SCOTUS, Gay Marriage and Need for Constitutional Amendment


Sodomites struck blind for angelic attempted rape

Attempted Rape of Angel of God – Sodomites Struck Blind

 

 

John R. Houk

© September 8, 2014

 

 

On October 6, 2014, in an unexpected move, the United States Supreme Court declined to review petitions challenging the legalization of same-sex marriage in five states, including Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The effect of this refusal to hear these petitions, or this non-decision on the legality of, or the right to, same-sex marriage for all 50 states, is that stays are now lifted on the three federal appeals courts’ decisions upholding such same-sex marriages. With these stays lifted, same-sex marriages are now legal in 24 states, up from 19.

 

Other states in those federal circuits are also affected by the Court’s actions on Monday, including Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. It is thought that the three federal appeals court will uphold same-sex marriages in these states as well, where such marriages are currently banned. If those bans are struck down, then the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage climbs from 24 to 30 in short time. (The Supreme Court’s “Non-Decision” On Same-Sex Marriage: The Impact On Employee Benefits After ‘Windsor’; By Jenny Kiesewetter; JD Supra Business Advisor; 10/7/14)

 

Activist Judges from the Lower Courts to the Appellate Courts have used the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 after the Civil War to drudge Leftist ideology for homosexual rights as if that was the Original Intent inclusively for the moral depravity of homosexuality becoming normalized in our society. The very slow process of acceptance of the normalizing of the homosexuality began in 1960s with gay PhDs and MDs pushing academic flawed research to counter the Word of the Creator of ALL that exists materially and spiritually.

 

… [I]t’s been 50 years since Alfred Kinsey published his infamous 1948 report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which has so profoundly and grievously affected not only American society, but the moral, social, and political order worldwide. It is difficult to exaggerate the horrendous effects of the widespread promotion and acceptance of his work. Kinsey’s “research” shook America’s moral foundations and launched the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s. Its terrible results are obvious in the skyrocketing incidence of all the social pathologies afflicting us today: divorce, abortion, sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate births, cohabitation, pornography, homosexuality, sadomasochism, rape, child molestation, sexual crimes of all types, family breakup, endemic violence, etc. We cannot hope to reverse this destructive, downward spiral if we do not recognize and openly confront the Kinseyite falsehoods and subversive premises and ideas that undergird popular attitudes and official policies today. (Fighting the Kinsey Fraud: Interview with Dr. Judith Reisman; Interview found at Whale.to [yeah I know – Conspiracy Theory Website]; Interview took place in 2005; Dr. Judith Reisman exposed Alfred Kinsey as a fraud in his experimental findings justifying homosexuality among many other challenging moral foundations)

 

Do you think homosexuality was even remotely acceptable as a normal lifestyle in 1868?

 

Amendment XIV

 

Section 1.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [If 14th Amendment stopped perhaps a stretch to a modern inclusiveness of gender more than race, BUT it is still a stretch and emancipated former Black Slaves is the Original Intent here and NOT same-sex normalcy.]

 

Section 2.

 

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. [Nothing to do with gender here, but only voting age – which has since been amended as well.]

 

Section 3.

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. [AGAIN, nothing about gender in service of any form of local, state or federal government. Specificity is given to those members of Southern States that attempted to forcefully secede from the Union of the USA.]

 

Section 4.

 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. [No gender here but the promise of federal government to pay debts incurred during the Civil War but NOT any debts incurred by the rebelling Confederate States.]

 

Section 5.

 

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. [Here it becomes a part of the rule of law to constitutionally enforce the civil rights to emancipated Black Slaves and not same-sex lifestyles. Based on Original intent, offering normalcy to moral depravity is NOT justified.] (Bracketed bold text is by this Blog Editor; 14th Amendment; present on Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute)

 

Unless you are a Leftist Living Constitution moron the 14th Amendment wasn’t even close to extending normalcy and special civil rights for followers of a homosexual lifestyle.

 

GASP! This is where all the Leftist transformers and Homosexual rise up and paint a picture these sentiments as the words of a homophobe bigot. This is where I stand up and look depravity apologists in the eye and tell them first I don’t fear homosexuals and second I join feel safe in joining the Creator of all that exists that homosexuality among males and females is an abomination in the Creator’s eyes.

 

Practicing homosexuals should be grateful that the mercy of God extending by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Son of God extends forgiveness through faith in God’s Grace toward those who choose the Lord as their Savior and dedicate themselves to following Christ understanding that sinful passions are forgiven.

 

SHAME on the Supreme Court dodging the issue as a final authority in the rule of law by not looking at same-sex depravity and step up to the plate to make the right decision to join Nature’s God in upholding Natural Law to overrule activist Judges that validate UNNATURAL moral practices.

 

Here are some quotes/excerpts for Christian Bible Believers to think on when Leftists and Homosexual Activists distort the Truth in God to manipulate American opinion via a guilt complex imposition:

 

Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences” describes the allegedly scientific research of Alfred Kinsey and colleagues, which largely shaped modern Western society’s beliefs and understanding of the nature of human sexuality.

 

Today, half a century later, Kinsey’s unchallenged conclusions are taught at every level of education – from elementary school to college – and quoted in textbooks as undisputed truth.

 

Incredibly, Kinsey’s research involved illegal sexual experimentation on several hundred young children. And his survey was based on a non–representative group of Americans — including hundreds of sex offenders, prostitutes, prison inmates and exhibitionists. Yet Kinsey’s grotesquely fraudulent research has served as the very foundation of modern “sex science,” and his claim that one in 10 people are homosexual is central to the gay—rights movement. And now comes the greatest hypocrisy of all — the pretense of providing safe-sex instructions to children while in reality advancing Kinsey’s agenda, including indulgence in high—risk lifestyles and behaviors. (Church History – the Homosexual age: [subtitle] Jesus warned us these times would come! – Subtitle by Dr. Judith Reisman; From BibleProbe.com)

 

*******

 

The Homosexual Agenda is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate approval of homosexuality and homosexual ideology, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals that other people don’t have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes). Such special rights will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of broader society. The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of free speech today.

 

 

Strategies and psychological tactics

 

Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see homosexuality and biblical interpretation), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.[32] This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”[33], as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.

 

 

Influence in the academic world

 

Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled First Things (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.

 

[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as “homophobia – a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality – is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.[63]

 

… READ ENTIRETY (Homosexual Agenda; Conservapedia article entry; Last Modified September 10, 2014 at 19:26)

 

 

******************

 

“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

 

“Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.

 

“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws. – Senator Ted Cruz via The Atlantic (Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals; By ALLAHPUNDIT; Hot Air; 10/7/14 2:01 PM)

 

*************************

 

“According to the majority of this very Supreme Court in the Windsor decision, states and their citizens have the right and responsibility to define their marriage laws. It is shocking that at least six Supreme Court justices would allow unelected lower court judges to simply ignore the majority decision – and the Section of DOMA upheld in the Windsor decision.

 

“The only alternative to allowing these unelected liberal judges to impose their morality on all of America is to pass a constitutional amendment. To that end, last year I introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (HJ Res. 51) to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

 

“Like so many other states, the citizens of Kansas made an overwhelming decision to stand for traditional marriage when they adopted the Kansas Marriage Amendment. No one justice – no one court – no elite judicial activists should be permitted to redefine or un-define marriage to suit their distaste for traditional marriage.

 

“This most recent non-decision by the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates the need for a constitutional amendment on this issue.” (Huelskamp: We need a Constitutional Amendment on Same Sex Marriage; By Post Staff; Salina Post; 10/7/14)

 

*******************

 

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) would amend the United States Constitution to protect marriage, family and children by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Congressman Tim Huelskamp introduced the FMA on June 28, 2013.

 

… (Federal Marriage Amendment; By Tim Huelskamp Gov webpage)

 

******************************

 

H.J.RES.51 — Marriage Protection Amendment (Introduced in House – IH)

 

HJ 51 IH

 

113th CONGRESS

 

1st Session

 

H. J. RES. 51

 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 

June 28, 2013

 

Mr. HUELSKAMP (for himself, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. PITTS, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BARTON, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JONES, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. HALL, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. WOLF, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. HULTGREN, and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

 

JOINT RESOLUTION

 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.

 

SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

 

The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

 

Article–

 

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’. (Bill Text: 113th Congress (2013-2014), H.J.RES.51.IH; Thomas Library of Congress)

 

JRH 10/8/14

Please Support NCCR

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 5


G. Washington- Rightly Govern only by God & Bible

John R. Houk
© March 26, 2014
 
Here we go continuing to refute Dougindeap’s false belief the Church/State separation is as much a part of the Constitution as are the separation branch powers and checks and balances.
 
Similarly, they [i.e. the Founding Fathers] did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by … (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. (Dougindeap from: The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories; SlantRight 2.0; 3/13/14)
 
Dougindeap’s point two is vaguely cryptic. What in the world does he mean by “… they actually separated them by … (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers”?
 
An accurate statement might be seen in a rearrangement of the word order of the Dougindeap quote. How about something like:
 
The Founding Fathers separated powers (since power resides in the government that being separated must refer to the constitutionally defined Branches] by (2) according limiting government by enumerated the Branch powers.
 
This reordering of wording is a point I can get on board with because is a bit more clarity to extract an understanding. The Founding Fathers intent with the Constitution was to limit government in the context of affecting personal Liberty of American citizens. The object of employing checks and balances between the Branches was so that no single Branch could achieve despotic unchecked power over the government and hence over Americans promised Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as a way of life.
 
Government was to be limited to enforcing the rule of law that should be designed for the general welfare according to the moral of Nature’s God – the Creator – Who has placed the measuring stick for what is right and wrong for a good society.
 
I have established in Part Two that the Original Intent of the phrase of “general welfare” of the Constitution’s Preamble was in relation to the framing of Nature by Nature’s God the Creator. I quoted the Father of our Nation George Washington followed by an observation:
 

“No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts in the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. — Every step, by which they have been advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”
George Washington (Quote found, “SEVENPRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY: I LIBERTY IS OF DIVINE ORIGIN; By J. David Gowdy; Institute for American Liberty; Copyright © 1996)
 
As far as Liberty is concerned the Founding Fathers in the majority that religion (meaning Christianity in the 1780s) was essential for a virtuous and moral society to remain cohesive in the practice of Liberty or chaos will ensue that will only despotic rule could quell. (Disputing Separation Church/State Part 2)
 
The should and must recognize that this provides a context for the First Amendment that Justice Hugo Black must have willfully ignored in the majority decision of Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 which ONLY THEN not only upheld the intent of keeping government out of religion BUT ALSO extra-constitutionally added that religion must not have any contact with a taxpayer supported government operation on a Local, State and Federal basis.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold Emphasis Mine First Amendment)
 
There is no place in the First Amendment that enumerates that Christianity should not be the moral basis for the rule of law foundation in the U.S. Constitution. That which is enumerated is that Congress – the vehicle for legislating law and establishing a government budget – MUST not make any laws establishing an established religion (meaning in the 1780s the Christian Church). And the First Amendment specifically enumerates that Congress shall prohibit the “free exercise” of religion (AGAIN meaning the Christian Church in the 1780s).
 
ERGO Dougindeap is wrong that the Founding Fathers created a Constitutional paradigm of Separation of Church and State in the sense that American practicing Christians must keep their faith out of the government. In relation to the State the only enumeration of power separation is that the government must stay out of the worship business of the Church in not establishing the preeminence of one Denomination over another Denomination whether that be Protestant, Catholic and by extension the Eastern Orthodox Churches that were not common in the USA in the 1780s and 1790s.
 
End of Part Five
 
o   Part One
 
o   Part Two
 
 
o   Part Four
 
 
JRH 3/26/14

Please Support NCCR

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 4


1st Adam - 2nd Adam in Jesus Christ. Hans Baldung Grien

1st Adam/2nd Adam – Jesus Christ

John R. Houk

© March 25, 2014

 

If you choose to read the preceding parts simply click the links:

 

o   Part One

 

o   Part Two

 

o   Part Three

 

… In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. (Dougindeap from: The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories; SlantRight 2.0; 3/13/14)

 

Dougindeap is absolutely correct that the Founding Fathers separated the three branches of government as described in the U.S. Constitution: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. AND in separating those branches the Founders separated the powers thereof with checks and balances hoping to create a government in which the tyranny of despotism or the tyranny of democracy or judicial fiat could be avoided. The intention for the checks and balances was to give voting citizens the power to be a check and balance to the authority of the government vis-á-vis the Liberty of Civil and Individual Rights.

 

BUT Dougindeap presumes the enumeration of powers, checks and balances is also extended to the form of Church/State separate created by Judicial Fiat beginning with the Hugo Black majority opinion in 1947 Everson v. Board of Education:

 

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (See Part 3)

 

I went over the reasons that this judicial fiat was and is bogus in Part Three. Let’s suffice it to say here that Dougindeap’s assertion that Hugo Black’s 1947 majority opinion was not in the mind of the Founders as a rule of law prescribed as part of powers of government in a Church/State separated with checks and balances way back in 1789. Dougindeap lists five points he believes the Founding Fathers established within the Constitution separating Church and State with checks and balances in the same way the three branches of government were enumerated.

 

1. Establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity).

 

I guess we need to examine briefly the Constitution’s Preamble from Part One:

 

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Bold emphasis mine)

 

In Part One I explained the reason I bold printed a portion of the Preamble:

 

The Free Dictionary listing for “general welfare” goes from the broad meaning found in the Preamble to a specific context carried on from Article 1 Section 8. …

 

THUS the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers understanding of the general welfare included morality. Since the Founding Fathers’ milieu was the 1760s through and a bit beyond the 1790s their concept of morality was not based on a Secular Humanism devoid of God and God the Creator’s morality established in the Bible. (Excerpted from “Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1”)

 

The Original Intent ergo, the Founding Fathers were empowering “We the people” in a secular order BUT under the moral guidance of the Christian God. That is strike one for Dougindeap’s point one.

 

The Signers of the U.S. Constitution that was then sent to the Thirteen Independent States under the Articles of Confederation establishes the importance the Founding Fathers tipped their hat to the Judeo-Christian God of the Holy Bible:

 

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

 

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

 

… (Followed by the signatures of the representative of the thirteen original states formally loosely aligned under the Articles of ConfederationBold emphasis mine) [Excerpted from the last paragraphs of “Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1”]

 

That is strike two for Dougindeap.

 

Hugo Black the writer of the majority of the opinion in Everson v. Board of Education stepped beyond the veil by using Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association offering reassurance to their concerns of being a minority Protestant Denomination in Connecticut in which Congregationalism was the Established Church of the State:

 

The Danbury Baptist Association committee wrote to the President stating that, “Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals — that no man ought to suffer in Name, person or affects on account of his religious Opinions.” (6) The Danbury Baptists believed that religion was an unalienable right and they hoped that Jefferson would raise the consciousness of the people to recognize religious freedom as unalienable. However, the Danbury Baptists acknowledged that the President of the United States was not a “national Legislator” and they also understood that the “national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State.” (7) In other words, they recognized Jefferson’s limited influence as the federal executive on the individual states. (The Myth Behind “Separation of Church and State”; By Mathew D. Staver; Liberty Counsel; © 2000)

 

Here is President Thomas Jefferson’s reassurance letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

 

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

 

Washington, January 1, 1802

 

Gentlemen,–The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

 

Th Jefferson


Jan. 1. 1802 (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282. On Wall Builders – “
Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson”)

 

Hugo Black warped the intent of the Jefferson Letter pertaining to the Federal Government v. States’ Rights even though the Tenth Amendment specifically forbade the Federal Government to interfere in State legislation that did not usurp the prerogative of the U.S. Constitution:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (Tenth Amendment)

 

Hugo Black excluded the Tenth Amendment and ignored the Founding Document the Declaration of Independence that was penned by Thomas Jefferson under the Continental Congress Committee drafting said declaration:

 

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

… (Bold Emphasis Mine – The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription; The Charters of Freedom; Archives.gov)

 

The Declaration drafters of which Thomas Jefferson was an integral part of, indeed espoused the ideology that the enfranchised people experiencing unjust tyranny from a despot or despotic government have the right to change that government. BUT who does the Committee empowered to draft a Declaration of Independence claim gives the enfranchised people the right to throw off the bonds of tyranny? The empowerment comes from God Almighty:

 

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them …”

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

Strike three Dougindeap. Just as specified by the First Amendment that proclaims government under the law-making power of Congress cannot get involved in religion (i.e. Christianity) but mankind under the moral guidance of the Creator must influence government to keep government from devolving into a tyranny that permits society to use the guidance of human individuals to establish that which moral and good. Why? Because humanity is inherently a fallen nature that gravitates towards ungodly principles when the guiding principles of God are excluded.

 

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

 

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

 

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5: 12 – 21 NKJV)

 

End of Part Four

 

JRH 3/25/14

Please Support NCCR

Fighting Moral Corruption


annunciation- HS Overshadow Mary. by Nicolas Poussin

John R. Houk
© January 26, 2014
 
The modern commonality of historians discount the practice (or lack thereof) of morality in a civilization for how it thrives or fails. Nearly all religions subscribe to defined morals for their adherents to guide their lives ethically. (That includes the religion I disparage the most – Islam) Historians first like to look at physical factors that lead to a civilization’s demise; e.g. economic circumstances pertaining to feeding the people, military conquest from a variant civilization, mass immigration of a variant civilization, changing climate or environmental circumstances affecting modes of living and so on. I contend the dilution of a civilization’s morals corrupt social mores leading to selfish feel good activity over the common good that unifies the people of a civilization.
 
Normalizing selfishness above communal unifiers will lead to an increase of violence which corrodes the ability to maintain a just rule of law. Religious faith that promotes a standard of ethics designed as a foundation for mutual good interactions in a society defines the lines of good and wrong actions. Religions with morality that condemn actions that cause social strife are religions that promote a thriving civilization. If the religion itself promotes a morality with a harsh retribution and too difficult for the adherents to subscribe, then groups of people will naturally begin to gravitate toward a religion or ethical philosophy that maintains a moral foundation that embraces a common mutual inner fulfillment.
 
Human nature is an imperfect persona. It is in a human’s nature to do that which feels good even if it harms others or self. When the standard of moral ethics imposes restrictions that a civilization has a common acceptance of then self-destructive tendencies are easier to be restrained and the exercise of a self-discipline moves one to choices that result not only in an inner fulfillment but also leads to social interaction that benefits a civilization rather than fracturing it.
 
I am an adherent of the Christian faith that believes in the primacy of Sola Scriptura. The Latin phrase Sola Scriptura essentially portrays the meaning that the Scriptures in the Bible is the foundation for matters of faith and doctrine in Christianity. Not all devoted Christians subscribe to Sola Scriptura as the essence of primacy of relaying faith and doctrine to Believers. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and many Roman Episcopate type of Protestant Churches (e.g. Anglican-Episcopalian, Methodists, Lutherans etc. – A better Latin phrase for the authority of the Bible is Prima Scriptura implying the primacy of Scripture with the influence of reason and/or tradition) place tradition and reason over the primacy of the Scriptures.
 
The Latin phrase Prima Scriptura or Scripture Above All, is a bit misleading in application. ‘Prima’ indicates primacy and primacy indicates the sense of first among other authoritative options. In the case of the Bible it means Scripture is primary but it is interpreted through the eyes of human reason and human tradition. Hence there is a theological liberty to dilute the interpretation of Scripture to render the original intent of God Almighty to fit the reasoning of human reasoning. This relegates the Scripture into a state of evolution rather than the Eternal Divine Word of God. Meanings are changed to benefit the Progressive desires to transform civilization to human designs.
 
Progressives, Liberals, Leftist or whatever appellation that can be referred to as a mindset dedicated making humanism the primary principle of thought above that of the Creator. Those dedicated to humanism are well intentioned but are deceived or even self-deceived into thinking humanity is the beginning of sentience and the ending of creating a utopia for the greater good of humanity. Such a utopia will never find fruition because it is rebellion against the molder of the clay – the Creator – God Almighty. Does the clay destroy its Creator? It is impossible! That which is molded can be destroyed or remade depending on the designs of the Creator.
 
Thank God the Creator loves the human clay not to scrap it but rather to develop a loving being that willingly chooses obedient Sonship (okay with a hat tip to the ladies) and obedient Daughtership to the Creator spirit, soul and body of humanity. Satan is a lying rebel and was kicked out of Heaven for deceiving himself he could replace the Creator. I believe God used this unholy rebel with the design to separate the bad clay from the good clay of humanity. Adam and Eve’s fall by giving allegiance to Satan and hence turning God’s lease given to humanity to the ownership of Satan. The Earth and humanity became corrupted. Thank God the Father had a better plan than the Deceiver’s plan to replace God. God gave a Promise that the Seed of Woman would produce a Savior that would crush Satan’s head.
 
13 And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
 
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:
 
“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.” (Genesis 3: 13-15 NKJV
)
 
The “your seed” with a small “s” refers to the descendants of Adam having his fallen nature. The “her Seed” with the capital “S” refers to Jesus in Mary’s womb not their by human but by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit of God the Father.
 
Note that Jesus was a fetus at one time. Did existing as a fetus in the womb of Mary make Jesus a mere body part like an appendix, a heart, a liver, a bone and so on? In the days Mary, Joseph and Jesus walked the earth the Jewish Law interpretation of the Pentateuch did not look too kindly on an impregnated woman outside of holy wedlock. A Pregnancy outside of wedlock logically implied fornication, adultery or rape. Jewish Law demanded stoning for fornication and adultery. The penalty for rape depends if the woman is married or unmarried. Raping a married woman calls for the death of the rapist. Raping an unmarried woman the victim has a choice of forcing the rapist into marriage and either case the rapist must pay the father 50 shekels of silver (Source – WOMEN AND THE LAW OF MOSES: Laws Concerning the Violation of Marriage, Seduction and Rape (Deut. 22:22-30; Exod. 22:16); Christian Leadership  Center). Mary was not raped. The implications then were fornication or adultery. Not a pretty picture for Mary and the unborn fetus of Jesus in her womb.
 
God operated in miracles and alerted Joseph to the actions he should take pertaining to Mary and unborn Jesus. That action was NOT abortion.
 
In every way an unborn fetus has a God-breathed life awaiting the time to choose between Life in God or eternal separation from God in choosing Satan’s dominion. Choosing Life is always a witting decision. Sadly choosing eternal separation from God in more cases than not an unwitting choice based on believing the deceptive system of this world age controlled by Satan.
 
The act of abortion is an act of murder. Sanitizing abortion as expelling a lifeless fetus body part of a female is a deception of Satan to destroy the seed of Fallen Man before birth and growth allows the choice to become one with the Seed of woman which is Christ Jesus the Lord, the Savior and the Son of God.
 
Abortion is just symptom of moral failure that leads to the demise of a civilization. You can throw in the lifestyle choices described in Romans 1:
 
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”[b]
 
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
 
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
 
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
 
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1: 16-32 NKJV)
 
Abortion and many of these vices have become sins that are separating humanity from God’s Deliverance via the Blood of Christ that transfers the unredeemed into the Redemption of the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. If you are one Delivered from the bondage of Satan’s grasp you have an opportunity to be active to share this Good News that Jesus has come to offer Salvation from Satan age of woe, sickness and depravity.
 
DO NOT CHOOSE an activism that operates in an un-Christ-like manner. It is un-Christ-like to use violence in the name of the Savior to force compliance through fear. For fear is a weapon of Satan incorporating an antichrist spirit using ungodly means to mistakenly think you are operating for the good of God.
 
AND YET rolling over to become a rug to be trampled upon is not a Godly choice either. As a people we can defend ourselves from ungodly people by using the instruments God makes available. In a nation of laws the Redeemed must use the law as the unredeemed will attempt to subvert the law. Only when a government becomes oppressively corrupt should armed violence be taken up. And prayer must be used to find Godly leaders to be anointed to dispense laws in a Godly manner not in an ungodly manner.
 
In America we still have the Liberty of laws to fight wicked agendas. There are many leaders that seek the wisdom of God. One such leader is Mat Staver utilizing the instruments of American laws to fight the people who endeavor to use American law to corrupt of the morals of American people. Below is an email from Mat Staver that uses the nonprofit organization of the Liberty Council to promote legislative lawmakers on the local, state and federal levels to work within the Constitution using the rule of law to keep America on a moral path rather than the moral depravity humanism unwittingly supports.
 
JRH 1/26/14

Please Support NCCR

***************************************
Turning the tables on Roe v. Wade
 
By Mat Staver
Sent: Jan 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM
 
Psalm 139:9 says, “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (NAS)

God, the creator of the universe, created each of us in the womb.

Liberty Counsel affirms that life begins at conception. Preborn children are in fact children, not merely fetuses, and their lives should be protected from the moment of conception.

Yet in America today, many babies are being murdered in the womb because on January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment somehow suggests a woman’s “right” to have an abortion.

My update today is a call to protect the right to life of all Americans, both those who have been born and those who have yet to be born – Mat.

 
 Without the right to life, no other right has any consequence.

Yet each day in America, with the legal covering of the body of law that is anchored in the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973, over a thousand women will choose to deny the right to life to their preborn children.
 

In our lamentably callous and morally deficient society, many will do so unceremoniously, without grief, or without even suffering a sense of loss.

According to LifeNews, in the 41 years since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion in Roe v. Wade, over 55 million abortions have destroyed the lives of unborn children.

For far too many American women, abortion has simply become a type of “birth control.”  Planned Parenthood and other aggressive pro-abortion forces have successfully reengineered many Americans’ thoughts about the taking of pre-born human lives.
 

Further, liberal “progressives” and the morally void media have demonized pro-life people and organizations, claiming pro-moral Americans are somehow waging a “war on women.”

++Turning the tables on Roe v Wade.

On January 13, 1984, President Ronald Reagan declared January 22, 1984, as “National Human Life Day.” In doing so, he issued a proclamation which read, in part:
 

“The first of the ‘unalienable rights’ affirmed by our Declaration of Independence is the right to life itself, a right the Declaration states has been endowed by our Creator on all human beings—whether young or old, weak or strong, healthy or handicapped”

We strongly agree with President Reagan’s proclamation and its role in promoting the annual March for Life each January 22.  Advancing the sanctity of human life is one of Liberty Counsel’s core missions.

Every year on January 22, in the March for Life, opponents of abortion march up Constitution Avenue to the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.  Around 250,000 people have typically attended the march until 2010. Estimates put both the 2011 and 2012 attendances at about 400,000 each, and the 2013 March for Life drew an estimated 650,000 people.

As national polls show a steadily increasing majority of Americans opposing the Roe v. Wade decision and the so-called “right” to abortion it codified, the number marching in the annual event increases.  Even following Tuesday’s snow event in the nation’s capital, there will be a massive number of concerned Americans celebrating the right to life in the 2014 March for Life.

++Liberty Counsel is a deeply committed pro-life ministry.

Life has been devalued in many societies throughout history – including, lamentably, our own. The promotion of abortion as a personal “right” is one of our nation’s greatest failings.
 

Anita and I – and our entire Liberty Counsel team – are ardently pro-life. There is no wavering in our resolve to give every child a chance to live

Our hearts also go out to the women who have made the tragic decision to abort – and who are now living with heartfelt regret for that misguided decision. 

++We are actively engaged in pro-life activities and the defense of life every day of every year.

Here are just a few of Liberty Counsel’s initiatives that advanced the sanctity of human life last year…

 
o   After filing the nation’s first private lawsuit against ObamaCare in 2010, we challenged the individual and employer mandates, became the first legal group to argue the case at a federal court of appeals, and filed two briefs before the United States Supreme Court. We reargued the case at a court of appeals in May 2013, and filed a petition with the Supreme Court, challenging ObamaCare’s employer mandate and all mandates that force employers and individuals to fund abortions.
 
o   We entered into a strategic partnership with other pro-life organizations, including Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of the TV reality show 19 Kids and Counting, to launch LifeUnited, a website that provides a wide range of resources in order to end abortion and help women and families.
 
o   We joined Personhood Mississippi in filing the Life at Conception Citizen’s Initiative, a proposed amendment to the Mississippi Constitution, which states, “The right to life begins at conception. All human beings, at every state of development, are unique, created in God’s image, and shall enjoy the inalienable right to life as persons under the law.”
 
o   We testified before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on “Mismanagement at the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice” (DOJ) regarding the DOJ’s politically motivated lawsuits against innocent pro-lifers.
 
o   We filed a lawsuit against the City of West Palm Beach, Florida, on behalf of two pro-life women who faced charges under a vague city ordinance for speaking to women outside an abortion facility.
 
o   We protected preborn children after an abortion clinic was closed in Orlando, Florida.  Liberty Counsel called on Orlando officials to investigate the clinic after representing a mother and deceased child who suffered brutal “care” at the facility.
 
o   We requested that the U.S. Senate pass the Unborn Child Protection Act, which prevents abortion twenty weeks after fertilization.
 
These examples of Liberty Counsel’s passionate commitment to advance life are just a few of the many pro-life efforts we undertook in 2013 – and are the kinds of initiatives we will aggressively undertake in our Silver Anniversary year of 2014.

John, when you stand with Liberty Counsel, you are standing for life and for the protection of the preborn! You are equipping us to fight for the restoration of those values that declare that every life has meaning and a purpose.
 

Life is NOT expendable. It is an unalienable God-given right, and Liberty Counsel will unfailingly fight for its protection!
Would you consider a special gift today that will help Liberty Counsel in our ongoing efforts to defend life and the rights of the preborn?  Every gift, no matter the size, will help us declare that life has inestimable value.

Go here now to support Liberty Counsel and advance life with a generous donation of any amount:   
 
http://www.libertyaction.org/7082/offer.asp

++ObamaCare is the biggest funding of abortion in history.

Tragically, President Obama and his signature legislation known as ObamaCare will do more to advance abortion services in our nation than any single act since Roe v Wade.

ObamaCare is an assault on human life, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience – and the federal government is requiring pro-life Americans to pay for it!

Most important, it is a vicious assault on the preborn and the taking of a life.  Please, help us in our multi-phased efforts to protect life and defeat ObamaCare with a special gift today:

 
http://www.libertyaction.org/7082/offer.asp


I am also calling for unified prayer this “Sanctity of Human Life” month and for the 2014 March for Life.  Please also pray that God will move on the hearts of our lawmakers to protect innocent human life.

God bless you,

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

P.S. Stand with Liberty Counsel today and stand for life! A donation of any amount will help fund our battles on behalf of life, liberty, and family in 2014.

Join us as we defend the defenseless!  Click here now to contribute to Liberty Counsel’s ongoing campaign to advance life:

 
 
____________________________
Fighting Moral Corruption
John R. Houk
© January 26, 2014
__________________________
Turning the tables on Roe v. Wade
 
Liberty Counsel, with offices in Florida, Virginia and Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and family.  Liberty Counsel. PO Box 540774. Orlando, FL 32854
 
About Liberty Counsel Action
 
Liberty Counsel Action represents a rich heritage of more than three decades, dating back to the 1979 founding of The Moral Majority by Dr. Jerry Falwell. In 1986, Dr. Falwell launched The Liberty Alliance to expand the outreach and continue the impact of The Moral Majority. In 2004, The Liberty Alliance was renamed to Liberty Alliance Action, and in 2010 Liberty Alliance Action was renamed Liberty Counsel Action joining in partnership with Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization founded by Mat and Anita Staver in 1989.
 
As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit “grassroots” lobbying organization, Liberty Counsel Action advances religious and civil liberties, the sanctity of human life, the family, limited and responsible government, national security, and READ THE REST

Maker Recall Notice


Rapture in the Air. I Thess 4_17

I rarely pass along chain email; however if one is amusing or hits a chord of truth I will post it on a blog. This is one of those cases.

 

JRH 4/18/13

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Maker Recall Notice

Source Chain Email

Hat Tip: Vicki

Sent: April 11, 2013

 

This is totally amazing. Be sure to read it. Talk about clever and to the point! Never heard it put quite like this before.

RECALL NOTICE:

The Maker of all human beings (GOD) is recalling all units manufactured, regardless of make or year, due to a serious defect in the primary and central component of the heart.

This is due to a malfunction in the original prototype units’ code named Adam and Eve, resulting in the reproduction of the same defect in all subsequent units.

This defect has been identified as “Subsequential Internal Non-morality,” more commonly known as S.I.N., as it is primarily expressed.

Some of the symptoms include:

1. Loss of direction

2. Foul vocal emissions

3. Amnesia of origin

4. Lack of peace and joy

5. Selfish or violent behavior

6. Depression or confusion

7. Fearfulness

8. Idolatry

9. Rebellion

The Manufacturer, who is neither liable nor at fault for this defect, is providing factory-authorized repair and service free of charge to correct this defect.

The Repair Technician, JESUS, has most generously offered to bear the entire burden of the staggering cost of these repairs. There is no additional fee required…

The number to call for repair in all areas is:

P-R-A-Y-E-R.

Once connected, please upload your burden of SIN through the REPENTANCE procedure.

Next, download ATONEMENT from the Repair Technician, Jesus, into the heart component.

No matter how big or small the SIN defect is, Jesus will replace it with:

1. Love

2. Joy

3. Peace

4. Patience

5. Kindness

6. Goodness

7. Faithfulness

8. Gentleness

9. Self-Control

Please see the operating manual, the B.I.B.L.E. (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth) for further details on the use of these fixes.

WARNING: Continuing to operate the human being unit without correction voids any manufacturer warranties, exposing the unit to dangers and problems too numerous to list, and will result in the human unit being permanently impounded. For free emergency service, call on Jesus.

DANGER: The human being units not responding to this recall action will have to be scrapped in the furnace. The SIN defect will not be permitted to enter Heaven so as to prevent contamination of that facility. Thank you for your attention!

– GOD

P.S. Please assist where possible by notifying others of this important recall notice, and you may contact the Father any time by ‘Knee mail’!

 

Because He Lives!

 

Does God Make Wicked People Just too Damn them to Hell?


(Christ) Judge

John R. Houk

© June 21, 2012

 

Here is a query from a person who has listened to the question of Christian faith’s validity or has entertained doubt them self:

 

Subject: read and let me know ASAP

 

OK Bible Scholars. It’s been awhile since I posted a question. See if you can explain this.

Proverbs 16:1 says “We can make our plans, but the final outcome is in God’s hands.” Prov. 16:9 says “In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.” Proverbs 19:21 “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails.”

[Editor: either the email was sent incomplete by the questioner or my lovely wife who forwarded this to me did not copy and paste the entire query she found on Facebook.]

 

[…] at God gives us free will. He doesn’t force His will on us; He wants us to choose to accept and serve Him.

I read tonight, but can’t find it now, where it says that God even created sinners for punishment. That seems intentionally cruel that God would create people, knowing He was doing it with the intention of purposely punishing them; as [if] though He created certain people as a “bad seed” so to speak.

Here’s my question: If He doesn’t force His will, then how do these verses make sense? These verses suggest that we choose a path, but God will determine a different one for us if it’s not His will. Or that we were created with a specific purpose, even perhaps an evil one, and no matter what we decide, He will make sure we fulfill that purpose.

Anyone want to tackle those questions?

 

So let’s begin to answer the query by looking at the New Testament rather than the Old Testament. The Old Testament relates to The Law as given through Moses for the Hebrew Tribes pointing to the coming of the Messiah that would be a better Prophet than Moses. As Christians we know that Prophet that Moses envisioned was Jesus Christ the Son of God who is the Redeemer not only of the Jews but of all who believe in the power of the Lord Jesus’ death, burial and Resurrection that redeems humanity by delivering them from the power of the dark age of Satan’s grasp; i.e. Salvation. That is the New Testament fulfilling The Law and being a better covenant and promise that brings Salvation to all humanity from the bloodline of the Jews. (Side Note: That is why the Jews are still special in the eyes of God. Salvation is of the Jews the Chosen People that were delivered by Moses who in turn bring deliverance to humanity from the slavery of Satan’s age through the Blood of Jesus.)

 

Let’s set the foundation from 1 Timothy 2: 1-6 and 2 Peter 3: 9-12.

 

1 Timothy 2:1-6 – NKJV

 

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, (Bold Italic emphasis mine)

 

2 Peter 3:9-18 –NKJV

 

9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[a] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

 

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.[b] 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

 

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

 

17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen. (Bold Italic emphasis mine)

 

Now let’s reprise the question:

 

I read tonight, but can’t find it now, where it says that God even created sinners for punishment. …

 

… If He doesn’t force His will, then how do these verses make sense? These verses suggest that we choose a path, but God will determine a different one for us if it’s not His will. Or that we were created with a specific purpose, even perhaps an evil one, and no matter what we decide, He will make sure we fulfill that purpose.

 

The Scripture that person could not recall is from the Old Testament and is probably Proverbs 16: 4 in the King James Version:

 

The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

 

I like this examination of verse 4 from GreatBibleStudy.com:

 

In the above passage, the phrase, “things for Himself” takes us back to the Hebrew word maaneh, which to answer to, or to give a reply to. What is being said in the first part of this verse is, “The Lord hath made all things to answer or give an account unto Him.” With that said, we could accurately read Proverbs 16:4 like this:

 

The LORD hath made all things to give account unto Him: yea, even the wicked, who think they are off His hook, have to give an account unto Him on the day of judgment.

 

Doesn’t that make a lot more sense? Now let’s put that verse into context with verses 2 through 5:

 

16:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.

16:3 Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established.

16:4 [The LORD hath made all things to give account unto Him: yea, even the wicked, who think they are off His hook, have to give an account unto Him on the day of judgment.] (Bold Emphasis Mine)

16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Proverbs 16:2-5

 

And there you have it! God did NOT create the wicked so that He could punish them. He created all things to give an account unto Him, even those who think they are getting away with their sins now, are going to give an account to Him on the day of judgment.

 

Typically when such a Scripture is read as a stand-alone thought, the message seems pretty straight forward. That stand-alone message is that God made all that exists and He made the wicked (i.e. sinners) for the “day of evil” which is a reference to the Last Judgment. The Judgment Day for the wicked and devoted sinners will be an evil pronouncement for them.

 

But does God actually create wicked sinners just so there are some people to give an eternal spanking?

 

No!

 

Let’s read the context of Proverbs 16: 1-6 in the New King James Version:

 

1 The preparations of the heart belong to man,
But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.

 

2 All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes,
But the Lord weighs the spirits.

 

3 Commit your works to the Lord,
And your thoughts will be established.

 

4 The Lord has made all for Himself,
Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

 

[Verse 4 GreatBibleStudy.com: The LORD hath made all things to give account unto Him: yea, even the wicked, who think they are off His hook, have to give an account unto Him on the day of judgment.]

 

5 Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord;
Though they join forces,[
a] none will go unpunished.

 

6 In mercy and truth
Atonement is provided for iniquity;
And by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil.

 

God did not make the wicked so much as a person chooses to live a wicked sinning lifestyle. I am not a Universalist so I don’t believe the wicked will someday make it to Heaven. I do believe the Blood of Jesus Redeems all who believe in Christ’s Resurrection and Lordship will be Saved even if it one’s dying breathe. AND YET, if one’s dying breathe is made out of insincere fear I also believe the wages of sin will be received for the one who believes one can fool God with a trickster lie. God knows the intentions and the state of every male and female’s heart.

 

So this is my stand to the query: “If He doesn’t force His will, then how do these verses make sense?

 

God does not force His Will. God holds one accountable according to the Redemptive Blood of Jesus or the refusal to be covered by the Blood of Jesus.

 

JRH 6/21/12

_____________________________

SlantRight Editor: My wife has informed me there is more to the person’s query as I had suspected. I am following with this post without the full status of the query of Diana’s friend.