Walk in the Spirit

How do we "WALK IN THE SPIRIT" ?

This a great question, Michael. It is not from the familiar mold.

The fundamental approach I take to a question like this is to look to Jesus. He walked in the Spirit and as He walked in the so too are we.

Two passages come to mind: Romans 8 & Hebrews 2 and two key words: "after" and "bringing," respectively.

Please understand I refer to these words in their respective contexts merely to highlight WHAT those who walk in the Spirit can expect and HOW it will manifest itself in them. This is no great mystery, especially, or simply, because it is what is said of Jesus.

Those children of God who walk AFTER, (Romans 8:4) in other words according, to the Spirit are being led by him. What the Spirit is doing in leading us forward is the same as Jesus accomplished by BRINGING (Hebrews 2:10) many children to glory.

What was it that was evident and manifested clearly in the Jesus who walked in the Spirit? This is the message of Hebrews 2.

Those children of God who walk AFTER the Spirit are themselves being led, but they also BRINGING many children to glory. Like Jesus they too:

1) will suffer,

2) will learn,

3) will obey the guidance and call of the Spirit. This is not a spiritual badge or a feather in the disciple's cap as to show and tell, but through what they suffer, learn and obey they make known Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Get this. I love it because it is an enlightenment to so much of the flat platitudes the saints are fed from teachers and preachers about Jesus being perfect.

The goal of the Spirit leading those who walk in the Spirit is to MAKE them perfect in the SAME MANNER as Jesus was MADE PERFECT through what he suffered, learned and obeyed.

Read More

Application principals on same-sex benefits from a parable

Recently, the debate as to whether same-sex couples should receive the same benefits from an employer as husband and wife marriages has emerged, again. This time it revolved around a school district as the employer in Texas.

I believe it is important I state my personal convictions in order to minimize misunderstandings and speculations. The sanctity of the marriage between a man and a woman was ordained by God since the beginning in the garden of Eden.

The protest by my brothers and sisters of the faith that is in Jesus against the school district decision to extend its regular benefits to same-sex relationships/marriages is misplaced. The claim that to extend such benefits to homosexuals is to condone homosexuality and therefore ought not to be allowed or permitted by the saints in Christ is also misplaced. Christians profess these protests and claims are their own efforts to uphold the commandment and authority of the scriptures. However, this too is misplaced.

the principal involving the generosity of the generous

Jesus taught three principals in the parable in Matthew 20:1-16.

1) Do not begrudge one who gives willingly and generously,
2) Do not overlook what you have have received, and
3) Do not fall into resentment when others receive the same as you have received.

Jesus related a parable in Matthew 20. It is a parable of a vineyard owner who hires laborers at various times during the course of the day. It is a parable about human resentment and envy.

When the owner instructed his manager at the end of the day to pay the laborers, those who worked the longest assumed and expected they would be paid more. They saw the manager pay those who arrived late and labored only a portion of the day; a full day’s wages. It was when he paid those who worked the whole day the same full day’s wages that they were filled with resentment.

the first principal

Whether the employer were a secular one, such as a school district, or a Christian individual, - what is it to those filled with resentment if those employers choose to share (the first principal) equally their employee benefits with all who work in their employ? I anticipate this response: Those laborers were not homosexual sinners, but this is presumptuous and without any basis because nothing is stated in the parable as to their character. Jesus would not support homosexuality, but this response, too, overlooks the fact that Jesus, like our Heavenly Father, never withheld his goodness and blessings from anyone whether it was a sinful woman or Judas who was to betray him.

And, if we were really to press the application of these responses to Jesus we would indict Jesus for supporting slothfulness. Really, Jesus. Who in their right mind would pay a worker a full day’s wages for laboring the last hour of the work day, only? Whether one searches for slothfulness or homosexuality in the parable to justify exclusions to deny any goodwill from an employer, it is a misguided search. The point of the parable, as explained by Jesus, is about the kingdom of heaven and how the vineyard owner (God) is good. It is not about the moral character of the laborers. God bestows his blessings similarly  on those who have walked in the Lord for thirty years, three days or three hours.

Jesus noted the preeminence of marriage in his discussion with the Sadducees. (Mark 12) They pressed Jesus to evoke from him a selective moral judgment in a scenario involving a woman who had been married multiple times. (Interestingly, the moral judgment which the Sadducees tried to evoke from Jesus was because to their own unbelief and efforts to debunk and dismiss the resurrection which is the ultimate judgment on sin.) Jesus, in addition to answering them about their ignorance,

Isn’t this because you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God?

and

You are therefore badly mistaken.

reminded these adversaries of the origin and beginning of that marriage relationship in the garden of Eden as being between a man and a woman.

What Christians are pressing for through their protest is to evoke a moral judgment against same-sex marriages or homosexuals receiving the same benefits as all other employees. However, the truth is resorting to cultural and legislation measures to accomplish a moral moral change objective does not equate to the righteousness of God. Also, it does not reflect the spirit of those who seek to do the will of God. The dependency by disciples of Jesus on employers or government to legislate selective morality as a means of denying or depriving people of benefits is no substitute for, and has no part with the gospel message of the love of God.

the second and third principal

Whether the laborers in the parable were sinful men or otherwise worked eleven or one hour; they were all the vineyard owner’s employees. It was his decision alone and no one else’s as to how much he paid them without being selective or inquiring as to their moral status so as to justify what he would pay each one. Whether the school district’s decision holds up in court is one matter. The other matter is that employees who have received their benefits from the school district lose nothing, except maybe their thankfulness, (the second principal) if homosexuals receive the same benefits. (the third principal)

indictment or vindication

The claims by my fellow saints in Christ that our protest is based on the scriptures has a ring of truth, but the fact that it is misplaced reveals missed opportunities. As much as the scriptures do condemn homosexuality same-sex relationships are an indictment unto themselves and this is overlooked by Christians as much as homosexuals.

Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are showcase display attempts at unity between two people. Either through the difference of heterosexuals or the sameness of homosexuals they are both affected by the mystery of unity. This is true of the witting and unwitting regardless whether or not they know or acknowledge God as the Divine Creator. This unity and oneness of God is prevalent. It is what is desired and delights all human relationships even when the moral makeup of those relationships represents a rejection of God and his will.

Yet, a union with a gender other than one's opposite is like a battery with two positive or two negative terminals. Such a thing cannot be made and still function as a battery even if it is called a battery.

Biologically, a behavioral homosexual can no more be produced by two homosexuals any more than biologically a physiological woman/man can be produced by two women or two men together.

Hence, morality, gay(ness) and faith aside, homosexuality for all its claims of loving and embracing diversity is an indictment unto itself, biologically.

However, there’s no less indictment for the assembly of the saints if we were to turn away a sinner whose attitude, behavior or otherwise a disdain for righteousness is evident. What is equally evident is that God is in the midst of the believers: Would that sinner be convicted in your assembly as the apostle Paul described what happens when a nonbeliever walks into the midst of the assembly of the saints and thereby vindicate the saints in Christ?

If therefore the whole assembly is assembled together and all speak with other languages, and unlearned or unbelieving people come in, won’t they say that you are crazy? 24 But if all prophesy, and someone unbelieving or unlearned comes in, he is reproved by all, and he is judged by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed. So he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you indeed.
2nd Corinthians 14:23-25

Conclusion

The claims by saints in Christ, allegedly on the basis of scripture, against homosexuals being extended the same benefits by a school district employer as to non homosexuals (or non declared homosexuals) is misplaced. Jesus taught three principals in the parable of Matthew 20. They are: 1) Do not begrudge one who gives willingly and generously, 2) Do not overlook what you have received, and 3) Do not fall into resentment when others receive the same as you have received. The resentment of those vineyard laborers to single out the vineyard owner as the target of the their own resentment was misplaced. The problem in their heart was not healed, but only fed by their resentment.

It is disciples who are to go into the world and do the work of proclaiming the love of God and the message of the gospel of Jesus. This does not involve the task of denying nonbelievers benefits to create the appearance of doing the will of God. It is not pressure tactics on employers or other governmental entities on a personal quest for a feel-good or otherwise smug sense of righteousness which is not righteousness.

The gospel message is not proportioned relative to the sin we might happen, or think, we are able to see or to discern in the lives of those to whom we are led by the Holy Spirit. It is a message for sinners without regard as to whether we see or discern their sin of drunkenness, homosexuality or thievery. If we understood and embraced the grace and love of God we would have no problem with this because we are reminded that ALL (that would include the squeaky clean) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

Read More

Purity

 

This is a brief comment on the article on virginity.

I wonder if the volley of criticism against sexual purity is misguided as the well-intended, -WHAT?  evangelical sex culture?!?!?! Then again, it may  be more an indication of a person’s memory, self-confidence and understanding.

Certainly, the memory of one’s past can haunt one in the present to cause a serious weakening of their self-confidence. However, those who have drawn near to God by putting their trust in Jesus have not only understood and rejoiced in the gift of new life in Christ, but have ceased to be haunted by the memory of their past.  They are no longer enslaved to it. Their confidence is foremost, not on self, but in Jesus as Lord and Savior and their determination to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their daily lives.

Please note, this is not a erasure, as some foolishly believe, of their memory. It remains with them as a constant reminder of where they once were and from where the came when they committed their lives to Jesus.

As much as the saints are called to live in purity and to love what is pure, there is nothing uplifting  about purity, or virginity, by ever more striving for the gutter low, shock-jock tactics that disgust. The preacher whose idea of having all attendees fill a cup with their spit and then asking if anyone would like to drink it makes him a cause for pause as to his love for the purity he professes. His message to shame a sinner as damaged goods was:

“This is what you are like if you have sex before marriage,” he said seriously, 
“you are asking your future husband or wife to drink this cup.”

It is as warped and asinine about purity by one who professes to be a teacher of Israel as it is about his understanding of grace and forgiveness in Jesus.

those whom Jesus never met

Someone once said Jesus never met a prostitute. I wondered if they had read the scriptures. Then, I reflected and understood their point. Jesus never met a prostitute, a drunkard, a leper or a thief. He met sinners. They are the ones whom he came to see, to meet and to eat with and lift up their faces to behold, rejoice and receive his love.

two sinners

Some years ago a man visited the assembly of the saints where I was ministering at the time. It was not long before I discerned he was a brother in Christ. Soon his wife joined him in his fellowship with the saints. Shortly afterwards they invited me to visit their home.

It was  then that he informed me they were not married. They also asked if I would consent to perform their marriage. I consented. They agreed and accepted to go through some counseling sessions with me. During the counseling I advised with great emphasis it was not a command, a condition or an order from me that they would do well to abstain from any sexual intercourse until after their wedding. They excitedly and eagerly expressed their total agreement and stated they had already mutually agreed to abstain from sex some time prior to our sessions. I told them in numerous and various ways throughout those sessions that God would bless their marriage.

The day of the wedding arrived. I presided at the solemn ceremony. The bride and groom were happy and the saints in Christ rejoiced with them. It was customary for me to do a follow-up counseling session six months after the wedding.

It was about two months after the wedding that they invited me over to their home. They wanted to talk with me. As soon as I arrived she quickly revealed they had not had sex since weeks before their wedding. She said they had been unable to have great sex as before let alone any sex. They were frustrated. She blamed me. I should say, as a testimony of their love towards me, that this was a friendly, cordial visit. There were no rants or outbursts.

a gift from God

I was stupefied. I sat silent for a what must have seemed an eternity. Then I reminded them of what I had told them. Their mouths dropped open in speechless silence.

I said, What did I tell you about how God would bless you? You have honored God and He has blessed you. You longed and eagerly desired to unite your bodies in sexual bliss just as you said you used to do. This was your own carnal mind thinking it could just move into your new marriage life as husband and wife with your old ways. You thought you knew each other’s bodies and desires and you would resume where you left off.

However, God has blessed you beyond your wildest imagination with a gift neither of you expected. It was God who brought you together on your wedding night in your wedding bed as two virgins. You were as uncomfortable, clumsy and excited as two virgins could be on seeing each other for the first time, and  - - - you did not see and rejoice in this beautifully, wonderful, pure gift of love God has given you!

the gift of God

Jesus saw what many, like us, do not see. People then, like today, saw Zacchaeus as a corrupt tax collector. When I ask children, and adults, why did Zacchaeus see Jesus they (adults, especially) reply with wonder at the obvious that he saw Jesus because he climbed up on a sycamore tree. Really? Or, did Zacchaeus see Jesus as a fulfillment of prophecy? Could it be that as was the meaning of his name, “pure”,” so too was Zacchaeus in heart? Jesus said:

Blessed are the pure in heart,

for they shall see God.

So too, are those blessed who have been made pure by the blood of the Lamb of God. Though you may remember the sins of your past, understand you have been freed from it. Rejoice in the confidence of life in Jesus and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the gift of God.

Now, rejoice in the gift God has given you.

Read More

Searching for the Baby in the Bathwater --- a partial response

There are many and familiar questions raised by Libby Anne in this article. I will not presume to answer all those questions, but I will take up her cue on one of the "more troubling questions" in this article: why did God have to have his son murdered? I have no need to blast or malign her. Her struggles are not unique and quite common among the saints in Christ, and while they may not all survive they can all be raised up yet again. Rather, it is because the particular question concerning the death of Jesus on which I want to focus is as paramount as church, trinity, (a term for which I have no need or use) Bible and God and the status of absurd these take on with the erosion of faith and conviction.

At the risk of repelling the reader I find Anne's not-too-keen conclusion that "Christianity (a term for which I have no personal use, but will accept her use of it) was built on the foundation of actual literal (emphasis, gt) human sacrifice" a great insight of truth.

The parallelism between God and herself on forgiveness is priceless. She wonders why/how God could forgive people through the death of his son. After all, she can forgive people without the need to have something murdered. This, on the sole weight of her words, is true. However, what she overlooks is the need for her to DO something for, because or towards the one she forgives. This could be something she DOES, even if she never saw the person again, as passive as a change of attitude because she has forgiven. Outwardly, it might involve telling the person directly of the forgiveness she has extended to that person. The point is her forgiveness involved DOING something.

God did nothing different than Libby Anne. He also forgave, and, like her, he DID something beyond that forgiveness. Certainly, Jesus himself asked the Father to forgive those whose actions in the moment had resulted in his crucifixion. I will come to what Jesus DID following that forgiveness, later.

Imagine the blandness of a forgiveness without words or actions. If this is true of humans it would be totally appalling, and, rightfully unacceptable without the shedding of blood, if God forgave without words or actions? Even then, what if God merely THOUGHT to forgive the sins of man, but SAID nothing audible for human ears? And had God only SPOKEN through a colossal, universe size megaphone, "I FORGIVE YOU" for the hearing of all man how long before succeeding generations doubted and rejected the veracity of the testimony of their ancestors about the voice they claimed to have heard from the sky?

Here is the great STOP sign which will declare an end to all thought, actions, plans, good and bad deeds since the birth of the individual:death.

This is why God HAD to have his Son murdered, because anything less is as bland as forgiveness with words, without words or without actions. It would be just so many lovely, wonderful words or things done not unlike any other individual, and while the resurrection in itself does not make Jesus God incarnate it poses a matter for all to examine and judge. What is that matter to examine and judge? It is the fact that Jesus declared openly and unabashedly in the presence of friends and foes alike he would lay down his life and then took it up again.

As words go it is plausible SOMEONE in the history of the world may have uttered such a claim while they were alive, but who is that individual? Where is the testimony and record of his words as taken up by his followers? Jesus not only declared these things, but when these things were fulfilled after the resurrection there was no denial by his foes. Instead, they schemed to secure their positions of power and prestige.

None of this makes any sense to Libby Anne, nonbelievers and even some saints in Christ. She is right it is not to be accepted on faith; the default answer given by too many teachers and preachers to brothers and sisters, instead of the dialog of learning, when saints are caught up in the struggles of doubt. The stark, repelling reality is that death, human sacrifice, as Anne rightly describes it, is far more impressionable without the vague, obscure muddle served up on church, trinity, Bible and God.

Just as every human being experienced a birth they cannot remember but about which they have been told regarding time, place and parents; every human has a death before them regardless of their beliefs on church, etc. Death is the inescapable necessary reality every human being faces and it was necessary that the Creator and Giver of life, even while not being recognized as such, come into his own creation and declare then demonstrate that death is nothing to him; it is in the palm of his hand. This is the reason, Jesus, the incarnate God and by all outward appearances a human being, sacrificed himself willingly to accomplish his purpose: to draw all mankind to belief in Him.

Read More

Out-gunning the un-gunned

(note: This article was published in January 2013 and alludes to the aftermath of Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in December 14, 2012.)

I have never owned a gun, I do not presently own one and have no desire or need to own a gun. I have no problem with my neighbor who may have multiple guns, rifles or semi-automatic guns. As a disciple of Jesus it is neither a source of trouble nor an issue for me to hear saints in Christ voice their zeal and fervor to stake a right as Americans to own and use a gun. I understand and accept the constitutional right not only to own a gun as well as to use it on a mad dog, on the hunt, against an intruder into one's home, or as our Founding Fathers warned, when government ceases to be a servant of the people and presumes to rise up against its own.

What I do take issue is the gun control rants in the aftermath of every mass shooting. Worse than the rants are the disingenuous politicians and media Piers Morgans and Alex Joneses who run with it with no more desire to find a solution to the problem than to enhance their chances of re-election or buildup their egos and ratings. True enough, gun rights are no better expressed as rants and slogans than the sound bites of some saints in Christ on the convictions of their faith.

Government is not an anomaly. It is made up of American citizens. Really? A government with the authority given to it by the people and which it has been unable (or unwilling) to handle and solve the problem of violence presumes to effectively solve the problem by disarming its citizens? Government is a minister of God. The power and authority it has failed to exert on the lawless it aimlessly seeks to exert on the law abiding. As mindless as is a mass shooting so too is the notion of a policy that disarmed citizens in, Chicago for example, would be well protected by a government which has done no more for this inner city than its international southern border.

The solution is no more a gun than it was a sword when Jesus was arrested. Peter, who drew his sword in defense of Jesus, experienced a real and painful realization, namely, that for all his bravado about being ready to die for Jesus, - the fear of death compelled Peter to resort to the sword. Clearly, the response solution impressed by Jesus on Peter and for all who would surrender their lives to Jesus as Lord and Savior is one no more forced on believers than nonbelievers. It took Peter, like many other disciples, to grow in his conviction to willfully give up his life for Jesus. (This insight on Peter's death came to him from Jesus himself. [John 21:19]) Those who live without the sword are as prepared to face death as are those who live by the sword. I do not live by the sword, but I can understand the man who won't live without it and who won't die with it. I am not troubled by his/her decision anymore than I am about the appropriation of these words of Jesus:

Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

However, the truth is that while these words have been commonly adopted by various armed personnel the two are not to be mistaken as being equal. When Jesus laid down his life as a demonstration of that greater love he did so without first taking someone else's life.

The clear stance of the National Rifle Association as delivered by executive vice president Wayne LePierre has no political angle and no eloquence, but is founded on the authority of the constitution.

Lastly, I remember then Senator Obama's series on YouTube when he wondered out loud just about what brand of Christianity an imaginary Christians-only nation would follow. He wondered if it would be according to the Torah, James Dobson, Al Sharpton or the Sermon on the Mount which Jesus preached. (Matthew 5 - 7) Thereby, President Obama acknowledged the value, importance and role of authority, and, while the scriptures are not the source of authority in question on the matter of gun control and disarming citizens it is the constitution that is the authority to be heeded. It does not take a lawyer or the President of the United States to know and to understand that basic tenet of American democracy. Law is not for the law abiding, but for the lawless and all who will not submit themselves to order. Government, which rightly professes authority, is just as accountable and is to be held accountable to that authority by the people. Here's the grotesqueness of disarming people. It is when a simple hand gun becomes no less than an assault weapon (pardon the media misinformation with my use of that term) to out-gun and inflict unbridled terror on the un-gunned.

Read More

Human sacrifice at Moriah and Egypt

an ancient sacrifice in the Torah

(This is a brief examination of two ancient biblical events in history for the purpose of gaining understanding. It is NOT an advocacy for such a practice involving human sacrifice by anyone today, but it is look at human sacrifice, by God himself, in a way Israel never understood and rejected. gt)

Recently, I found myself reading various articles (see links at end of article) by both Jews and Christians on a particular Jewish perspective. The perspectives in these articles were drawn on as much on the Torah as from the New Testament. (NT) I am not one to take offense at slights and accusations on the faith that is in Christ Jesus as it sometimes seems in the Torah on these matters. Notably, some appear, at least to this Christian, as a reconstructive, retroactive interpretation with no other objective than to resist and counter the message of the sacrifice of Jesus as recorded by the NT writers. This objective from Jews is understandable as we will see later.

The purpose of this brief article is to bring a focus to bear on the death, or sacrifice, of Egypt’s firstborn as the tenth and final plague which God brought on Pharaoh.

Read More

Our Responsibility as a Society

My prayers and condolences go out for those mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who have suffered a great loss in their families in America, today. Even as they grieve there is no reason why others of us can not, yet again, speak to this evil that ensnares itself on our society only to rear its ugliest at any season.

I

I do not own a gun, but I do not have a problem with anyone owning a gun, guns, rifles including assault rifles. I have no need for any of these things. No need to paint a scenario as to what I would do if the picture were painted in different shades. I know the Lord, my God. I can understand and have no problem with someone exercising their pre-determined judgment either to shoot or to kill anyone who assaults them or intrudes into their home.

I also understand the American constitutional right, not only to own guns, but to use them. The problem is neither gun control, guns, the type of gun nor the mental state of one who has grossly abused the right to own and use a gun.

We

The problem is our sense of responsibility as individuals and a society. Only in some rare instances has a murderous assault on society been averted by those middle and high school children who would not be silenced by the social stigma of telling on another. When they, like others, heard one of their own utter his intentions to come back with a gun they did the responsible thing and spoke up. Their immediate response to the problem was neither to ignore the individual nor to ask the individual to stop talking that way, but to go to adults in positions of responsibility who, wisely and prudently enough, acted accordingly. Our society pressures its own to keep silent and never tell what is spoken or happens behind closed doors, that is, unless you're a baby or you are not a man. Our society regularly learns of acts long kept secret because the exposure would mean a blow to individuals or organizations deemed more worthy than the victims. No wonder the children and adults alike will often keep silent when they ought to speak up.

Gun owners' talk

Gun owners know their duty to be responsible with their guns. They do not wander about shooting them off as they please. Here is where adults, both gun owners and non owners, have yet to understand and live responsibly, not with guns, but with their tongues. Even the (so called) dialog and statements in the aftermath of the latest atrocity the chorus heard is the exchange of one-liner assertions of what is NOT the problem instead of a probing for the problem and the solution.

There is a sporting talk heard as much on social media on the use of one's gun as it is heard aloud in many other settings. This is as common from professing Christians as non Christians. It is the blood lust thirst for the foolish intruder on whom to gladly and eagerly unload a gun. It's a common scenario painted too often to assert one's right to self-defense and ready willingness to, in the popular vernacular, - blow someone away. This bravado is often accompanied complete, as if we did not know, with a photo or illustration of a weapon.

Acting and talking responsibly

Like I said, I have no problem, I understand and accept the individual's right and use of his/her gun, but by what stretch of our collective social mind is it acceptable to ignore with total silence when that same individual shoots off his mouth irresponsibly about using that gun as his answer to a problem?

And, if we are to hold the bar up to a higher standard than comparing ourselves with one whose mental state is questionable, by what stretch of a responsible mind does anyone feel their mental soundness ought not be suspect if they think this is the stuff, that is, "blowing him away," for coffee table talk and posting on Facebook?

Politicians and gun control

I do not support or advocate gun control. I would advocate and would support legislation which would result in the permanent confiscation and revocation of future gun ownership when two or more witnesses can attest they have heard him/her shoot off their mouth about shooting off their gun. The ONLY way this can work is NOT through government, but through private citizens, responsible individual children and adults, who have a tongue to speak and understand and exercise a true sense of responsibility regardless whether or not they own a gun. If a gun owner can not distinguish between confiscation in this manner to support it and generic, across the board gun control which he can oppose; I would have cause to wonder.

I wonder how many of you, along with friends, would call to responsible accountability one of those friends when he is heard to shoot off his mouth about the use of his gun? Before gun control comes tongue control. Don't shoot off your mouth regardless whether or not you own a gun. Be just as eager and ready to speak up as you might be to use a gun. This basic message on tongue control by the apostle James is for the saints in Christ. However, let everyone judge for themselves and discern if it is not true that one who will not control his tongue so as to shoot off his would just as soon should his gun.

I would vote against the politicians' legislation which blindly and broadly attempts to deny gun ownership or similarly confiscate guns from citizens as their idea of a solution to the problem involving violence with guns.

Jesus: He laid down his life

Lastly, here's something I can say without threat to anyone or fear of anyone because I am responsible and accountable to God: Jesus came and did as He said He would do. He laid done his life, because no one can take it from him, (John 10:18) in order that you might have life and have it abundantly. (John 10:10) When not only his fingers but his whole body were stiff cold, he arose to triumph over death and its grip of fear. He is Lord only over those who have committed their lives to him as Lord and Savior. I understand and accept, as I learn from Jesus, the thought of laying down one's life is not something most individuals are prepared to do because the specter is frightening. Do you believe? Do you trust?

Peace to all.

Read More