Index

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Gold Teeth Charlatans

When I first heard of this sham about 30 years ago, I was left speechless that anyone would believe such nonsense. Apparently these charlatans are still active today, preying on those whose knowledge of scripture is minimal at best. I am speaking of the so-called miracle of instant gold teeth.

As you can see by this list, this deception is still alive and well. On one video that I watched, I read the comments section. Some proponents were using the reasoning that “God can do anything” to explain this sham. My reply was something along the line: It is true that God can do anything. So why wouldn’t he restore the teeth to their natural state? When Jesus worked healings, he didn’t miraculously provide prosthetics, he restore health to its natural state. Eyesight was returned to natural eyesight, not miracle contacts, not bionic eyes; limbs were restored to natural function, not manmade prosthetics; hearing was restored to natural state, not a miraculous hearing aid. God has NEVER used anything less than restoration to natural state. So this is nothing more than sham. It is not from God.

I do need to make one clarification on my statement that “It is true that God can do anything.” While God CAN do anything he sets his mind to, study of scripture makes it plain that at times “CAN DO” and “WILL DO” are two different things. God “can” stop babies from dying. God “can” stop senseless deaths. God “can” restore many losses. But yet, babies and children still die, innocent people still die, and many heartbreaking things still happen on earth. Why doesn’t God step in? There are scriptural reasons. There will be a time when all these devastating situations will be reversed, but it is not by the efforts of charlatans. It will be God’s direct intervention.

Friday, December 23, 2016

The Reluctant Prodigal Son

The story of the prodigal son is certainly a heartwarming one of a son determined to return to his family even if he only was allowed to be a slave, and about father that would have nothing less than his son fully restored as a family member. But what other scenarios could have played out in the son’s mind and heart? Consider:

After feeling profound remorse, a young man determinedly heads home. His family sorely missed him. But once he got there, he stayed outside. Food was given him and he was grateful. But despite all the encouragement to come into the home, he wouldn't.

The family wondered if the son just felt too unworthy. If so, they yearned to assure him as a repentant family member, they really want him back. Or maybe the dear son felt he has to be perfect before his Father could accept him. The Father himself certainly does not feel that way. (Isaiah 44:22; 48:18) Another feeling might be that he wants to work out issues before coming back. But how much better it would be to let the family encourage his progressive improvements. Remaining outside won't promote any good. The son remains cold; the parents don’t have their son truly back; the family continues to miss the young man. The only one that is happy about the situation is the crotchety old man down the street that hates all his neighbors and gleefully taunts the young man: “Go ahead you fool, stay out in the cold. I hope you die there!”

Then again, perhaps the son was worried he'd “blow it big time" again and that was something he didn't want to face. Not just because of his own emotions, but he really didn't want to disappoint the family. In that case, he just needs to recall that we all sin and fall short repeatedly. Prov. 24:16; Romans 3:23. Yes, it is embarrassing to fall, but it is the mark of an adult when we stand up again, accepting that we have fallen, learn from it, and move on.

If I could reach out to that young man, I'd beg to tell him: Remaining outside in the dark, cold and rain is senseless. Come into the house. Then you can receive the encouragement of the whole family in your efforts to live an honorable life. We all need each other. “Going it alone" is exhausting and discouraging.




Thursday, December 22, 2016

Misogyny Not Promoted in Bible

With the disgusting boastings of a candidate that purportedly promoted misogynic ideology (debated by supporters), it dawned on me that some people feel even the Bible promotes such an attitude. (The term misogyny and its conjugations have been loosely applied to negative perception of woman. The word itself defines “hatred of woman” and does not address objectifying them or other such things.) While this charge against the Bible is based on ignorant and misinformed understandings, it still is worth examining at least one scripture that seems to have some people confused.

Revelation 14:4 speaks of faithful, heaven-bound Christians as being undefiled by women. (Other translations) The notion that being with a woman is “defiling” offends some peoples sensitivities. Taken on the surface, it is understandable. But as with all scriptures, plucking a single verse out of the Bible without taking into account the whole Bible is unfair to God, who believers are convinced is the true author of the Bible.

So let’s cover some key points. Genesis indicated that God made both man and woman and that a woman would be a complement (a completing) of man. This mutual complement was to be so bonding that they should consider themselves not two separate people, but “one flesh.” Adam and Eve were specifically instructed to have sexual relations. Throughout the whole Bible, specific women are mentioned by name as being “godly.” (Rather than go into lengthy discussion of the good light in which scripture casts women, see this 2014 article, “What Is the Role of Women in Jehovah’s Purpose?”) So neither women nor sex are evil.

What then about Rev.14:4? Barnes’ Notes (scroll down to find) indicates the context intends immoral relations with women. The “Insight On Scriptures,” vol.2 further adds that the defilement would also be on figurative moral, spiritual, social, and doctrinal levels. Especially so, would those of Christ’s bride remove themselves from Babylon, The Great Harlot.” That symbolic “woman” is disgusting in extreme!

So no, God doesn’t promote hatred of women in the Bible. Those who have interpreted that way are greatly misinformed. Fortunate for us, God is not thin-skinned. Once we come to realize our mistaken ideas and change for the better, we can still become God’s friend.



Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Matthew 7:13,14 Narrow Gate, Wide Road

In the gospel of Matthew Jesus spoke of a narrow gate, cramped road as opposed to a broad and spacious road. In what sense is the gate narrow or the road broad and spacious? Is it moral, doctrinal, lifestyle, or something else? Could it be a contrast of “fruits of spirit vs fruitage of the flesh”? One thing is for sure, love would identify true followers.

One (non-Witness) commentary essentially said the narrow gate was moral self restraint while the broad and spacious road was amoralistic, even immoral and self indulgent. All the other non-Witness (non Jehovah’s Witnesses) commentaries pretty much held to the same idea.

But Jesus spoke of more than morality. He spoke of the those who appear very religious and worked hard performing impressive signs. Yet Jesus rejected them. Were these only individuals or were they even possibly religious leaders, religions as a form of worship?

Stop and think a moment. Did Jesus condemn the sinners as much as he condemned the religious leaders? Of the religious leaders, Jesus said: "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" and “You are from your father the devil.” But regarding the sinners, tax collectors (despised for being traitors in their allegiance to Rome), and even prostitutes Jesus said: The sinners are going in ahead of the religious leaders into God’s Kingdom (because they both repented AND truly performed righteous acts.) (Humility is also a vital requirement as shown in the account of the sinner who stood at the back of the synagogue. Luke 18:13)

All non-Witness commentaries focused on the individual character, not the religion. One reason for doing this is to advance the "all religions are good and are just different paths to God" idea. For commentators to suggest that a religion(s) may be wrong would cause them to alienate vast segments of people and confuse even more people.

Thankfully, Jesus wasn't hypocritically cautious like that. He openly condemned the superficial religion that God's own people had become, even telling them that their "house" (way of worship) had been abandoned to them. But coming back to the “all religions are just separate paths leading to God” idea, stop and think about what Jesus was saying not only here in Matthew 7, but throughout his short 3.5-year ministry on earth. He came to demonstrate that he alone was the path leading to God. Peter learned that lesson for he boldly declared that only through Jesus could people acceptably, properly approach God. So that immediately eliminates all religions that do not accept Jesus. Yes, this may be a very hard pill to swallow, but it drives home the point that God does not accept every form of worship so we, therefore, should make sure what we are doing is acceptable to God. (I do not discount the fact that there are very nice people in non-Christian religions. I've met many people from India and the Middle East who are far kinder and more sincere than most nominal Christians from my homeland. But that is not the point. The point is who is pleasing God the way HE WANTS to be pleased?)

But perhaps you will reason in your heart, “Well, yes, non-Christian religions are unacceptable. But all Christians religions are trying to follow the Bible and Jesus.” If you feel that way, you need to once again review Jesus words at Matthew 7:21-23. So yes, whole religions can and are directly condemned by God. Which ones? Instead of answering that list (which is now very long), it is much easier to answer which one IS approved. Verse 21 indicates that only those doing the will of the Father are approved. Verses 24-26 shows that the religion (and individuals in it) must really apply themselves to living the life outlined by Jesus.

Real diamond vs fake or costume jewelry. Real gold vs Fool's Gold. Rare masterpieces vs deceptive reproductions. When these are evaluated, the latter are shown to be worthless. Who evaluates worship and religion? It is not we humans.  We don't get to tell God, “This is all you are getting from me, so deal with it.” The worship supposedly goes to God, so he gets to decide whether he accepts it or not. According to his own word (the Bible), he didn't accept most of what is out there. So this is not a case of joining a church because it makes you feel comfortable or it agrees with your viewpoints. Instead, a person truly interested in learning about and “doing the will of the Father” will need to carefully search that they are doing it God’s way.


More on the subject:
·         Do All Roads Lead to God?
·         Matthew 7:21





Friday, December 9, 2016

Romans 14:8 Live as Belonging to Jehovah

Romans 14:8, “For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah.” (Other translations)

Years ago, there was a song “Sixteen Tons.” It was first sang by Tennessee Ernie Ford and years later sang by others including Johnny Cash. Johnny’s video version (linked) demonstrates how thankless a job it was to be working the coal mines. In the lyrics is a line “St. Peter don’t you call me ‘cause I can’t go, I owe my soul to the company store.” In those days, the company owned practically the whole town. The workers became indebted to the company having to turn around and spend their income by putting it back into the company’s pockets. No wonder the sentiment was that the company owned them.

But are God and Christ that harsh of taskmasters? No. Jesus indicated that those listening to him would find that the load of responsibility was surprisingly light. However, full commitment is part of the “deal.” We cannot be wishy washy. But whose perspective is Romans 14:7 accentuating? Is it our commitment or is it God’s unfailing loyalty to those who are committed? In some ways, both! Everything we do should be with the constant mental reminder that what we do reflects on our God, his Son, and the brotherhood of believers. In that sense, we “live to” Jehovah. (Some translations say we “live FOR” Jehovah, which, for some English-speaking individuals might be more in line of how they are used to such a phrase being crafted.) Likewise, dying fearlessly faithful to God, in full confidence of his promise of the resurrection, proves we “die to” Jehovah. And this is the reason for tying in Sixteen Tons. Non-religious people understand the commitment that some may feel to an employer, however harsh and self-serving that employer may be. But such a commitment to God they balk at. They don’t seem to see that being committed to God comes with considerably more benefits.

And that is where the “other perspective” comes in; the one where the scripture could be taken as God’s faithfulness to us. One assurance we have is that what we do as loyal servants is not in vain. It is not worthless ending in meaningless death as evolutionists and atheists would have people believe. As “proof” of this, Paul cites Jesus’ own resurrection. He reasons, that we as believers are most to be pitied (for being so foolish) IF Jesus hadn’t been resurrected. But then Paul concludes: “Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death.” Yes, he considers us as being “his” from a protective, fatherly perspective. He fully accepts to carry out his “end of the bargain” by resurrecting his servants. So we can be assured we truly do “die to Jehovah.” He will set a time and remember us.



Thursday, December 8, 2016

Marriage - Why Wait?

I was reading an interesting article about fanaticism. In particular, paragraph five made an interesting point: “Crucially, males’ frontal lobes don’t fully mature until their late 20s, whereas those of women mature earlier.” I found this very interesting because about two decades ago I had read that one reason so many young marriages fail is that both partners were immature emotionally, intellectually, and even physically. But it didn’t substantiate its claim. I was 21 when I married and my wife was 19. I thought I was mature. I thought I reasoned on important matters correctly. Maybe I did. But after about five years of marriage my wife said to me that I wasn’t the same man she married. Instead of disagreeing, I responded, “I know, I grew up.”

Indeed, even if a young man shows himself responsible, according to the above he is still shaping attitudes, values and viewpoints. Not necessarily a bad thing. But it could confuse a young woman who notices character changes (however slight) in “the man she thought she married.”

So just what do the frontal lobes involve in our behavior? According to neuroskills.com, “The frontal lobes are involved in motor function, problem solving, spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgement, impulse control, and social and sexual behavior.” Knowing that, one has to wonder why any young person in their right mind would ever marry before they are done maturing (around age 30). In my case, this information about the frontal lobes was unknown to me. No one ever told me to wait to get married or explained this beyond merely cautioning that I might be “too young” even at 21. In the case of those today who have this information, they probably are driven by the hormones that make people wanting to live honorable lives get married instead of just fooling around. Sadly, as the youths mature, they find themselves changing so much that they indeed are not the same mate they married. (I think one important note to highlight here is that the brain, including the frontal lobes, are physical entities. No matter if we act mature, the frontal lobes are scientifically proven to be immature before a certain time. Just as external features of the human mature in certain periods of life (puberty), likewise internal features of our bodies mature in their span of time. Some earlier, some later depending on the individual and heredity.)


Now, I am no one to tell anyone that they should wait until they are in their late 20’s or early 30’s before marrying. Nor is that the intent of this blog article. It is merely to accentuate at least one practical reason it may be wise to wait – you’ll save yourself a whole lot of hurt and you will have had time to formulate what you really want in a lifelong partner besides good looks and sex.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Were Our Ancestors Dummies?

Just in my short six decades of life, I’ve notice that every generation “coming of age” thinks their parent’s generation were not as intelligent, comparative dummies, simpletons, or worse. When I reflect back and look at several of my peers, they were alcoholics, marijuana smokers, LSD users and more. I would suppose that if they had children, it would be expected that their children would think less of them. The peers engaging in that conduct burnt out their brains before they even became adults. What is odd, is that they saw their parents drinking excessively, saw the effects and condemned their parents for that action, yet they themselves went and did the same thing. Those that kept their heads clear went on to bring us into the “space age” and the “computer age.”

But that made me wonder: Down through the ages, what were the major substance/chemical addictions. For example, what was “big” in World War I? What about WWII? What about Vietnam? (It does seem that the stresses of war were major vehicles for proliferating drugs. I could be wrong.) While researching that, I first came across a (short) list of common addictions today. I was surprised that the “long” list is sooooo much longer! First, the top 5 in order:

  1. Heroin
  2. Alcohol
  3. Cocaine
  4. Barbiturates
  5. Nicotine

Granted, the last one is not as mind-altering as the other four. By this I mean, people can still “function” for the duration of their life, some even for a “normal” lifetime, before dying. And it is not always the nicotine (via lung, throat and bladder cancer) that took them. But did you notice that marijuana is NOT on the top five list? That surprised me too. Here is the rest of the “short” list in no particular order:

  • Marijuana
  • Morphine
  • Methamphetamines
  • Opiates

But which were popular per generation? First, lets look at how long these have been around.

Heroin: According to this article, opium poppy has been in use for thousands of years. Drug trafficking of this item was noted as far back as the early 1900’s.

Alcohol: It is common knowledge that alcohol in various forms (earliest was fermented fruit) has been around nearly as long as man himself. (Noah is spoken of as becoming intoxicated.) Abuse of this has been wrecking family units for hundreds of years.

Cocaine: Although chewed in its natural form (in coca leaves) by South American indigenous peoples, its refinement seems to have also risen about the 1500’s. (See Nicotine)

Barbiturates: According to this article, “Barbituric acid was first synthesized November 27, 1864, by German chemist Adolf von Baeyer.”

Nicotine: According to this article, tobacco was first introduced in Europe in 1559. After WWII it was used as an insecticide. So it's been in wide use for nearly 500 years. It’s health dangers are well-chronicled in the linked article.

In short then, to answer my own question, all the above were around decades, even centuries, before modern warfare and most likely each saw its use depending on availability. The only one I researched from the rest of the list was marijuana. In my recollection, it seemed to have gained popularity during the 1960’s which was my teenage years. I’ve never really given it thought so I was surprised to learn that cannabis goes back to the third millennium before Jesus. I never knowingly used it. I remember two events in my teens. The first was my asking “what’s it like?” Their response was something to the effect of a euphoric feeling, being “spaced out” and others. I told them I wouldn’t want to do that because every time I had surgery for degenerative muscle disease, as I was “put under,” I had that feeling, fought it and hated it. The second event was when I was 18. I went to visit some friends at a party. Someone offered me a cookie. There were cookies and food “all over the place” so it seemed an innocent enough offer. It wasn’t that good (compared to my mother’s baking). I took one bite and threw it out. I was later asked what I thought of it. Turns out it was made with marijuana. I was furious that someone would do that to me but it had no effect on me.

I have always been one that treasured my ability to think and reason. My childhood muscular disease made me appreciate whatever health I had. I’ve made every effort to protect that. Even with alcoholic beverages, I’ve always drank in moderation, not to the point of getting drunk. However, with all the stresses of life today, and the ease with which substances are available, couple that with people feeling a need to “escape,” it doesn’t surprise me that all the items mentioned above and much more are used by people today.


My whole point about the drugs was that it was a form of escape from the harsh realities of life. Perhaps some who actually engaged in drugs did not really have a lot of stress and were just thrill seekers. But from what I hear from common people just trying to make a living, the stresses of the job, the stresses of the commute, the stresses of interpersonal relationships with their mate and children, all these things are what cause people to escape reality.

But drugs are not the only forms of escape. I have observed over the decades that many use television. They plant themselves in front of the “boob tube” and are so completely bored and not mentally stimulated that they fall asleep in front of it. It doesn’t inspire them, it doesn’t motivate them, it doesn’t better their life. Then there are those that use music as an escape. In today’s world, with smartphones loaded up with MP3 files that could play endlessly, and earbuds or headphones that provide “great stereophonic reproduction,” these individuals crank up the sound so loud, it is impossible for them to think about anything, which is exactly what they want. Finally, there are the “gamers.” They come home from work so burnt out and tired, they immediately dive into their alternate worlds. All of these escapes make them less engaged with others and with reality. They learn nothing that will make their lives better able to cope with reality and possibly even make a joy to live in the present.

So speaking to the current, upcoming adults of this world: Do you see your parents as ones who are tuned out and zoned out? What about yourselves? Are you already beginning to repeat their mistakes and poor choices in life? Yes, you may hate school, but is that because you don’t see the practical usefulness of the classes? If so, then set a goal for yourself to learn something that you can use in life later. If nothing else, school has taught you how to read and write (I hope!). Use that to setup your own learning schedule. The internet and the local library can provide you tools to make living in the present a rewarding experience. In short, don’t waste your life with useless things such as drugs, TV, excessive gaming or music. Fill it the rewards of learning something to make you the person you want to be – independent, intelligent, and truly happy.

Coming back to the “were prior generations less intelligent” question, I’d have to say no. The electronics age may be something that many older people today don’t understand, but that doesn’t negate the fact that it was indeed their generation of scientists that invented the technologies we use today. Most people are not aware of this, but computational devices have been around since the early 1800’s. Furthermore, computational sciences have been around at very least since the time of ancient Egypt. Architecture is another avenue of interest. Who hasn’t marveled at the pyramids of Egypt? But it doesn’t stop there. I once read of a huge stone door that was so perfectly balanced that a child could open it. Here’s that article. So it is not that one generation is smarter, it is that we keep building on what our forefathers have learned and passed down.

It is very sad that so many children down through the ages have grown up with little direction or good example. But are those children now perpetuating the same poor standards, excusing themselves and angrily blaming their parents for their situation? In many cases, yes. But I’ve had the honor to meet some who would not accept defeat or bad circumstances to define who they are and who they can become. I have not turned out to be anyone famous and I am FAR from perfect, but with my head held high, I can say that I didn’t give in to the brain-destroying ways of this world. I hope others can rise above the churning waves of social pressures to become someone they themselves can be proud of.