people holding that power and office.
Let me say it another way. Tell the Baganda Christians of Uganda who died under Idi Amin that Amin was not a “terror to good works” and that he was their “minister of God” to them for their good. Tell the more that two million (mainly Christians) who died under Pol Pot during the Khmer Rouge period that Pol Pot was not a “terror to good works” and that he was their “minister of God” to them for their good.
Tell the six million Jews who were slaughtered by Hitler that Hitler was not a “terror to good works” and that he was their “minister of God” to them for their good. Sadly, I could keep typing names of lost leaders who were evil and killed millions of God's children until my hands would become too tired to touch the keys, but if you are without understanding now I'm afraid you still would be after all of that time I would spend doing it.
However, if you understand the Bible correctly that God ordained the office and not the individuals who hold the office... then, it all makes sense. Now, you could unashamedly tell the believers who died under Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Attila the Hun, Emperor Hirohito, Saddam Hussein, Ivan IV, etc. etc. etc., that evil men usurped an office which was ordained by God to be controlled by men of God... that, they could understand. Now, put names of some Godly men who has held office and wielded power over people and then the verses make sense. Remember: “for they (office holders) are God's ministers.”
My second question was this: “How do you ask people to pray for their elected leaders?” I'll tell you how I do it and the only Bible way that I know how to do it. I always... and forever-more pray FOR THEIR SALVATION!
Part two will follow soon as I will clarify what I mean by the above statement.
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com
