Today fewer people are getting married, and instead are choosing to live together (according to recent polls). Moreover, there is a roughly 50% divorce rate among those who do get married. God established marriage for a number of reasons. I want to explain God’s purposes for establishing marriage as I understand them in the hope that it will help some people with their decision-making with respect to marriage.
One of the Ten Commandments says “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Jesus taught that divorce is not in God’s plan. There are numerous passages in both the Old and New Testaments regarding adultery, marriage and family relationships. You might be wondering, why is God so interested in marriage and the family?
We know that God instituted marriage and the family, as we read in the Genesis account that Jesus quoted in the Gospels. God had good reasons for establishing them, and for wanting them to be preserved and kept strong.
For the Children
A major reason God established marriage and wants it strong is so that children could be raised in a stable and secure environment. In Genesis 1:27-28a, we read about God’s plan for the human race to be fruitful:
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it…” NRSV
Notice that passage says, “in the image of God he created them.” One possible meaning for that “image of God” statement is that we humans were created to be relational beings, just as God is a relational Being. We see that relational aspect of God’s nature within the Trinity.
We also see that God is relational because God wants to have a relationship with us, the pinnacle of creation. God wants us to have healthy relationships with each other, and to have an intimate relationship with God through Jesus.
For Our Well-Being
Another reason why God established marriage was because God felt we shouldn’t be alone. This ties in with the relational aspect of our nature, as we read in Genesis 2:18:
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” NRSV
Men and women were created to be together, forming a partnership for mutual support and love, and for helping each other in raising the next generation. Anybody who is a single parent will tell you that it is a very hard job, without a husband or wife for support. I applaud those struggling to raise children without a mate, because I know it isn’t easy. I also commend those parents, friends, and other family members who so lovingly support them in that difficult but important task.
For the Good of Society
Still another reason why God established the institution of marriage is to provide the basic unit of society, the foundation upon which all of society rests. If the family is weakened, society suffers. I believe many of the problems our society is facing today can be traced back to the weakened state of the family unit.
For the good of society and future generations, plus their own well-being, husbands and wives should work diligently to build up their marriage.
More on marriage in a future post.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Why Liberals Are So Predictable
In an earlier post in which I summarized why I didn’t want a liberal for President, I said that I could easily predict a liberal candidate’s policy or position on an issue, despite what he or she may actually say on the topic. Let me explain where I am coming from.
The Left has a very rigid orthodoxy, with little variation that I can see. On almost any issue their positions are uniform. So if a liberal takes a position on an issue that is different from the left-wing orthodoxy, then either they are lying or they aren’t really a liberal, but probably a moderate. Both Hillary and Obama are liberals, and their positions on issues are almost identical, with only slight variations.
The reason I mention this is because the Right is always being accused of rigid orthodoxy. I actually see more flexibility on the Right (although not the Far Right) than I see on the Left. Interestingly, both the Right and the Left don’t know what to make of moderates, who don’t fit neatly into any of their categories. So people like Lieberman and McCain are not warmly embraced by the Left and Right respectively because they are not viewed as orthodox (in the political sense, not the religious).
What happened to Lieberman makes a strong statement about the Left being intolerant of any deviation from liberal orthodoxy. Because he differed from leftist orthodoxy on the war in Iraq, he was summarily dumped by the Democratic Party, which vigorously promoted his opponent when Lieberman was up for re-election for the Senate in Connecticut. He was rejected by the party, despite being their vice-presidential candidate at one time, and serving his state and party well in the Senate for many years.
There is another case of leftist intolerance. When pro-life former governor Casey of Pennsylvania wanted to speak at the democratic national convention years ago, he was refused because he was pro-life. So much for being “liberal” (meaning open-minded).
I haven’t been at all pleased with the Republicans, either. Bush has been a major disappointment, and the Republicans accomplished very little while they had majorities in both houses. They deserved to lose their majorities, and I’m glad they did. On the other hand, I haven’t seen the Democrats accomplish much now that they have majorities. I believe both parties are in the pockets of the special interests, so little gets done. They are generally more interested in conducting the party’s business than the people’s business. We all will suffer in the end. Congress fiddles while Rome burns.
By the way, I see this same sort of rigid leftist orthodoxy in the religious realm. The religious left is very predictable as well, despite their claims of being open-minded and tolerant. Therefore, it is sheer hypocrisy when they criticize the religious right for being so unyielding.
The Left has a very rigid orthodoxy, with little variation that I can see. On almost any issue their positions are uniform. So if a liberal takes a position on an issue that is different from the left-wing orthodoxy, then either they are lying or they aren’t really a liberal, but probably a moderate. Both Hillary and Obama are liberals, and their positions on issues are almost identical, with only slight variations.
The reason I mention this is because the Right is always being accused of rigid orthodoxy. I actually see more flexibility on the Right (although not the Far Right) than I see on the Left. Interestingly, both the Right and the Left don’t know what to make of moderates, who don’t fit neatly into any of their categories. So people like Lieberman and McCain are not warmly embraced by the Left and Right respectively because they are not viewed as orthodox (in the political sense, not the religious).
What happened to Lieberman makes a strong statement about the Left being intolerant of any deviation from liberal orthodoxy. Because he differed from leftist orthodoxy on the war in Iraq, he was summarily dumped by the Democratic Party, which vigorously promoted his opponent when Lieberman was up for re-election for the Senate in Connecticut. He was rejected by the party, despite being their vice-presidential candidate at one time, and serving his state and party well in the Senate for many years.
There is another case of leftist intolerance. When pro-life former governor Casey of Pennsylvania wanted to speak at the democratic national convention years ago, he was refused because he was pro-life. So much for being “liberal” (meaning open-minded).
I haven’t been at all pleased with the Republicans, either. Bush has been a major disappointment, and the Republicans accomplished very little while they had majorities in both houses. They deserved to lose their majorities, and I’m glad they did. On the other hand, I haven’t seen the Democrats accomplish much now that they have majorities. I believe both parties are in the pockets of the special interests, so little gets done. They are generally more interested in conducting the party’s business than the people’s business. We all will suffer in the end. Congress fiddles while Rome burns.
By the way, I see this same sort of rigid leftist orthodoxy in the religious realm. The religious left is very predictable as well, despite their claims of being open-minded and tolerant. Therefore, it is sheer hypocrisy when they criticize the religious right for being so unyielding.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Evangelicals a Liberal Can Love
Below is an article of interest by Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, 02-03-08, concerning the view liberals have of non-liberal Christians. If you are a member of the Christian Left (yes, there is such a thing-think of the loudmouths who claim to speak for mainline denominations but really don’t, such as Winkler of the United Methodist Church), you are pretty much accepted by liberals because you are perceived as “one of them”. However, if you are on the Christian Right, you are the enemy, to be vilified, mocked, or just dismissed as some fundamentalist nutcase. So much for tolerance. That’s why I like what this article has to say – a breath of fresh air.
At a New York or Los Angeles cocktail party, few would dare make a pejorative comment about Barack Obama’s race or Hillary Clinton’s sex. Yet it would be easy to get away with deriding Mike Huckabee’s religious faith. Liberals believe deeply in tolerance, and over the last century have led the battles against prejudices of all kinds, but we have a blind spot about Christian evangelicals. They constitute one of the few minorities that, on the American coasts or university campuses, it remains fashionable to mock. Scorning people for their faith is intrinsically repugnant, and in this case it also betrays a profound misunderstanding of how far evangelicals have moved over the last decade.
Today, conservative Christian churches do superb work on poverty, AIDS, sex trafficking, climate change, prison abuses, malaria, and genocide in Darfur. Bleeding-heart liberals could accomplish far more if they reached out to build common cause with bleeding-heart conservatives. And the Democratic presidential candidate (particularly if it’s Mr. Obama, to whom evangelicals have been startlingly receptive) has a real chance this year of winning large numbers of evangelical voters.
“Evangelicals are going to vote this year in part on climate change, on Darfur, on poverty,” said Jim Wallis, the author of a new book, “The Great Awakening,” which argues that the age of the religious right has passed and that issues of social justice are rising to the top of the agenda. Mr. Wallis says that about half of white evangelical votes will be in play this year. A recent CBS News poll found that the single issue that white evangelicals most believed they should be involved in was fighting poverty. The traditional issue of abortion was a distant second, and genocide was third.
Quoted in the “Media Roundup,” an e-newsletter published by the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, 02/04/08.
At a New York or Los Angeles cocktail party, few would dare make a pejorative comment about Barack Obama’s race or Hillary Clinton’s sex. Yet it would be easy to get away with deriding Mike Huckabee’s religious faith. Liberals believe deeply in tolerance, and over the last century have led the battles against prejudices of all kinds, but we have a blind spot about Christian evangelicals. They constitute one of the few minorities that, on the American coasts or university campuses, it remains fashionable to mock. Scorning people for their faith is intrinsically repugnant, and in this case it also betrays a profound misunderstanding of how far evangelicals have moved over the last decade.
Today, conservative Christian churches do superb work on poverty, AIDS, sex trafficking, climate change, prison abuses, malaria, and genocide in Darfur. Bleeding-heart liberals could accomplish far more if they reached out to build common cause with bleeding-heart conservatives. And the Democratic presidential candidate (particularly if it’s Mr. Obama, to whom evangelicals have been startlingly receptive) has a real chance this year of winning large numbers of evangelical voters.
“Evangelicals are going to vote this year in part on climate change, on Darfur, on poverty,” said Jim Wallis, the author of a new book, “The Great Awakening,” which argues that the age of the religious right has passed and that issues of social justice are rising to the top of the agenda. Mr. Wallis says that about half of white evangelical votes will be in play this year. A recent CBS News poll found that the single issue that white evangelicals most believed they should be involved in was fighting poverty. The traditional issue of abortion was a distant second, and genocide was third.
Quoted in the “Media Roundup,” an e-newsletter published by the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, 02/04/08.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Why I Don’t Want a Liberal as President
While I sympathize with many of the issues that liberals promote, I believe that their solutions are typically unrealistic or they don’t really have any viable solutions at all. For example, we are facing a multitude of problems with our consumption of imported oil and extensive burning of carbon-based nonrenewable natural resources. Have the liberals come up with a solution? No, only a few partial solutions. See my earlier posts on this topic.
After Bill Clinton was elected the first time, the political climate was right for improvements to our health care system. What did Hillary do? She came up with such a terrible plan that nothing has been done on the subject since then. Her ultra-liberal plan for universal health care was more socialistic than the French system!
Without going into a lot of detail, below are my concerns if Clinton or Obama get elected, especially now that the Democrats will continue to have majorities in both houses of Congress for the foreseeable future. I don’t care what the candidates say on a topic – they are liberal Democrats and I know what they will do because of their ideology. Liberals are very predictable because they have a rigid ideology that they follow religiously.
Judges and Justices: a liberal Democrat will appoint activist judges who won’t just interpret the law, but will make law, revising the Constitution to fit their agendas.
Israel: Israel will receive less of the kind of moral, diplomatic, and military support it needs to defend itself in such a hostile part of the world because liberals tend to be lukewarm towards Israel at best.
The War: despite the rhetoric, nobody is going to pull out of Iraq immediately, leaving a power vacuum that will be filled by extremists. However, a liberal will probably begin a phased withdrawal almost immediately, signaling that the war is winding down and thus giving the enemy hope of taking over Iraq soon.
Taxes: all those wonderful government programs come at a cost – higher taxes. There ain’t no free lunch, baby!
Unintended Consequences: all government programs suffer from the law of unintended consequences. For example, the Great Society welfare system came at the expense of creating a dependent underclass that became locked into a cycle of poverty. Liberals with the best of intentions pass laws or establish programs that end up with nasty consequences that may take a generation or two to correct.
Energy Policy: we desperately need a good energy policy with the aim of freeing us from all dependence on foreign oil and reducing carbon emissions radically. The Republicans haven’t delivered, and the Democrats will deliver very little: forced conservation measures for the most part, but no real solutions. The tough things that need to get done won’t, because the auto companies and the oil companies are too powerful. They are the ones calling the shots, not the President or Congress. Moreover, liberal doctrine precludes a key way of reducing carbon emissions – nuclear power.
Traditional Values: liberal doctrine does not include traditional values, so we will see no improvement there. Just look at the string of laws that have been passed in California in the past couple of years now that the liberals tightly control both houses and they have a liberal (even though Republican) governor.
Abortion: there will be no restrictions at the federal level, and activist judges will shoot down state initiatives. Any health care plan put forth by the Democrats will contain tax-funded abortions.
Foreign Relations: will improve, because a liberal will be more acceptable to the European powers and will probably not be pro-Israel (which will endear him or her to the Islamic countries). Liberals tend to be internationalists.
Freedom of Religion: will probably be limited further (despite First Amendment guarantees) under the guise of preventing “hate speech” (it’s already happened in other countries) and revisionist interpretations of the doctrine of separation of church and state. We will also see more limits on free speech in general.
Elitism: one of the issues I have with liberals is that they are elitists, meaning they believe they have all the answers and the rest of us are ignorant yahoos that don’t have the wisdom they have. The people’s opinions count for little, because the people are stupid. To give you an idea of how that elitism works, read the following blurb about an activist judge who totally ignored the will of the people:
“Last week, in the state of Oregon, plans to enforce statewide legalization of gay marriage were given a seemingly underhanded nudge when a U.S. district judge ruled that the opinion of the people did not really matter. Judge Michael Mosman concluded that the state did not need to count all of the signatures on a petition proposing a vote of the people on a state law to create same-sex domestic partnerships with rights and privileges identical to married couples. Instead, Mosman threw out a lawsuit against Oregon's domestic partnership law, allowing the legislation to go into effect last Friday.”
In California, we have seen the state government totally ignore the will of the people as well. The people passed referendums that have been totally ignored by the state legislators. When the liberals get into power, they rule with an iron fist. So much for the will of the people. What ever happened to a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”?
After Bill Clinton was elected the first time, the political climate was right for improvements to our health care system. What did Hillary do? She came up with such a terrible plan that nothing has been done on the subject since then. Her ultra-liberal plan for universal health care was more socialistic than the French system!
Without going into a lot of detail, below are my concerns if Clinton or Obama get elected, especially now that the Democrats will continue to have majorities in both houses of Congress for the foreseeable future. I don’t care what the candidates say on a topic – they are liberal Democrats and I know what they will do because of their ideology. Liberals are very predictable because they have a rigid ideology that they follow religiously.
Judges and Justices: a liberal Democrat will appoint activist judges who won’t just interpret the law, but will make law, revising the Constitution to fit their agendas.
Israel: Israel will receive less of the kind of moral, diplomatic, and military support it needs to defend itself in such a hostile part of the world because liberals tend to be lukewarm towards Israel at best.
The War: despite the rhetoric, nobody is going to pull out of Iraq immediately, leaving a power vacuum that will be filled by extremists. However, a liberal will probably begin a phased withdrawal almost immediately, signaling that the war is winding down and thus giving the enemy hope of taking over Iraq soon.
Taxes: all those wonderful government programs come at a cost – higher taxes. There ain’t no free lunch, baby!
Unintended Consequences: all government programs suffer from the law of unintended consequences. For example, the Great Society welfare system came at the expense of creating a dependent underclass that became locked into a cycle of poverty. Liberals with the best of intentions pass laws or establish programs that end up with nasty consequences that may take a generation or two to correct.
Energy Policy: we desperately need a good energy policy with the aim of freeing us from all dependence on foreign oil and reducing carbon emissions radically. The Republicans haven’t delivered, and the Democrats will deliver very little: forced conservation measures for the most part, but no real solutions. The tough things that need to get done won’t, because the auto companies and the oil companies are too powerful. They are the ones calling the shots, not the President or Congress. Moreover, liberal doctrine precludes a key way of reducing carbon emissions – nuclear power.
Traditional Values: liberal doctrine does not include traditional values, so we will see no improvement there. Just look at the string of laws that have been passed in California in the past couple of years now that the liberals tightly control both houses and they have a liberal (even though Republican) governor.
Abortion: there will be no restrictions at the federal level, and activist judges will shoot down state initiatives. Any health care plan put forth by the Democrats will contain tax-funded abortions.
Foreign Relations: will improve, because a liberal will be more acceptable to the European powers and will probably not be pro-Israel (which will endear him or her to the Islamic countries). Liberals tend to be internationalists.
Freedom of Religion: will probably be limited further (despite First Amendment guarantees) under the guise of preventing “hate speech” (it’s already happened in other countries) and revisionist interpretations of the doctrine of separation of church and state. We will also see more limits on free speech in general.
Elitism: one of the issues I have with liberals is that they are elitists, meaning they believe they have all the answers and the rest of us are ignorant yahoos that don’t have the wisdom they have. The people’s opinions count for little, because the people are stupid. To give you an idea of how that elitism works, read the following blurb about an activist judge who totally ignored the will of the people:
“Last week, in the state of Oregon, plans to enforce statewide legalization of gay marriage were given a seemingly underhanded nudge when a U.S. district judge ruled that the opinion of the people did not really matter. Judge Michael Mosman concluded that the state did not need to count all of the signatures on a petition proposing a vote of the people on a state law to create same-sex domestic partnerships with rights and privileges identical to married couples. Instead, Mosman threw out a lawsuit against Oregon's domestic partnership law, allowing the legislation to go into effect last Friday.”
In California, we have seen the state government totally ignore the will of the people as well. The people passed referendums that have been totally ignored by the state legislators. When the liberals get into power, they rule with an iron fist. So much for the will of the people. What ever happened to a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
A Dobson’s Choice
I read the recent announcement in Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink email alert dated 2/5/08 that stated Dr. Dobson “cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain.” While he was speaking as a private citizen, he is no ordinary Joe, and his opinions carry a lot of weight among conservative Christians. I am stating my opinion on the matter to give another viewpoint to those people who might be influenced by Dr. Dobson.
I was appalled that he made such a statement. Furthermore Dr. Dobson stated that given the present possibilities for presidential candidates, he “simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life.” I wonder if he has thought through the impact what he is doing. I’m also beginning to wonder if he has lost his mind, as it appears Pat Robertson has.
What Dobson is doing is encouraging millions of conservative voters not to vote. He is encouraging them to disenfranchise themselves. Voting shouldn’t be an option – it is a duty. If enough conservative voters simply stay away from the polls, certainly it is obvious what will happen: a liberal Democrat will be our next president. Does Dobson really want that? Do you, if you are a conservative, want to hand over the presidency to a liberal on a silver platter by not voting?
If Clinton or Obama get elected, Dobson will then spend the next four or eight years whining about the situation on his radio program and in his newsletters. But Dobson (and any other voters who stay away) will have no one to blame but themselves. To my way of thinking, Dr. Dobson, is acting like a child. Just because his ideal candidate isn’t running doesn’t mean he should sabotage the Republican who is running. Sometimes you have to vote defensively to keep the worse candidate from winning. That’s just the way the system works – something Dobson doesn’t seem to understand.
George Bush is probably as close as any person can come to Dobson’s ideal candidate, and look what he’s done. He got us involved in an immoral war, causing the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, and has destabilized the Middle East. The list goes on of his misdeeds. So, Dr. Dobson, your ideal candidate will probably go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever to hold that office. You might want to rethink your position.
Dr. Dobson certainly doesn’t have to endorse a candidate if he doesn’t want to, but he should encourage his conservative following to do their duty and vote. If Dobson doesn’t do this, then I think he is doing a great disservice to this country, to the family, and to the traditional values he is trying to protect.
I will briefly outline why I prefer a moderate or conservative president over a liberal in a future post so you understand where I'm coming from.
I was appalled that he made such a statement. Furthermore Dr. Dobson stated that given the present possibilities for presidential candidates, he “simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life.” I wonder if he has thought through the impact what he is doing. I’m also beginning to wonder if he has lost his mind, as it appears Pat Robertson has.
What Dobson is doing is encouraging millions of conservative voters not to vote. He is encouraging them to disenfranchise themselves. Voting shouldn’t be an option – it is a duty. If enough conservative voters simply stay away from the polls, certainly it is obvious what will happen: a liberal Democrat will be our next president. Does Dobson really want that? Do you, if you are a conservative, want to hand over the presidency to a liberal on a silver platter by not voting?
If Clinton or Obama get elected, Dobson will then spend the next four or eight years whining about the situation on his radio program and in his newsletters. But Dobson (and any other voters who stay away) will have no one to blame but themselves. To my way of thinking, Dr. Dobson, is acting like a child. Just because his ideal candidate isn’t running doesn’t mean he should sabotage the Republican who is running. Sometimes you have to vote defensively to keep the worse candidate from winning. That’s just the way the system works – something Dobson doesn’t seem to understand.
George Bush is probably as close as any person can come to Dobson’s ideal candidate, and look what he’s done. He got us involved in an immoral war, causing the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, and has destabilized the Middle East. The list goes on of his misdeeds. So, Dr. Dobson, your ideal candidate will probably go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever to hold that office. You might want to rethink your position.
Dr. Dobson certainly doesn’t have to endorse a candidate if he doesn’t want to, but he should encourage his conservative following to do their duty and vote. If Dobson doesn’t do this, then I think he is doing a great disservice to this country, to the family, and to the traditional values he is trying to protect.
I will briefly outline why I prefer a moderate or conservative president over a liberal in a future post so you understand where I'm coming from.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Love Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Marriage These Days
Below is an article of interest concerning marriage and relationships:
Four out of ten Americans say they don’t need a marriage certificate to prove love or commitment, according to an online survey by AOL Personals and Zogby International taken in November 2007.
Nearly half of the respondents (44%) between the ages of 20 and 69 said they didn’t need marriage to validate their relationships. A majority of those in their 30s (73%) said they would prefer to live together first and most said marriage should truly be until “death do us part.” Trust is highly important for the singles in their 20s.
Although the 20-somethings are also more open to experimenting with sexual relationships, they are more inclined to end a partnership over infidelity than work through any infidelities. For older respondents — who didn’t feel the need to be married and were more comfortable accepting infidelity “as part of life” — companionship was more important.
Quoted from Pastor’s Weekly Briefing, January 17, 2008. © 2008, Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado. All rights reserved.
Four out of ten Americans say they don’t need a marriage certificate to prove love or commitment, according to an online survey by AOL Personals and Zogby International taken in November 2007.
Nearly half of the respondents (44%) between the ages of 20 and 69 said they didn’t need marriage to validate their relationships. A majority of those in their 30s (73%) said they would prefer to live together first and most said marriage should truly be until “death do us part.” Trust is highly important for the singles in their 20s.
Although the 20-somethings are also more open to experimenting with sexual relationships, they are more inclined to end a partnership over infidelity than work through any infidelities. For older respondents — who didn’t feel the need to be married and were more comfortable accepting infidelity “as part of life” — companionship was more important.
Quoted from Pastor’s Weekly Briefing, January 17, 2008. © 2008, Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado. All rights reserved.
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Judgment of Future Generations
We look back at past generations and ask, “How could they have done that?’ We ask that question about slavery, the near genocide of the American Indian, and a host of other misdeeds. Future generations will look at us and ask the same thing. “How could they let that happen?” How could they have done that?”
What will the judge us on? I think the main thing they will judge us on is our waste of non-renewable natural resources, especially oil. We have squandered our natural resources at an alarming rate, and future generations will have to pay for our profligacy. We will be judged harshly, and rightfully so. Can you see your grandchildren looking at old TV programs or pictures of street scenes, and seeing the behemoths we were driving? “Grandma, you mean you needed a truck to go to the supermarket?”
They will also condemn us for polluting the atmosphere and causing conditions they’ll be stuck with. If the dire predictions are even close to being correct – and we really don’t know for sure until it’s too late – our grandchildren and future generations will be stuck living in a different world: coastal cities either abandoned or having high seawalls to protect them, more extremes of weather, more severe droughts and flooding, etc. Those generations will look back at us and ask, “How could you let this happen? You were warned, but paid no attention.”
When our country becomes a second-rate power and has exported most of its jobs overseas, future generations will condemn us severely. Once you’ve lost it, economic, political, and military power is tough to get back. We’ve let our infrastructure deteriorate, our manufacturing capacity shrink, plus we are dependent on unstable countries which hate us for the lifeblood of our economy – oil. Not a good position to be in.
If future generations turn back to God, then they’ll ask these questions:
“How could you kill over a million unborn babies a year, in the US alone?”
“How could you allow the teaching the godless theory of evolution as fact?”
“How could you allow atheists and secularists to dictate what is allowable in the US? Didn’t you understand the Constitution? What were you thinking?”
“How could you allow the various genocides to occur around the world?”
We have become so fat, dumb, and happy that we can’t see the handwriting on the wall. We continue to turn away from God, we continue our wasteful ways, and we are doing nothing to reverse the downhill slide. I pray for revival, that we will turn back to God; I pray for wisdom that we reverse our wasteful ways; and I pray for guidance that we will stop the slide to decadence and return to the values and discipline that made this country great.
What will the judge us on? I think the main thing they will judge us on is our waste of non-renewable natural resources, especially oil. We have squandered our natural resources at an alarming rate, and future generations will have to pay for our profligacy. We will be judged harshly, and rightfully so. Can you see your grandchildren looking at old TV programs or pictures of street scenes, and seeing the behemoths we were driving? “Grandma, you mean you needed a truck to go to the supermarket?”
They will also condemn us for polluting the atmosphere and causing conditions they’ll be stuck with. If the dire predictions are even close to being correct – and we really don’t know for sure until it’s too late – our grandchildren and future generations will be stuck living in a different world: coastal cities either abandoned or having high seawalls to protect them, more extremes of weather, more severe droughts and flooding, etc. Those generations will look back at us and ask, “How could you let this happen? You were warned, but paid no attention.”
When our country becomes a second-rate power and has exported most of its jobs overseas, future generations will condemn us severely. Once you’ve lost it, economic, political, and military power is tough to get back. We’ve let our infrastructure deteriorate, our manufacturing capacity shrink, plus we are dependent on unstable countries which hate us for the lifeblood of our economy – oil. Not a good position to be in.
If future generations turn back to God, then they’ll ask these questions:
“How could you kill over a million unborn babies a year, in the US alone?”
“How could you allow the teaching the godless theory of evolution as fact?”
“How could you allow atheists and secularists to dictate what is allowable in the US? Didn’t you understand the Constitution? What were you thinking?”
“How could you allow the various genocides to occur around the world?”
We have become so fat, dumb, and happy that we can’t see the handwriting on the wall. We continue to turn away from God, we continue our wasteful ways, and we are doing nothing to reverse the downhill slide. I pray for revival, that we will turn back to God; I pray for wisdom that we reverse our wasteful ways; and I pray for guidance that we will stop the slide to decadence and return to the values and discipline that made this country great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
