Today, as I was breathing the fresh air and admiring the brilliantly-colored leaves on the trees, I meditated on the reminder of the changing seasons. It seems like such nice weather, such a wonderful time of year, but I quickly remembered what it really means. We're soon approaching the death season, when all is cold and gloomy, when wild animals either die, hibernate, or try their best to survive the harsh conditions by huddling for warmth and eating what they can find. My spirit groaned within. I do not look forward to naked trees, dead grass, overcast skies, shorter daylight hours, and greatly decreased warmth from the day star. I cheer myself by focusing on the positive aspects, like winter clothes, clear night skies, hot chocolate, vegetable venison stew, the availability of vitamin D spray, possible beauty of snow, clearer views through the woods, cardinals and blue jays, and the fact that evergreen trees are still green.
The seasons symbolize the life and death cycle of TIME, things of TEMPORARY existence, things subject to DEATH. This earth requires DEATH to continue the cycle. If plants, animals, and man did not die, in a cycle, the earth would die all at once, for everything would become too populated, and the earth could not sustain it.
The spring is the season of birth, summer the season of mature life, fall the season of degeneration, and winter the season of death or sleep.
The day star, the Sun, is the focal point of life on this earth. Without it, all life on earth would die. So it is that the Sun--a created thing, just as the earth--is worshiped by the earth's inhabitants. Shortly after the day with the shortest duration of light from the day star, known as the winter solstice, the majority of the earth's inhabitants celebrate a great festival in honor of the "birth" of the sun. The apostate church in Rome adopted this celebration and gave it the name "Christmas" so that apostate followers of Jesus Christ could honor him on this day, along with many of the same traditions kept by sun worshipers. One of the traditions includes decorating an evergreen tree and offering gifts (sacrifices) underneath and even singing praises of adoration to the tree ("O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree, I think you are so lovely!" And on it goes).
Since spring is the season of rebirth, the season of great fertility, the worship of the goddess Easter (or in other languages--Ashtoreth, Isis, Eostre, Ishtar, Diana, etc.) is celebrated in honor of the resurrection of life. The apostate church in Rome also adopted this celebration, though keeping the goddess' name, and many who call themselves Christians also honor this day as Jesus Christ's resurrection. Some of the traditions still kept are hiding eggs and honoring bunny rabbits (both of which are symbols of fertility), as well as having a sunrise service on Easter Sunday.
The God of Israel commanded us not to worship him with the days and traditions with which heathens worship their gods:
When the Jehovah God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto Jehovah thy God: for every abomination to Jehovah, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it (Deut. 12:29-32).
Things like Easter sunrise services and Christmas trees are condemned in the scriptures. Read Jer. 10:2-8; Eze. chapter 8, esp. vs. 16.
When Paul spoke to the Galatians, whom were gentiles who were accustomed to keeping these false feasts, and soon after turning to the truth, they turned back to their heathen festivals, he said to them:
Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain (Gal. 4:8-10).
I do not wish to worship the created things, nor make up my own gods over all the different things, nor do I want to worship the true God in the same manner the heathens worship their false gods. I do not like the life and death cycle on this earth. I do not want to worship the sun that I know will continue, year after year, to seemingly wane in life and then revive again. I look forward to the day when there will be no need of the sun nor the moon, and there will be no night. In that day, God the Father and Jesus Christ the Firstborn of God--will be the light (see Rev. 22:5). That light will never fail, never dim. Jesus is the Creator of the Sun, which he created in the name of God the Father. Jesus is the true Day Star, the everliving one (Rev. 22:16; 2 Pet. 1:19).
We should keep faith in eternal life and the eternal light of God and not take part in celebrating this temporary life and death cycle that the earth revolving around the sun gives us.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Deliberate Delusion to Test Acceptance of the Truth
My husband Nathan told me a few nights ago that he purchased a movie on iTunes for us to watch after the children went to bed. When I found out what it was--a thriller--I was unsure of whether I would enjoy watching it. The movie was Shutter Island. I want to say here, before I get into the details, that if, for some reason, you plan on watching this and hate knowing how a movie turns out before watching, then I'm warning you not to read the remainder of this blog post until after you've seen the movie. Most who are careful about what movies they watch have a good chance of not choosing to watch this movie.
We started watching it, and it wasn't long before I had the truth mostly figured out. I didn't have the main character's "partner" figured out until almost the very end. The main character, who identifies himself as Edward ("Teddy") Daniels is a U.S. marshal. The movie starts out, set off the coast from Boston in 1956, with he and his partner riding a ferry to Shutter Island to investigate a case of a missing woman, a psychiatric patient on the island who drowned her three children. The island houses three psychiatric wards--a woman's ward, a men's, and a third ward for extremely dangerous patients. One of the doctors over the island says that he believes he can make psychiatric patients well and that they should not be put to death.
The story was a very well thought out one. Teddy takes the lead in the investigation of the missing Rachel Olandos. His partner, whom Teddy met on the ferry, is "Chuck." Their guns are taken from them on the island, in order to enter, and they are told that the officers on the island have final authority. Teddy is an excellent investigator, but he talks to his partner about having information on the facilities on Shutter Island. He claims that he wants to expose the truth, namely that patients on Shutter Island are being experimented on like the Nazis did to people. Teddy himself fought in WW2 and keeps having flashbacks of the horrible things that happened. He reveals that he had a wife who died in a fire at their apartment, where three others died. He said that an Andrew Laeddis, the apartment maintenance man, slipped a match to start the fire, and he got away with the crime. He then later burned down a school that killed some (I think the movie said two children). Andrew had claimed that voices made him do it. He was eventually transferred to Shutter Island. That was when Teddy started looking into the facilities there. He met a man--George--who had been there for a year in Ward C, and when he was released he went and shot some people a week or so later. He begged the judge for the electric chair and begged not to be transferred back to Shutter Island.
After revealing his knowledge to his partner about George, Chuck tells Teddy that they must have lured him onto the island, because the must have known he'd been asking questions. Chuck says they must have made up the story about Rachel Olandos, especially since everyone he questions acts as if they're being coached on what to say. Among other things, everyone says Rachel thinks everyone around her are her neighbors and delivery people and that she still lives in her house.
There are far too many details to relate here, so I'll hit on the big points. The whole time the doctors on the island give him complimentary cigarettes, and they give him aspirin for the migraines he keeps experiencing while there. He also keeps having strange dreams and hallucinations. His wife speaks to him and tells him that Andrew Laeddis is on the island, and Rachel Olandos is still there as well. However, when Teddy confronts the leaders of the island, they tell him Rachel turned up well, near the light house. He goes to talk to her, and she looks the same as the pictures he was shown. She says she went for a long swim in the lake. Of course, they're by the ocean, but Rachel had drowned her children in the lake behind her home. Teddy acts strange every time the drowning incident, or anything that reminds him of it, gets brought up.
At one point, when he's trying to get to the light house, where he suspects they do brain surgery experiments on the patients, he tells Chuck to stay on the rocks. The tide is up too far, so Teddy cannot check out the light house. When he gets back to where he'd left Chuck, he sees a burning cigarette at the edge of the cliff, and he looks down to see Chuck's body on the rocks below. By the time he climbs down the treacherous rocks, Chuck is not there. Either his body washed away, or someone took him. Teddy sees fire light coming from a cave, so he climbs inside. A woman with a knife acts suspicious. Teddy assumes aloud that she's the real Rachel Olandos. She says that she is and that he'll have to leave, because they'd go looking for him, and she doesn't want to be found. She tells him that he will never leave the island and that he had no friends there. She tells him about all the awful things that they do on the island and how she had never even had children nor been married. She said she'd been a doctor on the island, but they thought she was going to expose the truth, so they had to deal with her.
In the end, Teddy does make it to the light house. He successfully stole a gun and then knocked unconscious the guard who was standing at the light house. He did not wish to kill anyone, as he made it clear more than once in the movie he was not there to kill anyone, even Andrew Laeddis, if he found him. The war had caused him not to want to kill anyone. He goes into the light house, reaches the top, and there is the main doctor. He says, "Why are you wet, Baby," which is a line that was spoken between he and his wife in one of his dreams. Teddy said, "What did you say?" The doctor told him that he knew what he'd said. He then told Teddy he had no ammo in the gun. He confronted Teddy calmly with the real truth. Edward Daniels was really Andrew Laeddis, and the letters of the names were rearranged. His wife's first and maiden name were Dolores Chanal, which is a rearrangement of Rachel Olandos. Teddy asked why he was shaking then and had migraines. He accused the doctor of drugging him in the food, alcohol, cigarettes, and aspirin. The doctor said he'd been off of his neuroleptic medications for two days. He was having withdrawals. He asked Teddy about the hallucinations. Teddy then accused them of doing something to Chuck and inquired how they were going to cover that up. "Chuck" then walked out of a door. Teddy asked who he was. He was Teddy's doctor, the one who had supposedly been Rachel's doctor and who had left on the ferry the morning of her disappearance, to take his vacation.
The doctor continued to give Teddy evidence of the real truth. He told Teddy that he was a patient there, the most dangerous patient on the island, and he'd been in Ward C. He read the entrance form on him, reading how Teddy had been a U.S. marshal, very intelligent, etc. He told Teddy that he was their chance to show the world that what they were doing there was working. They had let him have free reign of the island for two days. He'd hurt people, and he had blown up the doctor's parked car (as a distraction so that he could get to the light house). Teddy did not want to believe the truth. The doctor then showed him pictures of his three children and asked whether he would deny that they ever existed. He then fell to the floor, and then it was replayed what had happened several years prior.
He had come home to his cabin, and he poured himself an alcoholic drink and stepped outside the back. His wife was sitting in a chair swing near the lake. She got up and started walking to him, and he asked why she was wet. She was acting strange. He asked where the kids were. She said they were in school, but he said it was Saturday and that school wasn't in that day. He glanced toward the lake, and he saw something floating. He ran to the lake and panicked, as any parent does when they realize something awful has happened to his or her children, saying things like, "Oh, no!" He dived in, and he went to his firstborn daughter. He rolled her over and picked her up. He cried, "Oh, God!" He tried performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, but he quickly realized that was useless. He went to his other two children and had them all gathered in his arms. He laid them down on the land, and his wife talked about sitting them at the table and having dinner and going places with them. They'd be their perfect dolls. He said if she ever loved him, to not say anything else. He was crying. She started crying, and she said that she loved him. She said, "Set me free," and he shot her. It is assumed that he must have taken her and the children and burned them in their apartment. I believe they were at a lakeside cabin, not their regular residence.
When he came to, he was in a bed, and the main doctor and his doctor--Dr. Sheehan. He realized what they were doing was to help him. They asked him who he was. He confessed he was Andrew Laeddis and that he'd murdered his wife in the spring of 1952. When asked why he had created a make believe life, as if he was still a marshal, had a different name, and that another man had burned up his wife, Teddy answered that it was because he couldn't accept that Dolores had drowned their children. He said he'd loved her so much. He said that she'd been manic-depressive and had told him once that she felt as if an insect was crawling in her brain, pulling strings. He ultimately blamed himself, because he had not got her help. So, really he killed their children.
He was then told that they were concerned he would regress again, because he had come to the knowledge of the truth nine months prior. If he did not accept reality, they would have to do the brain surgery that would make him easier to handle, and he'd no longer have memories of his past.
Later, I am guessing the next day, he and his doctor were sitting outside, and Andrew said, "So, Chuck, what's next?" Dr. Sheehan said he didn't know, that Teddy should tell him. He deliberately played like he was in his fantasy world again, even though he really wasn't. He said, "One must ask, is it better to live as a monster or die as a good man?" In other words, he wanted the surgery, because he could not accept living, knowing what he'd done. He couldn't live with his guilt.
During the movie, he was deliberately fed lies by those who wanted to help him, because it was he who wanted to believe the lies. He had lived those lies. So, they set it all up so that the lies would be seemingly confirmed. Then, at the end, they showed him the truth, to see whether he still chose to believe the lies or whether he would accept the truth. In Teddy's case, he did admit the truth, but he didn't want to live the truth. He wanted the memories of his past to be erased, because he couldn't forgive himself.
God forgives. We must be willing to confess the truth of our sins, though, and be willing to move past them.
People are also sent delusion by God, because they have already chosen to live lies. Most who call themselves Christians live and believe lies (2 Thess. 2:10-12). A time is coming that those lies they believe will seemingly be confirmed. They then shall have to decide whether to continue living the lie or to accept the truth and repent. It will be a hard road for the latter, until their death or Christ's return. However, those who choose to continue believing the lies shall have their memories erased forever--the second death. Those who accept the truth will eventually be given the peace they desire, their sorrows and pain taken away forever. It is worth it to me to accept the truth and move on. I was disappointed that Andrew could not find forgiveness and chose to take the easy way out. What about you? Would you rather believe and live a lie for the sake of easiness?
We started watching it, and it wasn't long before I had the truth mostly figured out. I didn't have the main character's "partner" figured out until almost the very end. The main character, who identifies himself as Edward ("Teddy") Daniels is a U.S. marshal. The movie starts out, set off the coast from Boston in 1956, with he and his partner riding a ferry to Shutter Island to investigate a case of a missing woman, a psychiatric patient on the island who drowned her three children. The island houses three psychiatric wards--a woman's ward, a men's, and a third ward for extremely dangerous patients. One of the doctors over the island says that he believes he can make psychiatric patients well and that they should not be put to death.
The story was a very well thought out one. Teddy takes the lead in the investigation of the missing Rachel Olandos. His partner, whom Teddy met on the ferry, is "Chuck." Their guns are taken from them on the island, in order to enter, and they are told that the officers on the island have final authority. Teddy is an excellent investigator, but he talks to his partner about having information on the facilities on Shutter Island. He claims that he wants to expose the truth, namely that patients on Shutter Island are being experimented on like the Nazis did to people. Teddy himself fought in WW2 and keeps having flashbacks of the horrible things that happened. He reveals that he had a wife who died in a fire at their apartment, where three others died. He said that an Andrew Laeddis, the apartment maintenance man, slipped a match to start the fire, and he got away with the crime. He then later burned down a school that killed some (I think the movie said two children). Andrew had claimed that voices made him do it. He was eventually transferred to Shutter Island. That was when Teddy started looking into the facilities there. He met a man--George--who had been there for a year in Ward C, and when he was released he went and shot some people a week or so later. He begged the judge for the electric chair and begged not to be transferred back to Shutter Island.
After revealing his knowledge to his partner about George, Chuck tells Teddy that they must have lured him onto the island, because the must have known he'd been asking questions. Chuck says they must have made up the story about Rachel Olandos, especially since everyone he questions acts as if they're being coached on what to say. Among other things, everyone says Rachel thinks everyone around her are her neighbors and delivery people and that she still lives in her house.
There are far too many details to relate here, so I'll hit on the big points. The whole time the doctors on the island give him complimentary cigarettes, and they give him aspirin for the migraines he keeps experiencing while there. He also keeps having strange dreams and hallucinations. His wife speaks to him and tells him that Andrew Laeddis is on the island, and Rachel Olandos is still there as well. However, when Teddy confronts the leaders of the island, they tell him Rachel turned up well, near the light house. He goes to talk to her, and she looks the same as the pictures he was shown. She says she went for a long swim in the lake. Of course, they're by the ocean, but Rachel had drowned her children in the lake behind her home. Teddy acts strange every time the drowning incident, or anything that reminds him of it, gets brought up.
At one point, when he's trying to get to the light house, where he suspects they do brain surgery experiments on the patients, he tells Chuck to stay on the rocks. The tide is up too far, so Teddy cannot check out the light house. When he gets back to where he'd left Chuck, he sees a burning cigarette at the edge of the cliff, and he looks down to see Chuck's body on the rocks below. By the time he climbs down the treacherous rocks, Chuck is not there. Either his body washed away, or someone took him. Teddy sees fire light coming from a cave, so he climbs inside. A woman with a knife acts suspicious. Teddy assumes aloud that she's the real Rachel Olandos. She says that she is and that he'll have to leave, because they'd go looking for him, and she doesn't want to be found. She tells him that he will never leave the island and that he had no friends there. She tells him about all the awful things that they do on the island and how she had never even had children nor been married. She said she'd been a doctor on the island, but they thought she was going to expose the truth, so they had to deal with her.
In the end, Teddy does make it to the light house. He successfully stole a gun and then knocked unconscious the guard who was standing at the light house. He did not wish to kill anyone, as he made it clear more than once in the movie he was not there to kill anyone, even Andrew Laeddis, if he found him. The war had caused him not to want to kill anyone. He goes into the light house, reaches the top, and there is the main doctor. He says, "Why are you wet, Baby," which is a line that was spoken between he and his wife in one of his dreams. Teddy said, "What did you say?" The doctor told him that he knew what he'd said. He then told Teddy he had no ammo in the gun. He confronted Teddy calmly with the real truth. Edward Daniels was really Andrew Laeddis, and the letters of the names were rearranged. His wife's first and maiden name were Dolores Chanal, which is a rearrangement of Rachel Olandos. Teddy asked why he was shaking then and had migraines. He accused the doctor of drugging him in the food, alcohol, cigarettes, and aspirin. The doctor said he'd been off of his neuroleptic medications for two days. He was having withdrawals. He asked Teddy about the hallucinations. Teddy then accused them of doing something to Chuck and inquired how they were going to cover that up. "Chuck" then walked out of a door. Teddy asked who he was. He was Teddy's doctor, the one who had supposedly been Rachel's doctor and who had left on the ferry the morning of her disappearance, to take his vacation.
The doctor continued to give Teddy evidence of the real truth. He told Teddy that he was a patient there, the most dangerous patient on the island, and he'd been in Ward C. He read the entrance form on him, reading how Teddy had been a U.S. marshal, very intelligent, etc. He told Teddy that he was their chance to show the world that what they were doing there was working. They had let him have free reign of the island for two days. He'd hurt people, and he had blown up the doctor's parked car (as a distraction so that he could get to the light house). Teddy did not want to believe the truth. The doctor then showed him pictures of his three children and asked whether he would deny that they ever existed. He then fell to the floor, and then it was replayed what had happened several years prior.
He had come home to his cabin, and he poured himself an alcoholic drink and stepped outside the back. His wife was sitting in a chair swing near the lake. She got up and started walking to him, and he asked why she was wet. She was acting strange. He asked where the kids were. She said they were in school, but he said it was Saturday and that school wasn't in that day. He glanced toward the lake, and he saw something floating. He ran to the lake and panicked, as any parent does when they realize something awful has happened to his or her children, saying things like, "Oh, no!" He dived in, and he went to his firstborn daughter. He rolled her over and picked her up. He cried, "Oh, God!" He tried performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, but he quickly realized that was useless. He went to his other two children and had them all gathered in his arms. He laid them down on the land, and his wife talked about sitting them at the table and having dinner and going places with them. They'd be their perfect dolls. He said if she ever loved him, to not say anything else. He was crying. She started crying, and she said that she loved him. She said, "Set me free," and he shot her. It is assumed that he must have taken her and the children and burned them in their apartment. I believe they were at a lakeside cabin, not their regular residence.
When he came to, he was in a bed, and the main doctor and his doctor--Dr. Sheehan. He realized what they were doing was to help him. They asked him who he was. He confessed he was Andrew Laeddis and that he'd murdered his wife in the spring of 1952. When asked why he had created a make believe life, as if he was still a marshal, had a different name, and that another man had burned up his wife, Teddy answered that it was because he couldn't accept that Dolores had drowned their children. He said he'd loved her so much. He said that she'd been manic-depressive and had told him once that she felt as if an insect was crawling in her brain, pulling strings. He ultimately blamed himself, because he had not got her help. So, really he killed their children.
He was then told that they were concerned he would regress again, because he had come to the knowledge of the truth nine months prior. If he did not accept reality, they would have to do the brain surgery that would make him easier to handle, and he'd no longer have memories of his past.
Later, I am guessing the next day, he and his doctor were sitting outside, and Andrew said, "So, Chuck, what's next?" Dr. Sheehan said he didn't know, that Teddy should tell him. He deliberately played like he was in his fantasy world again, even though he really wasn't. He said, "One must ask, is it better to live as a monster or die as a good man?" In other words, he wanted the surgery, because he could not accept living, knowing what he'd done. He couldn't live with his guilt.
During the movie, he was deliberately fed lies by those who wanted to help him, because it was he who wanted to believe the lies. He had lived those lies. So, they set it all up so that the lies would be seemingly confirmed. Then, at the end, they showed him the truth, to see whether he still chose to believe the lies or whether he would accept the truth. In Teddy's case, he did admit the truth, but he didn't want to live the truth. He wanted the memories of his past to be erased, because he couldn't forgive himself.
God forgives. We must be willing to confess the truth of our sins, though, and be willing to move past them.
People are also sent delusion by God, because they have already chosen to live lies. Most who call themselves Christians live and believe lies (2 Thess. 2:10-12). A time is coming that those lies they believe will seemingly be confirmed. They then shall have to decide whether to continue living the lie or to accept the truth and repent. It will be a hard road for the latter, until their death or Christ's return. However, those who choose to continue believing the lies shall have their memories erased forever--the second death. Those who accept the truth will eventually be given the peace they desire, their sorrows and pain taken away forever. It is worth it to me to accept the truth and move on. I was disappointed that Andrew could not find forgiveness and chose to take the easy way out. What about you? Would you rather believe and live a lie for the sake of easiness?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
True Love vs. Deceitful Love
This has been a topic on my mind quite a bit lately. There's also a proverb that goes along with this. Proverbs 27:6 says, Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. This is to say, of course, that a friend will tell the truth, even if it hurts or he or she risks losing the friendship, but a false friend will put on a front so that the other person will like him or her, but that "friend" really does so just to be liked or to collect information to hurt that person or other persons.
This is something I've been talking to with my firstborn son Jaden William. Another thing upon which I've meditated for quite some time is whether I should call him by his first name. He went by William from his birth until about a year and a half ago, when he desired to be called the shortened "Will." I had not liked Will before, just because I didn't like the "sound" of it, but it ended up being okay. Then probably about ten months or so ago, he requested that he be called Jaden. I'd originally wanted to call him Jaden, but his father thought it sounded like a girl name. He was going to be named Jaden regardless of whether he was a boy or a girl, because the name means "thankful" or "God has heard," because God answered my prayer by allowing me to conceive and bring forth a healthy baby after suffering a miscarriage with my first pregnancy. William is the middle name of my husband, and I liked that name. My husband also likes the name, and he has continued to call him William.
This is something I've been talking to with my firstborn son Jaden William. Another thing upon which I've meditated for quite some time is whether I should call him by his first name. He went by William from his birth until about a year and a half ago, when he desired to be called the shortened "Will." I had not liked Will before, just because I didn't like the "sound" of it, but it ended up being okay. Then probably about ten months or so ago, he requested that he be called Jaden. I'd originally wanted to call him Jaden, but his father thought it sounded like a girl name. He was going to be named Jaden regardless of whether he was a boy or a girl, because the name means "thankful" or "God has heard," because God answered my prayer by allowing me to conceive and bring forth a healthy baby after suffering a miscarriage with my first pregnancy. William is the middle name of my husband, and I liked that name. My husband also likes the name, and he has continued to call him William.
It was during the pregnancy of my fourth-born child and first daughter, Olivia, now nearly eight months of age, that my son requested to be called by his first name. I told him I didn't want him changing back and forth and that I would call him by what he likes out of respect toward him, but I didn't want him to change his mind again a few months down the road. Though I'd always liked "Jaden" and had originally wanted to call him that, I then did not want to do so, because I realized an important message with the names of my three living children (including the baby I was carrying, which I knew via God's Spirit was a girl I was to name Olivia)--Will[iam], Trust[en], and [O]Liv[ia]. God's will is for us to trust in Jesus so we shall live. It would be a constant reminder to me.
I've been explaining to William that what often seems like love toward him by others is really just things they do for him or toward him so that they will gain his [ignorant and unknowing] child favor, even if those things are not truly loving, as defined by the Law of God. So, I started thinking perhaps even I, in calling him Jaden, have tried pleasing him too much. Now, I'd had that thought from the very start, when I agreed to call him that, because I thought, "It may be thought that I'm catering to him too highly," but I truly felt like I was doing the respectful thing. For months, though, I've been torn between continuing to call him Jaden and Will/William. I've called him Jaden mostly or simply "Jade." I now have decided to stop predominately calling him by Jaden. I don't think it's meant to be, as I continue to be tormented in spirit by it. He's supposed to be called Will. That's what I believe.
He's been upset that I've not called him Jade/Jaden, but I truly love my son, and that is the correct thing to call him.
So after all my instructing on true love vs. deceitful love, about which there has been much to say, I found myself in somewhat guilt, thinking the name issue has indeed fallen under this.
Some of the things I've recently taught my children concerning true love vs. deceitful love is when someone gives them food that is health-harming but tastes good, since some food that tastes good is really bad. It's deceitful food. I've also taught about deceitful smells and feels. Other things include letting children engage in dangerous activities or see inappropriate movies. They may think the adult is loving them, but it's a deceitful love. What about giving them too many toys? This is another deceitful thing, because it teaches them to love things more than people.
Of course, there are many other examples, and it doesn't apply only to adults toward children. There are many forms of deceitful love out there. Many people are deceived into thinking false love is real love and that true love is a deceitful love. Many think God's Law is a wretched thing, when truly it shows love that a Good Father has for his children.
The next time you feel loved, stop and ask yourself. Is it a true act of love or a deceitful one? Can you tell the difference?
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Sole Entertainment or Lessons Learned?
My firstborn son Jaden, nearly seven, said he wanted to watch a Care Bears movie that his three-year-old brother has, on the sabbath day, and perceiving that I'd likely reject their watching that movie on the sabbath day, he said, "It's teaching caring."
So I said, "Well, okay, that's wonderful. I love caring. Caring is good. If it teaches you, then, how to be loving and caring, then I can find no lawful reason against it. So, does that mean you are going to be more caring toward your little brother? He likes it much more when you're caring than when you're mean."
He said the movie would help him do that. I asked him how long it had been since he told his little brother he loved him, and he said about a month, though I don't think it's been that long. Nevertheless, I said, "A month? You tell me every day." (In reality, many times every day.)
I continued, "You should tell him right now that you love him. And hug him, too." When he did, Trusten hugged him bag, and I could tell by his face that he loved Jaden hugging him. I said so. I told Jaden that Trusten was loving back, when Jade loves him, but Trusten's mean in return, when Jaden is mean to him. Hugs, not pushes!
"Jaden," I said, "you should always get a lesson out of something you watch, because if you do not, then it's not worth watching. It shouldn't be there to solely entertain."
Then it hit me. I've wondered for some time how people are so blinded about everything, when even the stories people dream up (people record these dreams/fantasies as books and movies) and are broadcast to an audience of millions upon millions do nothing to change them. Those who are deep thinkers, who meditate upon things and are looking to grow in knowledge for good, learn lessons from what they watch, otherwise they stop watching it as not to waste their time or pollute themselves. There was a movie not too long ago that my husband and I watched, though I cannot remember the title, which we both thought was rather stupid from the beginning, and within mere minutes into it, I said, "There's just no way we can watch this entire thing. It's far too stupid and not even very funny." Nathan agreed, and we did something else. We'd just rented it online, so it was a bit of money spent, but better to waste only money than waste both money and time. Both are only temporary, and wisdom and knowledge are superior.
It's still difficult for me to understand, because I'm just not that way, but it's very apparent to me now that people are out for sole entertainment, and somehow they walk away from movies without learning anything to improve their lives or the lives of others. They learn no lessons. These people would likely even say there were no lessons to learn or of which to be reminded. They just do not exercise their brains by thinking. There is no real meditation in the minds of the millions of people residing within this nation, Israel-Manasseh-United States, those of both Israel and the aliens in our borders. That must be the reason why everything has to have excessive sex (including the dress code), violence, profane language, etc. I'm starting to catch on, to see how these people are missing the actual STORY, the actual DREAM that the writer had and that they're viewing. They're not getting anything from it, because they're thinking of how "hot" a certain actor or actress is or how hilarious the sex jokes are or how great the excessive shooting and car crashings are (not to mention far-fetched as to all the things these people go through without being killed). That's all they must be thinking the whole time!
Oh, it's no wonder! And see, the story's message, the actual lesson learned (regardless of whether the original writer even knew he had a lesson to teach), could get across without all that excessive broadcasting lusts of the flesh, except the movies would not sell that way, because there is such a small audience that is learning from these things. The greater percentage of the audience are those who want to see sin, the lusts of the flesh, and so those who are producing the movie make sure to give heavy doses of it. The downside is that those who actually learn lessons and grow in knowledge from these stories/dreams is that we have to be exposed more to the filthy nature of our sinful population. Many things that the majority of the population, including most who identify themselves as Christians, see as fine, those of us who are faithful believers who meditate on things see as abominable.
Israel, Israel. YOU, Manasseh--United States--those of you with an Anglo-Saxon (Israelite, "Brit-ish," Hebrew for "covenant man") blood line and also those of you who are aliens with our borders who fear the Most High God, do you love this world and the lusts of the flesh, or do you have your hopes and priority on the world to come, the true New World Order that Christ will establish at his return? Are you being solely entertained by SIN, by lusts of the flesh, or do you BEAR with the abominable sights of sin as you grow in grace and knowledge?
So I said, "Well, okay, that's wonderful. I love caring. Caring is good. If it teaches you, then, how to be loving and caring, then I can find no lawful reason against it. So, does that mean you are going to be more caring toward your little brother? He likes it much more when you're caring than when you're mean."
He said the movie would help him do that. I asked him how long it had been since he told his little brother he loved him, and he said about a month, though I don't think it's been that long. Nevertheless, I said, "A month? You tell me every day." (In reality, many times every day.)
I continued, "You should tell him right now that you love him. And hug him, too." When he did, Trusten hugged him bag, and I could tell by his face that he loved Jaden hugging him. I said so. I told Jaden that Trusten was loving back, when Jade loves him, but Trusten's mean in return, when Jaden is mean to him. Hugs, not pushes!
"Jaden," I said, "you should always get a lesson out of something you watch, because if you do not, then it's not worth watching. It shouldn't be there to solely entertain."
Then it hit me. I've wondered for some time how people are so blinded about everything, when even the stories people dream up (people record these dreams/fantasies as books and movies) and are broadcast to an audience of millions upon millions do nothing to change them. Those who are deep thinkers, who meditate upon things and are looking to grow in knowledge for good, learn lessons from what they watch, otherwise they stop watching it as not to waste their time or pollute themselves. There was a movie not too long ago that my husband and I watched, though I cannot remember the title, which we both thought was rather stupid from the beginning, and within mere minutes into it, I said, "There's just no way we can watch this entire thing. It's far too stupid and not even very funny." Nathan agreed, and we did something else. We'd just rented it online, so it was a bit of money spent, but better to waste only money than waste both money and time. Both are only temporary, and wisdom and knowledge are superior.
It's still difficult for me to understand, because I'm just not that way, but it's very apparent to me now that people are out for sole entertainment, and somehow they walk away from movies without learning anything to improve their lives or the lives of others. They learn no lessons. These people would likely even say there were no lessons to learn or of which to be reminded. They just do not exercise their brains by thinking. There is no real meditation in the minds of the millions of people residing within this nation, Israel-Manasseh-United States, those of both Israel and the aliens in our borders. That must be the reason why everything has to have excessive sex (including the dress code), violence, profane language, etc. I'm starting to catch on, to see how these people are missing the actual STORY, the actual DREAM that the writer had and that they're viewing. They're not getting anything from it, because they're thinking of how "hot" a certain actor or actress is or how hilarious the sex jokes are or how great the excessive shooting and car crashings are (not to mention far-fetched as to all the things these people go through without being killed). That's all they must be thinking the whole time!
Oh, it's no wonder! And see, the story's message, the actual lesson learned (regardless of whether the original writer even knew he had a lesson to teach), could get across without all that excessive broadcasting lusts of the flesh, except the movies would not sell that way, because there is such a small audience that is learning from these things. The greater percentage of the audience are those who want to see sin, the lusts of the flesh, and so those who are producing the movie make sure to give heavy doses of it. The downside is that those who actually learn lessons and grow in knowledge from these stories/dreams is that we have to be exposed more to the filthy nature of our sinful population. Many things that the majority of the population, including most who identify themselves as Christians, see as fine, those of us who are faithful believers who meditate on things see as abominable.
Israel, Israel. YOU, Manasseh--United States--those of you with an Anglo-Saxon (Israelite, "Brit-ish," Hebrew for "covenant man") blood line and also those of you who are aliens with our borders who fear the Most High God, do you love this world and the lusts of the flesh, or do you have your hopes and priority on the world to come, the true New World Order that Christ will establish at his return? Are you being solely entertained by SIN, by lusts of the flesh, or do you BEAR with the abominable sights of sin as you grow in grace and knowledge?
Friday, April 23, 2010
There's Always Been Both Grace and Punishment
I just finished reading an article in which a Utah man whom murdered someone 25 years ago is now out of appeals and is set to receive the death penalty. He chose the firing squad. For those who want those details, read the article. There are just a few things on which I want to comment.
The followings is a quote from the article, quoting a representative who wanted the law to ban the death penalty by the firing squad and only allow lethal injection:
"I was just hoping to end that focus," said Allen, adding that she's displeased with the prospect of another firing squad execution. "I fear that the proper attention will not be paid to the victims of the crime and the atrocity of the crime."
It seems to me as if anyone was really concerned that proper attention was paid to the victims of the crime, he would have been put to death 25 years ago. That's a quarter of a century ago that the crime took place! Is the victim's family even still living? Unbelievable! As for the "atrocity of the crime," I think a rain of bullets serves him right for unrepentant murder. The family members and friends of the victim ought to be the ones who get to shoot, though, although it should have happened a quarter of a century ago.
Another quote from the article:
But despite Utah's strong religious roots — it's the home of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — most here support the use of the death penalty.
But despite strong religious roots, most support the death penalty? What do you mean "but despite?" It seems to me that a strongly religious person would support the death penalty the most. Are not "strong[ly] religious [people]" the most just? They ought to be, and justice for an unrepentant murder is DEATH.
Continuing on, the article stated:
"I think in Utah, when it suits their purposes, they go back to the Old Testament and the 'eye for an eye' kind of thing," Kalish said. "These people may be the worst of the worst, but if the best we can do is repeat the same thing, it's so obviously wrong."
Obviously wrong? Back to the old testament? What is wrong with this Lydia Kalish? She is the one who is wrong. So, what are you supposed to do with an unrepentant murderer, Lydia? Lock him up in a cage for the rest of his life and charge the law-abiding citizens, including the victims of his offense, for his upkeep? If that was my husband or son or father or friend whose life was unfairly taken, and the offender had absolutely no remorse, I'd want the man dead. A responsible person would not want such an evildoer alive, nor would not to send the message to the rest of the population that they can get away with evil and still live!
It appalls me that we have such foolish people in our high offices and running the nation and states. It's no wonder we have such an ever-worsening society. I see the main problem here. People have the erroneous idea that under the old covenant, people got punishment--the death penalty for most things--no matter what and that under the new covenant, people should get grace, no matter what. Absolutely not! That is not right. There has always been grace by God for those who deserve grace and punishment for those who deserve punishment. There were those who found grace who lived under the old covenant, because of their deep repentance. And under the new covenant, there are still those who deserve punishment, because they do not repent.
The old vs. new covenants has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with punishment vs. grace. If one thinks that, he is terribly illiterate of the scriptures. The old covenant focused on the carnal heart and the letter of the law. The new covenant focuses on the spiritual heart and the spirit of the law. The law was never "done away," and grace is not a new thing.
To learn more about God's truth, visit my website: www.endtimecog.net.
The followings is a quote from the article, quoting a representative who wanted the law to ban the death penalty by the firing squad and only allow lethal injection:
"I was just hoping to end that focus," said Allen, adding that she's displeased with the prospect of another firing squad execution. "I fear that the proper attention will not be paid to the victims of the crime and the atrocity of the crime."
It seems to me as if anyone was really concerned that proper attention was paid to the victims of the crime, he would have been put to death 25 years ago. That's a quarter of a century ago that the crime took place! Is the victim's family even still living? Unbelievable! As for the "atrocity of the crime," I think a rain of bullets serves him right for unrepentant murder. The family members and friends of the victim ought to be the ones who get to shoot, though, although it should have happened a quarter of a century ago.
Another quote from the article:
But despite Utah's strong religious roots — it's the home of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — most here support the use of the death penalty.
But despite strong religious roots, most support the death penalty? What do you mean "but despite?" It seems to me that a strongly religious person would support the death penalty the most. Are not "strong[ly] religious [people]" the most just? They ought to be, and justice for an unrepentant murder is DEATH.
Continuing on, the article stated:
"I think in Utah, when it suits their purposes, they go back to the Old Testament and the 'eye for an eye' kind of thing," Kalish said. "These people may be the worst of the worst, but if the best we can do is repeat the same thing, it's so obviously wrong."
Obviously wrong? Back to the old testament? What is wrong with this Lydia Kalish? She is the one who is wrong. So, what are you supposed to do with an unrepentant murderer, Lydia? Lock him up in a cage for the rest of his life and charge the law-abiding citizens, including the victims of his offense, for his upkeep? If that was my husband or son or father or friend whose life was unfairly taken, and the offender had absolutely no remorse, I'd want the man dead. A responsible person would not want such an evildoer alive, nor would not to send the message to the rest of the population that they can get away with evil and still live!
It appalls me that we have such foolish people in our high offices and running the nation and states. It's no wonder we have such an ever-worsening society. I see the main problem here. People have the erroneous idea that under the old covenant, people got punishment--the death penalty for most things--no matter what and that under the new covenant, people should get grace, no matter what. Absolutely not! That is not right. There has always been grace by God for those who deserve grace and punishment for those who deserve punishment. There were those who found grace who lived under the old covenant, because of their deep repentance. And under the new covenant, there are still those who deserve punishment, because they do not repent.
The old vs. new covenants has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with punishment vs. grace. If one thinks that, he is terribly illiterate of the scriptures. The old covenant focused on the carnal heart and the letter of the law. The new covenant focuses on the spiritual heart and the spirit of the law. The law was never "done away," and grace is not a new thing.
To learn more about God's truth, visit my website: www.endtimecog.net.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Family Planning
As with everything, we need to look at the scriptures in their whole context and not just certain parts that agree with what we currently believe or want to believe. Family planning is no different.
First, let's consider God himself. He planned a family. In the very beginning He chose to only clone himself once. Just one son. He then created everything else through that son. He said it, and his son obeyed.
Fast forward, and God decides he would like many sons to help him rule his ever-expanding universe. He saw that not everybody agreed with his way. (I'm speaking of the rebels, the fallen ones who once served him as created angels.) So, he and his son discuss this and realize that if God simply clones himself some more that it wouldn't really be fair, because being his clones they'd naturally have his mind (not to say they'd all have the same favorite color or the same exact ideas for things, but they'd be in agreement with him on what was right and wrong, they'd be "one" with him in this way). God is what he is, and to be that kind, you do as God believes is right. Since God and the Firstborn saw that not everyone agrees that God's way is the best way and wishes to be under his authority, they made a plan at the beginning (not the very beginning, but this beginning to which I'm referring here is the beginning of the world that now is) so that the candidates to be sons of God would have a choice to choose his way or reject it.
Now, of course some may say it's not ethical to have put us here like this and suffer, etc., but God decided that it's what He wanted to do, and that's his business. What are we going to do about it? We are the creation, he is the Creator. At least it's TEMPORARY. So, if we do not like his way, then we can die and not be bothered ever again. He will destroy the spirits of those who do not choose his way so that they can never be resurrected again. Between the two choices, God apparently liked this one better than having immortal Sons throughout eternity and having to wonder whether some of them, if given the choice, would have not willingly put themselves under his authority. I personally agree with his ethical decision. As bad as it sounds, it sounds worse to me to force clone myself so that I have sons to help me run the busy universe, knowing some of those sons might not have willingly submitted to my authority.
Now, God did set a time limit on his reproduction. Of course, the less time, the less sons. He'll have a lot of sons, though, but he has a mind-boggling size universe to run. A few thousand years is really a short plan for someone who has been around for who-knows-how-long…mind-boggling in itself. Have you noticed, though, that the older you get, the quicker time seems to fly by? Now, put that on God's scale. A few thousand years must seem like what days seem to us.
Anyway, he did PLAN a family. It was carefully and wisely planned, and the Firstborn, of course loving his Father so much, agreed to be a sacrifice (that's what firstborns are good for…sacrificial love for their younger siblings). He would be given all the power so that he could triumph over sin, but he still would have all the temptations the rest of us have. He would have a choice.
Now on to human family planning.
Let's look at the most-looked-at scriptures concerning both sides of the issue, and based on this is how I formed my own opinion, which is balanced and not to either extreme (that children are terrible wretches to be avoided or that we should try to have as many children as possible).
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. ~Gen. 1:28 (see also Gen. 9:1).
The earth obviously was not filled in these two cases and needed to be replenished. Today the earth has nearly seven billion people. In my opinion, it could hold many more, if a few things changed, but I won't get into that deeply right now. The way people are doing now, the earth is being overtaxed of its resources and being poisoned by its own children. So, in my opinion, it's not a good time to multiply. Maybe add. But multiplying is a bad idea, until people get their problems lined out (in my opinion, that means follow God's Law). This earth is a physical planet, and its children have physical bodies. Physical means there must be death and recycling, or otherwise you get overpopulated. If the earth truly did get full to the brim, the Creator would have to come destroy or to save…or both.
The earth is the mother that God used to produce children. A man's sperm is a type of God's Spirit. A woman's womb is a type of in the earth. Just as the earth can be overburdened by the children she both bears and nourishes, a woman's body can be overburdened by having too many children or by having even one or a few children if her body is in poor condition for some reason (the earth is currently in ever-worsening condition, so polluted and robbed of its bodily resources).
A man is a type of God. The man has ownership over his wife, his children, his livestock, his lands, his material assets. His name is put on all those things. He should have a wise plan. He should not take on more wives than he can support (financially, sexually, living space, etc. (Ex. 21:10). It should go without saying that he should use the same principle for children, livestock, lands, horses (cars, trucks, etc.), and other material assets. The question should be, "Can I afford to take on this debt?" Also, "Can I afford this much time for this many wives and children?"
If God so carefully and wisely made a plan (explained by the meaning of the seven annual feasts), then why should we not plan? God may not know exactly how many children he will have, but it's probably safe to say that he had a minimum and maximum in mind, and with his mathematical genius, he's sure to get within the range he desires with his plan. By the time he gets to the sixth step in his plan (which goes into action during the thousand-year-reign of the sons of God on earth), the possibilities start narrowing. The further candidates will be among whomever is born of humans during on thousand years, and then afterward in the seventh and last step of his plan (during the "Great White Throne Judgement" period) all those who had not been called to the truth in their first life time. We know that not all choose the truth after having their eyes opened to it. Some do not like to do it God's way, just as some children do not like to do their human parents' way.
We know that some throughout the ages have not even been able to bear children, and so of course the command to be fruitful is irrelevant to them. Some also choose not to marry, and of course that command is irrelevant to them. Nor is it wrong for a person not to marry. It is especially beneficial for some not to marry, if they have a special calling. It could be viewed by some that refusing to get married is evading having children, but we know that choosing not to marry is fine. Paul explains this more in his first letter to Corinth (found in chapter seven). Solomon said that a man who marries a wife has done a good thing. So, we see a balanced view. Some marry, some don't, and both choices are fine, as long as the reasons are right in heart. There are some reasons that would not be right. Of course one must be in keeping with the Law of Love.
So, what about married couples who can bear children? Lets' look at the Onan incident:
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. ~Gen. 38:9
Onan married his dead brother's wife so that he could carry on his father's line in his brother's stead. Er had not yet had a firstborn son by his wife Tamar before he died. This is the reason why Onan was put to death by God. It wasn't simply that he did not want to reproduce. He knew the seed would not be his. He wanted all his seed to be his. Perhaps he would have given seed to Tamar for his brother later, but only after he had married another wife and had his own firstborn for himself. We don't know. Regardless, he was being selfish. He had the wrong heart, the wrong mindset.
There is an interesting tidbit, though, to this. According to the book of Jasher, Er was also struck dead by God because he spilled his seed. If this is accurate, then the question might be why did God strike him down, since he was Tamar's first husband. It's still a matter of refusing to bear a firstborn son to carry on the line of Judah. If a man never has a son, his name will not be carried on. The family name may be carried by a brother, if that man has a brother, but you can't count on that happening. Now it could be that in this case, it was more important to God that someone carried on Judah's line than perhaps just anybody who did this. God may have already decided at this point that Christ would be born through his line. Perhaps it was known way in advance, and perhaps the enemy knew as well. I have meditated on this in the past, and I find it interesting that of three brothers, none planted seed in Tamar. The first two died, and then Judah refused for his son Shelah to take Tamar. It's ironic that Judah himself planted seed in Tamar in order to continue the line. Of course, how it happened is even stranger. But, the reason I've meditated on it so much is because that was the line through whom Christ eventually came.
Most men who buy a piece of land will plant upon it (husbandry). So it is with wives. It is rather strange not to want to bear fruit from your piece of earth (wife).
However, there issues that must be considered. Does a man, after taking a property, have the finances to sow and bear fruit? You must take care of the plants (children). Some men indeed just want to buy a piece of land just to enjoy being on it. He does not have any intention of planting a vineyard or field or orchard. Perhaps a man considers that he does not have what it takes to be a proper father, but his sexual desire is strong, and he wishes not to sin; or he does not want to be lonely, so he takes a wife.
Perhaps the man, his land, or both have certain problems. For example, the land is too rocky for planting, but it's a nice place for peace and quiet. Or maybe the man is lame and so cannot do any sowing. A man or woman may have infertility problems, or they may have serious genetic errors that they would pass on to their children (or perhaps already have, and they do not wish to continue to do so). Maybe they have bad family histories, and so there are curses that live on in the DNA. Or perhaps a woman has a medical problem that makes it dangerous to maintain a pregnancy or makes birth dangerous, and she and/or her husband does not want to take the risk.
Maybe the man doesn't have room to store very many fruits. So, maybe a man does not have much room for many children.
There are all sorts of issues to take into consideration.
My personal take is that we should have balance. I think it's wrong for humans to abort a child or enforce sterilization upon women. But, I also don't think it's wise to act like one is in a competition to see how many children he or she can have. Land needs rest, and it's commanded by the Law. A woman's body needs rest, too. God put special mechanisms into place for proper child spacing, but it doesn't work with an increasing number of women (at least in our part of the world). Lactation should keep the menstrual cycle away for a year or two (sometimes more), but if a woman has high estrogen levels or is overweight (probably also due to high estrogen, as excess is stored in fat), it may come back sooner. There are also other factors, I know, like nursing frequency and night nursing, and perhaps others of which I'm not aware. I don't have all the answers. But, it's common for women who have several children close together to have health problems, even fatalities due to pregnancy or childbirth complications, as well as premature births. It also carries a higher risk of postpartum depression, because of so many young children close in age.
I am personally against surgical contraception, except in extreme cases (health-related, for example). I also am very anti- birth control pills, because they cause too many abnormal changes in body chemistry, and because they are just that--birth control pills. The conception control is good for seventy-something percent, maybe eighty-percent. The other twenty-eight to twenty-nine or more percent is birth control, meaning that if the woman conceives, the newly conceived human being is aborted, because it cannot implant in the hormonally-changed uterus. There are other forms of contraception that I'm against, and then there are some that I am pretty neutral on, partly because I lack knowledge about some of them.
I also believe that if a woman wants more children, but her husband does not want to sow there, she should respect that. He's the husbandman; she's the earth/land. She doesn't own him; he owns her.
I know there's the argument that one should trust God with the number of children, and on the surface of this, I agree. However, there is the issue of blind faith. More specifically, if one is knowledgeable of risks such as genetic issues, other health problems, financial trouble, disagreement by spouse on the childbearing viewpoint, etc., then heading full force into planning another child without careful consideration is an act of blind faith. Yes, God can tend to health problems, financial problems, and other issues, but that doesn't mean we should tempt Him, either. We are warned in the scriptures not to do so, and doing so could come back to bite us in a rather hurtful way. This doesn't necessarily mean someone should be cut so that they almost surely will not have a child, but it means that I think a person should use wisdom and discretion in certain circumstances, just be a little cautious. If one is using a certain contraception method such as natural family planning or condoms, then that shows a cautious approach but still gives a chance for a child and for God to work. He knows when a person yearns for another child but knows it may not be wise to have one at the time. I think true trust is being wise and knowing that God can work in one's favor if he so desires, without one trying hard to make something happen even when there's great risk involved. There's Psalm 127:1-5. And indeed what it says is true. Of course, it must be taken within the context of the whole bible and as a general statement. Just because one cannot have a child does not mean God has cursed him or her. Also, a child is not always a blessing. A child, even when brought up in a Godly home, can become an evil wretch who hates God's way. Children, in general, are a blessing, but those with twenty children are not necessarily more favored by God than the couple who cannot have children. Sometimes God will help a previously infertile woman go on to have a child, as he did for Hannah, Samuel's mother. But, sometimes God will not open a woman's womb, and it's not always because she's not favored by him (though other times that is indeed the case).
Of course, everything has a certain amount of risk, and we do have free will. This takes me to my last point. Just as God decided to enact the plan of making man in his image for the purpose of reproducing more Sons, a father and mother decides their family plan (hopefully within God's will, which wouldn't include selective abortion), and the child cannot say to his or her parents, "You had no right to conceive me and bring me into this horrible world of suffering." We all know before we decide to have children that it's a horrible world, and indeed a time will come when it will not be wise at all to be planning children (Matt. 24:19), but we have the right to bring them into this world for our purpose, in hoping they will be wonderful additions to the family line (and in the bigger picture that they will choose to be Sons of God once they are called, whether in this lifetime or during the GWT Judgment).
First, let's consider God himself. He planned a family. In the very beginning He chose to only clone himself once. Just one son. He then created everything else through that son. He said it, and his son obeyed.
Fast forward, and God decides he would like many sons to help him rule his ever-expanding universe. He saw that not everybody agreed with his way. (I'm speaking of the rebels, the fallen ones who once served him as created angels.) So, he and his son discuss this and realize that if God simply clones himself some more that it wouldn't really be fair, because being his clones they'd naturally have his mind (not to say they'd all have the same favorite color or the same exact ideas for things, but they'd be in agreement with him on what was right and wrong, they'd be "one" with him in this way). God is what he is, and to be that kind, you do as God believes is right. Since God and the Firstborn saw that not everyone agrees that God's way is the best way and wishes to be under his authority, they made a plan at the beginning (not the very beginning, but this beginning to which I'm referring here is the beginning of the world that now is) so that the candidates to be sons of God would have a choice to choose his way or reject it.
Now, of course some may say it's not ethical to have put us here like this and suffer, etc., but God decided that it's what He wanted to do, and that's his business. What are we going to do about it? We are the creation, he is the Creator. At least it's TEMPORARY. So, if we do not like his way, then we can die and not be bothered ever again. He will destroy the spirits of those who do not choose his way so that they can never be resurrected again. Between the two choices, God apparently liked this one better than having immortal Sons throughout eternity and having to wonder whether some of them, if given the choice, would have not willingly put themselves under his authority. I personally agree with his ethical decision. As bad as it sounds, it sounds worse to me to force clone myself so that I have sons to help me run the busy universe, knowing some of those sons might not have willingly submitted to my authority.
Now, God did set a time limit on his reproduction. Of course, the less time, the less sons. He'll have a lot of sons, though, but he has a mind-boggling size universe to run. A few thousand years is really a short plan for someone who has been around for who-knows-how-long…mind-boggling in itself. Have you noticed, though, that the older you get, the quicker time seems to fly by? Now, put that on God's scale. A few thousand years must seem like what days seem to us.
Anyway, he did PLAN a family. It was carefully and wisely planned, and the Firstborn, of course loving his Father so much, agreed to be a sacrifice (that's what firstborns are good for…sacrificial love for their younger siblings). He would be given all the power so that he could triumph over sin, but he still would have all the temptations the rest of us have. He would have a choice.
Now on to human family planning.
Let's look at the most-looked-at scriptures concerning both sides of the issue, and based on this is how I formed my own opinion, which is balanced and not to either extreme (that children are terrible wretches to be avoided or that we should try to have as many children as possible).
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. ~Gen. 1:28 (see also Gen. 9:1).
The earth obviously was not filled in these two cases and needed to be replenished. Today the earth has nearly seven billion people. In my opinion, it could hold many more, if a few things changed, but I won't get into that deeply right now. The way people are doing now, the earth is being overtaxed of its resources and being poisoned by its own children. So, in my opinion, it's not a good time to multiply. Maybe add. But multiplying is a bad idea, until people get their problems lined out (in my opinion, that means follow God's Law). This earth is a physical planet, and its children have physical bodies. Physical means there must be death and recycling, or otherwise you get overpopulated. If the earth truly did get full to the brim, the Creator would have to come destroy or to save…or both.
The earth is the mother that God used to produce children. A man's sperm is a type of God's Spirit. A woman's womb is a type of in the earth. Just as the earth can be overburdened by the children she both bears and nourishes, a woman's body can be overburdened by having too many children or by having even one or a few children if her body is in poor condition for some reason (the earth is currently in ever-worsening condition, so polluted and robbed of its bodily resources).
A man is a type of God. The man has ownership over his wife, his children, his livestock, his lands, his material assets. His name is put on all those things. He should have a wise plan. He should not take on more wives than he can support (financially, sexually, living space, etc. (Ex. 21:10). It should go without saying that he should use the same principle for children, livestock, lands, horses (cars, trucks, etc.), and other material assets. The question should be, "Can I afford to take on this debt?" Also, "Can I afford this much time for this many wives and children?"
If God so carefully and wisely made a plan (explained by the meaning of the seven annual feasts), then why should we not plan? God may not know exactly how many children he will have, but it's probably safe to say that he had a minimum and maximum in mind, and with his mathematical genius, he's sure to get within the range he desires with his plan. By the time he gets to the sixth step in his plan (which goes into action during the thousand-year-reign of the sons of God on earth), the possibilities start narrowing. The further candidates will be among whomever is born of humans during on thousand years, and then afterward in the seventh and last step of his plan (during the "Great White Throne Judgement" period) all those who had not been called to the truth in their first life time. We know that not all choose the truth after having their eyes opened to it. Some do not like to do it God's way, just as some children do not like to do their human parents' way.
We know that some throughout the ages have not even been able to bear children, and so of course the command to be fruitful is irrelevant to them. Some also choose not to marry, and of course that command is irrelevant to them. Nor is it wrong for a person not to marry. It is especially beneficial for some not to marry, if they have a special calling. It could be viewed by some that refusing to get married is evading having children, but we know that choosing not to marry is fine. Paul explains this more in his first letter to Corinth (found in chapter seven). Solomon said that a man who marries a wife has done a good thing. So, we see a balanced view. Some marry, some don't, and both choices are fine, as long as the reasons are right in heart. There are some reasons that would not be right. Of course one must be in keeping with the Law of Love.
So, what about married couples who can bear children? Lets' look at the Onan incident:
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. ~Gen. 38:9
Onan married his dead brother's wife so that he could carry on his father's line in his brother's stead. Er had not yet had a firstborn son by his wife Tamar before he died. This is the reason why Onan was put to death by God. It wasn't simply that he did not want to reproduce. He knew the seed would not be his. He wanted all his seed to be his. Perhaps he would have given seed to Tamar for his brother later, but only after he had married another wife and had his own firstborn for himself. We don't know. Regardless, he was being selfish. He had the wrong heart, the wrong mindset.
There is an interesting tidbit, though, to this. According to the book of Jasher, Er was also struck dead by God because he spilled his seed. If this is accurate, then the question might be why did God strike him down, since he was Tamar's first husband. It's still a matter of refusing to bear a firstborn son to carry on the line of Judah. If a man never has a son, his name will not be carried on. The family name may be carried by a brother, if that man has a brother, but you can't count on that happening. Now it could be that in this case, it was more important to God that someone carried on Judah's line than perhaps just anybody who did this. God may have already decided at this point that Christ would be born through his line. Perhaps it was known way in advance, and perhaps the enemy knew as well. I have meditated on this in the past, and I find it interesting that of three brothers, none planted seed in Tamar. The first two died, and then Judah refused for his son Shelah to take Tamar. It's ironic that Judah himself planted seed in Tamar in order to continue the line. Of course, how it happened is even stranger. But, the reason I've meditated on it so much is because that was the line through whom Christ eventually came.
Most men who buy a piece of land will plant upon it (husbandry). So it is with wives. It is rather strange not to want to bear fruit from your piece of earth (wife).
However, there issues that must be considered. Does a man, after taking a property, have the finances to sow and bear fruit? You must take care of the plants (children). Some men indeed just want to buy a piece of land just to enjoy being on it. He does not have any intention of planting a vineyard or field or orchard. Perhaps a man considers that he does not have what it takes to be a proper father, but his sexual desire is strong, and he wishes not to sin; or he does not want to be lonely, so he takes a wife.
Perhaps the man, his land, or both have certain problems. For example, the land is too rocky for planting, but it's a nice place for peace and quiet. Or maybe the man is lame and so cannot do any sowing. A man or woman may have infertility problems, or they may have serious genetic errors that they would pass on to their children (or perhaps already have, and they do not wish to continue to do so). Maybe they have bad family histories, and so there are curses that live on in the DNA. Or perhaps a woman has a medical problem that makes it dangerous to maintain a pregnancy or makes birth dangerous, and she and/or her husband does not want to take the risk.
Maybe the man doesn't have room to store very many fruits. So, maybe a man does not have much room for many children.
There are all sorts of issues to take into consideration.
My personal take is that we should have balance. I think it's wrong for humans to abort a child or enforce sterilization upon women. But, I also don't think it's wise to act like one is in a competition to see how many children he or she can have. Land needs rest, and it's commanded by the Law. A woman's body needs rest, too. God put special mechanisms into place for proper child spacing, but it doesn't work with an increasing number of women (at least in our part of the world). Lactation should keep the menstrual cycle away for a year or two (sometimes more), but if a woman has high estrogen levels or is overweight (probably also due to high estrogen, as excess is stored in fat), it may come back sooner. There are also other factors, I know, like nursing frequency and night nursing, and perhaps others of which I'm not aware. I don't have all the answers. But, it's common for women who have several children close together to have health problems, even fatalities due to pregnancy or childbirth complications, as well as premature births. It also carries a higher risk of postpartum depression, because of so many young children close in age.
I am personally against surgical contraception, except in extreme cases (health-related, for example). I also am very anti- birth control pills, because they cause too many abnormal changes in body chemistry, and because they are just that--birth control pills. The conception control is good for seventy-something percent, maybe eighty-percent. The other twenty-eight to twenty-nine or more percent is birth control, meaning that if the woman conceives, the newly conceived human being is aborted, because it cannot implant in the hormonally-changed uterus. There are other forms of contraception that I'm against, and then there are some that I am pretty neutral on, partly because I lack knowledge about some of them.
I also believe that if a woman wants more children, but her husband does not want to sow there, she should respect that. He's the husbandman; she's the earth/land. She doesn't own him; he owns her.
I know there's the argument that one should trust God with the number of children, and on the surface of this, I agree. However, there is the issue of blind faith. More specifically, if one is knowledgeable of risks such as genetic issues, other health problems, financial trouble, disagreement by spouse on the childbearing viewpoint, etc., then heading full force into planning another child without careful consideration is an act of blind faith. Yes, God can tend to health problems, financial problems, and other issues, but that doesn't mean we should tempt Him, either. We are warned in the scriptures not to do so, and doing so could come back to bite us in a rather hurtful way. This doesn't necessarily mean someone should be cut so that they almost surely will not have a child, but it means that I think a person should use wisdom and discretion in certain circumstances, just be a little cautious. If one is using a certain contraception method such as natural family planning or condoms, then that shows a cautious approach but still gives a chance for a child and for God to work. He knows when a person yearns for another child but knows it may not be wise to have one at the time. I think true trust is being wise and knowing that God can work in one's favor if he so desires, without one trying hard to make something happen even when there's great risk involved. There's Psalm 127:1-5. And indeed what it says is true. Of course, it must be taken within the context of the whole bible and as a general statement. Just because one cannot have a child does not mean God has cursed him or her. Also, a child is not always a blessing. A child, even when brought up in a Godly home, can become an evil wretch who hates God's way. Children, in general, are a blessing, but those with twenty children are not necessarily more favored by God than the couple who cannot have children. Sometimes God will help a previously infertile woman go on to have a child, as he did for Hannah, Samuel's mother. But, sometimes God will not open a woman's womb, and it's not always because she's not favored by him (though other times that is indeed the case).
Of course, everything has a certain amount of risk, and we do have free will. This takes me to my last point. Just as God decided to enact the plan of making man in his image for the purpose of reproducing more Sons, a father and mother decides their family plan (hopefully within God's will, which wouldn't include selective abortion), and the child cannot say to his or her parents, "You had no right to conceive me and bring me into this horrible world of suffering." We all know before we decide to have children that it's a horrible world, and indeed a time will come when it will not be wise at all to be planning children (Matt. 24:19), but we have the right to bring them into this world for our purpose, in hoping they will be wonderful additions to the family line (and in the bigger picture that they will choose to be Sons of God once they are called, whether in this lifetime or during the GWT Judgment).
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Alien Invaders!
Space invaders! Alien invaders! Alien shooters! It seems we're constantly bombarded with these messages. The more the message is conveyed, the more deluded people become, and then even more the message is repeated. This message is marketed to both adults and children in the form of movies, cartoons, video games, and even comparative phrases such as the one I saw in a recent Mercola wellness newsletter that stated, "Most doctors attack chronic illnesses as if they're an alien invader."
My sons watch Davey and Goliath cartoons that I bought on dvd. For the most part, I really like those cartoons, because they instill Godly values in my children's minds. There are a few things I've seen that I don't like. An anti-alien stance on one episode is one such thing. The main theme of the episode is great and teaches that helping others in need is the right thing to do. However, at the end Davey and another two boys are about to go watch a movie in the theater, called "Boy in Space." Goliath, Davey's loyal dog, had to stay outside the theater to wait. Davey told him that he could keep a watch out for spaceships. Upon asking what to do if he saw one, Davey replied, "Bite it!"
My son got my permission to play some demo games on my laptop that I use for writing, especially when traveling. The games he'd been playing on there were fine. Well, I got out of the shower to hear rock music and shooting. I looked to see what Jaden was playing, and it was "Alien Shooters" or something like that. He was supposed to shoot the aliens. Although the aliens looked like some sort of creepy crawly things, I hated the music and hated that it was geared toward anti-outer space aliens.
My mother bought a Scooby-Doo video for the boys. I don't approve of such things, but I let them watch it and then vowed to discuss what they saw afterward and why it was wrong. One of the episodes included voodoo. The other episode was something about "alien invaders." Of course with Scooby-Doo, all the stuff turns out at the end to be staged. But, there it is again: an anti-outer space alien theme.
There is no shortage of movies where other intelligent lifeforms from the heavens are coming to invade or attack the earth's inhabitants. One such movie is "War of the Worlds," based on H.G. Wells' science fiction novel by the same name. That movie seemed eerily similar to some things foretold in the scriptures.
The problem with all these things is that they all paint the earth's inhabitants as the good guys and the aliens (foreign-to-earth aka "not of this world") as the bad guys. There's no doubt in my mind that Satan is working hard behind the scenes to deceive everyone into thinking that if they see spaceships coming to invade the earth, that they are enemies. And of course, that's partly true. The aliens will be the enemies to the inhabitants of this earth who are against them.
NASA and probably other space organizations are already talking about how to get ready to an alien attack, as well as how to shield the earth from such things as meteors and other catastrophic things that could be hurled toward this planet. Of course, as a biblically literate person I just want to laugh at their folly. They will no outdo the Most High God and His Captain of the Hosts, the Lord Jesus. If God wants to send a meteor or asteroid or some other destructive object to this earth to punish the residents thereof, nothing man can do will stop the object from hitting its target. And certainly nothing man and his armies can do against the armies of God and their captain will amount to anything.
The wicked of the earth will see the angels with the vial judgments as enemies and certainly will not repent of their misdeeds and high pride. They will run around with profanity spewing from their mouths.
Despite trying to wipe each other out, the West and the East, all the rulers of the earth and their armies will then come together to try to fight off the great prophesied alien invasion. They will be wiped out.
The scriptures speak:
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. ~Revelation 19:11-21
There's your alien invasion. Now, the question is, whose side are you on? The aliens, the ones not of this world, or the ones that do wickedly upon this earth? I personally plan to be with the "aliens" in body…my new spiritual body.
My sons watch Davey and Goliath cartoons that I bought on dvd. For the most part, I really like those cartoons, because they instill Godly values in my children's minds. There are a few things I've seen that I don't like. An anti-alien stance on one episode is one such thing. The main theme of the episode is great and teaches that helping others in need is the right thing to do. However, at the end Davey and another two boys are about to go watch a movie in the theater, called "Boy in Space." Goliath, Davey's loyal dog, had to stay outside the theater to wait. Davey told him that he could keep a watch out for spaceships. Upon asking what to do if he saw one, Davey replied, "Bite it!"
My son got my permission to play some demo games on my laptop that I use for writing, especially when traveling. The games he'd been playing on there were fine. Well, I got out of the shower to hear rock music and shooting. I looked to see what Jaden was playing, and it was "Alien Shooters" or something like that. He was supposed to shoot the aliens. Although the aliens looked like some sort of creepy crawly things, I hated the music and hated that it was geared toward anti-outer space aliens.
My mother bought a Scooby-Doo video for the boys. I don't approve of such things, but I let them watch it and then vowed to discuss what they saw afterward and why it was wrong. One of the episodes included voodoo. The other episode was something about "alien invaders." Of course with Scooby-Doo, all the stuff turns out at the end to be staged. But, there it is again: an anti-outer space alien theme.
There is no shortage of movies where other intelligent lifeforms from the heavens are coming to invade or attack the earth's inhabitants. One such movie is "War of the Worlds," based on H.G. Wells' science fiction novel by the same name. That movie seemed eerily similar to some things foretold in the scriptures.
The problem with all these things is that they all paint the earth's inhabitants as the good guys and the aliens (foreign-to-earth aka "not of this world") as the bad guys. There's no doubt in my mind that Satan is working hard behind the scenes to deceive everyone into thinking that if they see spaceships coming to invade the earth, that they are enemies. And of course, that's partly true. The aliens will be the enemies to the inhabitants of this earth who are against them.
NASA and probably other space organizations are already talking about how to get ready to an alien attack, as well as how to shield the earth from such things as meteors and other catastrophic things that could be hurled toward this planet. Of course, as a biblically literate person I just want to laugh at their folly. They will no outdo the Most High God and His Captain of the Hosts, the Lord Jesus. If God wants to send a meteor or asteroid or some other destructive object to this earth to punish the residents thereof, nothing man can do will stop the object from hitting its target. And certainly nothing man and his armies can do against the armies of God and their captain will amount to anything.
The wicked of the earth will see the angels with the vial judgments as enemies and certainly will not repent of their misdeeds and high pride. They will run around with profanity spewing from their mouths.
Despite trying to wipe each other out, the West and the East, all the rulers of the earth and their armies will then come together to try to fight off the great prophesied alien invasion. They will be wiped out.
The scriptures speak:
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. ~Revelation 19:11-21
There's your alien invasion. Now, the question is, whose side are you on? The aliens, the ones not of this world, or the ones that do wickedly upon this earth? I personally plan to be with the "aliens" in body…my new spiritual body.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)