Torporific Biomimicry by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2251

Torporific Biomimicry

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Certain animals, such as the American black bear, exhibit hibernation, a temporary, sleep-like torpor during cold, winter months (see Tyson, 2000). The torpor involved in hibernation is “a state of self-induced reduction in body temperature and metabolic rate” to conserve energy (Harder, 2007; Fury, n.d.). Evolutionists are unsure why animals hibernate (see Luis and Hudson, 2006). How hibernation works remains a mystery. Harder reported for Science News Online:

Researchers still don’t understand how natural hibernators put themselves into torpor or how they bring themselves out of it. But new studies are peeling away the outer layers of that mystery. Far from succumbing to hypothermia, it seems, hibernators exploit it. Experiments are also revealing how animal tissues evade the damage that comes from inactivity and low blood flow, and suggesting that relatively few genes are involved in torpor and hibernation. That’s an auspicious sign for researchers who strive to manipulate the process (2007).

Physiologist Hannah V. Carey, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, added: “These animals have got it right. They know how to use hypothermia to their advantage” (quoted in Harder). Hibernating animals are resistant to tissue breakdown that would kill other animals exposed to frigid temperatures.

The arctic ground squirrel, for example, hibernates over half the year and adopts the lowest body temperature ever measured in a mammal (“Arctic...,” 2006). Researchers at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks have shown that the squirrel’s body temperature drops below freezing, a condition known as supercooling (“Arctic...”). Every two to three weeks, while still in a state of torpor, the hibernating squirrel shivers and shakes for 12 to 15 hours, warming its body to 98 degrees Fahrenheit (“Arctic...”).

Researchers hope to reduce the danger of certain tedious medical procedures, particularly when ill or injured human patients are involved, by inducing torpor. Harder reported that “recent findings in animals point the way toward medical shortcuts that might mimic in people the effects of torpor, although these measures don’t exactly reproduce the biological state” (2007).

In 2005, “[u]sing a natural chemical humans and other animals produce in their bodies, scientists...for the first time induced hibernation in mammals, putting mice into a state similar to suspended animation for up to six hours and then bringing them back to normal life” (Britt, 2005). This achievement, “the first demonstration of ‘hibernation on demand’ in a mammal, ultimately could lead to new ways to treat cancer and prevent injury and death from insufficient blood supply to organs and tissues” (“Buying Time...,” 2005). The mice required no freezing. Instead, “the rodents breathed air laced with hydrogen sulfide, a chemical produced naturally in the bodies of humans and other animals. Within minutes, they stopped moving and soon their cell functions approached total inactivity” (Britt). Mark Roth, affiliate professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington School of Medicine and leader of the mice investigation, said: “Manipulating this metabolic mechanism for clinical benefit potentially could revolutionize treatment for a host of human ills related to ischemia, or damage to living tissue from lack of oxygen” (quoted in “Buying Time...,” 2005).

Humans have gone essentially cold-blooded automatically in some emergency situations, so developing a reliable torporific procedure seems advantageous (see Britt). Clinical applications of induced metabolic hibernation could include treating severe blood-loss injury, hypothermia, malignant fever, cardiac arrest, and stroke (see “Buying Time...,” 2005). The potential medical benefits also include improving cancer treatment by allowing patients to tolerate higher radiation doses without damaging healthy tissue (“Buying Time...”). Roth commented: “Right now in most forms of cancer treatment we’re killing off the normal cells long before we’re killing off the tumor cells. By inducing metabolic hibernation in healthy tissue we’d at least level the playing field” (quoted in “Buying Time...”). Molecular biologist Sandra Martin, of the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, admitted that such applications “lie far in the future” (quoted in Harder, 2007).

While animals already “know” how to use hypothermia to their advantage, scientists, the alleged inheritors of millions of years of evolutionary development, are yet to understand the hibernation process well enough to manipulate it in non-hibernating mammals and harness torpor’s advantages. Man continues his quest to understand and apply God’s masterful design. Often, however, he does so while ignoring or denying the very existence of the Designer (Romans 1:19-22). Will multiplying examples of biomimicry open his eyes? Apologetics Press remains committed to offering him every opportunity to see the truth of the Genesis account and its massive implications for human life and spiritual afterlife.

REFERENCES

“Arctic Ground Squirrel” (2006), Denali National Park and Preserve, [On-line], URL: http://www.nps.gov/dena/naturescience/arcticgroundsquirrel.htm.

Britt, Robert Roy (2005), “New Hibernation Technique Might Work on Humans,” LiveScience, [On-line], URL: http://www.livescience.com/health/050421_hibernation.html.

“Buying Time Through ‘Hibernation on Demand’: Landmark Finding in Mice May Lead to New Approaches for Cancer and Trauma Care in Humans,” (2005), Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, [On-line], URL: http://www.fhcrc.org/about/ne/news/2005/04/21/roth.html.

Fury, Amy (no date), “Naturalist Notes: Birds in Winter,” Wolf Ridge Environmental Learning Center, [On-line], URL: http://www.wolf-ridge.org/whats_hap/nat_note_archive/birds_in_ winter.html.

Harder, Ben (2007), “Perchance to Hibernate,” Science News Online, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070127/bob9.asp.

Luis, A.D. and P.J. Hudson (2006), “Hibernation Patterns in Mammals: a Role for Bacterial Growth?,” Functional Ecology, [On-line], URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2435. 2006.01119.x.

Tyson, Peter (2000), “Secrets of Hibernation,” NOVA scienceNow, [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/satoyama/hibernation.html.

Three Rules of Human Conduct by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

 https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=265

Three Rules of Human Conduct

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

[The gifted T.B. Larimore (1843-1929) once delivered a discourse titled: “The Iron, Silver, and Golden Rules” (see Srygley, 1949, 1:190-207). That presentation furnished the seed thoughts for this article.]

Jesus had been teaching in Galilee, the northern region of Palestine. Great throngs followed Him, and doubtless He was weary. Accordingly, He took His disciples and ascended a mountain in the vicinity of Capernaum—traditionally, Kurn Hattin, rising 1,200 feet just west of the shimmering Sea of Galilee. It was on this occasion that Christ taught that cluster of exalted truths that has come to be known as “the Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 5-7).

Within that presentation is this memorable declaration: “All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do you also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). This saying has been given a metallic designation; it is called the “golden rule.” And that appellation has given rise to two other philosophical canons of human conduct known as the “silver rule” and the “iron rule.” Every rational individual, to a greater or lesser degree, will adopt one of these maxims as a guiding principle for his or her conduct. Let us reflect upon how these schools of thought relate to human activity.

THE IRON RULE

The iron rule is the rule of power and force. Its motto is: “Might makes right.” One can do what he is big enough to do. The principle is alluded to in the book of Habakkuk. God had promised that He would raise up the Chaldeans (Babylonians) to punish the southern kingdom of Judah for its grievous sins. This pagan force was a suitable tool in the providential arsenal of Jehovah to accomplish this mission because its disposition was: “My god is my might” (Habakkuk 1:11). But it is an egregious mistake to deify one’s physical prowess!

Advocates of the iron rule have been legion throughout history. Cain, who murdered Abel because his evil works were in stark contrast to his brother’s (1 John 3:12), and because he had the strength to do it, was the first practitioner of this nefarious rule.

Military leaders have found the iron rule quite convenient. Alexander the Great, known as the greatest military leader of all time, is a prime example. In the short span of twelve years, he conquered the antique world from Macedon to India. An example of his disposition may be seen in his capture of the city of Gaza in southwest Palestine. He took the governor, Betis, bored holes through his heels and, by chariot, dragged him around the city until he was dead (Abbott, 1876, p. 176). The military exploits of Julius Caesar are too well known to need elaboration. His inscription, given after the defeat of Pharnaces II in Pontus, says it all: Veni, vidi, vici—“I came, I saw, I conquered.”

Charles Darwin gave scientific respectability to the iron rule with the publication of The Origin of Species (1859). The full title was: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. “Natural selection” was Darwin’s tooth-and-claw law of the jungle. Species survive, thrive, and develop by destroying their weaker competitors. In a companion volume, The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin vigorously argued the point:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man (1871, p. 130).

Adolf Hitler, in a political way, implemented Darwin’s iron-rule policies before and during World War II. In his ambitious scheme to develop a master race, the mad Fuehrer slaughtered millions of Jews, as well as those who were mentally and/or physically handicapped.

America adopted the iron rule as official policy in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme court, in its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, determined that a woman has the right to destroy her unborn child in order to facilitate her own interests. Since that time, millions of innocent, defenseless children have been executed at abortion clinics and hospitals in this nation.

Each lock on every door and window throughout the world is testimony to the iron rule. The penal institutions of the various nations are monuments to the rule of force. Every corrupt political official who manipulates his power for personal advantage lives by this system. Bully husbands/fathers who abuse their families are iron-rule devotees. Even those within the church, like Diotrephes (3 John 9-10), who bludgeon others into submission, are apostles of this system of intimidation.

Few have the effrontery to openly advocate this brutish ideology; but there are legions who practice it—to one degree or another.

THE SILVER RULE

The silver rule often has been described as “the golden rule in a negative form.” It is the golden rule without the gold. “What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.” In this mode, it has found expression in the literature of many different cultures. For example, among the Greeks, Isocrates and Epictetus taught the silver rule. The latter condemned slavery on the ground that one should not do to others what generates anger in himself. William Barclay, the famous scholar so long affiliated with the University of Glasgow, has chronicled a number of these cases in his commentary, The Gospel of Matthew (1958, 1:276-281).

The renowned Jewish rabbi Hillel said: “What is hateful to yourself, do to no other.” Some have described this concept as a reflection of selfish egoism that withholds injury for personal reasons (see Lenski, 1961, p. 295). In the apocryphal Book of Tobit there is a passage in which Tobias says to his son: “What you yourself hate, do to no man” (4:16). Confucius (551-479 B.C.), a Chinese philosopher, also taught the silver rule. Tuan-mu Tz’u inquired of him: “Is there one word that will keep us on the path to the end of our days?” The teacher replied: “Yes. Reciprocity! What you do not wish yourself, do not unto others” (Confucius, XV, 24).

The unifying feature of all these sayings is that they are negative in emphasis. They forbid much; they enjoin nothing. The silver rule would forbid you to steal your neighbor’s purse, because such is hateful to you. On the other hand, if one finds a purse containing $200 in the mall parking lot, the silver rule is mute. It, in effect, leaves you with the option—“finders keepers, losers weepers.”

In 1964, there was a case that shook this country at its very foundation. Catherine Genovese was returning from a night job to her apartment in the respectable Kew Gardens area of New York City. As she approached her home in the early hours of that April morning, she was attacked by a knife-wielding assailant. He stabbed her repeatedly, fleeing the bloody scene as she screamed for help, only to return—when no one responded to her cries—stabbing her again and again, until she died. Subsequent police investigation revealed that thirty-eight residents of the neighborhood admitted that they witnessed at least a part of the attack. No one went to her aid; not a soul telephoned the police—until after she was dead!

The nation was incensed. A United States senator from Georgia read the New York Times’ account of the incident into the Congressional Record. Everyone wanted to know, “How could this have happened?” The answer is not difficult to deduce. Many people live by the principle of the silver rule: “It’s not my problem”; “it’s no skin off my nose”; “mind your own business”; and “take care of ‘numero uno.’ ”

Following the Genovese tragedy, two professors from Harvard University wrote an article analyzing this episode. They alleged that their essay was not “intended to defend, certainly not to excuse” the conduct of the Kew Gardens neighbors. On the other hand, they argued: “We cannot justly condemn all the Kew Gardens residents in the light of a horrible outcome which only the most perspicacious could have foreseen” (Milgram & Hollander, 1964, pp. 602-604). With typical academic confusion, the professors reasoned: (a) Big cities are “organized on a different principle.” Friendships are not based upon “nearness”; those who might have helped the unfortunate woman were simply not nearby. (b) It must be borne in mind that these neighbors did not commit the crime; one must focus upon the murderer, not other people. (c) It is difficult to know what any of us would have done in a similar circumstance. (d) Hind sight is always better than foresight. (e) People hesitate to enter a violent situation alone; but organization takes time, and there wasn’t enough time that night. (f) No one knows “the quality” of the relationship that Miss Genovese had with the community. (g) A “collective paralysis” may have seized the neighbors. (h) People in the city are hardened to street life; the “street” is often symbolic of the vulgar. (i) Heroic efforts frequently backfire. A young man named Arnold Schuster, while riding the subway, recognized the notorious bank robber, Willie Sutton. He reported this to the police, and the criminal was arrested. Before a month passed, Sutton made arrangements to have Schuster killed. (j) There are “practical limitations” to initiating the “Samaritan impulse,” and if one acted upon every “altruistic impulse” he could scarcely keep his own affairs in order, etc.

We have detailed the foregoing list of rationalizations because they illustrate a sterling example of “silver-rule” logic!

THE GOLDEN RULE

Finally, there is the golden rule—so designated in the English-speaking world since the mid-sixteenth century. Though some argue that there is little, if any, significant difference between the silver rule and the golden rule, and that the contrast has been “exaggerated” (Hendriksen, 1973, p. 364), most scholars contend that the golden rule marks “a distinct advance upon the negative form” (Tasker, 1906, 1:654). D.A. Carson has noted that the positive form is “certainly more telling than its negative counterpart, for it speaks against sins of omission as well as sins of commission. The goats in [Matthew] 25:31-46 would be acquitted under the negative form of the rule, but not under the form attributed to Jesus” (1984, 3:187). F.F. Bruce commented: “The negative confines us to the region of justice; the positive takes us into the region of generosity or grace...” (1956, 1:132; emp. in orig.). Let us consider several elements of this famous principle.

First, when all facts are considered, the golden rule represents, in a succinct and formalized fashion, a unique approach to human conduct. Jesus’ statement captured the very essence of “the law and the prophets.” While some contend that others (e.g., Confucius) came close to expressing the sentiment of the golden rule (see Legg, 1958, 6:239), most investigators argue that Jesus was the first to state it in its purest form. Barclay asserts: “This is something which had never been said before. It is new teaching, and a new view of life and of life’s obligations.... [T]here is no parallel to the positive form in which Jesus put it” (1958, 1:277,278; emp. in orig.). Professor Harold Kuhn suggested that Jesus’ words on this occasion “inaugurate a new era in person-to-person relationships” (1973, p. 267). Tasker conceded: “[T]here is little evidence of the existence of any pre-Christian parallel to the positive rule” (1906, 1:653). Votaw, in surveying the matter, observed that the negative form, as reflected in ancient Jewish, Greek, Roman, and Oriental writings, suggests the fact that a desire for goodness is innate to humanity; nevertheless, Jesus presented the rule in a positive form and “gave it new force and sphere” that is “peculiar to the Gospel” (1906, p. 42).

Second, the golden rule is grounded in divine revelation, and thus provides valid motivation for its implementation. Jesus said: “this is the law and the prophets.” His statement suggests that the golden rule is a summary of everything the Old Testament attempted to teach in terms of ethical conduct (cf. 22:36-40). Carson made this important observation: “The rule is not arbitrary, without rational support, as in radical humanism; in Jesus’ mind its rationale (‘for’) lies in its connection with revealed truth recorded in ‘the Law and the Prophets’ ” (1984, 3:188). In other words, it is founded on belief in God, and the intrinsic worth of man which issues from that premise (cf. Genesis 9:6). Just where is the logical/moral motivation for noble human conduct apart from evidence-supported divine revelation? It simply does not exist. I have argued this case extensively elsewhere (see Jackson, n.d., 2[3]:136ff.). Additionally, some see the conjunction oun (“therefore”) as connecting the golden rule to what had just been said. In particular, “we ought to imitate the Divine goodness, mentioned in ver. 11” (Bengel, 1877, 1:204).

Third, the golden rule is universal, applying to every segment of life. Jesus said: “All things, therefore, whatsoever....” If legislators enacted all laws premised upon the Lord’s instruction, society would be wonderfully altered. If homes operated on this principle, would there be marital infidelity, divorce, or child abuse? If our schools were allowed to teach the golden rule, with its theological base (which the modern judiciary has forbidden), would not the academic environment be enhanced remarkably?

Fourth, the golden rule requires action. It does not countenance passivity, but says “do you unto them.”

Fifth, the golden rule commends itself to reason. It assumes that an honest person, properly informed concerning principles of truth and fairness, would have a reasonable idea of what is right for himself. Therefore, he should render the same to others (see Clarke, n.d., p. 96). Remember, Jesus is teaching disciples—not someone who has no sense of moral responsibility. The rule contains the presumption of some moral sensitivity.

Finally, we must not neglect to mention that the golden rule is very special in that it is consistent with the other components of Christ’s teaching as revealed in the Gospel accounts (e.g., Matthew 22:37-40). Moreover, the personal character of Jesus Himself was (and remains) a living commentary on the rule in action.

THE CRITICS

Some, like Dan Barker (a former Pentecostal preacher who converted to atheism), have suggested that the golden rule should be characterized as “bronze,” since it is vastly inferior to the silver rule. Barker argued that if one were a masochist, the golden rule would justify his beating up on someone else (1992, pp. 347-348). His argument assumes that it is rational to be a masochist! Others, not quite so much of the fringe element, have suggested that the golden rule might at least be improved: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” Such a view, however, is fatally flawed, and even someone who is as ethically confused as Joseph Fletcher (the famed situation ethicist) has acknowledged such (1966, p. 117). The weak may want you to supply them with drugs, or indulge them with illicit sex, etc., but such a response would not be the right thing to do. If I am thinking sensibly, I do not want others to accommodate my ignorance and weakness.

Suppose a man is apprehended in the act of robbing the local market. A citizen detains the thief and starts to telephone the police, at which point the law-breaker says: “If you were in my place, you would want me to release you. Therefore, if you believe in the golden rule, you will let me go.” Is the thief’s logic valid? It is not. For if one’s thinking is consistent with principles of truth, he would realize that the best thing for him, ultimately, would be that he not be allowed to get away with his crime, that he not be granted a license to flaunt the laws of orderly society. The rule works—when properly applied by those who have some semblance of rational morality.

Even some of the enemies of Christianity have done obeisance to the value of the golden rule. John Stuart Mill wrote: “To do as one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.” Thomas Paine declared: “The duty of man...is plain and simple, and consists of but two points: his duty to God, which every man must feel, and with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by” (as quoted in Mead, 1965, pp. 192-193).

CONCLUSION

In his discourse on the three rules of human conduct, T.B. Larimore observed that Christ’s parable of the good Samaritan forcefully illustrates each of these philosophies of life (Luke 10:30ff.).

A certain Hebrew man was travelling the twenty-mile-long road that led through a barren region of crags and ravines from Jerusalem to Jericho. As he journeyed, he fell victim to robbers who tore off his clothes, beat him, and left him half-dead by the roadside. The bandits’ reasoning was: “We are several; you are one. We are strong; you are weak. You have possessions; we want them. Case closed.” Theirs was the clenched-fist rule of iron.

As the man lay wounded, unable to help himself, presently a Jewish priest came by, and then later, a Levite (one who served the priests in temple ceremonies). Both, likely horrified by the bloody scene, crossed to the opposite side of the road, and hastened their steps. Their respective thinking doubtless was: “This tragedy was not my fault. It’s none of my affair, etc.” They did not kick the afflicted Jew; they did not rifle his pockets. They simply passed on. They were silver-rule men.

Finally, a Samaritan (normally, a dedicated enemy of the Jews—see John 4:9) came by. He saw a fellow human in need and was moved with compassion. He tended the injured man’s wounds, set him on his own donkey, and conveyed him to a nearby inn where, amazingly, he paid for more than three weeks of lodging (Jeremias, 1972, p. 205)—and pledged even more! The Samaritan’s code of ethics was this: “But for the grace of God, I could be writhing in agony by the roadside. What would I desire on my behalf if our respective circumstances were reversed?” It did not take him long to find the answer, for his compassionate heart was bathed in the golden glow of divine love.

The golden rule is a thrilling challenge to contemplate. None of us observes it perfectly, but let us never criticize it. Rather, let us applaud it, and strive for its lofty heights.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Jacob (1876), History of Alexander the Great (New York: Harper & Brothers).

Barclay, William (1958), The Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

Bengel, John Albert (1877), Gnomon of The New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Bruce, A.B. (1956), The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Carson, D.A. (1984), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Clarke, Adam (n.d.), Clarke’s Commentary—Matthew-Revelation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon).

Confucius, The Sayings of (1958), transl. James Ware (New York: Mentor).

Darwin, Charles (1871), The Descent of Man (Chicago, IL: Rand, McNally), second edition.

Fletcher, Joseph (1962), Situation Ethics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Hendriksen, William (1973), The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Jackson, Wayne (no date), “Jackson-Carroll Debate on Atheism & Ethics,” Thrust (Austin, TX: Southwest Church of Christ), 2[3]:98-154.

Jeremias, Joachim (1972), The Parables of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).

Kuhn, Harold B. (1973), Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. Carl F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Legg, J. (1958), Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Mead, Frank S. (1965), The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Revell).

Milgram, Stanley and Paul Hollander (1964), “The Murder They Heard,” The Nation, June.

Srygley, F.D., ed. (1949), Letters and Sermons of T.B. Larimore (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Tasker, J.G. (1906), A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Votaw, C.W. (1906), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), extra volume.

 

"THE GOSPEL OF JOHN" Is God Your Father? (8:42) by Mark Copeland

 

"THE GOSPEL OF JOHN"

Is God Your Father? (8:42)

 

INTRODUCTION

1. We often hear people speak of the "Fatherhood of God"...
1. Suggesting that all people are the children of God
2. There is some truth to that, for we are all the offspring of God - cf. Ac 17:28-29
2. Yet in one sense, not everyone has God as their Father...
1. Jesus identified some who did not have God as their Father - Jn 8:42
2. He even said their father was the devil! - Jn 8:44
3. Who is your Father? God or the devil...?
1. If God is your Father, you will love Jesus - cf. Jn 8:42
2. Love of the Son is proof that we have God as our Father

[Do we love the Son? How does love for Jesus express itself? We prove that God is our Father when we love the Son in at least seven ways. For example...]

1. BY TRUSTING IN JESUS
1. CAN LOVE EXIST WHERE THERE IS NO TRUST...?
1. Between husband and wife?
2. Between friends?
2. SO TRUST IN JESUS IS INHERENT TO LOVING HIM...
1. He asks us to trust Him - cf. Jn 14:1
2. How can we say that we love Him, if we don't trust Him?
3. DO WE REALLY TRUST JESUS...?
1. To be the way, the truth, the life (enough to put our souls in His hands)? Jn14:6
2. To be the provider of our daily needs (enough to put the kingdom first)? - Mt 6:33

[If we trust Jesus in this way, we must surely love Him - and thus God is our Father! But we also show our love for Jesus...]

2. BY OBEYING HIS COMMANDMENTS
1. KEEPING HIS COMMANDMENTS IS INDICATIVE OF LOVE...
1. As Jesus made clear, time and again - Jn 14:15,21,23,24; 15:10
2. Can anything be more clear?
1. Yet some might accuse us of "legalism" because we stress keeping His commands
2. If keeping His commandments is legalism, then I plead guilty, because:
1. I love Him and want to abide in His love
2. Don't you?
2. YET MANY FAIL TO DO WHAT JESUS TEACHES...
1. He said to repent (Mk 1:14-15) - but many don't, while professing to love Him
2. He said to be baptized and observe all that He commanded (Mk 16:16; Mt 28:19-20) - yet many say baptism is not a necessary command

[Jesus said it best in Lk 6:46...why bother to call Him Lord if we don't do what He says? If God is our Father, we will obey Jesus Him gladly because we love Him. We also show love for Jesus...]

3. BY DELIGHTING IN HIS COMPANY
1. IF YOU LOVE SOMEONE, YOU ENJOY BEING WITH THEM...
1. E.g., friends, loved ones
2. Can you imagine someone loving Jesus, but not wanting to be with Him?
2. YET IT SEEMS DO NOT ENJOY BEING WITH CHRIST...!
1. Demonstrated by their disregard for His Word revealed by the Spirit - Jn16:12-14
1. They don't make the effort to read it
2. They don't take advantage of opportunities to study it
2. Demonstrated by their lack of prayer which Jesus is willing to answer - cf. Jn 14:13-14
1. They don't pray as they should privately
2. They don't appreciate the blessing of congregational prayer
3. Demonstrated by their sporadic attendance - cf. Mt 18:20
1. Where Jesus has promised to be present
2. Where many seem to pass by opportunities to assemble
3. WHY SUCH DISREGARD FOR THE COMPANY OF CHRIST...?
1. For those new in faith, it is likely ignorance
2. For others, Satan and sin has hardened them into complacency - cf. He 3:12-14

[If we love Jesus, we will love the opportunities to be in His company. We will also show our love...]

4. BY SPEAKING ABOUT HIM
1. WE OFTEN DEMONSTRATE LOVE THIS WAY...
1. "Let me tell you about my grandchildren!"
2. "You want to see the latest pictures?"
2. SO THE EARLY CHURCH DEMONSTRATED THEIR LOVE FOR JESUS...
1. E.g., the apostles - Ac 5:41,42
2. E.g., those scattered abroad by persecution - Ac 8:1,4
3. DO WE NOT LOVE THE LORD...?
1. How can we be the children of God, if we are ashamed to speak of His Son?
2. Imagine treating your family that way

[We should always be ready to speak about Jesus (cf. 1Pe 3:15). We also show our love...]

5. BY WILLINGLY SUFFERING FOR HIM
1. MANY MAKE GREAT SACRIFICES FOR OTHERS...
1. Parents give up much to be able to have and support children
2. People are willing to jeopardize their lives for loved ones
3. Even a dog will risk his life to save his master
2. DO WE LOVE OUR LORD ANY LESS...?
1. Especially when we receive salvation through His suffering? - He 5:7-9
2. Paul called Timothy to join in suffering with him for Christ - cf. 2Ti 1:7-12
3. Peter likewise enjoins all to suffer willingly if need be - cf. 1Pe 2:19-21; 4:1

[Another way to express our love for Jesus, and thereby prove that God is our Father...]

6. BY LONGING TO BE LIKE HIM
1. CHILDREN DEMONSTRATE LOVE THROUGH IMITATION...
1. By adapting mannerisms of the parents they love
2. Some good, some not (such as bad habits)
2. CAN ONE SAY THEY LOVE JESUS, BUT NOT WANT TO BE LIKE HIM...?
1. Especially when imitating Jesus is the goal of Christian doctrine?
2. Note Col 3:9-11; Ga 2:20

[Finally, we show love for Jesus...]

7. BY DESIRING TO PLEASE HIM
1. CONSIDER PEOPLE IN LOVE...
1. What man or woman won't go out of their way to please the one they love?
2. They'll change clothes, mannerisms, hobbies, etc.
2. CHRISTIANS ARE TO BE SIMILAR...
1. For we are a pure virgin betrothed to Christ - cf. 2Co 11:2
2. Because of His love for us, we should live for Him - 2Co 5:14-15
3. Do you have a compelling desire to please Christ?
4. You do if you truly love Him!

CONCLUSION

1. If one does not love the Lord Jesus, they are accursed - cf. 1Co 16:22
1. Why? Because if you do not love Jesus then God is not your Father, Satan is!
2. If God is your Father, then you will love the Son and demonstrate in these various ways!
2. How does one initially become a child of God? - cf. Ga 3:26-27
1. It involves faith, and putting Christ on in baptism
2. This demonstrates our love for Christ as well
3. For we are willing to become one with Him, just as two in marriage become one out of love

Is God your Father? Do you love Jesus enough to obey Him and become a child of God?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2021

A Striking Paradox by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2018/02/22/a-striking-paradox/#more-11970

A Striking Paradox

 

Yesterday’s news was dominated by two major stories: What we can do to stop school shootings like the one in Parkland, Florida, last week and the death of evangelist Billy Graham.

Oh, there was NBC’s coverage of the winter Olympics, but even that network had considerable national and local coverage regarding the other two major events.

In watching and listening at various intervals throughout the day it occurred to me there was quite a striking paradox taking place.

On one hand, there an emotional appeal by parents, students, and educators to stop the violence in our nation’s schools. Cable news televised President’s Trump’s listening session from the White House. It was heart-rending to hear from kids who experienced the horror at Parkland. And agonizing to listen to a father whose 14-year-old daughter was shot and killed.

People are demanding answers. Students are marching. Stageing sit-ins. And lobbying their legislators. What can we do? How can we stop it? What are the solutions? Some believe tougher laws restricting the sale of guns is the answer. Others are calling for arming teachers and staff in schools with weapons to stop a gunman. Better background checks, improved mental health services, and checkpoints to screen those entering schools are all valid suggestions.

Now after a commercial break, our favorite news channel turned to a prepared piece about the life and ministry of Billy Graham. Clips of his revivals ran throughout the day. Every show and every station showed video of Graham highlighting the central theme of his preaching. God loves you. You have sinned. You need to repent. And Jesus Christ is the answer for your sins. Judgment is coming. And there are only two ways: The broad way that leads to destruction. And the narrow way that leads to heaven.

While ThePreachersWord has some theological differences with Billy Graham, the essence of that message is decidedly Biblical. It provides the solution to what ails America today. And for the spiritual sickness of the souls of young and old alike. Yet, it is a message that is largely rejected by the liberal elite in our land today.

We’ve been hearing for years “keep your religion to yourself.” “Don’t talk about Jesus in the public square.” “Your faith should be a private matter.” In a humanistic fervor to separate church and state  we’ve eradicated the teaching of morality, virtue and goodness in many of our public schools.

Interestingly in his classic work “The Abolition of Man,” C. S. Lewis takes aim at the educational reformers of the 1940’s and their focus on removing objective values from our educational institutions and replacing them with subjective ideas. “Our culture clamors for honor – – while making character impossible. It is hypocritical to say that nothing defines what is true and noble – – and then ask young people to act in ways that are decent and good.”

“In a sort of ghastly simplicity,” Lewis critiques, “we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

Outside of the Christmas season, more was said about Jesus in the media yesterday than you would normally hear in a year of broadcasting. In the past week politicians, pundits and network anchors have offered their “thoughts and prayers” for those affected by the Parkland shooting. In the aftermath of the carnage teams of chaplains have been deployed by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association to provide grief counseling and pray with those affected. Local churches and preachers have been on the scene to offer help. healing and hope.

Ironic isn’t?

In a culture that has been on the fast track to moral relativism, when tragedy strikes we turn to God. We offer prayers. We acknowledge that evil exists. And we seek to overcome it with goodness.

In the words of our 30th President Calvin Coolidge, “We do not need more material development, we need more spiritual development. We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more law, we need more religion. We do not need more of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen.”

To a nation that has lost its way, Jesus confidently affirms, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn. 14:6).

To a doubting generation Jesus emphatically states, “If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (Jn 8:24).

To a sinful society, Jesus simply says “repent or perish” (Lk. 11:3)

To a politically correct culture that seeks to suppress faith, Jesus personally challenges, “Whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven” (Matt 10:32.

To a world lost in sin, Jesus boldly preaches, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk. 16;16).

To hurting and broken-hearted people, Jesus compassionately implores, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt 11:28).

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

THE ACTS 22:16 QUESTION by steve finnell

 

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/09/

THE ACTS 22:16 QUESTION   by steve finnell

I know what theologians, Bible college professors, preachers, Bible commentaries, priests, statements of faith, creed books, self appointed Bible scholars believe about the meaning of Acts 22:16; but what do you believe?

Acts 22:16 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' (NKJV)

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IT MEANS?

A. Why are you waiting, Saul, your sins were washed away 3 days ago on the road to Damascus, go and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

B. Saul, arise and be spiritually baptized in the Holy Spirit, washing away your sins.

C. Saul, you were saved and your sins were washed away 3 days ago when you believed in Jesus on the road to Damascus, however, just in case that did not take, arise and be baptized washing away your sins again, calling on the name of the Lord.

D. Saul, you do not have to be baptized in water to have your sins washed away, but in order to join the Ananias Baptist Church you must be baptized.

E. Saul, arise and be baptized as a testimony of your faith.

F. Saul, even though it is not essential to salvation, arise and be baptized because you should follow the commands of Jesus. 

G. 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Select one.  A. B. C. D. E. F. G.

Chapter 7 TOTAL (HEREDITARY) DEPRAVITY Man's words Canons of Dordt -- Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine Article 1 with commentary by C.A. Feenstra

 

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Feenstra/C/A/1931/ch07.html

Chapter 7

TOTAL (HEREDITARY) DEPRAVITY

Man's words

Canons of Dordt -- Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine

Article 1

Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright, all his affections pure, and the whole man was holy. But, revolting from God by the instigation of the devil and by his own free will, he forfeited these excellent gifts; and in the place thereof became involved in blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of judgment; became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections.

Article 2

Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt stock produced a corrupt offspring. Hence all the posterity of Adam, Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original parent, not by imitation, as the Pelagians of old asserted, but by the propagation of a vicious nature, in consequence of the first judgment of God.

Article 3

Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.

* * *

"We believe that through the disobedience of Adam original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature and a hereditary disease, wherewith even infants in their mother's womb are infected, and which produces in man all sorts of sin, being in him a root thereof, and therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind." -- Belgic Confession, Article XV, Original Sin.

"When Calvinists speak of man as being totally depraved, they mean that man's nature is corrupt, perverse, and sinful throughout. The adjective "total" does not mean that each sinner is as totally or completely corrupt in his actions and thoughts as it is possible for him to be. Instead, the word "total" is used to indicate the the whole of man's being has been affected by sin. The corruption extends to every part of man, his body and soul; sin has affected all (the totality) of man's faculties -- his mind, his will, etc.

As a result of this inborn corruption, the natural man is totally unable to do anything spiritually good; thus Calvinists speak of man's "total inability".

The natural man is enslaved to sin; he is a child of Satan, rebellious toward God, blind to truth, corrupt, and unable to save himself or to prepare himself for salvation. In short, the unregenerate man is dead in sin, and his will is enslaved to his evil nature.

Originally, Adam's will was free from the dominion of sin; he was under no natural compulsion to choose evil, but through his fall he brought spiritual death upon himself and all his posterity. He thereby plunged himself and the entire race into spiritual ruin and lost for himself and his descendants the ability to make right choices in the spiritual realm. His descendants are still free to choose -- every man makes choices throughout life -- but inasmuch as Adam's offspring are born with sinful natures, they do not have the ability to choose spiritual good over evil. Consequently, man's will is no longer free (i.e., free from the dominion of sin) as Adam's will was free before the fall. Instead, man's will, as a result of inherited depravity, is in bondage to his sinful nature." -- The Five Points of Calvinism, Steele and Thomas, page 25.

Is Calvinism's "Total (Hereditary) Depravity" true, OR does GOD'S WORD teach that sin is breaking or neglecting God's laws as a conscious act?

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." I John 3:4 AV

"Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." I John 3:4

"Ye have sinned against Jehovah, and have not obeyed the voice of Jehovah, nor walked in his law, nor in his statutes, nor in his testimonies." Jer. 44:23

"To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17

"All unrighteousness is sin." I John 5:17

"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Rom. 14:23

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:6

"They are all gone aside;
They are together become filthy;
There is none that doeth good, no, not one." Psa. 14:3

"All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." Rom. 3:23

Q. In the light of God's definition of sin, how is it possible for a baby to be born sinful?

Q. Is Calvinism's "Total (Hereditary) Depravity" true, OR does GOD'S WORD teach that babies are born sinless and that they all become sinful and sinners?

"Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto demons, And shed innocent blood, Even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, Whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with blood." Psa. 106:37-38

"Moreover your little ones, that ye said should be a prey, and your children, that this day have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it." Deut. 1:39

"Thou (the king of Tyre) wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee." Ezek. 28:15

"For the children (Jacob and Esau) being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad,..." Rom. 9:11

"And should not I have regard for Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?" Jonah 4:11

"And I (Paul) was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Rom. 7:9

"Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken." Isa. 7:16

"They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not, so much as one." Rom. 3:12

Q. Is Calvinism's "Total (Hereditary) Depravity" true, OR does GOD'S WORD teach that each man is responsible for and will be punished for his own sin?

"Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned." Rom. 5:12

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezek. 18:20

"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord Jehovah." Ezek. 18:30

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Deut. 24:16

"In the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works." Rom. 2:5-6

"So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God." Rom. 14:12

"Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways." Ezek. 33:20

"I, Jehovah, search the mind, I try the heart, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings." Jer. 17:10

"Behold, I (Jesus) come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is." Rev. 22:12

Q. Does GOD'S WORD teach that God, who is holy and righteous, places the soul and spirit within each man?

"And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2:7

"Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" Heb. 12:9

"For in him (God) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." Acts 17:28

"Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him." Zech. 12:1

"And the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it." Eccl. 12:7

Q. Does a holy and righteous God put a totally depraved spirit within each man?

Q. Is Calvinism's "Totally (Hereditary) Depravity" true, OR does Jesus proclaim the innocence of infants?

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence." Matt. 19:13-15

Q. Does this mean that the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who are totally depraved?

"And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 18:2-4

Q. Does this mean that we must become totally depraved in order to enter the kingdom of heaven?

* * *

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity;
and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psa. 51:5 AV

Q. Does this scripture teach Total Hereditary Depravity?

Q. Where was David when the sins of this scripture were committed?

Q. Who is the person guilty of the sins mentioned in this scripture, David or his mother?

Q. Does GOD'S WORD teach that it is the baby that is born sinful, OR does it teach that there may be sin connected with the conception and bearing of children?

"And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb a year old for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove, for a sin-offering, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest: and he shall offer it before Jehovah, and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood. This is the law for her that beareth, whether a male or a female. And if her means suffice not for a lamb, then she shall take two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons; the one for a burnt-offering, and the other for a sin-offering: and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean." Lev. 12:6-8

Q. Where in GOD'S WORD do we find a command to offer sacrifices for the babies who are said to be totally depraved?

Q. If Calvinism's "Total (Hereditary) Depravity" is true, where in GOD'S WORD is there a plan revealed for the salvation of babies who are born totally depraved?

Q. Is Calvinism's "Total (Hereditary) Depravity" true, OR does GOD'S WORD teach us as to when and how each man becomes a sinner?

"But each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death. Be not deceived, my beloved brethren." James 1:14-16

"Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned." Rom. 5:12

* * *

Q. Is Calvinism's "Total (Hereditary) Depravity" true, OR does GOD'S WORD teach that man is not born sinful but that he is sinful "from his youth"?

"And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake, for that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Gen. 8:21

"For we have sinned against Jehovah our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day; and we have not obeyed the voice of Jehovah our God." Jer. 3:25

"I spake unto thee in thy prosperity; but thou saidst, I will not hear. This hath been thy manner from thy youth, that thou obeyedst not my voice." Jer. 22:21

"For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have done only that which was evil in my sight from their youth; for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith Jehovah." Jer. 32:30

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

One way by Gary Rose

 

I am a baby-boomer. I grew up with a set of values largely determined by that era. Today, things are radically different from the 1950’s and early 1960’s. Society has become so media oriented that individuals are overpowered by the sheer amount of available information. More than that, the information we receive is overwhelmingly biased towards a very liberal agenda and Socialism at best and Communism at worst. Assuming the the lesser-of-two-evils, our nation is quickly becoming a United Socialist America.

Having said the above, this cartoon comes as no real surprise. For, both Socialism ( and especially Communism ) want to eradicate religion. And what is religion? Webster says…

Religion Re*li"gion (r[-e]*l[i^]j"[u^]n), n. [F., from L.

religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein

to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.]

1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their

recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having

power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and

honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love,

fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power,

whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites

and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of

faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical

religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion;

revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion

of idol worshipers. [1913 Webster]

If God is removed from the picture, then there is nothing ( or, better yet, NO ONE ) left but humans to solve their own problems. Given these things, the statement this child makes no longer is even slightly humorous, but rather deadly serious ( and tragic ). Truthfully, God will never be erased ( contrary to what Socialists or Communists believe ). The Bible has always been and will continue to be THE TRUTH sent to the human race by God. Jesus really lived, died and rose again. Believe these things for they are true. Better yet, listen to the words of Jesus, himself…

John 14 ( World English Bible )

6, Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.

Young Billy is wrong- Photoshop can’t erase sins; only Jesus can do that. Consider the message of this passage of Scripture…

Romans 6 ( WEB )

1, What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2, May it never be! We who died to sin, how could we live in it any longer?

3, Or don’t you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

4, We were buried therefore with him through baptism to death, that just like Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

5, For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection;

6, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin.

7, For he who has died has been freed from sin.

8, But if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him;

9, knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no more has dominion over him!

10, For the death that he died, he died to sin one time; but the life that he lives, he lives to God.

11, Thus consider yourselves also to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. ( note: see also 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Galatians 1:1-12 )

Follow the above pattern and live- FORGET PHOTOSHOP!