Friday, October 31, 2008

Like I said before, I do not support McCain, but this young man has my utmost respect for his service, sacrifice, and support of freedom. Going to Iraq in the first place might not have been the thing to do, as I don't believe we should be involved in foreign affairs, but once we set out on a course, turning back displays cowardice and weakness. Please watch the video; it should make any true patriot either tear up or shout for joy. At the very least, you'll understand true sacrifice.

God Bless America, and America, Bless God for all His abundant blessings!

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Just a few things...

I've been working on another detailed post which I will post before long; it's on the subject of Biblical repentance, and I hope it will be a help to people who read it.

Retraction: I'm changing my position on John McCain for president. While I shudder to think of the damage that Obama would cause and the havoc he would wreak upon this nation, God raises up kings and puts them down, and ultimately He is in charge of everything. As a Bible-Believing Christian, I must vote according to the Bible and by principle, and John McCain is neither Biblical nor does he fit my principles. Our government is to be a servant, subject to the Constitution of THESE United States, and neither of the mainstream candidates is truly a Constitutional supporter.

Word of a King officially supports Pastor Chuck Baldwin for president. While no 3rd-party candidate has been elected president in over 140 years, I believe a vote for principal is never lost or wasted. As Albert Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We've been stuck in an unconstitutional two-party system since the 1860s, and things have degraded consistently ever since (thank you, Abraham Lincoln). However, to show our dissatisfaction with the unethical and unconstitutional government in Washington, D.C., I support a man who will lead according to the Constitution and godly, Founding principals.

Second: In a previous blog, I was rather harsh toward a certain individual. While every single thing that I said was true and can be backed up with mountains of evidence, the first paragraph of the post was overly hurtful, and while I cannot say that I've changed my mind in any way, shape or form, I don't believe that it was wise to publicize it as I did. I apologize for foolishly using that phraseology toward a sister in Christ; it was out of line and excessively hurtful, and I should not have done so. (I have edited the blog to remove the offensive part) What I mainly did with that post was to hurt a friend of my wife, and that was wrong of me. I want to publicly apologize for the effect I had on that individual.

I had an idea for another blog, or an annex to this one, but being that I've had about six hours of sleep in the last 60, it has understandably vacated my mind, leaving me somewhat confused and quizzical. Oh well, I can finish the Repentance post sometime and see what happens after that.

This is just awesome. Blessed be the God of Shem!!

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Breath of Life

I must say that "Independent Fundamental Baptists" are some of the most asinine individuals in the world. I'll just post what I said about this individual a while back to give you an idea of what she's about.

I joined this board close to or over two years ago because she was making a libelous statement against a man of God, and while I've matured and mellowed out a lot in the time since then, she's been just as preachy and mouthy as the day I first came here. She apparently has no idea of how a woman's supposed to act, and in my opinion has absolutely no place moderating anything except a cookie sheet. I've watched her mouth off constantly and I've refrained myself as well as possible, but sometimes she gets to the point where it's ignorant not to call her on it. She has a problem with her mouth that her husband needs to get under control, but if he's unaware or incapable then someone else needs to point it out.

That's how it's always been, yet for some reason that board still allows her to be a moderator, in authority over men.

That aside, let's tackle the subject that sparked the post and the title thereof. The OP (opening/original post/poster) provided a partial quote of one of Dr. Ruckman's Genesis Bible classes. One of the best ways to smear someone is to take their words out of context and not provide the explanation they themselves provide, usually directly after the quoted part. While the actions of the OP are rather inflammatory, I will say this for them: they attempted to provide a Biblical rebuttal, and while it was far from satisfactory or conclusive, it was better than anyone else did in that topic.

While the actual quote is worthy of address, I'd prefer to point out some other things first. I don't know who all reads or learns of my posts on this blog, and I don't particularly care. Nor do I worry whether it offends someone or not. I pose my statements to be as unoffensive as I personally can, but I'm not going to bend over backwards in the attempt to appease people; if someone gets offended by what I say, then they should take a good long look at Psalm 119:165 and get back with me.

The Board of which I spoke (and posted an excerpt from above) is extremely biased, from an outsider's (and former insider's) view. Time and again, the female moderator slandered a great old man of God groundlessly, yet when I would speak up in his defense I would be labeled as a "heretic" or a "Ruckmanite" or "immature and impulsive." Biblical evidence remaining strongly on my side was never enough: they refused, as a whole (the leadership), to acknowledge when anything wrong was done. I was wrongly banned at least twice, and never once was I apologized to, and the final ban was done against the very rules of the board. Moreover, almost the entire population of the board is rabidly anti-Ruckman, and jumps on every single opportunity to slash and claw at those that support him or any of his teachings. This is backwards and unintelligent to the extreme; I suppose it also doesn't help that the majority of the members are women, who sometimes seem to experience their lady issues at the same time of the month and thereby rain hellfire and damnation on the rest of the people there.

Ok, about the quote from Dr. Ruckman.

He said that man becomes a living soul when he breathes; God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. That is Bible, that is fact, and if you don't like it, then go suck your thumb. Now, the issue arises that we as Christians believe that life begins at conception. Yes, it does, very clearly, and even Doc believes that from the next part of the quote that the OP failed to include. According to Leviticus 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Scientifically, blood is transferred at conception from the male's sperm to the woman's egg (the mother and child have completely separate circulatory systems; their blood never mixes), so the life of that child begins at conception. Nothing Doc said disagrees with this. The problem arises when people lack the ability to understand the clear-cut 6th grade English of the King James Bible. Behold, a demonstration.

Genesis 2: living soul.

Leviticus 17: life of the flesh.

Soul != flesh

For those of you who are familiar with bash (UNIX terminal language), the third expression should clear it up. (!= means "is not equal to") Man is a trichotomy; Spirit, Soul and Body (in that order). God fashioned the Body out of dust, breathed into him His Spirit, and with that breath, man became a living Soul. All three are present right there: Spirit, Soul and Body. Following?

In Leviticus, the topic is not the soul, but the living flesh. In fact, the only use of the word "soul" in that chapter is used to mean an individual, not the part of a human trichotomy. God is speaking of completely mundane or fleshy things in that chapter; in fact the whole book is dedicated to the Law that the Jews were required to keep.

To sum it up, I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Ruckman that babies aren't souls before birth and do not go to Heaven if they die. I do not, however, have any way to disprove his statements. As such, I'm not brash and arrogant enough to prate like I know so much better than a man that's studied and defended the King James Bible for most of his adult life. I do not agree, but I cannot disprove it. Therefore I will remain quiet on the subject until the Holy Spirit of God gives me a reason to do otherwise.

At conception, a life begins. I am not God, and I didn't create life, so I simply have to go by what the Bible says. Fleshly life begins with blood, and according to Genesis, that Soul was created with the breath of life. Whether or not that extends to where people without the breath of life do not have souls, I do not know, but neither does anyone else, since it is not quickly apparent from Scripture.

What I do know, however, is that people have a tendency to run their mouths (or their keyboards) without engaging their hippocampi, and the result is usually that they appear ignorant and tick me off with unfounded and Biblically invalid statements. As a future father and 100% pro-life individual, I believe that all human life is sacred. I don't agree that rape is grounds for abortion, or even high-risk pregnancies. However, I cannot throw out the Bible to cling to my other beliefs, and anyone that would do so is neither a Bible Believer nor a true Christian (Christian meaning "Christ-like).

I will apologize if I've offended anyone; that truly is not my intention: I simply want to put the Biblical truth out in the open and help keep the reputation of a great man of God from being sullied by out-of-context quotes.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

Ever since I was banned from a certain message board (against their own rules, might I add), I've been somewhat perplexed at the unending stream of questions and issues that go unanswered. So in order to salve my own conscience, I've decided to answer the most incorrectly-answered questions here on my blog. The most recent one is "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," and most of the answers by the leaders of the board are sadly off by a long shot. The only person that's even close to correct (dead-on, actually) is a lady. Sad, no? You'd think a board like that would choose males that at least knew their Bibles.

Anyhow, the question, posed by a new Christian with a Charismatic mother, is more or less "What is Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost?" Pentecostals will tell you that questioning "Speaking in Tongues" is blasphemy, and therefore an unpardonable sin, but how does this line up when compared with Scripture?
"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:" (Mark 3:29)
The scribes had just accused Jesus of casting out devils by the power of Satan, or saying that the Holy Ghost was the Devil. Basically calling the Holy Spirit Satan is the blasphemy that Jesus was talking about.

Under the circumstances, it was because Jesus was on earth, and was the physical manifestation of God. Therefore, saying something like this against Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) was blasphemy. However, that's the only time you see that showing up; nowhere else is Blaspheming the Holy Spirit even mentioned, so you can rest assured that this time is already past. Until the LORD comes back again, and sets up an entirely new government (Rev. 14:6-7), there won't be the ability to actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit as the scribes did.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Christians for McCain?

I've often said about this election that we have a choice between a Liberal and a Socialist. It's not good odds, but there's something to be said for taking what you can get. Personally, I'd love to see Chuck Baldwin in the White House; there's just something gratifying about hearing a Presidential candidate say that Abraham Lincoln was one of this nation's worst presidents. However, In our largely Bi-partisan political climate, a vote for Baldwin is nothing less than a vote for Obama.

Sens. McCain and Obama are some of the last people I'd ever pick for my presidents, but that's what we're stuck with unfortunately. Obviously choosing the lesser of two evils still means you wind up with evil, but as Christians we have to live and operate within our system. I don't believe that Christians aren't allowed to be involved in politics or the government; far from it, in fact. If you have a chance to affect the system for good, then go for it! However, some of us are called to something else, and getting involved in politics would be nothing but a distraction from our God-given jobs.

I've seen many people say that they could not vote for McCain in good conscience; my question to those people is how can you vote for anyone else in good consciense, knowing your vote will give the Socialist Obama that much more of an opportunity? Every conservative vote for anyone other than McCain is nothing but a vote for Obama. That's how it's been for years; voting for Ross Perot simply put Bill Clinton in office that much easier. It's not the way the Founders intended, but as Christians we must live with what we have, and therefore the only candidates that we can honestly consider as options are those in the two main parties. Would to God that someone with character and honesty like Chuck Baldwin would be elected, but in our warped, godless society, that's not going to happen.

So no, McCain is not a good choice. He's not even a very well conscienced choice for many. But should a Christian vote for him? Yes, because a vote against him is one more vote for Obama.

Saying that God wouldn't bless voting for McCain is like saying He would have cursed Israel for not choosing Asa because he didn't campaign to remove the high places, and instead winding up with a Reheboam. God isn't going to bless inactivity when you have a chance to make a difference.