6/29/15

From Mark Copeland... "FAITH IS THE VICTORY!" In Overcoming Boredom




                        "FAITH IS THE VICTORY!"

                         In Overcoming Boredom

INTRODUCTION

1. Our theme in this series of lessons is "Faith Is The Victory!"...
   a. Based upon the words of John in 1Jn 5:4-5
   b. Proclaiming faith in Jesus as the Son of God as key to overcoming
      the world
   c. Not just the world of sin, but anything that might hinder our 
      relationship with God

2. Our previous lesson considered the problem of "anxiety"
   a. A problem which according to the NIMH...
      1) Afflicts more than 23 million people in this country
      2) Disrupts work, family, and social lives, with some becoming
         housebound
      3) Is the most common of all the mental disorders
   b. A problem which faith in Jesus can help us to overcome...
      1) For Jesus provides the solution to anxiety by what He taught 
         - cf. Mt 6:25-34
         a) Reminding us of God's providential love and care
         b) Teaching us where to place our priorities in life
         c) Revealing our own limitations
      2) In addition, through Jesus' work on the cross and His current
         role as our High Priest, He becomes the means by which anxiety
         can be relieved through prayer - Php 4:6-7

3. Another problem many people face today is the opposite of anxiety:
   "boredom"
   a. Whereas anxiety is a state of uneasiness and apprehension, 
      boredom is a condition of mental weariness, listlessness, and 
      discontent
   b. Anxiety is often the cause of thinking we have too much to do at
      one time, boredom is result of thinking there is nothing to do
   c. Anxiety is more often the bane of adults, whereas boredom is 
      often the complaint of children (what parent hasn't heard their 
      child say, "I'm bored"?)

[Like anxiety, boredom can have a debilitating effect in our 
relationship with God and on our usefulness to Jesus Christ.  That is 
why we must overcome "boredom", and a good place to start is with...]

I. UNDERSTANDING BOREDOM

   A. DEFINING BOREDOM...
      1. According to self-proclaimed boredom expert, Garfield the Cat
         offers these tips on how to tell if you are really bored:
         a. You paint little faces on your nails, and pretend each
            finger is a person
         b. You spend hours watching bread mold
         c. You braid your eyebrows
         d. You watch a 3-hour documentary on sewage treatment
         e. You start playing the spoons
         f. You wonder if you're really bored
      2. More seriously, boredom is:  "a condition of mental weariness,
         listlessness, and discontent" (American Heritage Dictionary)
      3. What is of interest is the statement that "the word did not
         even enter the English vocabulary until the Enlightenment of
         the 18th century, the beginning of the modern era." (Gene 
         Edward Veith, Boredom and the Law of Diminishing Returns)

   B. CAUSES OF BOREDOM...
      1. Boredom is often the result of too much wealth, and too much 
         time on our hands
         a. Boredom is epidemic among children today, and according to
            one source...
            1) The problem is television, videos, and computer games
            2) Such activities which bombard children with fast-moving
               stimuli do not give them the chance to slow down, 
               reflect thoughtfully, or learn to process new 
               information (Nancy Samalin, Parent Guidance Workshops)
         b. Russian women are finding that boredom and depression are 
            side effects of wealth (Alessandra Stanley, New York Times,March 11, 1997)
         c. "By his very success in inventing labor-saving devices, 
            modern man has manufactured an abyss of boredom that only
            the privileged classes in earlier civilizations have ever
            fathomed." (Lewis Mumford)
      2. Boredom can also be traced to...
         a. A lack of faith in God ("Boredom: the consciousness of a 
            barren, meaningless existence." - Eric Hoffer)
         b. A pre-occupation with self to the neglect of what is around us
            1) "Boredom: what happens when we lose contact with the 
               universe." - John Ciardi
            2) "When people are bored, it is primarily with their own
               selves." - Eric Hoffer
      3. Boredom has also been attributed to...
         a. Unchallenging jobs
         b. Unfulfilled expectations
         c. Lack of physical activity
         d. Being too much of a spectator and too little of a 
            participant in activities

   C. THE DANGER OF BOREDOM...
      1. When listless and discontent, we are susceptible to what 
         promises excitement
         a. "Boredom has made more gamblers than greed, more drunkards
            than thirst, and perhaps as many suicides as despair." 
            (Charles Caleb Colton)
         b. "Boredom is often the motivation for adultery and divorce,
            abuse of alcohol or drugs, and even suicide." (ibid., Veith)
         c. "Boredom is...a vital problem for the moralist, since at 
            least half the sins of mankind are caused by the fear of 
            it." (Betrand Russell)
      2. When a Christian is "bored"...
         a. He is not very active in his service to the Lord
         b. He is therefore not very useful to the Lord

[Boredom has been called "a chronic symptom of a pleasure-obsessed 
age." (ibid., Veith).  For the Christian with faith in Jesus, it is 
possible to overcome boredom!  Here is how...]

II. OVERCOMING BOREDOM THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS

   A. JESUS CHANGES OUR FOCUS IN LIFE...
      1. Boredom is the result of an obsession with self and material possessions
      2. Yet Jesus teaches us to:
         a. Deny self - Lk 9:23-24
            1) People who are obsessed with self are never happy
            2) People who lose themselves in service to God are never bored!
         b. Change the object of your affections - Mt 6:19-21
            1) The pleasure of earthly things is fleeting at best, 
               followed by the inevitable letdowns - cf. "the passing 
               pleasures of sin" - He 11:25
            2) The only permanent possession we have is in heaven, and
               our affections should be placed on it
      3. His teachings are designed to give us great joy - Jn 15:11;
         e.g., Ac 20:35
      -- If we have enough faith in Jesus to follow His teachings, we 
         will be attacking one of the root causes of boredom (a 
         pre-occupation with self)

   B. JESUS ENLISTS US IN SERVICE DESIGNED TO TRULY SATISFY...
      1. Many people are bored because they know their efforts mean 
         very little
      2. Yet Jesus would have us enlist in a service with eternal 
         consequences:
         a. The saving of one's soul, and that of those around them! 
            - Mk 16:15-16
         b. Which, in proper perspective, is more important than 
            gaining the whole world! - cf. Mt 16:26
      3. The apostles found their service to God to be a source of 
         great joy
         a.  When John saw the fruits of his labors, he wrote he had 
             "no greater joy" - 3Jn 3-4
         b. The prospects of seeing his converts in the presence of the
            Lord gave Paul hope and joy for the future! - 1Th 2:19-20
      -- When one is engaged in the work of Jesus, their labors are not
         in vain, and have cosmic consequences (cf. Ep 6:12-13); how
         can one be bored with that?

CONCLUSION

1. Solomon learned after a life of excess that this world has nothing
   lasting to offer...
   a. Though exciting at first, it all proved "vanity" - Ec 2:10-11
   b. He concluded that the true purpose of man was to "fear God and
      keep His commandments" - Ec 12:13
   -- If he had only listened to his father, David, who wrote about the
      "great reward" in keeping God's commandments (cf. Ps 19:7-11),
      Solomon might not have experienced so much vanity in his life

2. Boredom is a result of pre-occupation with the "vanity" of this life...
   a. Jesus came to deliver us from any sense of listlessness and discontent
   b. He does so by giving us purpose and direction in life, that we 
      might find great joy in serving God and His children!

When people are willing to believe in Jesus and become His disciples,
there is no reason for boredom in their lives!
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011


eXTReMe Tracker

Hazor and Old Testament Accuracy by Wayne Jackson, M.A.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=389

Hazor and Old Testament Accuracy

by  Wayne Jackson, M.A.

The city of Hazor lay almost nine miles north of the Sea of Galilee. During the time of Joshua, it was a Canaanite stronghold in northern Palestine. In the conquest of Canaan, as Joshua marched his army northward, he was confronted by a coalition of forces under the leadership of Jabin, King of Hazor. The biblical record declares that the Israelite army resoundingly defeated this confederation and burned Hazor to the ground (Joshua 11:1-14).
In excavations at Hazor (1955-1958, 1968), Yigael Yadin discovered evidence that this city had been destroyed in the thirteenth century B.C. He identified it with Joshua’s conquest. The problem with this assertion is this: it does not harmonize with scriptural chronology regarding the time of the Exodus from Egypt. The data contained in 1 Kings 6:1 indicate that the Exodus occurred some 480 years prior to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (c. 966 B.C.), thus in the mid-fifteenth century B.C. Liberal critics, subscribing to the documentary hypothesis, simply dismiss 1 Kings 6:1 as an addition of some later time, and therefore chronologically worthless. It is interesting to note, however, that “the name of the month which appears in that text is the archaic form of the name and not the late one” (Davis, 1971, p. 29).
But the fact of the matter is, Professor Yadin’s discoveries revealed that there were two destructions at Hazor: one in the thirteenth century B.C. and another in the fifteenth century B.C. (Avi-Yonah, 1976, 2:481-482). Actually, this is precisely the picture presented in the Old Testament.
In addition to the conquest of Hazor during the time of Joshua in the mid-fifteenth century B.C., two centuries later, in the period of Israel’s judges, the Israelites again engaged the King of Hazor in battle. Under the leadership of Deborah and Barak (c. 1258 B.C.), the armies of Hazor, under Sisera, were decisively defeated (Judges 4:2ff.), and as professor Siegfried H. Horn observed, “undoubtedly Hazor was destroyed” (Horn, 1963, p. 31).
Once more, the precise accuracy of the biblical record has been vindicated, and the charges of liberal critics have been shown to be baseless.

REFERENCES

Avi-Yonah, Michael, et al. (1976), Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Davis, John J. (1975), Moses and the Gods of Egypt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Horn, Siegfried H. (1963), Records of the Past Illuminate the Bible (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald).

Does God Accept Human Sacrifice? by Kyle Butt, M.A.




https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2775

Does God Accept Human Sacrifice?

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Twelve minutes and 45 seconds into Dan Barker’s opening statement in our Darwin Day debate on February 12, 2009, he claimed that the God of the Bible cannot exist because the Bible presents contradictory information about God’s acceptance of human sacrifice. Barker said: “Does He [God—KB] accept human sacrifice? In some verses, ‘Yes,’ in some verses, ‘No.’ Remember the thing about when [sic] Abraham; He asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac” (Butt and Barker, 2009).
This brief statement is the only one that he gave as “evidence” of this alleged Bible contradiction. In our debate he did not cite any verses that he believes show this contradiction. But in chapter 13 of his book godless, he made the same claim and listed several verses. On page 240, he quoted Deuteronomy 12:31: “Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.” Barker then quoted Genesis 22:2: “And he [God—KB] said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of” (KJV). Dan does not offer any comments on these two verses, other than to list them as contradictory.
On close inspection, however, it becomes evident that these two verses cannot be contradictory. From the biblical narrative in Genesis 22, it is clear that God never intended to allow Abraham to kill his son. When Abraham got to the top of the appointed mountain, before he killed his son, God stopped him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket that was provided as a sacrifice instead of Isaac. God knew that He would stop Abraham before the sacrifice (see Lyons, 2009), and thus, never planned to accept a human sacrifice in this instance. If Isaac was never sacrificed, due to God’s intervention, then it cannot be claimed that God accepted human sacrifice on this occasion. In fact, since God stepped in and commanded Abraham not to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22:12), Abraham would have been sinning if he had continued with the sacrifice. It is impossible to claim that God accepted the human sacrifice of Isaac when the Bible specifically states that He prevented it. [NOTE: At this point in the discussion, Barker generally changes the argument, and demands that it was immoral for Abraham to follow God’s commands. That allegation will be dealt with in a future article. It is important to stay focused on Barker’s original allegation of contradiction before moving on to refute his allegation that God is immoral.]

EXODUS 22:29

In addition to the incident with Isaac, Barker cited Exodus 22:29 as an example of God accepting human sacrifice. In godless, he quoted this verse on page 240: “For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.” With all due respect to Barker, either he has intentionally misled the reader by citing this verse, or he is unaware of its true meaning. Based on his background of Bible study and his claims of biblical knowledge, the former, unfortunately, seems to be the case.
Exodus 22:29 was never intended to mean that the Israelites were supposed to sacrifice their firstborn sons to God. In fact, Exodus 13:13 says, “And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.” What did it mean to redeem the firstborn son? It meant that the Israelites were to give to the Lord five skekels of silver when the firstborn son was one month old (see Numbers 18:16). What was the purpose of redeeming the firstborn son? Moses explained that it was a memorial of the process by which God delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 13:14-15). It is inexcusably poor scholarship for any person who has read the book of Exodus to make such an uninformed statement as to demand that Exodus 22:29 speaks of human sacrifice. We should remember, however, that Barker has admitted his belief that honesty is not always the best tactic for dealing with Christianity or the Bible (Butt, 2003).

JEPHTHAH’S VOW

As further “evidence” of a Bible contradiction in regard to human sacrifice, Barker cited the story of Jephthah that is found in Judges 11:30-39. In that biblical narrative, Jephthah made a vow to God that, if God would give him victory against his enemies, then Jephthah would sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house upon his return. Jephthah defeated his enemies and his only daughter was the first thing that greeted him. Jephthah was very sorry for his vow, but the text says that he “carried out his vow with her which he had vowed” (Judges 11:39).
In regard to Jephthah’s vow, there are several insurmountable problems with presenting this as an example of God accepting human sacrifice. First, there is considerable evidence that the girl was not killed, she simply was dedicated to the Lord, remained unmarried, and had no children (for a more thorough discussion of Jephthah’s vow, see Miller, 2003). Second, there is no indication that God approved of Jephthah’s vow. If Jephthah offered his daughter as a literal burnt offering, he disobeyed God’s instructions in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). The Jephthah incident cannot be used to show that God either asked for human sacrifice, or approved of it.

SAUL’S DESCENDANTS

Furthermore, Barker cited 2 Samuel 21:8-14 as an example of God accepting human sacrifice. Barker quoted those verses as follows: “But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah…and the five sons of Michal…and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest… And after that God was intreated for the land” (2008, pp. 240-241). Again, this narrative offers no proof that God ever accepted human sacrifice. Was it the case that God sometimes demanded that sinful people who deserved capital punishment be put to death for their sins? Yes, it was (see Miller, 2002). Could it be, then, that the descendants of Saul were guilty of offenses that deserved the death penalty? Yes.
Notice that the text indicates that the ones who were hanged were “men” (2 Samuel 21:6), who would have been old enough to be responsible for their moral decisions. Furthermore, notice that the text indicates that Saul’s “house” or “household” was a bloodthirsty house (2 Samuel 21:1), apparently implying that many of his relatives were involved in his murderous plots. In 2 Samuel 16:5-14, the Bible introduces a wicked man named Shimei who was “from the family of the house of Saul” (2 Samuel 16:5). And Saul’s wickedness is documented throughout the book of 1 Samuel. Could it be that Saul’s descendants who were hanged had followed in the wicked paths of many from the “house of Saul” and deserved the death penalty? Yes. Thus, it is once again impossible to use this passage to “prove” that God accepted human sacrifice.

"THE DEATH OF CHRIST

Finally, Barker alleges that the sacrifice of Christ provides an example of God accepting human sacrifice. He cited Hebrews 10:10-12 and 1 Corinthians 5:7 as evidence. Once more, Barker is guilty of egregious textual manipulation and dishonesty. Did God approve of the sinful actions of those who killed Jesus? Absolutely not. In fact, Peter explained that those who killed Jesus had done so with “lawless hands” (Acts 2:23). He further explained that they had to repent of their sins or they would be lost forever (Acts 2:38). While God used the sinful actions of Jesus’ murderers to bring about His purposes (Acts 3:17-19), He never condoned those actions. Those who murdered Jesus violated God’s law; they did not accomplish their dastardly deeds at God’s request, nor with His approval.
Barker is well aware of this truth. In fact, he has spoken in other places about Christ’s atoning sacrifice. In his book Losing Faith in Faith, Barker stated:
Christians do know how to think; but they don’t start deep enough. A thoughtful conclusion is the synthesis of antecedent presuppositions or conclusions. The propitiatory nature of Christ’s sacrificial atonement, for example, is very logical. Logical, that is, if you first accept the existence of sin, the fall of humankind, the wrath of God and divine judgment. If you don’t buy the premises, then, of course, the conclusion cannot be logical (1992, p. 60).
Barker, of course, does not “buy the premises,” but his denial of them does not make them any less logical or true. And if they are true, then he acknowledges that the sacrifice of Christ, although perpetrated by sinful men acting against God’s will, fits logically into the scheme of redemption.

CONCLUSION

God has never accepted human sacrifice. The examples that Barker has listed fail completely to manifest a contradiction in the Bible concerning God’s policy toward the practice. Barker’s lack of knowledge, or his intentional dishonesty, is evident throughout his discussion of the biblical view of human sacrifice. Since no contradiction exists, the accusation of a Bible contradiction is unfounded, and cannot be used against the Bible or the existence of God. Let us all be gravely reminded that those who twist the Scriptures, and force them to seemingly say what they do not say, do so at their own eternal peril (2 Peter 3:16).

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation).
Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Butt, Kyle (2003), “What ‘We All Know’ About a Lie,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1839.
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Lyons, Eric (2009), “Does God Really Know Everything?”, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/607.
Miller, Dave (2002), “Capital Punishment and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Jephthah’s Daughter,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/4709.

Atheism or Christianity: Whose Fruit is Sweeter? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1576

Atheism or Christianity: Whose Fruit is Sweeter?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

“Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.” Such is the arduous title of a recent article that appeared in Journal of Religion and Society. Although the content of the article is much more reader friendly and interesting than its title might suggest, the author’s proposal is disturbingly misleading. According to Gregory Paul, “a freelance scientist and scientific illustrator specializing in dinosaur evolution” who penned the article in question (“Author Information,” n.d.), “[a]greement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population” (Paul, 2005). Supposedly, America’s forefathers like Benjamin Franklin were wrong in their many remarks about how religion (and specifically the Christian religion) would be a blessing upon America. Gregory Paul indicates that actually the blight of theism is clearly visible, and apparently a source of much of America’s dysfunction.
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.... No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction... (Paul, 2005).
Thankfully, Mr. Paul admitted that his writing was “not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health.” Nevertheless, he leaves readers with the strong impression that the fruit of theism is much more bitter than that of atheism.
Although one could argue that on certain grounds the United States is not as “dysfunctional” as some might contend, statistics do indicate that in America 22% of the population suffers from one or more STDs (“Tracking...,” 2004), more than one million innocent, unborn babies are slaughtered every year (“Induced Abortion,” 2002), and on average one murder (not including abortions) occurs every 32 minutes (“Crime in...,” 2003). These are only a few of the ghastly statistics that indicate America certainly is not the “shining city on the hill” that many (including our Founding Fathers) would like for it to be. That said, is one justified in closely attaching such data to America’s predominant theistic viewpoint? After all, “[o]ver the past fifty years of research, the percentage of Americans who believe in God has never dropped below 90%” (Gallup, Jr. and Lindsay, 1999, p. 23). Does theism really breed poor societal health and dysfunction? Answer: It certainly could. But, pure, unadulterated Christianity and true, biblical theism does not.
Most Americans believe in a higher power, which they may call “God,” but for many this is not the God of the Bible. They simply believe in a “convenient” creator, who allows them to do whatever feels good. They reject the Bible as revelation from God, and choose to live according to their own rules (which can lead to a dysfunctional society if those “rules” are contrary to biblical mandates). A great percentage of the remaining theists in America who call themselves Christians have perverted Christianity to the extent that somehow (among other things) having sexual relations outside of a scriptural marriage and killing innocent, unborn babies is acceptable. This type of theism is no better than atheism, and its fruit will be just as bitter. Israel suffered much throughout their history, but this was not the result of their theism. Rather, it was because of their departure from true, faithful devotion to Jehovah God (e.g., Numbers 14:33-34; Judges 19-20). As far back as 1947, Lincoln Barnett, in an article titled “God and the American People,” observed how “[i]t is evident that a profound gulf lies between America’s avowed ethical standards and the observable realities of national life. What may be more alarming is the gap between what Americans think they do and what they do do” (emp. in orig.). This gap has only widened in the last fifty years. What many theistic Americans may say they do (obey the God of the Bible) and what they really do (contribute to the moral decline of society by breaking God’s laws) is, indeed, disconcerting and grounds for legitimate criticism.
Atheistic, pro-evolution democracies, however, cannot logically associate the immorality of America with pure Christianity, and thus assume that atheism is more beneficial for a society. A country comprised of true Christians would be mostly void of such things as sexually transmitted diseases, murder, thievery, drunken fathers who beat their wives and children, drunk drivers who turn automobiles into lethal weapons, and heartache caused by such things as divorce, adultery, and covetousness (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:21; Matthew 19:9; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5-9; Galatians 5:19-23; Ephesians 4:28; 5:25,28; 6:4). Only those who break God’s commandments intended for man’s benefit would cause undesirable fruit to be reaped. [NOTE: This is the kind of society that America’s Founding Fathers envisioned—one based upon the unchanging, moral principles of the Bible. In reality, America was founded to be a republic, not a democracy (see Miller, 2005).]
The God of the Bible cannot logically be blamed because “theists” or “Christians” forsake His commands and do that which is right in their own eyes (cf. Judges 17:6). Furthermore, simply because the more atheistic, pro-evolution democracies do not permit their godless philosophy of life to produce the true fruits of the “survival of the fittest” mentality, but rather choose to live according to moral guidelines similar to those found in the Bible (e.g., not murdering, stealing, lying, etc.), does not mean that alleged low rates of crime, murder, etc. is the fruit of true atheistic thought. In short, unrighteousness, whether it stems from atheism or a corrupted form of Christianity, produces bitter fruit that will eventually bring about the wrath of God.
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34).
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink, who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away justice from the righteous man! Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble, and the flame consumes the chaff, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom will ascend like dust; because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 5:20-24).

REFERENCES

“Author Information” (no date), The John Hopkins University Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title_pages/1442.html.
Barnett, Lincoln (1947), “God and the American People,” Ladies Home Journal, November.
“Crime in the United States, 2002” (2003), Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Gallup, George Jr. and Michael Lindsay (1999), Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S. Beliefs (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing).
“Induced Abortion” (2002), Alan Guttmacher Institute, [On-line], URL: http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.pdf.
Miller, Dave (2005), “Christianity, Democracy, and Iraq,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/308.
Paul, Gregory S. (2005), “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies,” Journal of Religion and Society, vol. 7, [On-line], URL: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html.
“Tracking the Hidden Epidemics 2000” (2004), Center for Disease Control, [On-line], URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/RevBrochure1pdfintro.htm.

Can't Teach Morality in School by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2113

Can't Teach Morality in School

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

You’ve undoubtedly heard the expression: “You can’t legislate morality!” Actually, such a claim is fairly recent in American culture and flies directly in the face of fact. After all, God has legislated human morality from the very beginning of time. The laws of every country do the same. If we cannot legislate morality, shall we annul all our laws against murder, theft, and perjury in court? The notion is typical of the mindless drivel spouted since the 1960s by those who reject traditional American values—values that arose from the Bible.
The same may be said concerning the relentless attempt to expel God and morality from the public schools. Liberal educators insist that morality must not be taught in the school system. The theory is that moral standards have no objective reality. They arise from within persons and exist only in reference to the subjective opinion and will of the individual. Hence, schools should not attempt to enforce upon students one particular value system. Such insidious, suicidal nonsense has transformed the American public school system into a recipe for national disaster.
Acceptance of such thinking is not only a recent phenomenon in American history, the notion was soundly repudiated by the Founders of American education. A mountain of evidence exists to verify this claim. As one example, consider the founding of the University of Pennsylvania, due in large part to the efforts of Benjamin Franklin (“University of...,” n.d.). Nine signers of the Declaration of Independence and 11 signers of the Constitution were associated with this institution. This longtime traditional member of the Ivy League is a private university founded in 1740 in Philadelphia as a charity school. It became an academy in 1753, with Benjamin Franklin as president of the first board of trustees, and is credited with opening the first school of medicine in the United States in 1765. Consider the motto of the school: Leges sine moribus vanae. Meaning? “Laws without morals are useless.” What better description of what is happening to the nation in general and public education in particular?

REFERENCES

“University of Pennsylvania” (no date), Answers.com, [On-line], URL: http://www.answers.com/topic/university-of-pennsylvania.

From Gary.... Black and white


Why would someone write that?  Confusing, isn't it? The only way I can make sense out of it is to take it at face value- S-L-O-W-L-Y!!!

1st sentence - Refers to the next one and labels it as false.

2nd sentence - Is a falsehood. Since it claims that the following sentence is true, then that sentence is false as well.

3rd sentence - Irrelevant!!!

Three sentences, which on the surface, seem to be a complete waste of time.
Not so!!!  They are an example of the lengths some people will resort to in order to trick you into believing a non-truth (otherwise known as a LIE)!!!!


If you think this sort of thing doesn't happen in real life, consider...

1.   A baby is called a fetus in order to "remove" its humanity (so it can be killed).

2.   To be "bad" has become a "good" thing (so we can do whatever we want).

3.   Bastards are just a "love child" (so why bother getting married at all).

4.  The new "marriage" is now called "living together", for marriage is just a piece of paper, so why bother? (so men don't have to make a commitment to either a spouse or a child)

5. Homosexuals or Lesbians are called gay (in order to disguise their unnatural sexual practices)

Given enough time, we could probably comprise a list that would be page after page, but for brevity's sake lets just use Frederick Lewis Donaldson's categorization called:

"The Seven Social Sins"...

Wealth without work.
Pleasure without conscience.
Knowledge without character.
Commerce without morality.
Science without humanity.
Worship without sacrifice.
Politics without principle."


God does not mince words:

Isaiah, Chapter 5 (WEB)
 20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
who put darkness for light,
and light for darkness;
who put bitter for sweet,
and sweet for bitter!

John, Chapter 14 (WEB)
6  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life..."

There is truth and there are lies, to believe otherwise is foolishness. I will do my best to follow God's truth as found in the Bible. I hope you can say the same!!!