The Invisible Man in Pigtown

(I actually wrote this piece a very long time ago and posted it on a different web site. I'm moving it here as part of my effort to consolidate my stuff.)

There is an invisible man in Pigtown. You don't believe me? He's there, sitting on that bus stop bench on Washington Boulevard; you know, the block between Martin Luther King, Jr, Boulevard and Barre Street, right in front of the Farm Fresh Super Market. If you've ever bought a Big Mac meal at that McDonald's, you've seen him.

He wears an old black derby hat and a thick brown corduroy waist coat. He's usually sitting slumped down with the rim of his hat tilted down to cover his face.

He's invisible because no one wants to see him. As people approach the bench, their eyes turn away to avoid seeing him. People waiting for the bus, will sit on one of the other benches. They would either stare across the street to avoid eye contact or glance impatiently down the street hoping the bus would arrive soon.

He's not invisible to all people. Sometimes, little children see him as the walk by with their parents. If a child stares too long, the parent would yank the child's arm to turn him or her away. In a hush voice, the parent would tell the child, "It's not nice to stare at people."

William isn't really physically invisible, of course. But, he might as well be. William is homeless.

William hasn't always been homeless. For years, he had worked on the loading docks in one of the big warehouses at the harbor. He lost his job when the warehouses were replaced by the swank Inner Harbor shopping pavilions. Afterward, he drifted from job to job. Eventually, age took its toll and William lost his ability to lift heavy objects. Virtually, illiterate, William's job prospects dwindled to none and he found himself on the streets.

One bright sunny Sunday, I ran across William on the bus stop bench. I had just come out of the McDonald's with my Big Mac Meal. It was such a gorgeous day and I didn't want to eat my lunch inside. Evidently, everyone else had the same idea. The only outside seat left was the bus bench where William was sitting. William was sitting there by himself. No one wanted to sit next to him.

Redundantly, I sat next to William. He looked so hungry. I immediately turned away, hoping to erase the image of the hungry man from my mind. It wouldn't go away. As I opened my paper bag, I took another glance at William. He looked so hungry. My internal guilt engine sprang into overdrive.

"Hey, would you like something to eat? Here, you can have this and I can get another."

William nods and accepted my Big Mac Meal.

When I came back with another Big Mac Meal, we ate in silence.

I tried to initiate a conversation but William wouldn't say a word. He responded by shaking his head for no and nodding his head for yes. He wouldn't respond to questions which require answers beyond Yes and No.

When we finished and I started to get up to go, William grabbed my arm. Slowly, he searched for the word in his memory. Then, William softly said, "Thanks." And let my arm loose.

The following week, I came back to check on William and again we had lunch together in silence. After several weeks of Sunday lunches, we finally exchanged names.

Slowly, William regained his ability to carry on a conversation. There were weeks in which he initiated the conversation. William was invisible no more.

One Sunday, William and I went to a Kentucky Fried Chicken for lunch. Our conversation was especially lively because William was hired, that week, to do janitorial work.

As we entered the fast food restaurant, the manager of the restaurant stepped in front of William.

"If you are panhandling, you'll have to stay outside. You can do that out there in the parking lot, but not in here."

I quickly stepped in and explained that William was with me. But it was too late.

William ate in silence that day. William is once again the invisible man.

James 3:3-12

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt£ water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

The Federal Bailout Debacle

My blood pressure continued to escalate as I watched the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and the U.S. Congress mishandle the global economic crisis. We've elected the Three Stooges to manage our economy.

When the "credit crunch" occurred, the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress bailed out arbitrarily selected failing investment banks (of which Lehman Brothers was not one). What was the reason for the bailout? How would the bailout alleviate the "credit crunch"? Why were some of the investment banks bailed out and not others? It's as if these Bozos didn't know what to do and randomly picked some things to do because doing something is better than doing nothing. In the end, we are $700 billion in the hole with nothing to show for it.

If they really wanted to alleviate the "credit crunch", they should have lent the money directly to those in the economy that needed the credit. The loans could be administered by local lending institutions for a nominal fee. The qualifications and conditions for the loans could be defined to minimize risk while maximizing liquidity in the credit market.

If there were no bailout for the investment banks, they would have been very motivated to sort out the "toxic assets" from the healthy ones and start down the road towards recovery. Now, with the federal bailouts in their pockets, these bankers are still sitting on their derriere waiting for some miracle to happen and we still don't know which loan packages are toxic and which ones are healthy. Yet, the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress want to throw away more money at these clowns.

On top of that, the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress want to do the same with the auto industry. Why shouldn't GM and Chrysler be allowed to fail? (Ford, during the congressional hearings, said that they didn't need the bailout but came along for the handout because GM and Chrysler were doing so.) Let GM and Chrysler file for Chapter 11 and reorganize, just like any other businesses that are in trouble.

The problem is that the U.S. federal government wants to prop up failing private businesses because they are perceived to be "too big to fail". There is not such thing as a business that is "too big to fail"!!!!!

A healthy free market demands that bad businesses fail and good businesses thrive on their own, irregardless of how large they are. A subsidized bad business is simply a cancer in our economy, sucking resources away from the healthy part of the economy.

There is, however, an ever more fundamental problem with our public policy, a broader problem than just our economic problem. It stems from the very character of the American pioneering spirit.

American public policy has always been to overcome the natural flow instead of working with the natural flow. We deem one part of the natural cycle to be bad and the other part of the cycle good; then we try to overcome the part of the natural cycle that we deem to be bad. Unfortunately, we really don't overcome that part of the natural cycle, we simply put it off. And when we do, the part, that we deem to be bad, accumulates until it breaks the dam.

e.g., Nature has cycles, a part of which has forest fires and the other part doesn't. We deem forest fires to be bad and we proceed to put out every forest fire that comes along. Unfortunately, when we do so, the undergrowth starts to accumulate and accumulate. At a certain point, the undergrowth accumulates so much that, when the next forest fire comes along, the fire is unmanageable because there is so much undergrowth.

Forest fires are not bad nor are they good. They are just a part of the natural self corrective process.

Why don't we stop trying to overcome the natural cycles of forest fires and instead allow the forest fires to happen so that the undergrowth does not accumulate so much that the forest fires become unmanageable? Why don't we stop people from building in those forest fire zones or at least impose more strict fire code for buildings in the forest file zones?

e.g., In preparation for hurricanes, we built dikes (levees) to prevent the hurricane flood water from overflowing into communities along the Mississippi River. Inevitably, the flood water would overcome the dikes (levees), ether by rising above them or by breaking them.

Why don't we stop trying to hold back the natural flow? Why don't we stop wasting money on building dikes (levees)? Why don't we, instead, accommodate the natural flow? Why don't we, instead, change our building codes for the areas in the hurricane zone? Require that buildings be elevated (perhaps on stilts) above the maximum expected flood level? Require them to be aerodynamics, allowing the hurricane wind to blow by the buildings.

We do the same with our economy. We deem the economic growth periods to be good and the periods of economic downturn to be bad. So we try to prolong the growth periods and extinguish the downturns.

Neither are good nor are they bad. They are both part of the natural cycle.

The economic growth periods are good because we make money. However, they also bad because, in the growth periods, businesses invest in riskier ventures and more number of risky ventures because these investments will yield much higher returns if successful. (They assume that their profit, in good economic times, will cover their losses in the riskier ventures.)

The economic downturns are bad because we don't make as much money. However, it's also good because it puts fear into the businesses that invest in risky businesses. The downturns rein them in from overconfidence in risky ventures.

So when the U.S. Federal government extends the growth period too long, businesses become dunk with confidence in risky ventures. The risks that they take become outrageous and the number of risks that they take becomes outrageous.

It is this public policy that got us here in this massive global economic mess. Yet, the Obama administration and the U. S. Congress insist on continuing to apply this very bad public policy by bailing out bad businesses, in essence, giving the green light to continue exercising bad business practices.

We need to put the fear back into businesses that don't seem to care if they are running their businesses well or not. We need to take away their safety net. A bailout is the exact opposite of what we need to do.

Let's replace this very bad public policy with a sound one. We need to allow the natural business cycle to occur. Do not prolong growth periods. Do not hold back downturns. Instead, we need to accumulate a rainy day fund during the growth periods. When the downturns come, the government will have the resources to provide unemployment benefits for those who are effected by the downturns. The unemployment benefits will include not only cost of living expenses but also tuition for worker retraining. (Economic downturns are usually the result of shifts in the economy requiring workers to move from one segment of the economy to another.)

We need to stop trying to suppress the natural cycle and instead accommodate the natural cycle.

Hey, don't take my word for it. Go read Genesis 41 to see the public policy that God recommended (through Joseph) to deal with the economic cycle (time of abundance and time of famine).

Business Idea Number 1: All You Can Eat Mexican Food Buffet Restaurant

With the economy doing so badly and with so many businesses filing Chapter 11, I started thinking about potentially successful business ideas. This one came to me as my brother and me were eating at an "all you can eat" Chinese food buffet restaurant.

Why isn't there any "all you can eat" Mexican food buffet restaurant? People like all you can eat buffer restaurants (my brother and I regularly eat at two different "all you can eat" Chinese food buffet restaurants and they are always packed.) and people like Mexican/TexMex/Southwest food. An "all you can eat" Mexican food buffet restaurant would be a winner!

It'll have

1) a taco bar - You can make your own tacos or taco salads with whatever ingredient you like. If you like sour cream, you can have sour cream; if you are lactose-intolerant, you can leave out the sour cream. With a taco bar, you are not confined to eating whatever the restaurant defined to be a taco. (I like chipotle sauce on mine and when I ask for it, waiter/waitresses are constantly rolling their eyes as if to say "Why do you have to be difficult!")

2) a fajitas grill - You can make your own fajitas with freshly grilled steak strips, chicken strips, tuna strips, shrimp, or longaniza. For vegetarians, there would be grilled eggplant and zucchini.

3) a soup bar - I love Mexican soups but for some reason, the Mexican restaurants, where I eat, don't seem to have a large selection of soups. The soup bar should have, at least, chili (beef and just veggies), tortilla soup (beef, chicken, and just veggies) albondigas, posole stew (pork and chicken), Mexican shrimp soup, and Mexican vegetable soup.

4) a fruit / fruit shake bar - Why don't most restaurants serve a large variety of tropical fruits like guavas, mangos, papaya, passion fruit , and dates. They are common in supermarkets; why aren't they common in restaurants.

5) a dessert bar with someone to cook fried ice cream on request - what more is there to be said about that.

I intentionally omitted a lot of food that are expected to be served in a Mexican restaurants (like burritos, chimichangas, tamales, etc.). Because, it's an "all you can eat" buffet; the profit must be made on volume and not on margin. To increase volume without increasing cost, the food prep time must be short. So I limited the food list to very popular food items very short food prep time.

Such a restaurant will be successful because

1) The startup cost is low (somewhere between a moderate priced restaurant and a carry out). Start with a closed supermarket. Add a kitchen for basic food prep and grilling. Convert rest of the space to dining area.

2) The required skill of the staff is low (with the exception of the fried ice cream, there's no fancy cooking, just cleaning, cutting, mixing, boiling, and grilling)

3) Very little marketing is required. The two very popular "all you can eat" Chinese food buffet restaurants, where my brother and I frequently eat, get most of their customers by word of mouth recommendations. (If you build it, they will come!) Of course, the restaurant would have to be at a location with a high traffic volume.

Why the U.S. Presidential Candidates' Positions on Energy Independence Don't Make Sense

Many of you have asked about for whom I'm planning vote in the U.S. Presidential election. The truth is that I don't like my choices and there's a great likelihood that I, for first time since I was old enough to vote, may not vote in the U. S. Presidential election. (I'm still going to the poll; there're other races and local initiatives for which I will vote.) My problem with both candidates is that neither understands the issues at all.

For example, both are pushing for energy independence. They only differ in how to achieve it. They assume that energy independence is a good thing.

While energy independence may sound good (a result of American cultural attitude towards independence from anything), is it, really?

The reason, that we go to the global market for obtaining resources, is that it allows us to choose from a large number of producers to find the lowest price. Energy independence means that we restrict our choice to only domestic producers who may or may not have low prices. With a smaller pool of producers, there is less market competition and will result in higher energy prices. That's a pretty stupid result.

The second problem with trying to achieve energy independence is that it's impossible. We have a market economy. In a market economy, resources, products, and services move freely; we can't keep energy from flowing in or out of the country. The electrical grid, in the U.S., is connected to the Canadian electrical grid and to the Mexican electrical grid. American utilities, at the same time, import and export electricity from/to Canada and Mexico. Exxon Mobile, at the same time, imports and exports diesel fuel from/to other countries. Resources, products, and services are constantly flowing to wherever the price is higher. Most importantly, the U.S. economy benefits heavily on this free exchange. If the U.S. government shuts it down, our economy will die.

The two presidential candidates' reason for pursuing energy independence is just as stupid. They insisted that we need energy independence because we don't want our money going to people who may fund terrorists. They failed to mention that we import half of the crude oil that we consume and most of which comes from Canada and Mexico. We certainly don't expect Canadian and Mexican oil profits going to terrorists.

Only sixteen percent of it actually comes from the middle east. But even if all the crude oil, that we import, comes from the middle east, would we really be depriving the middle eastern countries of profit if we don't import from them? Would they not readily find other buyers? Would they not continue to profit from their oil export even if they don't export to us? Need I mention that the People's Republic of China is constantly moving into markets in which the United States deemed to be unsavory?

Both candidate propose shifting from imported oil to "renewable" "green" energy. All "renewable" "green" energy, with the exception of geothermal, is solar energy. e.g., Wind energy comes from the sun heating air in one location causing it to move to a cooler location. Hydro-electric energy comes from the sun evaporating water from an location of lower elevation and raining/snowing on an area of higher elevation. Bio-fuel comes from the sun light being turned into organically stored energy through photosynthesis. Even petro-energy is the solar energy since it comes from organically stored energy. So what's the problem?

"Renewable" "green" energy is insufficient to supply all our energy needs. Only a tiny portion of the light emitted by our sun is radiated in the direction of the earth. Of the portion that is radiated towards earth, only one billionth of that energy actually reaches earth. Of the solar energy that actually reaches the earth, only a portion is not filtered by the earth atmosphere. (It's a good thing; otherwise we would be exposed to a lot of harmful radiation. Think about what would happen to our skin cancer rate if the earth's atmosphere doesn't filter out the harmful radiation.)

Consider this. The earth has been storing up solar energy, in the form of petro-energy, for millions of years. Within a century, we've almost sucked it dry.

One of the most ridiculous "renewable" "green" energy policies is the U.S. government's backing of ethanol. More energy is used to produce (plant, grow, harvest, and distill the corn) and transport ethanol than the amount of energy that's actually in the ethanol. How does a net loss in energy going to help move the U.S. towards "energy independence"? Yet, not only does the U. S. Government subsidizes the production of ethanol but also forces us to buy it (as a mandated gasoline additive).

The truth is that "renewable" "green" would not be viable without government subsidies. And even with the subsidies, it's still more expensive.

Recently, my utility company offered its customers the opportunity to buy electricity produced using wind and solar energy. Unfortunately, the price of the alternative energy source is about ten percent greater than my regular electricity source.

As for geo-thermal energy, does anyone actually think it would be a good idea to put big honking pipes into the ground next to Old Faithful in the Yellowstone National Park? I'll be willing to agree to pipes next to Old Faithful on the day Ted Kennedy agrees to allowing windmills to be built on the waters off Nantucket.

Sadly, the so-called "green" energy solutions, backed by both U. S. Presidential candidates are not so "green".

For example, photo-voltaic cells (solar panels) are perceived to be environmentally friendly. However, the byproduct of manufacturing photo-voltaic cells (and all other semi-conductors) are drums and drums of very toxic chemicals (solvent with cyanide) that we have to store. The waste to energy ratio for photo-voltaic cells is far worst than that of today's nuclear reactors.

There are so-called "green" companies building massive solar collectors in the desert which would heat liquid filled pipes for driving electricity generating turbines. Don't tell me that these monstrosities will not disrupt the desert's eco-system.

In California, they call windmills "condor Cuisinarts". You can imagine what they do to endangered soaring birds like condors, falcons, eagles, and owls.

Hydro-electric dams kill migrating salmons. There is only one solution for our future energy need: Nuclear fusion. Unlike the process used in current nuclear reactors (nuclear fission), which produces radioactive waste, nuclear fusion combines two hydrogen atoms together to produce a helium atom (the gas used in party balloons).

We need to stop wasting our research money (our tax dollars) on energy solutions that will never fulfill our needs and concentrate on a solution that will. We need to put research money into nuclear fusion.

But even if we successfully switch our energy source away from petroleum based products, we will not be free of oil dependency until we change our agricultural policies. Currently, twenty percent of the oil that we use (domestic and imported) is for products used in farming. e.g. fertilizer, pesticide, etc.

These products are only necessary because our agricultural system is based on the industrial model of production: single-product farms. If the system moves to multiple-product farms with composting and field rotation, we would not need petroleum based chemicals like fertilizers.

For example, in Argentina, field usage rotates between free range cattle grazing and planting. When the cattle is done with the field, the field is fertile from the manure. When the planting and composting is done, the field is ready for grazing.

As you can see, neither candidate for U.S. President understands this issues. Unfortunately, as I examine their position on other issues, I found them to be just as clueless. I would call them "Dumb and Dumber" except I wouldn't know which one is Dumb and which one is Dumber.

The Sub-Prime Debacle

I've been asked, several times within the past couple of days, what the current financial woe, facing our nation, is all about. Each time, I had been able to give a sufficient answer (as off the cuff answers go). But, with so much interest, I'd thought that it would beneficial if I were to put it down "on paper" in an organized coherent format.

So, here it is:

Long ago (when interest rates were high), a bank receives deposits from a large number of customers and makes pretty good profit by lending a portion of the deposited money. The bank can also borrow money from the Federal Reserve or from other banks and lend the borrowed money. However, they are required to keep a portion of their money available for withdrawal.

Once they reached the lending limit, they can't lend any more money. They have to wait for more deposits or for the loans to be repaid.

To overcome that hurdle, they, sometimes, sell some of their loans to other lending institutions. (Many of us have experienced it when we borrowed our mortgage from one bank and ended up paying it back to another firm.)

Then, came the sub-prime debacle.

It started with the banks trying to lend mortgages to low income customers. They made two major assumptions about the low-income borrowers and one major assumption about housing market.

1) The customer's income will rise with time. i.e., The interest rate on their mortgage can rise with time; the interest can start below the prime interest rate (the interest rate that the Federal Reserve charges the bank) and climb with time so that the money lost at the beginning of the loan can be recouped later on when the interest rates are higher.

2) When the loans are structured properly, only a small number of the low-income borrowers will default on their loan.

3) The values of the properties will continue to rise so that even if a borrower defaults, the bank can still make a profit from the sale of that property.

So, they issued loans to low-income customers that start at sub-prime interest rates and climb up with time (at reasonable rates). They, then, packaged these loans together and sold them as securities (like bonds) to investment firms. These packages were rated relatively low risk because only a few loans within a package were expected to be defaulted.

Once a package of loans is sold, the bank can use the proceeds to issue more loans.

The banks, failed to do one major thing. They did not disperse loans from the same region of the country into different loan packages so that an entire package of loan does not become worthless when a region of the country becomes economically depressed.

Well, guess what happened. As regions of the country became depressed and many people lost their jobs, whole packages of loans were being defaulted. When whole neighborhoods were being defaulted, the values of these properties took a dive.

Thus, all three assumptions became false because the banks failed to evenly distribute the risk.

At this point, everyone is still trying to determine which packages of loans are complete duds and which packages are healthy securities.

In the mean time, nobody is willing to buy or sell any of these packages. This stalemate resulted in the banks being redundant to issue more loans since they are near their lending limit.

Unfortunately, our economy runs on credit. The farmers borrow money to buy the seeds, fertilizer, etc. to grow their produce and repays the loans when they sell their produce. Manufacturing firms borrows money to produce new products and repays the loans when the products are sold. Oil companies borrow money to explore and drill for oil and gas and repays the loans when the oil and gas are sold.

So when the banks are not able to lend, the wheels of commerce stop turning. When the wheels of commerce stop turning, people loose their jobs.

What is Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke's plan?

1) Use 700 billion dollars to buy up the loan packages.

2) Weed out the bad loans and dispose of them (foreclosure)

3) When market calms, sell back healthy loan packages.

Are We Casting Stones?

Someone posted a complaint about how Christians are always casting stones at others on the Christian discussion forums. While it may sound like a legitimate complaint, there were several problems with his assertion. Here is his original post:

Let him without sin cast the first stone

Why is that a lot of so called Christians only post topics that only reveals someone elses short comings? Havent we all sinned and come short of his glory or have God himself sent another Son besides Jesus into the world thats perfect and is without fault. Instead of us using the scriptures to help one another out of love we beat the hell out of others and tell them everything wrong they"re doing, like anyone that walks this earth have room to talk or judge. Its like they just study a bunch of scriptures, pushed Jesus out of his judgement seat, became jusdge themselves, and start condemning others to hell because they're sinners.

Its hard to find any true Christian in these groups because everyone is walking around with some Bible verses ready to judge and a pocket full of stones to throw. I guess there church dont care to hear them preach so they just come on myspace and feel free to reveal everyone elses sin.

Jesus is a friend to sinners and to the ones that the world and these so called churches rejected. I'm a sinner but yet Im saved by grace. As it stated in Philippians 3:9 " And being found in him not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness of God by faith."

I would love to hear your veiws on the topic.


The post assumes that because we are forgiven of all our sins, we no longer have to deal with sin.

Here is my reply:

Posting topics, to identify specific sins, does not necessarily constitute the casting of stones.

The casting of stone (literally) is capital punishment. It assumes that the sinner can not be redeemed and that society would be better off without this person.
Reiterating, what is right and what is wrong to an unsaved sinner, assumes that there is still a chance that the person can be redeemed.

The postings can also be for the edification of the Body of Christ. We may be saved, by grace, from having to pay the debt for our sin (death), it does not mean that we are to continue to sin.

Romans 6:1-4
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If the saved sinner is not aware that he or she is sinning, the postings would alert the sinner of the problem. (DO NOT assume that every saved sinner knows about every sin.)

Even if the saved sinner is aware of that sin but is defiant and continues to sin, the Bible instructs us to try to turn him or her from the error of his/her way.

James 5:19-20
My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

Yes, Jesus IS a friend of the sinner. But that does not mean the Jesus wants to see sinners (saved or not) continuing to waddle in their sin.

Is our ministry a ministry of hate or a ministry of reconciliation?

Someone wrote the following several weeks ago.

We have all heard sermons on soul winning during which we are berated for not crying daily over the lost and then told we are to be broken hearted over the loss of the lowest, scummiest, God hating creatures on the planet. May I say word? BUNK!

We claim to be in an army. Where did you ever see a soldier cry over the death of an enemy soldier whose sworn duty was to kill him? There are people in this world who have given their lives to forward the devil's case and in the process damn millions of innocent souls to Hell. I have no compassion for them and no regret at their passing. I see it as one less soldier in the devil's army.

Do you think that U.S. soldiers wept and moaned at news of the deaths of Gen. Erwin Rommel or Ho Chi Minn? Rommel was a truly great soldier but he was on the wrong side! His death was a blessing to the allied cause.

But these fraudulent, over zealous, intimidating promoters of misguided compassion would have you crying over the death of people that hated God and His Book with everything they had. The Lord's cause benefits from these people going to their just desserts.

Am I off base? Check it out! Did the Lord Jesus Christ waste any of His time trying to win Herod to Himself in their only face-to-face meeting in Luke 23:6-9? No! Where was His "burden for souls"? Did God have compassion on the innocent prison guards of Acts 12:19? Nope! He stood by and let them be killed and go to Hell. Why? They were on the wrong side! Do you find the Apostle Peter or Paul weeping over the fate of Herod in Acts12:20-23? Never! But look at verse 24!

Here's the major problem with this misguided, possibly well meant, teaching. There is a great ruth to human love. You can love good people or you can love bad people but you cannot train your heart to love both.

What I mean is simply this: These same people who demand that you have to have compassion on sodomites and God-haters have no compassion on their fellow Christians who disagree with them in some way. They will gossip, lie and use all their influence to hurt a fellow Christian who they are mad at or view as a threat while at the same time they are demanding "compassion" for the God-haters. This is not right!

Some of you, in order to prove you are a compassionate person will bemoan the death of God-haters like Jean Dixon, Carl Sagan or Jacque Cousteau yet you will not hesitate to rip the throat out of your pastor or a fellow Christian who has angered you in some way. Why? Because you can't love them both. If you have chosen to exhibit false compassion for the God-haters you will not be able to find true compassion for those who are on God's side but disagree with you about something. You can love one or the other but you can't love them both.

I have placed myself unashamedly on God's side. If every God-hating atheist died tomorrow I would do back flips and praise God that the job of reaching the lost would now be easier. One of these days I'm going to hear that wicked Drs. Spock and Kevorkian have died to which I will respond with a hardy, "Praise God!" I didn't say that I have no compassion for the everyday lost common citizen who gets called every name in the Book by some overzealous street preachers. Them I care about. Them I'm trying to win. But I rejoice at the departure of those who deceive them (and you). They made their choice. Oh well!

Yet in all of this "lack of compassion" on my part I will have mercy on YOU if you disagree with me in some area. Their are preachers that I really don't care for. But they are saved! They are on God's side! I will not try to hurt or destroy them. (We call this "Grace". It takes legitimate compassion.) But if I am going to allow myself to love them I cannot find room to also love the devil's soldiers. Someone has to lose! I vote: the devil's soldiers.

Check yourself out. How many times have you hesitated to show any animosity for someone who openly works against God & the Bible yet you have not felt the least restriction about saying something that would damage a fellow Christian? You're the one whose messed up! Not me.

The vile college professors can go to their spiritual home!. Their misguided students I'll try to win. Every corrupting newspaper reporter can burn! But the guy that his lies deceive is going to get my heart felt efforts to win. Hollywood could sink into Hell today and I would praise God. But you who follow their indoctrination I will try to steer in the right direction. You can't love both!

Why don't you unload your pent up animosity on the queers, environmentalists, animal righters, Liberal judges and corp of devil's helpers, and show some compassion on your pastor, a preacher, a church member or a fellow Christian or just a lost common citizen who needs the truth and not say anything that will hurt them?

Mind you! We don't hurt people! We don't go shooting people or blowing them up. But we give them no quarter or mercy in our efforts to win the innocent lost. Let's lay off our brethren and vocally blast their brethren.

Some of you ought to get down on your knees and ask God to forgive you for the trouble you've caused in some church, while all that time you refused to say anything ugly about some movie star or sports figure. Change your ways! Exercise some mercy and compassion where it belongs! On God's people. The devil's crowd takes good care of their own. Let's not help them.

Did I make you mad? Have some compassion on me...or go hug a queer!


It really saddened me that there are Christians who actually feel this way. I originally started to write a response to counter each point that he made. But after praying about my response, it became appartent that the Lord just wanted me to post several scripture verses for him to read and over which to meditate.

Matthew 5:43-48
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


Romans 12:17-21
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay, " says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 5:10-11
For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 5:16-18
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation

Should Christians vote Republican or Democrat?

I've been seeing many posts, in Christian discussion forums, advocating Christian voters to cast their votes based on the candidates' stance on abortion and homosexuality. Many of these posts are quite offensive. Even those posts, that are not offensive, I found to be not quite right.

Here is an example of one that is not offensive:

To start out, let me say that I in no way endorse a particular candidate or party or tell you how and who to vote for or support. What I can do is tell you what the Bible says about political issues and allow you to make a decision from there. In all actuality, few political issues are truly spiritual issues. As an example, personally, I prefer lower taxes. The Bible does not endorse low taxes, all it says is that we are to pay our taxes honestly (Romans 13:6-7; Matthew 22:15-21). Taxes, and many other issues (social security, universal healthcare, education funding, prescription drugs, etc.) are not spiritual issues the Bible specifically addresses. As a result, Christians can in good conscience have disagreements on these issues.

An issue the Bible most definitely "takes sides" on is abortion. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He knits us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God's active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty of someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as the penalty for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb as just as much of a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman's right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6). Therefore, I believe Christians should strongly support candidates who are pro-life.

Another issue which is most definitely Biblical is the issue of gay marriage. The Bible condemns homosexuality in the strongest terms possible (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Gay marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage that God created to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:22-24). Endorsing gay marriage or even civil unions is basically giving "approval" of a lifestyle choice the Bible condemns as immoral and unnatural. Gay marriage, then, is an issue Christians must consider when they evaluate a candidate.

The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). I believe this should apply to political leaders as well. If a politician is going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, he or she must have a basic morality on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make. So, if there is a clear moral distinction between candidates, I believe we should choose the more moral, honest, and ethical of the candidates.

No matter who is in office, whether we voted for them or not, whether they are of the political party we prefer or not – the Bible commands us to respect and honor them (1 Peter 2:13-17; Romans 13:1-7). We should also be praying for those placed in authority over us (Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). We do not have to agree with them, or even like them – we do have to honor and respect them. Politics is always going to be a difficult issue for Christians. We are in this world, but are not to be of this world (1 John 2:15). We can be involved in politics, but we should not be obsessed with politics. Ultimately, we are to be heavenly minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are all members of the same political party – monarchists who are waiting for their King to return (Revelation 19:11-16).

Here's my reply:

Are you sure you are really concern with the morality of candidates/parties and not just with hot button topics like abortion and homosexuality?

I noticed that you mentioned abortion is wrong because it is murder however you did not mention capital punishment. Considering the number of convictions of capital punishment cases that had been found to be wrongful convictions, wouldn't the execution of the innocent be considered murder? Yet, you don't advocate legislation to ban capital punishment without DNA proof.

Is homosexuality more condemned by the Bible than adultery? Let's count the number of verses about adultery compared to that of homosexuality. Yet, you don't advocate the legislation to ban adultery.

Is homosexuality a greater threat to the family than divorce? I've been in youth ministry for over a decade and I have seen how it tears apart families and destroys teenagers' moral center. I don't think I've ever encountered a case of homosexuality tearing apart a family.

What about Jesus' teaching on divorce?

Mark 10:5-12

And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

And he saith unto them, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Yet, you are not advocating the abolition of divorces.

While I agree with your position on abortion and homosexuality, I must say that your post looks like the talking points of certain special interest group within the Republican Party.

While I generally vote Republican, I, as a Christian, must say "Let's play fair."

A Personal Note

Those of you, who are my friends in real life (i.e., not just through the virtual reality of the internet), know that my dad had a heart attack and passed away several years ago and that my mom had a stroke from the stress of my dad's passing. You also know that my mom's stoke caused her entire right side of her body to be paralyzed, because of which I've reduce my working hours to three days a week in order to take care of her.

On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, I work eight hours (during which a nursing tech takes care of my mom), and I watch my mom during the remaining sixteen hours. My mom's doctor appointments and therapy sessions are on Thursdays and Fridays. Saturdays, I do the shopping and other chores. Sundays, I watch my mom the whole day.

I had hoped that the Lord would have healed my mom by now but, for whatever reason, He has chosen to not do so despite my daily prayers for my mom's healing.

These past several years of twenty-four hour days are starting to take their toll and, these days, I'm starting to ask the Lord for reasons. It's especially tough since, before my mom's stroke, I had the opportunity to travel all over the world and now I'm confined within walls of my own home.

So each day, I cling to the opening verses from the Epistle of James.

James 1:2-4

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

It got tougher, a couple of weeks ago when I contracted a very bad case of the flu. It sapped most of the energy from my mind as well as my body. Though exhausted from the flu, I still have the responsibility of taking care of my mom.

I just put my mom to bed and have a little bit of time to pray and contemplate. And in this moment of stillness, I once again receive a greater appreciation for the love of the Lord.

I love my mom and, for her, I chose to put my life on hold and care for her. However, I love my mom because she, first, loved me.

Yes, these are tough times, but what is my trial compared with the suffering of Christ? How much greater is His love for us that He was willing to endure the agony of dying on the cross for a world that didn't love Him?

Tonight, I received a small portion of His answer, but just a small portion.

Philippians 3:10-11 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

I've yet to fully understand the "power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his suffering".

Divorce Discussion Continues

Several people responded to my blog entry concerning the topic of divorce. They noted the following statement that I made in that blog entry:

To be clear, I do believe that all sins, with the exception of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, are forgivable. God will forgive us of adultery (in this case, adultery resulting from divorcing and marrying someone else).

And asked that I clarify my stance on divorce.

My reply was that Jesus was very explicit concerning divorce.

Mark 10:5-12 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

And he saith unto them, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

The permissibility of divorce does not equate the permissibility of re-marriage. If one re-marries after divorce, one commits adultery.

They replied with the objections that I had been expecting. They cited two sets of verses which seem to allow remarriage after divorce under certain circumstances: Matthew 5:32 and 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

Matthew 5:32

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Many people believe that the first part of the verse gives the husband permission to divorce his wife and re-marry if she had committed fornication. However, Jesus never said that. Jesus was pointing out the consequences of divorcing one's wife. If a husband divorces his wife, he will cause her to commit adultery unless she is already an adulterer. If she is already an adulterer then her being an adulterer is not the husband's fault.

Unbelievably, those, citing this verse, consistently failed to reference the latter part of the verse: "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery". Is that not clear enough? The permissibility of divorce does not equate the permissibility of re-marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Many people pointed out that the word "widows", in verse 7, was translated from the original Greek word "chera" and that "chera" literally means "lacking a husband". They reasoned that the reference to "chera" includes not only widows but also divorcee. Thus, they concluded that the Apostle Paul was giving permission to divorcees to remarry if they burn with passion.

This literal translation of the original Greek word "chera" is simply bad translation. It does not account for how that word is normally used in the cultural context of the writer and his readers/audience. It refers to widows.

Otherwise, it is like saying that Mary, mother of Jesus, was not a virgin because the original Greek word, from which the word "virgin" was translated, also means little girl, concluding that Mary was a little girl and not a virgin since Mary was pregnant. That's simply a bad interpretation since Mary was old enough to marry (at least 12) and would not be viewed by as a little girl in that society.

The people who tried to use 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 as justification of re-marriage after divorce also failed to address the next two verses.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To interpret 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, as Paul giving permission for re-marriage after divorce, would cause verses 8-9 to contradict verses 10-11, the next two verses. The only way, for there to be no contradiction, is for the original Greek word "chera" to be interpreted as "widows" only.

One can not be formulating one's theology by cherry-picking only ambiguous verses and interpreting them to support one's view. There needs to be agreement among all the verses concerning the topic.

And the only way, there can be agreement between all these verses, is if one interprets the two ambiguous verses as I did and concludes that while there may be permissibility of divorce due to the hardness of man's heart, re-marriage after divorce is adultery.

However, I must reiterate that while God's standard is so high that it's unattainable, He does provide mercy.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Divorce

According to Barna Research Group's 2004 poll, among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.

Barna also noted that he analyzed the data according to the ages at which survey respondents were divorced and the age at which those who were Christian accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. "The data suggest that relatively few divorced Christians experienced their divorce before accepting Christ as their savior," he explained.

To be fair, Barna's survey showed that a larger portion of those, who are not born again Christians, co-habits, effectively, side-stepping marriage - and divorce - altogether.

Nevertheless, more than a third of Christian marriages end in divorce.

While the statistics did not surprise me, I was shocked and very saddened by the recent appearance of the cover story of Christianity Today entitled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce."

Even Time Magazine made a note of it in its November 5, 2007 issue in the article entitled "An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce?"

It's bad enough that more than a third of all Christian marriages end in divorce, now Christian leaders are altering their theology to accommodate this trend.

(I'm purposely not any mentioning prominent Christian leader who has or is planning to divorce.)

To be clear, I do believe that all sins, with the exception of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, are forgivable. God will forgive us of adultery (in this case, adultery resulting from divorcing and marrying someone else). However, there's a major difference between asking for forgiveness for a sin and modifying theology to no longer recognize that act as a sin.

Need I remind us that the marriage relationship is the image that God gave us to describe His relationship with the Church? Need I remind us that adultery is the image that God gave us to describe the situation when we abandon Him to worship idols? If these are the images that God gave us, what would be the embracing of divorce?

Most importantly, how we view divorce is a reflection of how we view marriage. And if we no longer view marriage as a binding relationship, how would this view effect the health of our marriages?

Perhaps we all need to be reminded of what the scripture says about divorce.

Matthew 5:31-32

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:3-10

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

And he answered and said unto them, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

They say unto him, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

He saith unto them, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you,

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Mark 10:2-12

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?" tempting him.

And he answered and said unto them, "What did Moses command you?

And they said, "Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."

And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Errata for Who is the Historical Santa Claus

After posting my blog entry entitled "Who is the Historical Santa Claus", I've received the following response:

Nice summary--just a few additions--

Nicholas was born in Patara, a town not far to the west of Myra in Lycia, Asia Minor, now Turkey. Not in Italy.

A technical matter--houses in that time did not have chimneys (a common misunderstanding)--there would have been an opening in the roof for the fire.

Nicholas' remains were taken to Bari, Italy, in 1087, where a basilica was built over his crypt. There are many, many towns named for St. Nicholas -- often ports along coasts and rivers as sailors carried stories of him wherever they went. Chapels and churches were named for him, often in ports as Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors and seamen, as well as children, maidens, the falsely accused and many others.

For more, see www.stnicholascenter.org

Here's my reply:

Thank you for the information.

The reference that I used is incorrect about St. Nicholas' birth place. I should have check other references.

As for Nicholas' resting place, I dug a little deeper and found that it's a bit more complicated than simply one resting place for St. Nicholas. Everyone agrees that sailors originally stole St. Nicholas' remains from Myra and took them to Bari. However, there was, evidently, a lot of contention for his remains. It seems that people were literally stealing his remains and moving them to their city.

For instance, Venice claims to have most of Nicholas' remains and that Myra only has one of his arm.

The most bizarre claim is that Nicholas II, the Czar of Russia, donated the remains of St. Nicholas to St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in New York. And after the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, the church building was destroyed and the remains of the saints kept there were lost.

The bottom line is that I can neither confirm nor deny any claim of St. Nicholas' final resting place. It's all pretty bizarre to me that someone would actually rob a crypt of its dead remains.

The people who claim to have St. Nicholas' remain should open up their crypt and let forensic researchers figure out from DNA and whatever other tests to see who have a piece of St. Nicholas.

Who is the Historical Santa Claus?

My post concerning Halloween led to a discussion on Christmas and Saint Nicholas. I was quite surprised to find out that many of my friends do not know who Saint Nicholas was. Oh sure, they recognized him as the guy who secretly gave gifts during Christmas but all the other details were completely off their mark. For instance, many thought that he was German.

Since my friends, who are usually knowledgeable of Christian issues, do not know who Saint Nicholas was, I am suspecting that it's probably true of the general public. So, I decided to post what I know (and double checked with reference literature).

The historical Saint Nicholas was the Bishop of Myra (in modern day Turkey but at the time was a Greek city; the city was mentioned in Acts 27). He lived during the 4th century. Although he was the Bishop of Myra, he was born in Italy.

His parents were wealthy. When his parents died and Nicholas received his inheritance, he gave it away to the poor.

During his lifetime, he was renowned for:

1) Defending the Christian faith; most particularly the intolerance of Arianism, a warped form Christian theology at the First Council of Nicaea

2) Intolerance of pagan religions and pagan artifacts; responsible for the destruction of several pagan temples including the Temple of Artemis.

3) Taking care of the poor

4) Defending the falsely accused

Many amazing deeds were attributed to him including rescuing sailors.

The most enduring is, of course, the secret giving of gifts. Evidently, there was a poor man who had three daughters but was unable to afford a proper dowry for them. In those days, it would have doomed them to not only remaining unmarried but would have to become prostitutes to support themselves. So Nicholas, on the nights before each daughter came "of age", would anonomously throw a purse of gold coins into their house. The first two times, he threw the purse through the window. The third time, the father decided to lie in wait to discover their benefactor. When Nicholas caught wind of the father's plan, he tossed the purse down the chimney, instead.

When the Asia Minor was invaded by Turks, at the beginning of the second millennium (long after Nicholas' death), Nicholas' remains were taken to a church in Germany. The town was renamed Nikolausberg.

Celebrating Halloween

In the past several weeks, there has been a large number of new discussion threads concerning Halloween started in the Christian discussion forum. Most of the participants registered their disgust with the celebration of things associated with the occults. No one seems to recognize it as a Christian holiday.

(The following is taken from Wikipedia.)

The term Halloween comes from All Hallow Evening, i.e., eve of "All Hallows' Day" also known as All Saints' Day.

It was a day of religious festivities in various northern European Pagan traditions, until Popes Gregory III and Gregory IV moved the old Christian feast of All Saints' Day from May 13 to November 1.

Liturgically, the Church traditionally celebrated that day as the Vigil of All Saints, and, until 1970, a day of fasting as well. Like other vigils, it was celebrated on the previous day if it fell on a Sunday, although secular celebrations of the holiday remained on the 31st. The Vigil was suppressed in 1955, but was later restored in the post-Vatican II calendar.

In the early Church, Christians would celebrate the anniversary of a martyr's death for Christ (known as the saint's "birth day") by serving an All-Night Vigil, and then celebrating the Eucharist over their tomb or place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighboring dioceses began to transfer relics, and to celebrate the feast days of specific martyrs in common. Frequently, a number of Christians would suffer martyrdom on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all.

A commemoration of "All Martyrs" began to be celebrated as early as the year 270, although no specific month or date are mentioned in existing records.

(Back to my comments)

Perhaps we should consider celebrating All Saints' Day as it was intended, in remembrance of our brothers and sisters in Christ who have been martyred: Christian evangelists and new converts in Muslim countries, in communist China, in rural India.

Remember our Christian brothers and sisters in Sudan.

Remember the Korean Christians who were martyred in Afghanistan.

The Voice of the Martyrs

Associated Press Article about attacks on Christians in Turkey

BBC Article on Chinese Christians being tortured and killed

Time Magazine Article on Christian Martyrs in India

Dealing with Non-Believers

I've been encountering some very distressing sentiment from within the Body of Christ. By no mean is the sentiment a majority opinion. However, I've encountered it enough times within the past several weeks that I felt compelled to respond to it. Often it is subtle but there has been times in which it was very overt.

Of what is it I am speaking? It is the sentiment that non-believers (whether atheists or believers of other religions) are to be treated as our adversary. The advocates, of this sentiment, were often engaged in a shouting match with non-believers.

That is, of course, very inappropriate. Satan and his hosts of fallen angles are our enemies, not non-believers. The non-believers are the battle grounds upon which our war, against the evil one, is waged.

The following is a prime example of this sentiment:

IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST,

THEN WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE IN REGARD TO ANY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

WHY WOULD PRIMITIVE MAN, "IN HIS PRIMITIVE THINKING," THINK OF HAVING RULES OF RIGHT AND WRONG? ACCORDING TO SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT, SHOULDN'T THESE RANDOM THOUGHT BE A RANDOM BLAST OF ENERGY? ANYHOW, WHO TOLD PRIMITIVE MAN ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG?

WHO TOLD PRIMORDIAL SOUP ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG? HOW DID MONKEY-MAN'S INVENTIONS GO FROM A BASIC STICK TO RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY? THESE ARE SUCH SILLY QUESTIONS BUT I HAVE YET TO SEE AN EXPLANATION OF FACTS RATHER THAN SO RANDOM GUESS OF WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPEN.

IF ATHEISM IS SURE THEN WHY WOULD ANY ATHEIST FOLLOW THE RULES OF A CHRISTIANIZED STATE? WHY DO ATHEIST LISTEN AND REACT TO THE LAWS OF THE RELIGIOUS "KNOW NOTHINGS" OF THE PAST? IT IS PROVEN THAT "EVERY CULTURE OF THE PAST" HAD ITS OWN RELIGION BUT AMERICA WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. HOW TRAGIC. HERE ARE SOME KEY NOTES ON THE DUTIES OF THE ATHEIST.

1. ATHEISTS SHOULD GO OUT AND KILL OTHER PEOPLE!

THIS IS A RELIGIOUS RULE RIGHT? IT'S NOT THE ATHEISTIC WAY TO BELIEVE RELIGIONS. NEVER MIND IF THAT PERSON HAS LOVED ONES.

2. ATHEISTS SHOULD COMMIT ADULTERY!

AGAIN, ANOTHER RELIGIOUS RULE, BUT NOT ATHEISTIC TO HEED THIS WARNING.

WHO CARES IF YOU RUIN A FAMILY OF FOUR AND THE CHILDREN GETS TO SEE THEIR FATHER OR MOTHER ONLY ON THE WEEKENDS. JUST AS LONG AS YOU CAN SLEEP WITH YOUR BOSS RIGHT?

3. ATHEISTS SHOULD STEAL!

YEP, A RELIGIOUS RULE NOT TO DO SO, BUT ACCORDING TO ATHEISM, GOD DOESN'T EXIST. AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST" THEN IT SHOULD BE OK TO GO TO A BANK AND TAKE EVERY CENT OF CURRENCY THEY HAVE. "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST," THEN HIS WORDS DON'T EXIST.

IF YOU ARE AN ATHEIST THEN PERFORM YOUR DUTY AND STOP LISTENING TO THE WORDS OF MY GOD!

Here is my response.

I am a Christian but I can provide the atheist's counter to your argument.

The three rules that you mentioned (don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't steal) are part of the social contract: Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.

It does not require God to tell us to do so, for us to know that we need to do so, in order for those of us, who live within a society to, co-exist peacefully.

An atheist would also remind you that Christianity does not have exclusive claim to the so-called Golden Rule. You'll find the same ethic in religions ranging from polytheist religions like Hinduism and Buddhism to monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

What is the difference, between all the religions, is how one deals with the violation of the golden rule ethics.

At this point I'll put back on my Christian hat and remind you that the foundation of the Christian faith is

Romans 3:22-24

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

All of us are sinners. It is purely by the grace of God that we are saved. Before we were saved, all of us were in the same boat as the atheist, doomed to eternal damnation and unable to hear the word of God. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that allow us to see the truth.

You can shout at atheists as loudly as you like and they would never hear you for they do not have the indwelling the Holy Spirit. If you truly want to see them saved, I'd suggest that you do two things:

1) Get down on your knees and pray for their salvation.

2) Love them! Love them as Jesus would them.

p.s., BTW, The commandment is not "Don't kill". The commandment is "Don't commit murder." There is a difference. Murder is unjustified killing. There are justified killing such as self defense, the defense of the innocent, etc.