"Peace" Has Been Hijacked

What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you see a person wearing the words “peace” on an article of clothing? What do you think when you see the “peace” symbol stuck on the bumper of an automobile? Sadly, if you’re like me, your first thoughts usually are not something positive. I have a few t-shirts with Christian themes on them. One has a large image of the earth with the words “Peace on Earth” on it. I’ve never worn it out of the house. So, what is wrong with “peace”? Regretfully, I believe the word has been “hijacked.”

Instead of visions of tranquility and harmony, when I see “peace” brandished about, my thoughts go to words or phrases like: pacifist, appeaser, anti-war activist, or political agenda. It’s a shame. Peace should not be a dirty word.

“War is a dreadful thing,” said C.S. Lewis, but he adds, “I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely wrong.” Loving your enemy does not mean you allow him to go unpunished. Given that, Lewis concludes, “It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy…All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery.”

So, if war is sometimes just then peace can sometimes be sinful. Peace for some may mean torment for others. Peace now may mean greater suffering and loss later. Peace may also mean that evil prospers.

Part of the problem is with semantics. Many consider peace to be the opposite of war, or, at least, the absence of hostilities. However, my Dictionary of the Bible states that, “Peace is the presence of God, not the absence of conflict. Christ brought, preached, and is our peace.” Jesus never told the Roman Centurion to lay down his arms. He did say, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you (emphasis on “I” and “my”). I do not give to you as the world gives.” Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians says, “For he (Christ) himself is our peace…”

What has happened with “peace” is very similar to what has taken place with the rainbow. The rainbow, which throughout most of history has been associated with a covenant promise that God made to mankind, now has been “hijacked” by the homosexual movement. Who do we see brandishing the flag with a rainbow on it? If a car or a shirt has nothing but a rainbow on it, my first thoughts do not go to Noah and the account of the Flood. Again, it’s a shame.

To many folks peace begins with tolerance. (Another good word that has lost its true meaning. I use it in this sense.) Tolerance in its corrupted sense has its roots in moral relativism, which, of course, means the loss of moral absolutes. So this hijacked form of peace is rooted in a world in which morality is divorced from God, Who is the giver of true peace. So we have the height of irony: many seeking peace ignore the Author and Giver of peace.

In a world full of evil, where atheistic dictators kill millions of their own people, where radical Islamists call for adherence or death and for the annihilation of a whole nation of people, we cannot afford to follow the philosophy of those who would do little more than chant, “all we are saying is give peace a chance.” As we choose our next president, we would do well to remember this.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Truth of Christmas

Prior to our Revolution, most crown-appointed governors in the Colonies remained loyal to the king. One such governor wrote to the Board of Trade in England stating that, “If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.” This attitude gave rise to a cry that was resonating throughout America: “No king but King Jesus!”

That is the ultimate truth of Christmas: the true King has landed. “Hark! The herald angels sing; glory to the newborn King!” Just prior to His death, as Jesus stood before Pilate, the Roman governor, Pilate asked Him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” After some discussion Pilate concluded to Jesus, “You are a king, then!” Jesus answered him saying, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world…”

Christmas isn't simply about a birthday. It is about the birth of a kingdom. Where is this kingdom? It is wherever He is King. It exists now in the hearts of all who believe that Jesus is all that He claimed to be.

Sadly, this is, of course, nonsense to most. For example, one author I read recently describes the “hidden meaning” of Christmas as a: “festival of the human heart. It is a time of year when all the universe conspires to raise the vibratory level of consciousness on earth to one of peace and love toward ourselves and one another. This season resonates to the sweet, childlike innocence that resides in all of us; A time when the heavenly forces inspire us to shift our focus away from fear and toward one of joy, and healing.” Huh?!

This type of ignorance of the truth of Christmas is far too prevalent in a nation that was founded largely by Christians and upon the principles of Christ. This is not the fault of our politicians, our judges, the secularists, or the atheists. The fault lies with me and with you, if you call yourself a Christian. Far too often we look to blame the problems in our nation on the immorality of others. Don’t get me wrong, we must always speak the truth, (in love), when it comes to sin, but we must never forget what we, as Christians, are called to be: “the light of the world.”

Also, we should not hesitate, as John Jay, member of the First and Second Continental Congresses, author of the Federalist Papers (along with others), and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court put it, “in the interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians as (our) rulers.” However, electing Christian politicians will not solve our problems either. If it would, then Christ came in vain. As Dwight Eisenhower once said, “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America.” Our hope does not lie with men (or women), but with the King of kings.

Christ taught us to pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The Creator of the universe, however, will not force Himself upon even the weakest of men. Neither should we try to force others to accept the greatest gift ever given to mankind. A holy end can never be achieved by unholy means.

As we celebrate Christmas this year may all Christians remember that after the gift of Christ, one of the greatest gifts we've been given in this nation is our freedom. And with this, let us also remember, as the Apostle Paul implored us, “…do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” In doing this we will show others the “true meaning of Christmas.”

Copyright 2007, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Prayers and Thanksgiving

It is with curious timing that our Governor, Sonny Purdue, would call for an official prayer service to petition the Almighty for rain to fall upon our parched land. Many have taken issue with the Governor, calling his actions everything from foolish to unconstitutional. However, it is interesting to note as we approach Thanksgiving Day how often in our nation’s history political leaders have publicly “called upon the name of the Lord.”

On December 26, 1941, President Roosevelt signed a resolution permanently establishing the fourth Thursday of each November as a national holiday. For the previous 79 years, beginning in 1863, our nation had celebrated an unofficial Thanksgiving Day on the last Thursday in November. President Lincoln began this tradition, which Presidents following him continued, by declaring, “We often forget the Source from which the blessings of fruitful years and healthful skies come. . . . No human wisdom hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most HighGod. . . . I therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States . . . to observe the last Thursday of November as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”

According to historian David Barton, the first national Thanksgiving occurred in 1789. In September of that year, immediately after approving the Bill of Rights, Congress delivered a resolution to President Washington requesting, “that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.” Washington declared, “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor. . . . Now, therefore, I do appoint Thursday, the 26th day of November 1789 . . . that we may all unite to render unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection.”

In 1777 the Continental Congress called for a day of thanksgiving and praise, “so that the people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts . . . and join . . . their prayers that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, to forgive our sins and . . . to enlarge His kingdom which consists in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

On October 23, 1871 President Ulysses S. Grant recommended that on Thursday, the 30th day of November, “the people meet in their respective places of worship, and there make the usual acknowledgments to Almighty God for the blessings he has conferred upon them; for their merciful exemption from evil, and invoke His protection and kindness for their less fortunate brethren whom, in His wisdom he has deemed it best to chastise.”

Of course, governmental calls for prayer, petition, and thanksgiving have by no means been limited to a day in November. In 1799 President John Adams called for a national Fast Day, requesting that citizens, “abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion… that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with sincerest penitence…that He would make us deeply sensible that ‘righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people’ (Proverbs 14:34).”

In 1988 Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law that declared the first Thursday of each May to be recognized as a National Day of Prayer. On the inaugural date he proclaimed: “Let us, young and old, join together, as did the First Continental Congress, in the first step—humble, heartfelt prayer. Let us do so for the Love of God and His great goodness, in search of His guidance, and the grace of repentance…”

As governors, Thomas Jefferson in Virginia and John Hancock in Massachusetts both declared official days of prayer and thanksgiving. In 1790, Hancock exclaimed, “I. . . appoint . . . a day of public thanksgiving and praise . . . to render to God the tribute of praise for His unmerited goodness towards us . . . by giving to us . . . the Holy Scriptures which are able to enlighten and make us wise to eternal salvation. . . . And to pray that He would forgive our sins and . . . cause the religion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and practiced among all the people of the earth.”

Enduring this drought ought to remind us all how thankful we should be toward our Creator for all that He provides. When the Pilgrims celebrated the first Thanksgiving in October of 1621, they had endured many hardships. In just about one year’s time, nearly half (47) of their original number had died. Through their many difficulties they still found cause to thank and praise God. The Pilgrims understood well that God truly provided them with everything that they needed. May we be of the same mindset this Thanksgiving Day.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Where's Outrage for Travis Henry

Michael Vick has pleaded guilty. Let justice be done. From all indications it seems that it will be. Along with our judicial system, everyone from U.S. Senators, to the NFL, the media, corporate America, and the public in general have let their voices be heard in this matter. Michael Vick has been keenly condemned, with adjectives such as “cruel,” “sadistic,” “barbaric,” “cannibalistic,” “inhumane,” “abhorrent,” “reprehensible,” and “incomprehensible” used to describe his behavior.

The words and actions of those condemning Vick make me wonder where all this passion is when the lives of human beings are at stake. Former congressman J.C Watts pondered the same in an article he wrote recently, comparing the barbarism of dog-fighting to the barbarism of abortion. He pointed out that, “our culture has degenerated to a level where our priorities are so out of whack, that we decry ‘from mountain to mountain and valley to valley’ the mistreatment of innocent animals, while we turn a collective and legislative blind eye to the premature and yes, barbaric killing of human life in the name of ‘choice.’” Amen.

Recent developments with another NFL athlete give an additional interesting situation to contemplate. I wonder what the individuals and organizations so stirred by Vick’s actions think of the Denver Broncos’ tailback, Travis Henry. On Friday August 24 the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that Henry has fathered nine children by nine different women across at least four different states. Talk about incomprehensible.

After Vick’s official admission of guilt, Goodell fired off a letter to him saying in part, “You have engaged in conduct detrimental to the welfare of the NFL and have violated the league's personal conduct policy.” ESPN reported on August 29 that Henry will not be disciplined by the NFL, saying that, “The league has clamped down on off-field misbehavior under commissioner Roger Goodell. But the newly implemented personal conduct policy ‘generally covers criminal violations, not civil matters’ such as Henry's, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Wednesday.”

Henry’s actions may not be very detrimental to the welfare of the NFL, but they are likely to be devastating to the nine children he has helped bring into this world.

Glenn T. Stanton, Director of Global Insights and Trends and Senior Analyst for Marriage and Sexuality at Focus on the Family (www.family.org), writes that, “All things being equal, children with married parents consistently do better in every measure of well-being than their peers who have single, cohabiting, divorced or step-parents, and this is a stronger indicator than parental race, economic or educational status, or neighborhood. The literature on this is broad and strong.” He bolsters this statement by noting that children living with their biological parents have, on average, higher test scores and grade point averages, and miss fewer school days than their peers not living with both biological parents. Also, they receive professional help for behavior and psychological problems at half the rate of children not living with both biological parents.

He adds that kids living with never-married mothers are twice as likely to be expelled or suspended from school as their peers, and those not living with both biological parents are 45 to 95 percent more likely to require parent/teacher conferences to deal with performance or behavior problems than those who live with married parents. And last, one of the most powerful predictors of crime rates comes from such family measures as the percentage of the population divorced, the percentage of households headed by women, and the percentage of unattached individuals in the community. It appears to me that the ultimate consequences of Vick’s actions will pale in comparison to those of Travis Henry.

Many do not like the comparison of Vick’s and Henry’s situations. They contend that Michael Vick was in violation of the law, while Travis Henry has broken no laws. However, it is interesting to note that Georgia’s law against fornication was stuck down by its Supreme Court only four years ago. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that 24 states still had laws against adultery, along with ten states still having anti-fornication statutes. Granted, most of these laws, if they still exist, are not enforced, but it goes to show that there was a time when we considered such acts criminal.

What does it say about our culture when one man can be so vilified by the public and the media, punished by his employer, and sent to jail by our justice system mostly because of abusing animals, while another man (along with the women involved) put nine human beings in the detrimental position of growing up in broken homes with no consequences other than being financially responsible for them?

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

What Angelina Jolie Teaches Us on Sexuality

Finally, something uttered from a Hollywood celebrity that actually makes some sense…. but, I don’t think it was the lesson for which she was aiming.

Angelina Jolie, in a recent interview, had some rather interesting things to say about sexuality. Now she was speaking only of herself, but I believe that what she revealed is very characteristic of many in her “lifestyle.”

Jolie shared with the French magazine, Public, that since entering into a “relationship” with Brad Pitt, she has given up lesbianism and what she called “S & M,” which is short for sadism and masochism. In the interview Jolie stated that, “I've never hidden my bisexuality. But since I've been with Brad, there's no longer a place for that or S&M in my life.”

So I suppose the appropriate label for Jolie, at least the one that the homosexual community would have us use is “bisexual.” Whatever one would label her, I suppose she now is effectively declaring herself “straight.”

The ironic thing about Jolie’s declaration is that it flies in the face of what the homosexual community would have us believe about homosexual behavior: namely that it is an innate, genetically-determined, unchanging condition.

Jeffrey Satinover, author of several books, including Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, has reported interesting things concerning homosexuality that support Jolie’s declaration. Dr. Satinover is a graduate of M.I.T., Harvard, and the University of Texas Medical School. He has practiced psychiatry since 1986. Dr. Satinover is currently in the doctoral program in physics at Yale.

Dr. Satinover, based on scientific evidence, has concluded that the idea of “sexual orientation” is fiction. He refers to a 1994 University of Chicago study which states, “…it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.” Dr. Satinover adds that, “Studies across the globe that have now sampled over 100,000 individuals have found the same. We now know that in the majority of both men and women, ‘homosexuality,’ as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to ‘mutate’ into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime” (i.e. Angelina Jolie).

In 2003, testifying before the Massachusetts Senate Judicial Committee, as they were considering the legalization of gay marriage, Dr. Satinover stated that the belief that homosexuality is a genetic and unchangeable condition is not “even remotely true.” He continued, “however widely believed (these claims) may have become; the evidence of the kind that ‘everyone knows’ simply does not exist; even a cursory examination of the actual sources behind these claims will reveal a very strong preponderance of evidence to precisely the contrary; the claims are simply fiction.”

Until 1973 homosexuality was classified as a “disorder” by the American Psychiatric Association. That year, by a vote of 5,834 to 3,810, the APA removed the condition of homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Concerning this, Dr. Satinover testified that, “the American Psychiatric Association, like most other professional-practitioner associations, is not a scientific organization. It is a professional guild and as such, amenable to political influence in ways that science per se must not allow itself to be. Thus, the decision to de-list homosexuality was not made based on scientific evidence as is widely claimed.”

However, since there is no evidence that homosexuality is “genetic,” many like to refer to homosexual activity as “chosen” behavior. According to Dr. James Dobson this is typically not the case. Dr. Dobson points out that, “Homosexuals deeply resent being told that they selected this same-sex inclination in pursuit of sexual excitement or some other motive. It is unfair, and I don’t blame them for being irritated by that assumption. Who among us would knowingly choose a path that would result in alienation from family, rejection by friends, disdain from the heterosexual world, …No, homosexuality is not ‘chosen’ except in rare circumstances.”

Whether or not one considers homosexuality a “disorder,” Dr. Satinover states that it is a behavior that is undesirable to many, and it is susceptible to change (again, i.e. Angelina Jolie). However, he adds that, “The evidence for this fact should not be obscured by the false assumption that homosexuality is either innate and unchangeable, or a ‘lifestyle choice’ and changeable at will. It is neither: It is most often a deeply-embedded condition that develops over many years. It is, in other words, similar to most human characteristics, and shares with them the typical possibilities for, and difficulties in, achieving sustained change.”

It is rare that the lives of celebrities can point us toward the truth, especially concerning sexual behavior. Even in Jolie’s case, as we learn of her departure from homosexuality (which likely could be rather short-lived), the fact remains that she is in a sexual relationship and has children with a man to whom she is not married. In fact, Pitt has declared that they refuse to marry until, “everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able (to).” Oh well, I suppose a traditional view of marriage from the likes of these two would be asking too much.

Copyright 2007, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com