Y No Judgment?

Having grown up in what is now called the “evangelical” community, I have been indoctrinated in the notion that America is a “blessed country” along the lines of the Israelites. Most will not say it out loud, but they really believe that America is God’s second chosen people. Evangelicals often speak in terms of God’s wrath if America continues on its course regarding homosexuality, abortion, and general “sinfulness.” If America does not repent and turn back to God, it not only will not be blessed and but will surely be doomed.

Certainly, God, along with Christianity, is a vital part of America’s history. Freedom from the tyranny of the Dutch state religion was the impetus for the Mayflower. We were subject to the Church of England under our monarchist genealogy. Our founding fathers recognized a Creator in our founding documents; although, their beliefs may be surprisingly different from those of today’s evangelical. Our Federal and State Constitutions provide for freedom of religion. Prayers have been said before public meetings throughout our history. We swear our oaths on the Bible. God is interwoven in our nation’s fabric.

But are we a “Christian” nation? I have to answer “no.” We are a nation made up of mostly Christians or those who profess to believe in the Christian God. However, the intent of the founders was to separate church and state so that we do not have a state religion. We have the freedom to worship the god of our choice. We are also free from the state’s dictating our religion. If the bulk of American’s decided to believe in the Muslim god (or any other god) the founders would sanction the use of the Koran for oaths and the praying to Allah before sporting events. It is the people’s choice, not the State’s. There has been a fine line in the courts between allowing expression of religious choice and the government’s sanctioning of that expression.

So are we as a nation doomed? I do not believe God will judge us as a nation. Yes, we have been blessed beyond measure. (Unless, you were an African taken from his home and enslaved. Or you were a Japanese-American, placed in an internment camp. Or if you were a woman considered as chattel during the first half of our existence. We are still healing from those wounds.) As a whole, we are rich. We generally have an abundance of food and shelter, and an abundance of non-necessities. We have freedoms and opportunities unlike any other country. Will we continue our blessed lives? That depends on the choices of the people and their natural consequences.

Most evangelicals point to God’s treatment of Israel throughout the Old Testament as the basis for the belief that we are on the brink of damnation. However, God set Israel apart to be His people for a specific reason. They were set apart from other nations to point the world to Him. God demonstrated his wrath when Israel turned its back on Him and began worshiping other gods or idols. This happened over and over throughout the Old Testament. The history of the Jews is the story of a people in need of a savior because without Him they could not reconciled to God. As a result of original sin, the world is separated from God and, like the Israelites, in need of redemption.

Unless the impact of the New Covenant of the Cross (see future entry on Teleoism) is appreciated, today’s Christian can only believe that we live under the same threat of discipline that the Israelites did. However, the reason Jesus Christ came to earth was to be the Savior - the only means to keep man holy and in relationship with the Father. Jesus reconciles the believer with the Father; it is a done deal. Any punishment due for sin was borne on the Cross. There is no condemnation for the believer. In addition, the New Testament does not speak in terms of nations; it speaks in terms of individuals. Paul and John and Timothy, among others, do not write letters to heads of state. They write to the churches. They do not say to them that their nation will crumble if they do not repent. Instead, they speak in terms of relationships among brothers and between individuals and their God. The final judgment in Revelation is an individual judgment. The question will be: What did you do with His son? The only sin that leads to condemnation is the rejection of Jesus Christ.

Our fear should not be that our nation will fall and be subject to fire and brimstone. It should be that our nation will be (or is) a nation of unbelievers. The natural result of true Christianity is living in harmony with others through the grace of God. It requires genuine self-denial and sacrifice, not putting oneself first. It involves actively taking care of one another, being the good Samaritan. It does not involve phrases such as “I believe that God just wants me to be happy.” If it involves hurting another, God does not want you to be happy. It will not be homosexuality or abortion that destroys this nation. If America is doomed, it is a direct result of choices that are contrary to God’s laws, that is, loving the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. Loving the Lord requires knowing Him and His character and acting in a manner consistent with that character. He designed this world to operate in a certain way, and operating contrary to that design leads to natural, negative consequences. Homosexuality, abortion, divorce, vengeance, unrighteous anger, unkindness, impatience, grudge-holding, jealousy, greed, - these are all examples of man putting himself first.

A nation of unbelievers can love their friends, but it takes the supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit to love, actively love, your enemy. A nation of unbelievers is like the nation of Israel of the Old Testament because the unbeliever does not have the savior. However, unlike Israel we are not subject to national judgment. The nation dominated by unbelievers is subject to situational ethics. It operates in a world it cannot understand because unbelievers do not see the world through the eyes of the Creator. Denying the laws of God will lead to chaos and destruction, not as punishment but as a natural consequence. Just as the law of gravity does not punish an object that falls to the earth and is destroyed, the object fell as a natural consequence of the law of gravity. The problems we are facing are not the punishment of a vengeful God, but the natural consequence of living in opposition to God’s laws, moral and physical, as he set them out at the time of creation.

Y Him?

As I write this, I am disappointed and depressed. I console myself with the knowledge and assurance that I did what I could to make a difference in this election. I am invigorated to be active in the process - today, not just every four years. So the issues with which I strongly disagree with our President-elect (and half our country) will be a priority for me. I assure you I will not be passive. And I ask those who share my disappointment to join me in not complaining or despairing but in rising up and taking action on issues that matter most. Over the next four years, let's be in the game!

On a secondary note, aside from the deep political divide that I have with our President-elect (and half our country), I cannot help but be elated for the black community. My interest in this campaign was peaked when someone who resembled me (a conservative woman, who has been treated as an idiot and marginalized by those who disagree with her conservative opinions) was in the running. I empathize with that feeling of excitement. I attended Howard University School of Law, a historically black univeristy, and felt the sting of racism as I was judged solely on the color of my skin time and again. However, I have never been a slave and am not a minority, and I do not know what that world is like. I do know that I come from a family who, by and large, feels superior to blacks (which is not the word they would use). I know what it is like to hear the discrimination from that side. Judging others as inferior because they are not white. Fortunately, I did not get that gene. I see the joy in the faces of color in the crowd and cry to know that they have a black president! I rejoice with them in that! What an unimaginable thing.

So, take heart and know that God instituted this government and he has a part for you to play in it in your daily life. Ask Him what it is.

Y Six Days?

There is much debate regarding the age of the earth. Some have concluded the earth is millions of years old based on fossils, science, and other physical records. Some conclude the earth is thousands of years old based on a Biblical time line, fossils, science, and other physical records. Evolutionists tout the theory that man developed from a single cell organism over processes of change over millions of years. Biblical scholars debate whether one day in Genesis was a literal day. Some believe that the day was not a literal day given that one day to God is like a thousand days to man. The debate rages on. Old earth; new earth; evolution.

God is alive and is the Creator of the universe. He is active in His Creation even to this day. The days in Genesis are literal twenty-four hours days, for this was the creation of time and days. The old earth, the new earth, and maybe even evolution in its pure sense, which is change over time, may be reconciled without conflict according to the Point in Time theory.

The basis of the Point in Time theory is the creation of man. When God made Adam, He took some dirt from the ground and created a man. The process was not like the aging of Kal el in the Superman movie, where Kal el starts out as a baby and quickly grows into a man. When God made Adam, he created an adult male who had never been a baby or an adolescent. He started as and was a man.

If our scientists arrived in the Garden of Eden just after Adam had been created, God would say, “Today, is the sixth day. This is the Creation I made today.” The debate would have begun. The atheistic scientists would deny God’s existence and the fact that God had created Adam. Instead, they would look at Adam, himself, and examine him. After studying him under the most rigorous testing, they would declare, “This man is 26-years-old.” His cells were 26-years-old cells. His size was that of a twenty-six year old. The evidence of aging was that of a 26-year-year old; he may have the formation of wrinkles, a touch of a receding hairline, the beginnings of receding gums, etc. The “fossil” record supported the conclusion that the man was 26-years-old. Based on the evidence, it would take 26 years to get an Adam in the state that he was in on the sixth day. His physical body supports the theory that Adam was 26-years-old on the sixth day of creation.

The old earth scientist would look at the same evidence and come to the same conclusion that Adam is 26-years-old. However, they would say, God created man on the sixth day, and it took Him 26-years to do so. From this they would conclude that the sixth day was not one literal day, it must be at least a 26-year-long day.

Finally, our young earth scientists would say. God said it took today, a literal day, to make this man. From the evidence we see, this man has been living for one day. Looking at Adam’s body, they could see evidence of the day’s life. Dirt under his fingernails, fresh scratches, and other evidence of the day’s activities. They would concluded that Adam was one-day-old.

When God made Adam, he made a man at whatever physical age he was, and science would bear out that he was that age. The same reasoning can be applied to the age of the earth. When God created the earth, He created what would appear to be a millions of years old earth because that is how long it would take for it to form over time according to the natural processes that He created. The earth bears evidence today of continual changes occurring - Erosion, Earthquakes, Floods- in the Creation God made. Because the earth that God created was a fully formed earth, the evidentiary record should contain evidence that supports an age of millions of years. There should be evidence that the mountains were once part of an ocean floor; there should be striations in the earth’s surface; there should be a fossil record dating to millions of years. That is how God made it. God did not need time, he just needed to speak. Examining the earth should lead to the conclusion that the earth is millions of years old. It is evidence of His creation and His authority over it.

God created the earth in two days (Days two and three). This point in time is the earth’s birthday, so to speak. As a result, the evidentiary record should contain evidence of a new earth. Fossils dating from the time of the Garden and beyond. Evidence of changes over time. Chemical and physical evidence that the earth has only been in existence for a short period of time - because it has. Thousands of years? - probably.

Therefore, evidence that the earth is old and evidence that the earth is young do not conflict. It is a matter of perspective. Is the questioner trying to determine how long the earth has been in existence or how long it took to form? There is a point in time, the beginning of time, where the two questions meet and do not conflict. However, if one does not believe in God the time-line is continuous. There is no point of demarcation for an atheist or one who does not believe that God created the earth. The time it took to form the earth and the age of man merge into one time-line. However, when the Creator is recognized the issue is clear. God made the earth on days two (heaven and earth) and three (seas and land) and it has been existence since then. The earth that God created would take millions of years to form, but he spoke it into existence in six literal days, from start to finish, including stars, moons, creatures of the seas, creatures of the land, and man. This millions of years old earth was formed on the literal days of creation and has been in existence for thousands of years since that point in time, from the time of Adam to today, throughout the period of the history of man.

Y Palin?

I do not believe in big government. I believe the Federal government has morphed into something the founders did not intend. I believe it should shrink rather than grow. I believe that we should be paying a lot less taxes, not more. I believe agencies should be cut and states should have more authority. I do not believe in most entitlement programs; I believe citizens should be given more incentives to give to and care for those in need. I do not believe in the federal education standards. I certainly do not believe in federally mandated full-day kindergarten or Federal involvement in early childhood education. (I do not support No Child Left Behind.) I believe in giving tax breaks to small businesses and big business. I believe that working hard to become successful should be rewarded and incentives given to “give back.” I believe in trickle-down economics. Without those risking to create business, none of us would have a job (except those employed by one of our governmental institutions). I am a social conservative. (As an aside, I believe evolution is statistically impracticable.) I believe in cutting through the crap!

Given this statement, I believe that Sarah Palin lines up pretty well with what I am looking for. She is a strong woman. I believe she is intelligent and her record supports my belief that she will cut through the crap of the white male establishment (she has a history of doing this - making people angry in her wake) and will seek to shrink the federal government. I think she can achieve what she sets her mind to. (And I think that is what really scares the liberals.) And I believe her agenda is best for this country because it is what I think is best for this country. And she, not her parents, are middle class and have dealt with real economic issues in raising a family. None of the other three candidates meet this criteria.

I would certainly vote for Palin first. Obama is certainly not an option, and McCain is not ideal. But that’s what we have. Both voted for the bailout, and that is a strike against both.

I must add that I support her in part because she is a woman. Although I do not agree with Hillary Clinton on the issues, I was leaning towards her in this election because I think it is time. But I am psyched that a woman who is in line with my views is on the ticket. As the girls can sing: I am strong; I am invincible; I am woman! I want my girls to know that they can have conservative values and matter. They can do anything! That is why we talk about Palin a lot around here. Ground has been broken, whether Obama or McCain wins.

Y Life?

Life is continuous. It began with Adam and Eve and continues through each person throughout history until the end of time. Life does not begin at conception. Life is. A male sperm cell is alive until it dies of natural causes or is killed. The same is true for a female egg cell. Each cell is life. When the sperm cell fertilizes the egg, a new, separate life begins. At no time is there no life. A nonliving cell cannot create a living organism.

The sperm cell is part of the personhood of the male whose body produced it. It has potential to become another person, but until fertilization, it remains a live cell of the male, even when separated from the male through sexual functions. Likewise, the female egg remains part of the female’s personhood until fertilization, at which time its potential to become a new, separate life is realized. Both the male and the female have equal legal and moral rights to the reproductive cells their bodies produce. However, what happens to those cells and to those rights after conception ?

The abortion debate is inaccurately couched in terms of “when does life begin?” When in fact, the question is: When does personhood begin? Once the sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell, is the new cell, the zygote, a person with rights? That is the real question.

The zygote is an independent creature separate and distinct from the two persons whose cells resulted in fertilization. It can no longer be said to be the male’s cell nor the female’s cell. It is both and neither at the same time. Just as you and I bear the likeness of our parents, yet we are each distinct individuals. The cells that multiply and divide are all of one independent, organism. They do not at some point divide into something else. At the beginning, at conception, the zygote has the same cellular information that it will have when it is 90 years old. Other than developing into maturity, the new and distinct life is complete at conception. Nothing further needs to be added other than external factors that give life. Just as an infant, a child, an adolescent, and an adult need food, water, and protection from the elements to continue producing the cells necessary for sustaining its life, the zygote needs food, water and protection to continue producing the cells necessary for sustaining life. Only the external deprivation of any of these elements will cause the death of the individual, whether 1 day past conception, 365 days past conception, or 30 years past conception. Because the nature of the organism is to breath, eat, and grow, it is entitled to the right to breath, eat, and grow into maturity.

Therefore, personhood, and all the rights pertaining to personhood, begins at conception. The zygote has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as do all Americans. This right should not be subjugated to the choice of the female because she subjectively does not believe the zygote is alive. The zygote objectively is alive and its rights of personhood should not rest on any other person’s subjective decision.