A number of months ago I wrote an article that I titled 'What is love', you can find that post here: http://journeyingtochrist.blogspot.com/2016/09/what-is-love.html#comment-form. I don't recall all the reasons why I wrote that post but I do remember that it had a lot to do with what America defines as love today.
Because I could remember writing the post but not what was in it I reread that post today. It was just as applicable today as it was the day I wrote it. But today I read something that has me wanting to write on love again.
Love truly is a funny thing. It's a very complicated thing and if we were to really ask ourselves what love is...could we come up with an adequate answer? By human definition, love is this feel good emotion, said to come from the heart, that makes us inclined to favor one person over another. We marry for love. We love our children. We love our friends.
We may even tell people we love them when we don't mean it. As a kid I had a relative that would tell me they loved me, if I didn't answer with 'I love you' then I would get into trouble. So...I responded by saying 'I love you' but I never once felt love for that person, in fact I strongly disliked that person but to save myself...I said 'I love you'.
I once knew someone that would say 'anyone can say I love you, you have to show someone that you love them'.
Love is...what?
Is it actions? Is it words? Is it a gushy feeling deep inside you when you're around someone?
The other day my husband was doing something that was just...my husband, but in his doing what he naturally does it made me laugh and brought a bit of fun and joy to my day and so I told him, ''I love you''. He responded by telling me he loved me and then asking, 'what was that for', not because I don't tell him that I love him, I do, but because of the way I said it and maybe the tone of voice I used when I said it. But the truth is I told him I loved him because of the way he made me feel at that moment, it was a happy gushy kind of feeling and he caused it with his actions, which had nothing to do with me. He was just being him, doing something that had nothing to do with me, but I saw him and it made me happy and so I told him I loved him.
But that was a feeling.
And yet...that is love. But it's not the only kind of love.
My husband shows he loves by taking care of those he loves. He provides for us, does for us. This morning I got up to a blazing fire in the fireplace. What a wonderful thing to wake up to on a cold morning. That was my husband taking care of us, warming our home. He cuts wood to use in that fire place for one reason only...because his family enjoys it. My husband never uses that fireplace when he's home alone.
And so, through his actions, my husband shows us that he loves us.
Still, I find myself asking...what is love? Can we truly ever answer that question and if we do, are we answering in the true meaning of love or are we answering in our human emotions understanding of what love is?
I know someone online, only through social media, that often writes of how they cannot get anyone to take them to the places they want to go. This person writes of how happy they are when their friends take them places, of how loved they are because those people transport them to places, and then complain about how no one seems to care about them when they can't get a ride to somewhere they want to go. Let me just say straight out that I've had to mentally stifle my fingers from writing out a reply many, many times to this person. It gets irritating seeing this person write of how loved they are when someone is doing for them but then complain about how no one cares about them when no one is doing for them.
Their definition of love appears to be based on what others can do for them. And quite honestly I find it hard not to point out to this person, someone that lives across the country from me, someone I've never met and probably never will meet, that those people that love them so much when they are doing for them and don't care anything about them when they aren't doing for them all have lives of their own, that they are already going out of their way for this person.
But for that person, love appears to be what someone else can do for them.
And I find myself wondering...what is love?
Not in the sense of truly not understanding what love is, I do understand that, but in the sense of there has to be a greater definition of what love is than just how we, as fallen people, define it.
I've heard it said that love rules the world, that love is what makes the world go round. And it's true. Love does rule the world, love is what caused the world to go round but it isn't our human understanding of love that rules the world or makes it go round.
All of Scripture tells us the story of God and His love for His people, the people that he chose to be His before He ever made the earth. The earth, and everything on it, is here because of God's love for His people. And so...love rules the world, love is why the earth was made, it goes round because of God's love for His people.
But God's love is nowhere close to how humans define love.
About a week ago I found myself in a conversation with my uncle. He had seen a picture of a five year old Muslim boy being detained in handcuffs at an airport. My uncle was upset over that picture because this was 'God's child' and 'what would Jesus do'. Oh, the conversation that ensued over that. I pointed out that people in a religion that do not believe in the true God are people that live in defiance of God and that this child likely was not 'God's child'. My uncle didn't seem to get it. I would up explaining that God is a holy God and that He loves with a righteous love.
God's love is not the same as our human idea of what love is.
He killed His own son to appease His wrath so that He could love fallen people. Does that sound like a human kind of love? How many people do you know that get so angry with those they love that they must pour their wrath onto one person, wrath that ends in death, so that they can love others? God's love defies our human understanding of what love is.
That is pretty much what I read this morning that got me to thinking about love...again. Except that what I read wasn't close to being worded the way I just worded it. What I read said that we have a man-centered view of love that has people believing from babyhood that if we don't make much of them than we don't love them.
And it's true.
I have a relative that read a parenting book that taught that we must affirm our children's feelings that all their bad behavior is simply a need for more attention. According to that book a parent must pour great emotion and time into their child and when their child is bad they should not discipline and should instead pour even more time and emotion into that child because it simply isn't getting enough attention.
I never read that book but what has brought people to the point of believing that a child simply needs more attention when they are bad and that they shouldn't be disciplined? I grew up being told that a child needs attention from their parents and that if they don't get that attention when they are good then they will be bad because bad attention is better than no attention. I have seen that played out but I can't say a misbehaving kid needs only more attention.
And yet...that seems to be our cultures belief on what love is nowadays. Kids need more attention. Young adults and adults that throw tantrums in public because something doesn't go their way need to be accepted and affirmed in their beliefs.
We are told to love them regardless of their actions or behaviors. We are told we hate them if we tell them they are behaving in a bad way. We are told that we are intolerant if we don't want to put up with their actions or lifestyle.
And we are told all these things in the name of 'love'.
But that isn't how God defines love. Scripture shows us God's love from the first word to the last word. And we are shown the highest level of love. Christ died for those that God gave to Him. He died for His people so that He might save them for Himself.
He is like the treasure at the end of the rainbow or tucked inside a treasure chest. We must seek after Him, living for Him, as He defines life, so that we might experience the greatest love their is. God is love but His love is not the gushy love everyone kind of love that people would have us to believe He is. God loves with a holy love because He also hates with a holy hate and we cannot separate His love from His hate.
God is love.
God is hate.
That is love. That is God's love. He has high standards for people, he expects His people to live a certain way, and there is no compromise on His definition of what love is.
We as people can only comprehend love from our human hearts and minds. Scripture says that our hearts are deceitful above all things. Our hearts must have a higher definition of what love is or we can't define love but by our emotions.
People today have all kinds of mixed views of what love is but mostly they believe that love means accepting everyone along with their actions. That's not love. That's actually hate. Scripture says that a parent that does not discipline their child hates their child. We may not need to discipline the people in the world but if we accept their sins without telling them what those sins will cost them...we hate them.
Love is not defined by our ability to not offend someone. Love is defined by God and what He says love is. People have an amazing way of muddling things up. Adam and Eve did it in the garden of Eden and people have been doing it ever since. We mess everything up.
And now people are trying to base love not on a biblical or even moral standard of what love is but on a sinful standard. To love someone, says our culture, we must love them and their sins, if we do not then we hate them.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Friday, February 10, 2017
Animal idolatry
As my grandmother aged she changed. Something about the aging process changed her from the woman I knew growing up to a different woman while still being the same woman, if that makes sense. Somewhere inside the woman that age was turning her into was still the grandmother I knew all my life. The older she got, the more age got the better of her, the more she changed.
She's in her 80's now and living in a nursing home. But once upon a time, about ten years ago, she lived in that place between being the grandmother I grew up knowing and being the woman that now suffers from Alzheimers and other ailments. And somewhere in that place, between where she is now and what she used to be, she had a dog. One single dog. That was nothing new for her. I'm not sure I can recall a time in my life when my grandparents didn't have at least one dog. They just seemed to be dog people. My grandmother favored Chihuahuas. My grandpa favored whatever dog he had at the moment. My grandmother preferred to keep her dogs at home. She trained them to do two things, 1) stay out of the kitchen and 2) sleep in a dog crate. That was it. Beyond that her dogs had the run of the house to do as they pleased including biting the grandkids. My grandpa preferred to take his dog with him. He taught his dogs to get in his truck, to wait there with the windows down, and he often bought them chicken from restaurants just because 'they like it'.
That was my grandparents and their pets. They often had two dogs. His and hers. That was just...Grandma and Grandpa. They had their dogs and you enjoyed them or put up with them depending on your feelings about dogs because Grandma and Grandpa always had them.
So my grandmother having a dog was nothing new, nothing special. She had her dog. In her mind her dog was well cared for and loved. And maybe it was. But her dog lived in the house, was rarely, if ever, bathed, covered in fleas and barely housebroken. But Grandma loved her dog and well...by that point Grandma lived alone. She needed the companionship of the dog, we all told ourselves and each other. She needed what protection that dog could offer. She needed...whatever she thought that dog could supply. We helped her get flea medicine and bathe the dog.
But somewhere along the line that dog became two dogs. Then three. Then four. Then...I don't know what the final count was before we convinced her she should not have all those dogs. But my poor grandmother loved those dogs. She really and truly loved every one of them. She had one that my uncle bought her as a puppy that once grown would bite her on a regular basis. That dog was the cause of her getting stitches more than once. We couldn't convince her to part with it because by then my uncle had died and in my grandmother's mind that dog was all she had left of her son.
Someone else gave her a very old Chihuahua. That dog had problems. It could barely eat and had had a stroke or something. It had no control over its tongue. That poor dogs tongue hung out of its mouth constantly.
The thing is that somewhere in her time of collecting dogs she lost the ability to see them as dogs. It started with the Chihuahua that couldn't control its tongue. That dog required a whole lot of care. She hand fed it and took to taking it everywhere she went. The dog was grown but she carried it in a purse, even taking it into restaurants because somehow my grandmother had the idea that because the dog could not eat hard food and had a hard time with other types of food that the dog could not be left alone for any reason.
We all dealt with it, trying to encourage her to leave the dog at home for its own good, trying to convince her that there were places she wasn't allowed to take the dog. And in the end Grandma took the dog everywhere until she somehow decided that it was best left at home when she went to town.
Long before that day came my grandmother took to calling that dog her baby and somehow from there that one dog being her baby became all of her dogs being her babies. And in her mind those dogs were truly her babies. I don't think she was able to distinguish between the dogs she called her babies and real babies. I have seen her interrupt strangers in town, strangers that were talking of their children or grandchildren, strangers speaking of brand new babies born into their family, to tell them about her 'babies'. The strangers would think by the way my grandmother spoke that she was talking of real babies and they would join the conversation thinking they were discussing real babies.
When my grandmother told them that her 'baby' was sick, those strangers worried over those babies thinking they were human babies. We tried talking to my grandmother about it to no avail. Strangers that found out she was speaking of dogs and not babies would either smile and extract themselves from the conversation or laugh about how they thought she was speaking of real babies.
But the thing is to my grandmother...she was. In her mind those dogs were babies. Her babies. And she truly could not see the difference in them and in real human babies.
We chalked it up to her age the same way we chalked up other things to her age. It was just one of those things about Grandma now that didn't used to be there.
Up until my grandmother started referring to her dogs as babies I had NEVER heard of anyone calling their animal their baby. I had known many people that loved their animals. Had met and known people that went to great expense and invested lots of time in their animals but somehow all the people I knew or met had PETS not babies. No matter how much they might love their animals they still had PETS.
Back then I did very little online. No social media. No blogging. I had email and did little else beyond some research now and then. As a result I thought this phenomena of calling animals babies was some odd trait my grandmother picked up as she aged and assumed it wasn't something most other sane people did.
Now I know better.
I can't count the number of people I've met in town that spoke of their 'babies', the number of people online that call their animals their 'babies; or 'fur babies' and well...the number of people that just plain speak of animals as if they are somehow kids or at least humans.
Just the other day I saw a post on social media about someone that had seen a dog on their daughters neighbors roof. Apparently the neighbors leave a window open so their dogs can go in and out as they wish but instead of going into the yard they go onto the roof. I have to admit I found the concept a little odd but the pictures were amusing. Who expects to see a dog sitting on a roof?
But it was the comments that bothered me. So many people spoke of how the owners were negligent in letting the dogs get on the roof. Some spoke of animal cruelty.
Really?
This was a dog that appeared well cared for. And yet the fact that the dog willingly went onto the roof meant the owners were cruel and negligent. I just can't make the connection.
There are rules, laws even, about animals of any kind being allowed in businesses where food is sold or served and yet more and more these days I see dogs, and a few other animals, in grocery stores. And no one tells them to remove the animal from the store. Workers pass by the dog like its not there or worse, stop and chat with the owner, talking about or to the dog. What happened to the rules and laws that mean those animals cannot be where food is sold?
I recently was at a doctors office, waiting in the car for a relative to come out, and discovered that another patient had brought their dog to their appointment. They did leave the dog in the car, something the dog was either not used to or did not like because it barked nonstop the entire time I was waiting in the parking lot. When my relative came out of the doctors office they commented on how the dog could be heard inside and how the receptionist was upset because it was disturbing to listen to.
There's nothing, in and of itself, bad about someone taking their dog anywhere and leaving it in their vehicle but this person took a dog that obviously cannot handle being left alone in the car and parked right up next to the front of the doctors office ensuring that everyone around, including patients in extreme pain, had to listen to their beloved pet.
I will be the first person to admit that I am not what the world refers to as an animal person. I can take animals or leave them and if I'm doing the care taking, more often than not I will leave them, but I don't mind a well behaved, well trained animal so long as it's clean and not in the store where I'm buying my groceries. I'm sorry but seeing a dog sitting in the baby seat in a shopping cart and knowing someone is going to place their baby in that same seat later is disturbing. So is the thought of buying food that someone's dog may have licked or even peed on. Yes, I have been in the store when someones dog, while riding in the cart, peed. In the floor. On the food in the shopping cart. What did the owner of the animal do? Hurry away from the evidence that their pet just left on the floor. I have no idea what they did with the things in the cart that were ruined.
But the thing is...animals don't seem to be seen as animals anymore. Somehow they are being elevated to something higher than humans, more akin to some kind of god. Maybe it's always been there and I just never saw it but it seems to me that it's escalating at a rapid pace.
There are contests for animals, usually dogs. There are day cares for dogs. Spa's for dogs. Vacation spots for dogs. There are fancy dresses, life jackets, suits, and Halloween costumes for dogs. You name it, you can probably get it for your dog and a good number of other types of pets too.
Somehow, somewhere along the line animals, especially dogs, followed closely by cats, have become idols in the extreme. And no one seems to see it. I see posts on social media all the time, posts by professing 'Christians', that speak of their 'baby' or their 'fur babies' and no one, not even the other professing 'Christians' correct them. No one says that those animals are pets and not kids. No one asks them if they realize they have made idols of their animals.
Scripture tells us that man is to use animals to serve us. We are shown animals that are used for transportation, animals that are used for food, even animals that were used to show God's wrath. But we are told not to make an idol of anything. And yet, here people are, idolizing animals to a point so far out there that I don't even know how to describe it.
I have a relative that owns a dog that takes food right out of her kids hands, that eats her food while she's eating it. And that's okay because the dog wants it. Ummm...really? This same dog bites her kids for any and every reason and it's okay because this nearly year old dog is just a 'little puppy' and 'needs to chew'. This same dog is referred to as her 'baby', 'kid' and is 'one of the family'. In fact it's one of the family to the point that they take it just about everywhere with them, even to visit friends and family.
Is that not idolatry?
Is that not placing the same, or more, importance on the dog than on the kids? This dog, by the way, was given the real human baby's favorite blanket. It is allowed to chew on all the kids toys because this dog is 'one of the kids' and it is 'Mommy and daddy's baby'.
I wish that these examples I've given in this post were rare and unusual happenings. I really wish they were. But they aren't.
There is an entire television channel dedicated to animals. I had the misfortune of seeing part of a show on that channel recently. It was something about animal rescues and in that episode the police, I don't know if they were actual police or animal enforcement officers, went to a house where they said the owner hadn't been seen for over two or three, I can't remember which, months. They walked around the outside of the house, a house that looked like it was lived in, and were VERY upset to discover a dead dog inside a dog house in the backyard. It seemed that these officers were actually disgusted at the dogs deceased condition.
They talked about that 'poor' dog. They talked about how could anyone do this to an animal. And all the time I was sitting there watching I wondered when they were going to get around to worrying about where the person or people were that belonged in that house. If they had been missing for two or three months...should the animals have been the number one concern?
But the animals were the number one concern. From that dog house in the back yard the officers continued their look-see around the house then talked about going inside. They spoke of seeing a dog that was still alive through a window and a bird cage that they couldn't tell if it was occupied or not. But they did not wonder where the person or people were that should have been in that home. They worried about what they would find inside that house but it wasn't the worry of finding dead people that concerned them, it was what condition they might find animals in that had them worried.
About the first thing they noticed when they entered the house was several guns propped in a corner. What I noticed was they weren't cheap or old guns. They appeared to be in good condition and they were higher powered rifles. They didn't strike me as the kind of thing a person would just move off and leave. The officers took notice of them but never mentioned that where there are guns like that there should be people. Maybe they know something I don't. Maybe people just up and move off and leave their fancy guns every day but in my experience gun people don't just leave their guns. They might leave everything else but they don't leave their guns. Not without some serious extenuating circumstances anyway.
And yet here these officers were, noting the guns, but giving no thought to where the person was. They just went right on talking about what animals they might find in the house and what condition those animals might be in.
We never did find out where the owners were but the officers were pleased to rescue one living dog from a house where the owner was missing. It was as if the animals were all that mattered.
I can't help but see in that show, in that animal station, the promotion of animal idolatry. There are kids shows that promote dogs as the most important characters, shows that portray dogs as being human like, shows that, well...push dogs.
But it's not all dogs. There are just as many shows about cats. Although that's pretty much where the animal love ends. There's some push of horses and other furry things but very little about lizards, snakes, birds, or any other kind of nonstandard pet.
There are even complete shows about the killing of alligators and snakes. No one seems to care if a snake is captured and cut open while its still alive but let a dog go out on a roof of its own accord and it's animal cruelty. Catch an alligator with some kind of line and hook then shoot it in the head and it's perfectly fine but don't neglect to feed your cat. Let cattle and chickens live in filthy, feces infested muck up to their knees then kill them and eat them and that's okay but don't chain your dog without giving it a place to get out of the sun.
It seems that animal idolatry is everywhere, even in chickens and cattle. There are those that won't eat meat because it's animal cruelty. Those that plaster certain breeds of animals on their clothing and coffee cups. Those that think so highly of their pets that they could care less that they just put their animal in a shopping cart where a child will later be put, a child that could have life threatening allergies.
I know of a family whose young son is so allergic to cats that he goes into anaphalactic shock if a cat has been in their yard and the boy goes outside, even if there is no sign of a cat anywhere around. There are people that are terrified of animals. And yet, people bring their pets into stores despite laws and rules forbidding that very thing.
Is that the reason the Lord put animals on this earth? Are dogs here to have their owners cooking them fancy dinners, buying them wardrobes of clothes and piles of toys or are they here to serve people, providing security, assistance to the disabled, clean up of the earth through eating waste, providing transportation, and search and rescue missions? Dogs can be well cared for while being trained to serve and help the people around them.
Are cats here to be bought fancy canned food, elaborate tree scratching posts (designed to mimic experiences they would have living in the wild), and having their every meow catered to or are they here to hunt mice and other rodents?
Are animals here to serve?
Or to be served?
She's in her 80's now and living in a nursing home. But once upon a time, about ten years ago, she lived in that place between being the grandmother I grew up knowing and being the woman that now suffers from Alzheimers and other ailments. And somewhere in that place, between where she is now and what she used to be, she had a dog. One single dog. That was nothing new for her. I'm not sure I can recall a time in my life when my grandparents didn't have at least one dog. They just seemed to be dog people. My grandmother favored Chihuahuas. My grandpa favored whatever dog he had at the moment. My grandmother preferred to keep her dogs at home. She trained them to do two things, 1) stay out of the kitchen and 2) sleep in a dog crate. That was it. Beyond that her dogs had the run of the house to do as they pleased including biting the grandkids. My grandpa preferred to take his dog with him. He taught his dogs to get in his truck, to wait there with the windows down, and he often bought them chicken from restaurants just because 'they like it'.
That was my grandparents and their pets. They often had two dogs. His and hers. That was just...Grandma and Grandpa. They had their dogs and you enjoyed them or put up with them depending on your feelings about dogs because Grandma and Grandpa always had them.
So my grandmother having a dog was nothing new, nothing special. She had her dog. In her mind her dog was well cared for and loved. And maybe it was. But her dog lived in the house, was rarely, if ever, bathed, covered in fleas and barely housebroken. But Grandma loved her dog and well...by that point Grandma lived alone. She needed the companionship of the dog, we all told ourselves and each other. She needed what protection that dog could offer. She needed...whatever she thought that dog could supply. We helped her get flea medicine and bathe the dog.
But somewhere along the line that dog became two dogs. Then three. Then four. Then...I don't know what the final count was before we convinced her she should not have all those dogs. But my poor grandmother loved those dogs. She really and truly loved every one of them. She had one that my uncle bought her as a puppy that once grown would bite her on a regular basis. That dog was the cause of her getting stitches more than once. We couldn't convince her to part with it because by then my uncle had died and in my grandmother's mind that dog was all she had left of her son.
Someone else gave her a very old Chihuahua. That dog had problems. It could barely eat and had had a stroke or something. It had no control over its tongue. That poor dogs tongue hung out of its mouth constantly.
The thing is that somewhere in her time of collecting dogs she lost the ability to see them as dogs. It started with the Chihuahua that couldn't control its tongue. That dog required a whole lot of care. She hand fed it and took to taking it everywhere she went. The dog was grown but she carried it in a purse, even taking it into restaurants because somehow my grandmother had the idea that because the dog could not eat hard food and had a hard time with other types of food that the dog could not be left alone for any reason.
We all dealt with it, trying to encourage her to leave the dog at home for its own good, trying to convince her that there were places she wasn't allowed to take the dog. And in the end Grandma took the dog everywhere until she somehow decided that it was best left at home when she went to town.
Long before that day came my grandmother took to calling that dog her baby and somehow from there that one dog being her baby became all of her dogs being her babies. And in her mind those dogs were truly her babies. I don't think she was able to distinguish between the dogs she called her babies and real babies. I have seen her interrupt strangers in town, strangers that were talking of their children or grandchildren, strangers speaking of brand new babies born into their family, to tell them about her 'babies'. The strangers would think by the way my grandmother spoke that she was talking of real babies and they would join the conversation thinking they were discussing real babies.
When my grandmother told them that her 'baby' was sick, those strangers worried over those babies thinking they were human babies. We tried talking to my grandmother about it to no avail. Strangers that found out she was speaking of dogs and not babies would either smile and extract themselves from the conversation or laugh about how they thought she was speaking of real babies.
But the thing is to my grandmother...she was. In her mind those dogs were babies. Her babies. And she truly could not see the difference in them and in real human babies.
We chalked it up to her age the same way we chalked up other things to her age. It was just one of those things about Grandma now that didn't used to be there.
Up until my grandmother started referring to her dogs as babies I had NEVER heard of anyone calling their animal their baby. I had known many people that loved their animals. Had met and known people that went to great expense and invested lots of time in their animals but somehow all the people I knew or met had PETS not babies. No matter how much they might love their animals they still had PETS.
Back then I did very little online. No social media. No blogging. I had email and did little else beyond some research now and then. As a result I thought this phenomena of calling animals babies was some odd trait my grandmother picked up as she aged and assumed it wasn't something most other sane people did.
Now I know better.
I can't count the number of people I've met in town that spoke of their 'babies', the number of people online that call their animals their 'babies; or 'fur babies' and well...the number of people that just plain speak of animals as if they are somehow kids or at least humans.
Just the other day I saw a post on social media about someone that had seen a dog on their daughters neighbors roof. Apparently the neighbors leave a window open so their dogs can go in and out as they wish but instead of going into the yard they go onto the roof. I have to admit I found the concept a little odd but the pictures were amusing. Who expects to see a dog sitting on a roof?
But it was the comments that bothered me. So many people spoke of how the owners were negligent in letting the dogs get on the roof. Some spoke of animal cruelty.
Really?
This was a dog that appeared well cared for. And yet the fact that the dog willingly went onto the roof meant the owners were cruel and negligent. I just can't make the connection.
There are rules, laws even, about animals of any kind being allowed in businesses where food is sold or served and yet more and more these days I see dogs, and a few other animals, in grocery stores. And no one tells them to remove the animal from the store. Workers pass by the dog like its not there or worse, stop and chat with the owner, talking about or to the dog. What happened to the rules and laws that mean those animals cannot be where food is sold?
I recently was at a doctors office, waiting in the car for a relative to come out, and discovered that another patient had brought their dog to their appointment. They did leave the dog in the car, something the dog was either not used to or did not like because it barked nonstop the entire time I was waiting in the parking lot. When my relative came out of the doctors office they commented on how the dog could be heard inside and how the receptionist was upset because it was disturbing to listen to.
There's nothing, in and of itself, bad about someone taking their dog anywhere and leaving it in their vehicle but this person took a dog that obviously cannot handle being left alone in the car and parked right up next to the front of the doctors office ensuring that everyone around, including patients in extreme pain, had to listen to their beloved pet.
I will be the first person to admit that I am not what the world refers to as an animal person. I can take animals or leave them and if I'm doing the care taking, more often than not I will leave them, but I don't mind a well behaved, well trained animal so long as it's clean and not in the store where I'm buying my groceries. I'm sorry but seeing a dog sitting in the baby seat in a shopping cart and knowing someone is going to place their baby in that same seat later is disturbing. So is the thought of buying food that someone's dog may have licked or even peed on. Yes, I have been in the store when someones dog, while riding in the cart, peed. In the floor. On the food in the shopping cart. What did the owner of the animal do? Hurry away from the evidence that their pet just left on the floor. I have no idea what they did with the things in the cart that were ruined.
But the thing is...animals don't seem to be seen as animals anymore. Somehow they are being elevated to something higher than humans, more akin to some kind of god. Maybe it's always been there and I just never saw it but it seems to me that it's escalating at a rapid pace.
There are contests for animals, usually dogs. There are day cares for dogs. Spa's for dogs. Vacation spots for dogs. There are fancy dresses, life jackets, suits, and Halloween costumes for dogs. You name it, you can probably get it for your dog and a good number of other types of pets too.
Somehow, somewhere along the line animals, especially dogs, followed closely by cats, have become idols in the extreme. And no one seems to see it. I see posts on social media all the time, posts by professing 'Christians', that speak of their 'baby' or their 'fur babies' and no one, not even the other professing 'Christians' correct them. No one says that those animals are pets and not kids. No one asks them if they realize they have made idols of their animals.
Scripture tells us that man is to use animals to serve us. We are shown animals that are used for transportation, animals that are used for food, even animals that were used to show God's wrath. But we are told not to make an idol of anything. And yet, here people are, idolizing animals to a point so far out there that I don't even know how to describe it.
I have a relative that owns a dog that takes food right out of her kids hands, that eats her food while she's eating it. And that's okay because the dog wants it. Ummm...really? This same dog bites her kids for any and every reason and it's okay because this nearly year old dog is just a 'little puppy' and 'needs to chew'. This same dog is referred to as her 'baby', 'kid' and is 'one of the family'. In fact it's one of the family to the point that they take it just about everywhere with them, even to visit friends and family.
Is that not idolatry?
Is that not placing the same, or more, importance on the dog than on the kids? This dog, by the way, was given the real human baby's favorite blanket. It is allowed to chew on all the kids toys because this dog is 'one of the kids' and it is 'Mommy and daddy's baby'.
I wish that these examples I've given in this post were rare and unusual happenings. I really wish they were. But they aren't.
There is an entire television channel dedicated to animals. I had the misfortune of seeing part of a show on that channel recently. It was something about animal rescues and in that episode the police, I don't know if they were actual police or animal enforcement officers, went to a house where they said the owner hadn't been seen for over two or three, I can't remember which, months. They walked around the outside of the house, a house that looked like it was lived in, and were VERY upset to discover a dead dog inside a dog house in the backyard. It seemed that these officers were actually disgusted at the dogs deceased condition.
They talked about that 'poor' dog. They talked about how could anyone do this to an animal. And all the time I was sitting there watching I wondered when they were going to get around to worrying about where the person or people were that belonged in that house. If they had been missing for two or three months...should the animals have been the number one concern?
But the animals were the number one concern. From that dog house in the back yard the officers continued their look-see around the house then talked about going inside. They spoke of seeing a dog that was still alive through a window and a bird cage that they couldn't tell if it was occupied or not. But they did not wonder where the person or people were that should have been in that home. They worried about what they would find inside that house but it wasn't the worry of finding dead people that concerned them, it was what condition they might find animals in that had them worried.
About the first thing they noticed when they entered the house was several guns propped in a corner. What I noticed was they weren't cheap or old guns. They appeared to be in good condition and they were higher powered rifles. They didn't strike me as the kind of thing a person would just move off and leave. The officers took notice of them but never mentioned that where there are guns like that there should be people. Maybe they know something I don't. Maybe people just up and move off and leave their fancy guns every day but in my experience gun people don't just leave their guns. They might leave everything else but they don't leave their guns. Not without some serious extenuating circumstances anyway.
And yet here these officers were, noting the guns, but giving no thought to where the person was. They just went right on talking about what animals they might find in the house and what condition those animals might be in.
We never did find out where the owners were but the officers were pleased to rescue one living dog from a house where the owner was missing. It was as if the animals were all that mattered.
I can't help but see in that show, in that animal station, the promotion of animal idolatry. There are kids shows that promote dogs as the most important characters, shows that portray dogs as being human like, shows that, well...push dogs.
But it's not all dogs. There are just as many shows about cats. Although that's pretty much where the animal love ends. There's some push of horses and other furry things but very little about lizards, snakes, birds, or any other kind of nonstandard pet.
There are even complete shows about the killing of alligators and snakes. No one seems to care if a snake is captured and cut open while its still alive but let a dog go out on a roof of its own accord and it's animal cruelty. Catch an alligator with some kind of line and hook then shoot it in the head and it's perfectly fine but don't neglect to feed your cat. Let cattle and chickens live in filthy, feces infested muck up to their knees then kill them and eat them and that's okay but don't chain your dog without giving it a place to get out of the sun.
It seems that animal idolatry is everywhere, even in chickens and cattle. There are those that won't eat meat because it's animal cruelty. Those that plaster certain breeds of animals on their clothing and coffee cups. Those that think so highly of their pets that they could care less that they just put their animal in a shopping cart where a child will later be put, a child that could have life threatening allergies.
I know of a family whose young son is so allergic to cats that he goes into anaphalactic shock if a cat has been in their yard and the boy goes outside, even if there is no sign of a cat anywhere around. There are people that are terrified of animals. And yet, people bring their pets into stores despite laws and rules forbidding that very thing.
Is that the reason the Lord put animals on this earth? Are dogs here to have their owners cooking them fancy dinners, buying them wardrobes of clothes and piles of toys or are they here to serve people, providing security, assistance to the disabled, clean up of the earth through eating waste, providing transportation, and search and rescue missions? Dogs can be well cared for while being trained to serve and help the people around them.
Are cats here to be bought fancy canned food, elaborate tree scratching posts (designed to mimic experiences they would have living in the wild), and having their every meow catered to or are they here to hunt mice and other rodents?
Are animals here to serve?
Or to be served?
Monday, February 6, 2017
The enslavement of marriage
I recently wrote a post over a feminist poster that I saw, something that I tried very hard to just skim past when I saw it but then what I saw stayed with me so much that I needed to write just to clear up my own thoughts.
Well, today I saw something that effected me very much the same way. It was once again something having to do with feminists although I was kind of amazed that this came straight from a man's mouth. I know there are all types out there and I know that there are men that support women't causes but...feminism is so much of an anti-man cause that I would think that no man would want to support it. I know I wouldn't want anything to do with it if I was a man and yet...a man said something that was so disturbing to me that I am once again writing about feminism, not because I really want to but because my mind simply has a hard time understanding how anyone out there can think this way, much less how men can think this way.
Doesn't feminism directly disregard men?
Aren't feminists of a mindset that women are somehow victimized because they are women and that all men are the reason for all their woes simply because they are men?
And yet...there was this man saying what I wish I could quote word for word but what amounted to:
Women are so brainwashed by a fake sense of needing to conform and to have security that they willing enter into the 'marriage tradition', possibly the most horrid example of enslaving one person to another in all of history. People take their kids to church were they are taught that women can never reach the heights that men can. There are feminists that still want their dad to walk them down the aisle and 'give' them away. Homosexuals didn't fight for equality in all things they fought to be allowed to marry. Social pressure toward marriage is so strong that they actually fought to be included in this 'disgusting ritual' that is the base of enslaving women. Women will never be equal until we get rid of such enslaving traditions.
Oh...my. I don't even know how to respond to that. My first thought...that was written by a MAN. Um, what man is so for women usurping them that they would think such a thing much less give voice to it?
I know someone that claims that women aren't treated fairly because they make less money than men do. Maybe I'm super sheltered, I've only held a handful of jobs in my life. I've never tried to climb a career ladder, never desired to gain ground in a job. But...isn't minimum wage the same for women as it is for men? Do men make more money as a whole? I have no idea. I know when I was in high school I had a teacher encourage all the girls to go into construction work because federal laws require equality in the workplace and that means construction companies must hire women to meet a quota of female to male workers. Trouble is there are very few, at least at that time, women that want to do construction work. And so...said our teacher...women in construction can pretty much set their own pay rate because the construction companies have to hire a certain number of women to keep out of trouble with the government.
My high school years were a long time ago and so much has changed since then that we may as well be living in a different world but I'm sure there are jobs where women are paid exactly the same as men and that there are jobs that women actually make more money than men do. It's just the nature of any game. Lawyers make more money than store managers, doctors make more than taxidermists. And I have no doubt that there are some jobs out there where women make more money than men do. I know from experience that child care is a profession that is proliferated with female workers and male workers are rarely encouraged to work in that field. Having worked in several child care facilities many years ago, and knowing many parents now, that is mostly the result of the parents feelings about having men caring for their children. There is simply a safety issue involved with men looking after children that most parents don't consider to be a concern when the caretaker is female. And so...men aren't very prevalent in the childcare workers. Or at least they didn't used to be.
But whether or not women are paid equally to men...why would a man encourage this...dare I say, craziness of feminism? It seems to me that feminism is in direct opposition to men.
My faith gives me guidelines for what men and women are to be. Men are to be the providers, the protectors. Women are to be the home keepers, the nurturers. But even if a person didn't believe in the Lord...is it really all that hard to see that men and women are different? That that difference is a good thing? And even if they can't see that, can they not see that feminists are about as against men as they can get?
I've had little experience with feminists but here lately I've had a few more encounters with the feminist movement than I'd like. I've said it before, and will no doubt say it again, I believe feminists ruined life for women that truly want to be...women. They took a country that saw women as weaker vessels, a country where men held doors for women, lifted heavy items, and generally, as a whole, looked out for women and turned it into a country where women are seen as the same as men. More or less.
I've had people tell me I should put my children in daycare and go to work. Why? Not because they had anything at stake in the way I was living but because that is the mindset of our country now. Men work. Women work. This is desired.
I recently ran into a cousin that I haven't seen in years. She works full time and both her children are in public school. Over the Christmas holiday she had the same time off work that her children had off from school. This cousin actually told me, while standing in front of her daughter, that she would much rather work than be at home with her kids.
What is wrong with this thought process?
Years ago I was babysitting for a woman that was working when I started keeping her child but then wound up unemployed. This woman paid me to watch her child, day after day, while she sat home collecting unemployment.Why? Because she couldn't handle her own toddler.
This is what feminism has brought us to. This is the mindset of America today. Children are institutionalized almost from the moment they're born so that women can work.
And now I hear something so degrading to marriage that I can't even think of a proper way to describe it. I'll admit that the modern American marriage isn't what it should be. I've seen married couples stand in their yard and scream at each other. I've seen husband's abuse their wives. Seen wives chase their husband with a baseball bat. I've heard a wife speak all kinds of horrific things about her husband while said husband was home caring for their children.
Marriage today isn't what it should be. But it isn't enslavement, not by a long shot. Not in America. And it isn't just some ritual or tradition that we keep to the detriment of women.
How can anyone feel that marriage is an enslavement to women? I know there are countries where arranged marriages are the norm. I know there are cultures where women truly are treated as less than human. And I know that the very cultures and religions that practice those things also exist in America, and that they practice those things inside America despite laws that do not allow such things, but as a whole American women freely choose to marry and they choose who they will marry.
Some women chose to be stay at home wives, some chose to raise their own children rather than pass them off to others to do the job the Lord gave them to do. But with very few exceptions these are women that willingly chose to do this. They want to be a stay at home wife. They want to be a stay at home mom. They want to be there when their husband comes home from work. They want to care for their children.
These women aren't enslaved. They aren't oppressed. They aren't mistreated. I know because I am one of these women. My sister is one of these women. My friend is one of these women. We don't feel enslaved. We feel blessed. Our husbands love us. They care for us. They look after us.
My husband works long hours, often dealing with physical exhaustion and pain, working in the cold and rain, giving up his time, effort, and energy to make a living for our family. And he does it all for us. I'm not enslaved. I'm not mistreated. I'm not oppressed in any way. And no, I'm not brainwashed into thinking these things. I am loved. I am cared for. I am taken care of. I am protected from the harsher side of life. I am protected from the physical and mental demands of holding down a job. And...I am blessed.
I am not, and never have been, a slave because I am married.
I have to wonder if the man that made that statement has ever been married. Does he even truly know what marriage is like? Has he experienced it? And if he did...was he an enslaving kind of husband? If so...than maybe he should look at himself and not at marriage in general. Did he mistreat his wife? Was his dad an abusive husband? Did he feel like his mother was a slave to his dad?
What would prompt a man to speak against marriage? What would prompt him to hold such contempt of marriage, under the guise of giving women equality, that he would go so far as to say homosexuals should not have wanted the right to marry (I happen to agree with him but not for the reasons he feels that way). Do the homosexuals know something that this man doesn't? Maybe they see that marriage is a good thing. Maybe they see the give and take, the support, the security in simply knowing someone is there for you, someone to share your life with, and they wanted to be a part of that.
Now...I am NOT for a single second advocating homosexual marriage. Such a thing goes against Scripture. And it goes against the very nature of what marriage is. A union created by the Lord between one man and one woman to represent the relationship between Christ and His people. It is a holy union that cannot be attained by people committing what Scripture refers to as sodomy and is an abomination to the Lord. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe, homosexuals somehow sense the importance of marriage and that despite the sin that holds them hostage in their thoughts and deeds, that maybe they see that there is something special in marriage. And maybe they understand something that the man that spoke against marriage, on behalf of freedom for women, does not understand.
Marriage is not enslavement. Marriage is an honor.
Well, today I saw something that effected me very much the same way. It was once again something having to do with feminists although I was kind of amazed that this came straight from a man's mouth. I know there are all types out there and I know that there are men that support women't causes but...feminism is so much of an anti-man cause that I would think that no man would want to support it. I know I wouldn't want anything to do with it if I was a man and yet...a man said something that was so disturbing to me that I am once again writing about feminism, not because I really want to but because my mind simply has a hard time understanding how anyone out there can think this way, much less how men can think this way.
Doesn't feminism directly disregard men?
Aren't feminists of a mindset that women are somehow victimized because they are women and that all men are the reason for all their woes simply because they are men?
And yet...there was this man saying what I wish I could quote word for word but what amounted to:
Women are so brainwashed by a fake sense of needing to conform and to have security that they willing enter into the 'marriage tradition', possibly the most horrid example of enslaving one person to another in all of history. People take their kids to church were they are taught that women can never reach the heights that men can. There are feminists that still want their dad to walk them down the aisle and 'give' them away. Homosexuals didn't fight for equality in all things they fought to be allowed to marry. Social pressure toward marriage is so strong that they actually fought to be included in this 'disgusting ritual' that is the base of enslaving women. Women will never be equal until we get rid of such enslaving traditions.
Oh...my. I don't even know how to respond to that. My first thought...that was written by a MAN. Um, what man is so for women usurping them that they would think such a thing much less give voice to it?
I know someone that claims that women aren't treated fairly because they make less money than men do. Maybe I'm super sheltered, I've only held a handful of jobs in my life. I've never tried to climb a career ladder, never desired to gain ground in a job. But...isn't minimum wage the same for women as it is for men? Do men make more money as a whole? I have no idea. I know when I was in high school I had a teacher encourage all the girls to go into construction work because federal laws require equality in the workplace and that means construction companies must hire women to meet a quota of female to male workers. Trouble is there are very few, at least at that time, women that want to do construction work. And so...said our teacher...women in construction can pretty much set their own pay rate because the construction companies have to hire a certain number of women to keep out of trouble with the government.
My high school years were a long time ago and so much has changed since then that we may as well be living in a different world but I'm sure there are jobs where women are paid exactly the same as men and that there are jobs that women actually make more money than men do. It's just the nature of any game. Lawyers make more money than store managers, doctors make more than taxidermists. And I have no doubt that there are some jobs out there where women make more money than men do. I know from experience that child care is a profession that is proliferated with female workers and male workers are rarely encouraged to work in that field. Having worked in several child care facilities many years ago, and knowing many parents now, that is mostly the result of the parents feelings about having men caring for their children. There is simply a safety issue involved with men looking after children that most parents don't consider to be a concern when the caretaker is female. And so...men aren't very prevalent in the childcare workers. Or at least they didn't used to be.
But whether or not women are paid equally to men...why would a man encourage this...dare I say, craziness of feminism? It seems to me that feminism is in direct opposition to men.
My faith gives me guidelines for what men and women are to be. Men are to be the providers, the protectors. Women are to be the home keepers, the nurturers. But even if a person didn't believe in the Lord...is it really all that hard to see that men and women are different? That that difference is a good thing? And even if they can't see that, can they not see that feminists are about as against men as they can get?
I've had little experience with feminists but here lately I've had a few more encounters with the feminist movement than I'd like. I've said it before, and will no doubt say it again, I believe feminists ruined life for women that truly want to be...women. They took a country that saw women as weaker vessels, a country where men held doors for women, lifted heavy items, and generally, as a whole, looked out for women and turned it into a country where women are seen as the same as men. More or less.
I've had people tell me I should put my children in daycare and go to work. Why? Not because they had anything at stake in the way I was living but because that is the mindset of our country now. Men work. Women work. This is desired.
I recently ran into a cousin that I haven't seen in years. She works full time and both her children are in public school. Over the Christmas holiday she had the same time off work that her children had off from school. This cousin actually told me, while standing in front of her daughter, that she would much rather work than be at home with her kids.
What is wrong with this thought process?
Years ago I was babysitting for a woman that was working when I started keeping her child but then wound up unemployed. This woman paid me to watch her child, day after day, while she sat home collecting unemployment.Why? Because she couldn't handle her own toddler.
This is what feminism has brought us to. This is the mindset of America today. Children are institutionalized almost from the moment they're born so that women can work.
And now I hear something so degrading to marriage that I can't even think of a proper way to describe it. I'll admit that the modern American marriage isn't what it should be. I've seen married couples stand in their yard and scream at each other. I've seen husband's abuse their wives. Seen wives chase their husband with a baseball bat. I've heard a wife speak all kinds of horrific things about her husband while said husband was home caring for their children.
Marriage today isn't what it should be. But it isn't enslavement, not by a long shot. Not in America. And it isn't just some ritual or tradition that we keep to the detriment of women.
How can anyone feel that marriage is an enslavement to women? I know there are countries where arranged marriages are the norm. I know there are cultures where women truly are treated as less than human. And I know that the very cultures and religions that practice those things also exist in America, and that they practice those things inside America despite laws that do not allow such things, but as a whole American women freely choose to marry and they choose who they will marry.
Some women chose to be stay at home wives, some chose to raise their own children rather than pass them off to others to do the job the Lord gave them to do. But with very few exceptions these are women that willingly chose to do this. They want to be a stay at home wife. They want to be a stay at home mom. They want to be there when their husband comes home from work. They want to care for their children.
These women aren't enslaved. They aren't oppressed. They aren't mistreated. I know because I am one of these women. My sister is one of these women. My friend is one of these women. We don't feel enslaved. We feel blessed. Our husbands love us. They care for us. They look after us.
My husband works long hours, often dealing with physical exhaustion and pain, working in the cold and rain, giving up his time, effort, and energy to make a living for our family. And he does it all for us. I'm not enslaved. I'm not mistreated. I'm not oppressed in any way. And no, I'm not brainwashed into thinking these things. I am loved. I am cared for. I am taken care of. I am protected from the harsher side of life. I am protected from the physical and mental demands of holding down a job. And...I am blessed.
I am not, and never have been, a slave because I am married.
I have to wonder if the man that made that statement has ever been married. Does he even truly know what marriage is like? Has he experienced it? And if he did...was he an enslaving kind of husband? If so...than maybe he should look at himself and not at marriage in general. Did he mistreat his wife? Was his dad an abusive husband? Did he feel like his mother was a slave to his dad?
What would prompt a man to speak against marriage? What would prompt him to hold such contempt of marriage, under the guise of giving women equality, that he would go so far as to say homosexuals should not have wanted the right to marry (I happen to agree with him but not for the reasons he feels that way). Do the homosexuals know something that this man doesn't? Maybe they see that marriage is a good thing. Maybe they see the give and take, the support, the security in simply knowing someone is there for you, someone to share your life with, and they wanted to be a part of that.
Now...I am NOT for a single second advocating homosexual marriage. Such a thing goes against Scripture. And it goes against the very nature of what marriage is. A union created by the Lord between one man and one woman to represent the relationship between Christ and His people. It is a holy union that cannot be attained by people committing what Scripture refers to as sodomy and is an abomination to the Lord. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe, homosexuals somehow sense the importance of marriage and that despite the sin that holds them hostage in their thoughts and deeds, that maybe they see that there is something special in marriage. And maybe they understand something that the man that spoke against marriage, on behalf of freedom for women, does not understand.
Marriage is not enslavement. Marriage is an honor.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Refugees are God's judgement on America
There's been a whole lot of talk, news stories, articles, and general upheaval over immigrants into America lately. Some people are all for keeping America's borders wide open and allowing anyone in that wants to be here, some are for allowing certain people in, and some are for not allowing anyone in. And I'm sure there are others that have other thoughts on the matter of which I know nothing about.
But I've seen and heard so much on this topic lately. President Trump put a temporary ban on people from a handful of countries coming into America and it seems like everything just sort of became a free for all of people talking, complaining and giving thanks both online and in real life.
I've seen many, many things that say that Christians should want to allow others into our country. I've seen online and even been told that if Jesus were alive today He would not be welcome in America, that He was in fact a refugee.
I haven't heard the reasoning behind that but I think it probably has something to do with either
his nationality or all the times he, or his parents, had to flee a certain area, making Him a 'refugee'. I have heard someone speak on that, quite a while before this whole refugee ban went into effect. I wish now I could remember what they said. It was something to the effect of Jesus was never a refugee because He never actually fled a land but moved from place to place staying in the same general area, much like moving from town to town within the same state.
I don't know how accurate it would be to say Christ was a refugee. He did flee from certain groups of people, moving from somewhere that did not embrace what He was teaching to a more welcoming place. I do know that it is believed that Christ never traveled very far in His entire life, and in fact we can trace His journeys, or a good part of them anyway, by reading the Gospels with a biblical map in hand.
Being told that Christ would not be welcome in America was both amazing and almost laughable at the same time. First of all, Christ was basically not welcomed in the world at the time He walked the earth. Sure, there were those that welcomed Him, wanted Him, followed Him, even chased after Him but there were many more that did not want Him and were against what He was teaching. If He had been welcome in the world...He would not have been crucified.
What land opened it's doors to Him? What people took Him in and kept Him safe from harm? Over His entire lifetime there were very few and in the end none that kept Him safe on earth.
And second, well, the issue at stake here isn't whether or not all people are welcome in America but whether or not Muslims are welcome in America. There are those that would have us welcome them and their beliefs with open arms despite the fact that American laws ban them from living in the United States. We have laws that say that anyone against the American government cannot be allowed to enter our country and yet our country has been allowing people that are against American's in by the thousands. That is the issue. Christ would not have been affected by the current presidential ban on refugees because 1) He wasn't a refugee, and 2) he wasn't Muslim.
I'm well aware of the fact that I'm simplifying things here. That's because I have a much broader topic for this post than whether or not Christ would have been welcome in America. But I cannot get to that topic before first addressing this one.
And so we are being bombarded with the issue of whether or not America should allow refugees into our country, and whether or not Muslims should be allowed in our country. And in the midst of that bombardment are the people that want to feel sorry for the Muslims and let them in because their country is at war, because there is bombing going on where they live, because they aren't safe for any number of reasons in their country, and because they are people and we should embrace them as such treating them exactly the same as every other person on earth and just as we would want to be treated.
I will admit that I'm sure many of them do not want to stay in their countries, that they don't feel safe there, that they want away from the wars and the violence. I can even see that at least some of them probably do need a safe country to go to. But I have to wonder why that country needs to be America? Why do they even want to come to America? We aren't a Muslim country and we don't, overall, welcome their faith and their beliefs. There are Muslim countries that aren't at war. Why aren't they seeking refuge there? Wouldn't they be happier in countries that share their faith, their beliefs, their lifestyles, their traditions?
Then there is the other side, the side that says don't let them in and send the ones that are already here back. And they have valid points for what they want. History has shown us that Muslims, as a whole, cannot be trusted. We're told we shouldn't have Islamaphobia or Muslimphobia or whatever name they want to put on it but the reality is that I've met very few people that actually have a phobia of Muslims or Islam. Most people simply have the good sense to look at history and at current events and to be able to deduce for themselves that Americans, especially Christians, should be leery of Muslims.
But even if people are afraid of Muslims...wouldn't it be for a good reason? Hasn't history shown us that they aren't a peaceable people? Aren't there Muslims killing other people for no better reason than the fact that they aren't Muslim, or they are Christian, in other countries?
And it's like this great big merry go round that never seems to come to a stop. People pushing and pulling, yelling and writing, arguing and crying over whether or not to let foreigners into America. But it's worse. Way, way worse. Because in the midst of that, on both sides, I guess, are the people that say that these are God's people and that Christians should welcome all people with open arms. They ask how any Christian can want to ban anyone from our country, how any Christian can want to leave people in danger in other countries.
But where is the reason in all that?
I get that there are people living in war torn countries that are not safe in their homes. People that have nowhere safe to go. Kids that are loosing their parents to war. Parents that are watching their children die from the effects of war. Newborn babies being born in violence.
But here's the thing...these are not, for the most part, a peaceful people. Those kids...I've seen video footage of their five year olds wielding guns and shouting death threats. Those are not innocent children that we should open our hearts and homes to. Do you really want a five year old that has been taught to hate (to the point of killing them) white people or to hate Americans, or to hate Christians, or to hate any other group of people, to go to school with your five year old? Do you trust that child alone with your child? Is your child safe on the playground? Is your child safe in the far corner of the classroom, walking the halls, or in the cafeteria.
Those adults that grew up in that culture...they don't share your values, they don't share America's values. They don't share our culture. And yet they are moving into our country, putting their children in our schools, building their Mosques, buying up stores, hotels, and even becoming our doctors.
Do we want people that grew up in a culture that teaches them not only to hate but to kill everyone that doesn't share their beliefs to hold the key to the hotel room we sleep in? Do we want them administering medication to us? Do we want them operating on our children?
There's reason for you. There's only a small example of how the 'poor refugees' from the war torn country are moving into our country. But they don't just move here and become one of us. They keep their religion, keep their customs. Keep their ingrained beliefs and they bring them to America and they are like a virus that starts on the inside and slowly spreads until it overtakes everything in it's path.
Years ago, years and years ago, I watched a movie that I can't even recall the name of now. It was a movie I wouldn't sit through five minutes of today but back then I watched it. Once. In that movie aliens invaded earth. And they took over. Guess how? Not through the aliens that landed on earth but through reproducing. They used people on earth to...plant their babies, I guess. They somehow put their alien babies inside humans and those babies incubated there, growing and getting stronger, until they were ready to come into the world, then they clawed their way out of the person, killing the 'host' and going their own way to live their alien life. Soon there were more aliens on earth than there were people.
That's a movie and it's a gruesome example of the point I'm trying to make. I'm sorry for that. But think about it for just a moment. Think of what happens when any group of people moves into a land. If there are enough of them sooner or later they will have children, they will mingle and possibly mate with the native people, they will grow in population. How long before they must either become a part of the land they live in or...they overtake the land they live in?
I heard a man say that Muslims are now reproducing at a rate of eight to one in America. Eight Muslim babies are being born for every one white baby being born. I haven't seen any statistics on that, any proof that it's true, but what if it is? Or what if they are simply reproducing at a rate of one Muslim baby for every white baby? In what? 20 years they will equal or outweigh the younger generation of white people. And no, I'm not speaking of white people over any other ethnic American group, that just happens to be the race I heard the statement about.
And even if we take in all other American ethnicities...at eight to one, Muslim to White...that puts them at what? Four to one for all Americans? One to one? Any way you look at it they will soon outnumber all Americans except for the so-called Muslim Americans. Which, by the way, is like saying up is also down all at the same time. Muslims have their own way of life and that life is anti-American. How then can we have a Muslim American?
I am not racist. I do not have anything against any one group of people. I do, however, have the sense to see that American's cannot peacefully coexist with a people that hate American's. I can also see that Christians cannot peacefully coexist with a people that hate Christians. I can even see that the very people so desperately crying for Muslims to be allowed into our country are the same people so desperately crying for homosexuals to be given equal status to everyone else, to be affirmed and accepted in their lifestyle...and I can see that Muslims kill homosexuals. It is part of their beliefs, part of their culture, part of what makes them who they are.
They do not have to be radical to hold to those beliefs just as someone does not have to be reformed to believe in Christ.
And yet we have people, even self professing 'Christians' that are crying out to allow Muslims into our country by the boat and plane load. They want to give them a safe place to go. They want to embrace them and 'love' them and let them know they are equal here. They claim that all people are God's people.
That's not what Scripture says. Scripture says that God loves some and hates some. It says that only a select set of people are God's people. What does that make the others?
I'm not saying there can't be Christians in Muslim countries. I'm sure there are. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't more real Christians in those countries than there are in America. Why? Because in a country where you are persecuted, even to the point of death, you are way less likely to try to claim to be something you aren't, you're less likely to profess something because it sounds good, whether to you or to others. You're less likely to claim to be a part of something for the status it gives you or the connections you can make. When your life is at stake...how likely are you to fake it or even to feel it in a superficial way?
But in America we have scores and scores of 'Christians' that do not live or act in any way close to what the Scriptures say a Christian is. They profess to be 'Christians' because it's easy and because in most cases it's a status symbol. They are just as much a fan of this, or a member of that. Their faith is, in many cases, all for show. Because that's an American 'Christian'.
Have these self professing 'Christians' never read any of their Bible? Have they not seen how the Lord punished a land, or a people, by sending in a group of other people? Have they not seen that judgement was passed on one land, and carried out, through another lands people infiltrating their land and wiping them out? Those infiltrating people either killed everyone or they killed the men and took the women and children as their own.
This is judgement on a nation.
Can the self professing 'Christians' that want so much to do the 'Christian' thing, to be the good 'Christian', to do 'what God would want them to do', not see that they are helping the judgement arrive on their doorsteps?
If the Lord decides to send judgement our way, and why wouldn't He, America wallows in sin and flaunts it like this is the devils own playground, which it is, but if the Lord sends judgment on our nation, and I believe He already has, then we can do nothing to stop it. But shouldn't anyone claiming to be a 'Christian' be able to see how things worked in their Bible and understand the dangers of welcoming those from a foreign land?
The people that they claim are God's people aren't God's people if they're living against the Lord. The people that are seen as innocents in need of help aren't so innocent when they grew up in a culture that teaches to kill and destroy any people that aren't of their beliefs.
There was a time when all people were the same, at least in language. What happened to that time? The people tried to build a tower to heaven. Remember? It's known as the tower of Babel and its when and where God scattered people, confusing their speech so that they no longer all spoke the same language. He separated them into their own groups, placing them in different lands, seeing to it that they could no longer speak to people of other lands.
If he separated them...there must have been a reason.
Then throughout Scripture we see that He used one group of people to destroy another. He used these people to carry out His judgement on those people. They entered a foreign land, brought with them their beliefs and their traditions, they maimed and killed, raped and pilfered, until they controlled the land.
I saw something today, a news article, that I cannot vouch for the validity of and I cannot tell you what the story said but I can tell you about the headline. That headline spoke of how Muslims move into a country not to assimilate but to control. They may settle in, may seem to be a part of the new country but they hang onto their beliefs and their traditions and their culture, they teach their children in their ways even as they learn the ways of the country they are in until one day they have grown in number and until they reach whatever point they are awaiting and then they take over the country. It is their way. It is their faith. It is their belief.
There was another news article that supposedly showed a Muslim man warning America of the agenda behind the Muslims moving to our country. I didn't watch the video and if there was a written article I didn't read it. I just saw the headline. I don't know if it was from a reliable source or not.
But...I don't need a news article to tell me what Scripture shows me. I don't need to hear it straight from a Muslim to know what the Lord has told me in His word. Being infiltrated and overrun by people of another land has been used repeatedly in Scripture to judge and overthrow a nation. Anyone that's ever read their Bible, or even part of it, cannot deny that simple fact.
And American's are wanting to embrace those from another nation. To throw our doors wide and welcome them like long lost family members. To believe that they have every right to practice their beliefs in America because after all, 'America isn't a Christian country' and to hear some tell it, it never was.
Oh, but it was. When Indians lived here without any foreigners, maybe it wasn't but once the settlers started coming, whether they came from Spain, Mexico, England, or wherever, they were Christians. They may have come from different denominational beliefs but they were Christians. I've heard that Christopher Columbus was Reformed. Those from Mexico were often Catholic. The Pilgrims were reformed. I'm sure there were other denomination beliefs but they all believed in Christ.
America was never a melting pot of religions. And really, if we want to think back to when America was settled...Christians moved into America and overtook the Indians. I'm not saying it was right or what happened to them was good but...in came the foreigners and out went the natives ability to rule and govern themselves. White men married, kidnapped, raped and murdered the natives. Sure, many of them did the same to the white settlers but look who won, look who conquered. It wasn't those native to this land. It was the foreigners that settled here.
And America stayed a predominantly Christian country until sometime in the mid 1900s. And now here we are, with our own people having a fit to let foreigners into our country. How long before they fill our land and overtake our people. How long before America becomes a Muslim country?
How long before God uses the ungodly to overthrow what has stopped being a Christian country?
How long before God sends full judgement on America?
But I've seen and heard so much on this topic lately. President Trump put a temporary ban on people from a handful of countries coming into America and it seems like everything just sort of became a free for all of people talking, complaining and giving thanks both online and in real life.
I've seen many, many things that say that Christians should want to allow others into our country. I've seen online and even been told that if Jesus were alive today He would not be welcome in America, that He was in fact a refugee.
I haven't heard the reasoning behind that but I think it probably has something to do with either
his nationality or all the times he, or his parents, had to flee a certain area, making Him a 'refugee'. I have heard someone speak on that, quite a while before this whole refugee ban went into effect. I wish now I could remember what they said. It was something to the effect of Jesus was never a refugee because He never actually fled a land but moved from place to place staying in the same general area, much like moving from town to town within the same state.
I don't know how accurate it would be to say Christ was a refugee. He did flee from certain groups of people, moving from somewhere that did not embrace what He was teaching to a more welcoming place. I do know that it is believed that Christ never traveled very far in His entire life, and in fact we can trace His journeys, or a good part of them anyway, by reading the Gospels with a biblical map in hand.
Being told that Christ would not be welcome in America was both amazing and almost laughable at the same time. First of all, Christ was basically not welcomed in the world at the time He walked the earth. Sure, there were those that welcomed Him, wanted Him, followed Him, even chased after Him but there were many more that did not want Him and were against what He was teaching. If He had been welcome in the world...He would not have been crucified.
What land opened it's doors to Him? What people took Him in and kept Him safe from harm? Over His entire lifetime there were very few and in the end none that kept Him safe on earth.
And second, well, the issue at stake here isn't whether or not all people are welcome in America but whether or not Muslims are welcome in America. There are those that would have us welcome them and their beliefs with open arms despite the fact that American laws ban them from living in the United States. We have laws that say that anyone against the American government cannot be allowed to enter our country and yet our country has been allowing people that are against American's in by the thousands. That is the issue. Christ would not have been affected by the current presidential ban on refugees because 1) He wasn't a refugee, and 2) he wasn't Muslim.
I'm well aware of the fact that I'm simplifying things here. That's because I have a much broader topic for this post than whether or not Christ would have been welcome in America. But I cannot get to that topic before first addressing this one.
And so we are being bombarded with the issue of whether or not America should allow refugees into our country, and whether or not Muslims should be allowed in our country. And in the midst of that bombardment are the people that want to feel sorry for the Muslims and let them in because their country is at war, because there is bombing going on where they live, because they aren't safe for any number of reasons in their country, and because they are people and we should embrace them as such treating them exactly the same as every other person on earth and just as we would want to be treated.
I will admit that I'm sure many of them do not want to stay in their countries, that they don't feel safe there, that they want away from the wars and the violence. I can even see that at least some of them probably do need a safe country to go to. But I have to wonder why that country needs to be America? Why do they even want to come to America? We aren't a Muslim country and we don't, overall, welcome their faith and their beliefs. There are Muslim countries that aren't at war. Why aren't they seeking refuge there? Wouldn't they be happier in countries that share their faith, their beliefs, their lifestyles, their traditions?
Then there is the other side, the side that says don't let them in and send the ones that are already here back. And they have valid points for what they want. History has shown us that Muslims, as a whole, cannot be trusted. We're told we shouldn't have Islamaphobia or Muslimphobia or whatever name they want to put on it but the reality is that I've met very few people that actually have a phobia of Muslims or Islam. Most people simply have the good sense to look at history and at current events and to be able to deduce for themselves that Americans, especially Christians, should be leery of Muslims.
But even if people are afraid of Muslims...wouldn't it be for a good reason? Hasn't history shown us that they aren't a peaceable people? Aren't there Muslims killing other people for no better reason than the fact that they aren't Muslim, or they are Christian, in other countries?
And it's like this great big merry go round that never seems to come to a stop. People pushing and pulling, yelling and writing, arguing and crying over whether or not to let foreigners into America. But it's worse. Way, way worse. Because in the midst of that, on both sides, I guess, are the people that say that these are God's people and that Christians should welcome all people with open arms. They ask how any Christian can want to ban anyone from our country, how any Christian can want to leave people in danger in other countries.
But where is the reason in all that?
I get that there are people living in war torn countries that are not safe in their homes. People that have nowhere safe to go. Kids that are loosing their parents to war. Parents that are watching their children die from the effects of war. Newborn babies being born in violence.
But here's the thing...these are not, for the most part, a peaceful people. Those kids...I've seen video footage of their five year olds wielding guns and shouting death threats. Those are not innocent children that we should open our hearts and homes to. Do you really want a five year old that has been taught to hate (to the point of killing them) white people or to hate Americans, or to hate Christians, or to hate any other group of people, to go to school with your five year old? Do you trust that child alone with your child? Is your child safe on the playground? Is your child safe in the far corner of the classroom, walking the halls, or in the cafeteria.
Those adults that grew up in that culture...they don't share your values, they don't share America's values. They don't share our culture. And yet they are moving into our country, putting their children in our schools, building their Mosques, buying up stores, hotels, and even becoming our doctors.
Do we want people that grew up in a culture that teaches them not only to hate but to kill everyone that doesn't share their beliefs to hold the key to the hotel room we sleep in? Do we want them administering medication to us? Do we want them operating on our children?
There's reason for you. There's only a small example of how the 'poor refugees' from the war torn country are moving into our country. But they don't just move here and become one of us. They keep their religion, keep their customs. Keep their ingrained beliefs and they bring them to America and they are like a virus that starts on the inside and slowly spreads until it overtakes everything in it's path.
Years ago, years and years ago, I watched a movie that I can't even recall the name of now. It was a movie I wouldn't sit through five minutes of today but back then I watched it. Once. In that movie aliens invaded earth. And they took over. Guess how? Not through the aliens that landed on earth but through reproducing. They used people on earth to...plant their babies, I guess. They somehow put their alien babies inside humans and those babies incubated there, growing and getting stronger, until they were ready to come into the world, then they clawed their way out of the person, killing the 'host' and going their own way to live their alien life. Soon there were more aliens on earth than there were people.
That's a movie and it's a gruesome example of the point I'm trying to make. I'm sorry for that. But think about it for just a moment. Think of what happens when any group of people moves into a land. If there are enough of them sooner or later they will have children, they will mingle and possibly mate with the native people, they will grow in population. How long before they must either become a part of the land they live in or...they overtake the land they live in?
I heard a man say that Muslims are now reproducing at a rate of eight to one in America. Eight Muslim babies are being born for every one white baby being born. I haven't seen any statistics on that, any proof that it's true, but what if it is? Or what if they are simply reproducing at a rate of one Muslim baby for every white baby? In what? 20 years they will equal or outweigh the younger generation of white people. And no, I'm not speaking of white people over any other ethnic American group, that just happens to be the race I heard the statement about.
And even if we take in all other American ethnicities...at eight to one, Muslim to White...that puts them at what? Four to one for all Americans? One to one? Any way you look at it they will soon outnumber all Americans except for the so-called Muslim Americans. Which, by the way, is like saying up is also down all at the same time. Muslims have their own way of life and that life is anti-American. How then can we have a Muslim American?
I am not racist. I do not have anything against any one group of people. I do, however, have the sense to see that American's cannot peacefully coexist with a people that hate American's. I can also see that Christians cannot peacefully coexist with a people that hate Christians. I can even see that the very people so desperately crying for Muslims to be allowed into our country are the same people so desperately crying for homosexuals to be given equal status to everyone else, to be affirmed and accepted in their lifestyle...and I can see that Muslims kill homosexuals. It is part of their beliefs, part of their culture, part of what makes them who they are.
They do not have to be radical to hold to those beliefs just as someone does not have to be reformed to believe in Christ.
And yet we have people, even self professing 'Christians' that are crying out to allow Muslims into our country by the boat and plane load. They want to give them a safe place to go. They want to embrace them and 'love' them and let them know they are equal here. They claim that all people are God's people.
That's not what Scripture says. Scripture says that God loves some and hates some. It says that only a select set of people are God's people. What does that make the others?
I'm not saying there can't be Christians in Muslim countries. I'm sure there are. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't more real Christians in those countries than there are in America. Why? Because in a country where you are persecuted, even to the point of death, you are way less likely to try to claim to be something you aren't, you're less likely to profess something because it sounds good, whether to you or to others. You're less likely to claim to be a part of something for the status it gives you or the connections you can make. When your life is at stake...how likely are you to fake it or even to feel it in a superficial way?
But in America we have scores and scores of 'Christians' that do not live or act in any way close to what the Scriptures say a Christian is. They profess to be 'Christians' because it's easy and because in most cases it's a status symbol. They are just as much a fan of this, or a member of that. Their faith is, in many cases, all for show. Because that's an American 'Christian'.
Have these self professing 'Christians' never read any of their Bible? Have they not seen how the Lord punished a land, or a people, by sending in a group of other people? Have they not seen that judgement was passed on one land, and carried out, through another lands people infiltrating their land and wiping them out? Those infiltrating people either killed everyone or they killed the men and took the women and children as their own.
This is judgement on a nation.
Can the self professing 'Christians' that want so much to do the 'Christian' thing, to be the good 'Christian', to do 'what God would want them to do', not see that they are helping the judgement arrive on their doorsteps?
If the Lord decides to send judgement our way, and why wouldn't He, America wallows in sin and flaunts it like this is the devils own playground, which it is, but if the Lord sends judgment on our nation, and I believe He already has, then we can do nothing to stop it. But shouldn't anyone claiming to be a 'Christian' be able to see how things worked in their Bible and understand the dangers of welcoming those from a foreign land?
The people that they claim are God's people aren't God's people if they're living against the Lord. The people that are seen as innocents in need of help aren't so innocent when they grew up in a culture that teaches to kill and destroy any people that aren't of their beliefs.
There was a time when all people were the same, at least in language. What happened to that time? The people tried to build a tower to heaven. Remember? It's known as the tower of Babel and its when and where God scattered people, confusing their speech so that they no longer all spoke the same language. He separated them into their own groups, placing them in different lands, seeing to it that they could no longer speak to people of other lands.
If he separated them...there must have been a reason.
Then throughout Scripture we see that He used one group of people to destroy another. He used these people to carry out His judgement on those people. They entered a foreign land, brought with them their beliefs and their traditions, they maimed and killed, raped and pilfered, until they controlled the land.
I saw something today, a news article, that I cannot vouch for the validity of and I cannot tell you what the story said but I can tell you about the headline. That headline spoke of how Muslims move into a country not to assimilate but to control. They may settle in, may seem to be a part of the new country but they hang onto their beliefs and their traditions and their culture, they teach their children in their ways even as they learn the ways of the country they are in until one day they have grown in number and until they reach whatever point they are awaiting and then they take over the country. It is their way. It is their faith. It is their belief.
There was another news article that supposedly showed a Muslim man warning America of the agenda behind the Muslims moving to our country. I didn't watch the video and if there was a written article I didn't read it. I just saw the headline. I don't know if it was from a reliable source or not.
But...I don't need a news article to tell me what Scripture shows me. I don't need to hear it straight from a Muslim to know what the Lord has told me in His word. Being infiltrated and overrun by people of another land has been used repeatedly in Scripture to judge and overthrow a nation. Anyone that's ever read their Bible, or even part of it, cannot deny that simple fact.
And American's are wanting to embrace those from another nation. To throw our doors wide and welcome them like long lost family members. To believe that they have every right to practice their beliefs in America because after all, 'America isn't a Christian country' and to hear some tell it, it never was.
Oh, but it was. When Indians lived here without any foreigners, maybe it wasn't but once the settlers started coming, whether they came from Spain, Mexico, England, or wherever, they were Christians. They may have come from different denominational beliefs but they were Christians. I've heard that Christopher Columbus was Reformed. Those from Mexico were often Catholic. The Pilgrims were reformed. I'm sure there were other denomination beliefs but they all believed in Christ.
America was never a melting pot of religions. And really, if we want to think back to when America was settled...Christians moved into America and overtook the Indians. I'm not saying it was right or what happened to them was good but...in came the foreigners and out went the natives ability to rule and govern themselves. White men married, kidnapped, raped and murdered the natives. Sure, many of them did the same to the white settlers but look who won, look who conquered. It wasn't those native to this land. It was the foreigners that settled here.
And America stayed a predominantly Christian country until sometime in the mid 1900s. And now here we are, with our own people having a fit to let foreigners into our country. How long before they fill our land and overtake our people. How long before America becomes a Muslim country?
How long before God uses the ungodly to overthrow what has stopped being a Christian country?
How long before God sends full judgement on America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)