by Kerby Anderson
Introduction
Have you ever felt guilty? Of course you have, usually because you were indeed guilty. But what about those times when you have feelings of guilt even when you didn't do anything wrong? We would call this false guilt, and that is the subject of this essay.
False guilt usually comes from an overactive conscience. It's that badgering pushing voice that runs you and your self-image into the ground. It nags: "You call this acceptable? You think this is enough? Look at all you've not yet done! Look at all you have done that's not acceptable! Get going!"
You probably know the feeling. You start the day feeling like you are in a hole. You feel like you can never do enough. You have this overactive sense of duty and can never seem to rest. One person said he "felt more like a human doing than a human being." Your behavior is driven by a sense of guilt. That is what we will be talking about in these pages.
Much of the material for this discussion is taken from the book entitled "False Guilt," by Steve Shores. His goal is to help you determine if you (1) have an overactive conscience and (2) are driven by false guilt. If these are problem areas for you, he provides practical solutions so you can break the cycle of false guilt. I recommend his book especially if you can recognize yourself in some of the material we cover in this essay.
In his book, Steve Shores poses three sets of questions, each with some explanation. An affirmative answer to any or all of these questions may indicate that you struggle with false guilt and an overactive conscience.
1. Do you ever feel like this: "Something is wrong with me. There is some stain on me, or something badly flawed that I can neither scrub out nor repair"? Does this feeling persist even though you have become a Christian?
2. Is Thanksgiving sort of a difficult time of year for you? Do you find it hard to muster up the Norman Rockwell spirit--you know... Mom and Dad and grandparents and kids all seated around mounds of food? Dad is carving the turkey with a sure and gentle expression on his face, and everyone looks so...well, so thankful? Do you find yourself, at any time of the year, dutifully thanking or praising God without much passion?
3. How big is your dance floor? What I mean is, How much freedom do you have? Do you feel confined by Christianity? To you, is it mainly a set of restrictions? Is it primarily a source of limits: don't do this, and don't do that? Does your Christianity have more to do with walls than with windows? Is it a place of narrowness or a place where light and air and liberty pour in?
Usually a person driven by false guilt is afraid of freedom because in every act of freedom is the possibility of offending someone. Offending someone is unacceptable. Other people are seen as pipelines of approval. If they're offended, the pipeline shuts down.
False guilt, along with an overactive conscience, is a hard master. As we turn now to look at the causes and the cures for false guilt, we hope to explain how to break down the confining walls and tiresome chains that may have kept you or a loved one in bondage to false guilt.
The Source of False Guilt
Next, I would like to focus on the source of false guilt: an overactive conscience. What is an overactive conscience? How does it function? Steve Shores says, "The mission of a person's overactive conscience is to attract the expectations of others."
Imagine a light bulb glowing brightly on a warm summer's night. What do you see in your mind's eye? Bugs. Bugs of every variety are attracted to that light. The light bulb serves as a magnet for these insects. Imagine that light is an overactive conscience. The expectations of others are the "bugs" that are attracted to the "light" of an overactive conscience.
Now imagine a light bulb burning inside a screened porch. The bugs are still attracted, but they bounce off the screen. The overactive conscience has no screen. But it is more than that. The overactive conscience doesn't want a screen. The more "bugs" the better. Why? Because the whole purpose is to meet expectations in order to gain approval and fill up the emptiness of the soul. This is an overactive conscience, a light bulb with lots of bugs and no screen.
A key to understanding the overactive conscience is the word "active." Someone with false guilt has a conscience that is always on the go. False guilt makes a person restless, continually looking for a rule to be kept, a scruple to observe, an expectation to be fulfilled, or a way to be an asset to a person or a group.
The idea of being an asset is a crucial point. When I am an asset, then I am a "good" person and life works pretty well. When I fear I've let someone down, then I am a liability. My life falls apart, and I will work hard to win my way back into the favor of others.
So an overactive conscience is like a magnet for expectations. These expectations come from oneself, parents (whether alive or not), friends, bosses, peers, God, or distorted images of God. False guilt makes the overactive conscience voracious for expectations. False guilt is always looking for people to please and rules to be kept.
An overactive conscience is also seeking to keep the "carrot" of acceptance just out of reach. This "carrot" includes self-acceptance and acceptance from others and from God. The guilt-ridden conscience continually says, "Your efforts are not good enough. You must keep trying because, even if your attempts don't measure up, the trying itself counts as something."
For that reason, an overactive conscience is not happy at rest. Though rest is the birthright of the Christian, relaxing is just too dangerous, i.e., relaxing might bring down my guard, and I might miss signs of rejection. Besides, acceptance is conditional, and I must continually prove my worthiness to others. I can never be a liability if I am to expect acceptance to continue. It is hard to relax because I must be ever fearful of letting someone down and must constantly work to gain acceptance.
In summary, a person with false guilt and an overactive conscience spends much of his or her life worn out. Unrelenting efforts to meet the expectations of others can have some very negative consequences.
The Consequences of False Guilt
Now I would like to focus on the consequences of false guilt. An overactive conscience can keep you in a state of constant uncertainty. You never know if you measure up. You never know if you have arrived or not. You are always on the alert. According to Steve Shores there are a number of major consequences of false guilt.
The first consequence he calls "striving without arriving." In essence, there is no hope in the system set up by the overactive conscience. You must always try harder, but you never cross the finish line. You seem to merely go in circles. Or perhaps it would be better to say you go in a spiral, as in a downward spiral. Life is a perpetual treadmill. You work hard and strive, but you never arrive. Life is hard work and frustration with little or no satisfaction.
The second consequence is "constant vigilance." The overactive conscience produces constant self-monitoring. You are constantly asking if you are being an asset to other people and to God. You are constantly evaluating and even doubting your performance. And you never allow yourself to be a liability to the group or to any particular individual.
A third consequence is "taking the pack mule approach to life." An overactive conscience involves a lifelong ordeal in which you attempt to pass a demanding test and thus reveal your worth. The test consists of accumulating enough evidences of goodness to escape the accusation that you are worthless. For the guilt-ridden person, this test involves taking on more duties, more responsibilities, more roles. As the burdens pile higher and higher, you become a beast of burden, a "pack mule" who takes on more responsibility than is healthy or necessary.
Just as there is no forward progress (e.g., "striving without arriving"), so there is also an ever-increasing sense of burden. Each day demands a fresh validation of worthiness. There is never a time when you can honestly say, "that's enough."
Finally, the most devastating consequence of false guilt is its effect not just on individuals but the body of Christ. Christians who struggle with an overactive conscience can produce weak, hollow, compliant believers in the church. They are long on conformity and short on passion and substance. They go to church not because they crave fellowship, but because they want to display compliance. They study God's word not so much out of a desire to grow spiritually, but because that is what good Christians are supposed to do. We do what we do in order to "fit in" or comply with the rules of Christianity.
Steve Shores says that the central question of church becomes, "Do I look and act enough like those around me to fit in and be accepted?" Instead we should be asking, "Regardless of how I look and act, am I passionately worshiping God, deeply thirsting for Him, and allowing Him to change my relationships so that I love others in a way that reflects the disruptive sacrifice of Christ?"
The Continuation of False Guilt
Next, I would like to talk about why people continue to feel false guilt even though they know they are forgiven. After all, if Christ paid the penalty for our sins, why do some Christians still have an overactive conscience and continue to feel guilt so acutely? Part of the compulsion comes from feeling the noose of false guilt tighten around our necks so that we panic and fail to think rationally about our situation.
Steve Shores uses the example of a death-row inmate who has just learned of an eleventh-hour stay of execution. He has just been pardoned, but his body and emotions don't feel like it. He has been "sitting in the electric chair, sweaty-palmed and nauseated, when the wall phone rings with the news of the reprieve." He may feel relief, but the feeling of relief is not total. He is only off the hook for awhile. He will still return to his cell.
The person with a overactive conscience lives in that death-row cell. The reprieve comes from responding to that guilt-driven voice in his conscience. For Bill it manifested itself in a compulsive need to serve others. If he were asked to teach AWANA or to teach a Sunday school class, he would have great difficulty saying "No." He had to say "Yes" or else he would feel the noose of false guilt tighten around his neck.
Bill's comments were sad but illuminating. He said: "I felt as though not teaching the class would confirm that I am a liability. The disappointment...would inflict shame I felt as a boy. Disappointing others always meant that there would be some sort of trial to decide whether I really belonged in the family."
He went on to tell of the time he made a "C" on his report card (the rest of the grades were "A's" and "B's"). His father lectured him unmercifully. At one point, his father declared that "it was Communist to bring home such a bad grade." Bill didn't know what a Communist was or what Communism had to do with bad grades. But he did understand that if he didn't bring home good grades he was unworthy.
Bill even remembered the six agonizing weeks until the next report card. When it arrived he received five "A's" and one "B." What was his father's response? Was it delight? Was it an apology for his previous comments? Not at all. His father merely said, "That's more like it." The reprieve was halfhearted and temporary.
In essence, false guilt is a stern warden that may give a temporary reprieve but is always ready to call upon you to prove your worthiness once again. We may know that Christ died for our sins. We may know that our sins are forgiven. We may know that we have value and dignity because we are created in God's image. But we may feel unworthy and feel as if we must prove ourselves at a moment's notice.
The key, as we will see in the next section, is to embrace Christ's atonement rather than our own. We must not only know that we are forgiven through Jesus Christ, but act upon that reality so that we live a life through grace rather than legalism.
A Cure for False Guilt
Finally, I would like to conclude by talking about Christ's atonement for us. If we are to break the chain of false guilt, then we must embrace Christ's atonement rather than our own. Although that statement may seem obvious, it is difficult for someone with an overactive conscience to truly embrace emotionally. For such a person, perfection is the means of achieving salvation. If I can be perfect, then I will no longer feel shame, and I will no longer feel guilt. This is the personal atonement that someone with false guilt often is seeking.
The Bible clearly teaches that Christ's atonement was for our sins. Sin is "any attitude, belief, or action that constitutes rebellion against or transgression of God's character." Clearly sinful man is incapable of making restitution because our best works are as filthy rags before a holy and omnipotent God (Isaiah 64:6). Our atonement must be made by someone with clean hands and a sinless life. Christ, of course, fulfilled that requirement and died in our place for our sins.
Nevertheless, someone with false guilt seeks a form of self- atonement. Why? Well, there are at least two reasons: indiscriminate shame and doubt about the character of God. The first is indiscriminate shame. We should feel guilty and we should feel shame for sinful behavior. The problem comes when we feel guilt and shame even when a sinful action or attitude is not present. Steve Shores believes that the "weeds of shame" can begin to sprout even when we have a legitimate need. We then tend to use the machete of false guilt to trim these weeds back. We say, "If I can do enough things right, I can control this and no one will know how bad and weak I am." This performance-oriented lifestyle is a way of hacking at the weeds that grow in the soil of illegitimate shame.
The second reason for false guilt is a stubborn propensity to doubt the character of God. Many Christian psychologists and counselors have argued that the reason we may question our Heavenly Father's character is because we question our earthly father's character. And for those who have been abused or neglected by their fathers, this is an adequate explanation. But we even see in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve doubting God and they did not even have earthly fathers. So I believe it is more accurate to say that our sin nature (not our family of origin) has a lot to do with our tendency to doubt God's character.
This is manifested by two tendencies: blaming and hiding. When we feel false guilt, we tend to want to blame others or blame ourselves. If we blame others, we manifest a critical spirit. If we blame ourselves, we feel unworthy and don't want others to see us as we are and we hide emotionally from others. The solution is for us to embrace Christ's atonement and accept what He did on the cross for us. Christ died once for all (Romans 6:10) that we might have everlasting life and freedom from guilt and the bondage to sin.
© 1996 Probe Ministries International
About the Author
Kerby Anderson is the president of Probe Ministries International. He received his B.S. from Oregon State University, M.F.S. from Yale University, and M.A. from Georgetown University. He is the author of several books, including Genetic Engineering, Origin Science, Living Ethically in the 90s, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope, and Moral Dilemmas. He also served as general editor for Marriage, Family and Sexuality.
He is a nationally syndicated columnist whose editorials have appeared in the Dallas Morning News, the Miami Herald, the San Jose Mercury, and the Houston Post.
He is the host of "Probe," and frequently serves as guest host on "Point of View" (USA Radio Network). He can be reached via e-mail at kerby@probe.org.
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through media, education, and literature. In seeking to accomplish this mission, Probe provides perspective on the integration of the academic disciplines and historic Christianity.
In addition, Probe acts as a clearing house, communicating the results of its research to the church and society at large.
Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by writing to:
Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664
info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Copyright (C) 1996-2009 Probe Ministries
The above article is from: Leadership U: Probe Ministries: False Guilt
Friday, January 9, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
What does it mean when the Bible says, "the man is head of the woman"?
"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:3).
In the Jewish and Christian culture when the Bible was written, there was a concept now called "Federal Headship." This means that the male is the one who represents his descendants. Proof of this can be found in Heb. 7:8-10, "And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." Notice that it says that Levi paid tithes while still in the loins of his father Abraham. How did he do this? By proxy since Abraham, his distant "father" represented him.
Likewise we see the concept of Federal Headship in the fall. It was Eve who first sinned. But sin entered the world through Adam, not through Eve. Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." This is because Adam represented humanity and creation. When Adam fell, we fell. This is why it says, "...in Adam all die," (1 Cor. 15:22). Also, Romans 5:15 says, "For if by the transgression of the one [Adam] the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many."
Alright, so this brings us to the woman. Again notice that it says in Gen. 2:24, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." When a man and woman get married, they become one flesh. There is a unity between them. But, it is the man who is the head of the family which is why it says that the man is the head of the woman.
Some may think that this was a cultural notion that snuck into the Bible. But Paul makes it clear that the headship is related to the created order:
"For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." (1 Cor. 11:8-10).
It was because Eve listened to the devil that the issue of order and hierarchy in the marriage relationship has had to be raised and explained.
“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children; yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen. 3:16).
This headship is not about having the upper hand nor is it to mean that a woman has no rights or is a second class citizen. On the contrary, God tells the husband some very serious commands:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless." (Eph. 5:25-27).
Finally, the headship issue is an issue of order, not of who is better or more important. The husband is the head of the wife in the family and he has the responsibility of guiding his family to a closer relationship with the Lord. God will require it of him on the day when all our deeds are judged by God."
(This article is from the CARM website)
In the Jewish and Christian culture when the Bible was written, there was a concept now called "Federal Headship." This means that the male is the one who represents his descendants. Proof of this can be found in Heb. 7:8-10, "And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." Notice that it says that Levi paid tithes while still in the loins of his father Abraham. How did he do this? By proxy since Abraham, his distant "father" represented him.
Likewise we see the concept of Federal Headship in the fall. It was Eve who first sinned. But sin entered the world through Adam, not through Eve. Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." This is because Adam represented humanity and creation. When Adam fell, we fell. This is why it says, "...in Adam all die," (1 Cor. 15:22). Also, Romans 5:15 says, "For if by the transgression of the one [Adam] the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many."
Alright, so this brings us to the woman. Again notice that it says in Gen. 2:24, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." When a man and woman get married, they become one flesh. There is a unity between them. But, it is the man who is the head of the family which is why it says that the man is the head of the woman.
Some may think that this was a cultural notion that snuck into the Bible. But Paul makes it clear that the headship is related to the created order:
"For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." (1 Cor. 11:8-10).
It was because Eve listened to the devil that the issue of order and hierarchy in the marriage relationship has had to be raised and explained.
“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children; yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen. 3:16).
This headship is not about having the upper hand nor is it to mean that a woman has no rights or is a second class citizen. On the contrary, God tells the husband some very serious commands:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless." (Eph. 5:25-27).
Finally, the headship issue is an issue of order, not of who is better or more important. The husband is the head of the wife in the family and he has the responsibility of guiding his family to a closer relationship with the Lord. God will require it of him on the day when all our deeds are judged by God."
(This article is from the CARM website)
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
6 out of 10 servicemen wary of Obama in charge
Survey: 'Nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief'
Posted: January 03, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
"A recent Military Times survey of active-duty service members found 6 of 10 U.S. soldiers polled said they were "pessimistic" or "uncertain" about Barack Obama serving as commander in chief of America's armed forces.
In follow-up interviews reported by the Army Times newspaper, respondents cited Obama's inexperience in leading soldiers, his plans for accelerated removal of troops from Iraq and his pledge to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexual service members as reasons for their cautious outlook.
"Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers," said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified, "nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief."
"How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?" asked Air Force 1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations Support Squadron. "And if you're pulling out combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what's left? What happens if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing the same thing over again?"
Duke political science professor and civil-military relations writer Peter Feaver, however, says concerns about a new administration's leadership are to be expected.
"What [Obama] is seeing is not military hostility, but rather military caution, and caution that is reasonable because he has never been in the position of this office," Feaver told Army Times. "It's sensible and understandable that they have doubts about him.
"They respect the office of the commander in chief," Feaver said. "As long as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into a problem."
The sixth annual Military Times survey asked over 30,000 subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers, "How do you feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief?"
A total of 5,181 active-duty, National Guard and reserve and retired military subscribers responded to the email invitation issued from Dec. 1 to Dec. 8.
Of the 1,947 active-duty soldiers that responded, a third answered that they are "optimistic," while 25 percent answered "pessimistic" and 35 percent admitted to being "uncertain." The "uncertain" response differs from "no opinion," which garnered 8 percent of the vote.
Other survey results found that nearly 80 percent of the respondents support the war in Afghanistan and nearly the same amount favor increasing troop strength there, though 30 percent believe it may take more than 10 years of military presence in Afghanistan to achieve American goals.
The majority of active-duty service members also oppose Obama's campaign pledge to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow homosexual soldiers to serve openly in the armed forces. 14 percent said they would consider ending their military career after serving their obligated tours of duty if the policy was repealed.
Army Capt. Steven J. Lacy, a logistician assigned to the 71st Transportation Battalion, told Military Times he's worried about the effect open homosexuality may have on military units.
"I think a lot of people are," Lacy said. "In the field environment, you're in very close proximity to one another. The fact that someone could be openly gay could exacerbate stress on teams and small units when you're already at a high stress level."
71 percent of respondents in the survey, however, said they would continue to serve even if the policy was overturned.
Army Times reported that as a voluntary response poll and not a scientific, random sampling, the survey could not calculate a statistical margin of error or guard against variances caused by the characteristics of Military Times subscribers. The responses cannot be considered representative of the opinions of the military as a whole."
from WorldNetDaily
Posted: January 03, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
"A recent Military Times survey of active-duty service members found 6 of 10 U.S. soldiers polled said they were "pessimistic" or "uncertain" about Barack Obama serving as commander in chief of America's armed forces.
In follow-up interviews reported by the Army Times newspaper, respondents cited Obama's inexperience in leading soldiers, his plans for accelerated removal of troops from Iraq and his pledge to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexual service members as reasons for their cautious outlook.
"Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers," said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified, "nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief."
"How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?" asked Air Force 1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations Support Squadron. "And if you're pulling out combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what's left? What happens if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing the same thing over again?"
Duke political science professor and civil-military relations writer Peter Feaver, however, says concerns about a new administration's leadership are to be expected.
"What [Obama] is seeing is not military hostility, but rather military caution, and caution that is reasonable because he has never been in the position of this office," Feaver told Army Times. "It's sensible and understandable that they have doubts about him.
"They respect the office of the commander in chief," Feaver said. "As long as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into a problem."
The sixth annual Military Times survey asked over 30,000 subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers, "How do you feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief?"
A total of 5,181 active-duty, National Guard and reserve and retired military subscribers responded to the email invitation issued from Dec. 1 to Dec. 8.
Of the 1,947 active-duty soldiers that responded, a third answered that they are "optimistic," while 25 percent answered "pessimistic" and 35 percent admitted to being "uncertain." The "uncertain" response differs from "no opinion," which garnered 8 percent of the vote.
Other survey results found that nearly 80 percent of the respondents support the war in Afghanistan and nearly the same amount favor increasing troop strength there, though 30 percent believe it may take more than 10 years of military presence in Afghanistan to achieve American goals.
The majority of active-duty service members also oppose Obama's campaign pledge to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow homosexual soldiers to serve openly in the armed forces. 14 percent said they would consider ending their military career after serving their obligated tours of duty if the policy was repealed.
Army Capt. Steven J. Lacy, a logistician assigned to the 71st Transportation Battalion, told Military Times he's worried about the effect open homosexuality may have on military units.
"I think a lot of people are," Lacy said. "In the field environment, you're in very close proximity to one another. The fact that someone could be openly gay could exacerbate stress on teams and small units when you're already at a high stress level."
71 percent of respondents in the survey, however, said they would continue to serve even if the policy was overturned.
Army Times reported that as a voluntary response poll and not a scientific, random sampling, the survey could not calculate a statistical margin of error or guard against variances caused by the characteristics of Military Times subscribers. The responses cannot be considered representative of the opinions of the military as a whole."
from WorldNetDaily
Monday, January 5, 2009
'Bride,' 'groom' can't marry in California
'We thought we couldn't go any lower. We discovered actually we can'
Posted: October 03, 2008
12:40 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A man and woman have had to go to court in California because they want to be recognized as married after officials rejected their marriage license because it listed "bride" and "groom" instead of "Party A" and "Party B."
After the state Supreme Court in May expanded the rights enumerated in the state constitution and found same-sex couples couldn't be denied marriage rights, "Many thought we couldn't go any lower," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working on the case. "We discovered actually we can."
Gideon Codding and Rachel Bird recently were married in Placer County, near Sacramento. However, surprised by new marriage license forms created by state bureaucrats with "Party A" and "Party B," they jotted an explanatory "Groom" and "Bride' next to "party" designations.
The couple soon discovered the strength of the pro-homosexual lobby in the state: The application was returned to Pastor Doug Bird, who officiated, with a form letter stating the license "does not comply with California State registration laws."
The couple now is filing a lawsuit in Placer County asking the court to order county officials to process the license, since without the form's registration, "the Coddings are not legally married and have been prevented from accessing the many benefits available to married couples."
"Being labeled by the state as 'Party A' and 'Party B" is demeaning," said PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider. "It's shocking that we have to litigate over whether newlyweds can call themselves a bride and groom."
Said Dacus, "Already, we are seeing the negative effects of gay marriage in California, as the state is changing centuries-old traditions to accommodate homosexuals. Unless the Protect Marriage Initiative, Proposition 8, is approved in November, we expect a tidal wave of new restraints and limitations to be imposed on people of faith."
Dacus told WND the right for a one-man, one-woman couple to be married "was in no way invalidated by the state Supreme Court's ruling respecting homosexual marriage."
"This is an outright act of hostility towards the established rights of people to be married as husband and wife, bride and groom," he said.
"It's one thing for the state Supreme Court to cram homosexual marriage down the throats of people who voted for Proposition 22, it's quite another for the state of California then to go so far as to make it impossible for a man and woman to be married as husband and wife in the state of California," Dacus continued.
Bird, pastor of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, said he was told by officials in the county office that "Bride" and "Groom" amounted to "unacceptable alteration" to the form.
"What's next?" Bird wrote in a Sept. 4 letter. "Will the State of California force [ministers] to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?"
The state Supreme Court in May, in a 4-3 decision, declared that legal definitions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. Since the ruling, the generic designations were added by bureaucrats to legal documents.
Voters several years ago under Proposition 22 approved limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But the measure was a statute, which the Supreme Court simple disregarded. The Proposition 8 proposal would establish the definition in the state constitution, putting it beyond the reach of judicial activism.
from: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76833
Posted: October 03, 2008
12:40 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A man and woman have had to go to court in California because they want to be recognized as married after officials rejected their marriage license because it listed "bride" and "groom" instead of "Party A" and "Party B."
After the state Supreme Court in May expanded the rights enumerated in the state constitution and found same-sex couples couldn't be denied marriage rights, "Many thought we couldn't go any lower," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working on the case. "We discovered actually we can."
Gideon Codding and Rachel Bird recently were married in Placer County, near Sacramento. However, surprised by new marriage license forms created by state bureaucrats with "Party A" and "Party B," they jotted an explanatory "Groom" and "Bride' next to "party" designations.
The couple soon discovered the strength of the pro-homosexual lobby in the state: The application was returned to Pastor Doug Bird, who officiated, with a form letter stating the license "does not comply with California State registration laws."
The couple now is filing a lawsuit in Placer County asking the court to order county officials to process the license, since without the form's registration, "the Coddings are not legally married and have been prevented from accessing the many benefits available to married couples."
"Being labeled by the state as 'Party A' and 'Party B" is demeaning," said PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider. "It's shocking that we have to litigate over whether newlyweds can call themselves a bride and groom."
Said Dacus, "Already, we are seeing the negative effects of gay marriage in California, as the state is changing centuries-old traditions to accommodate homosexuals. Unless the Protect Marriage Initiative, Proposition 8, is approved in November, we expect a tidal wave of new restraints and limitations to be imposed on people of faith."
Dacus told WND the right for a one-man, one-woman couple to be married "was in no way invalidated by the state Supreme Court's ruling respecting homosexual marriage."
"This is an outright act of hostility towards the established rights of people to be married as husband and wife, bride and groom," he said.
"It's one thing for the state Supreme Court to cram homosexual marriage down the throats of people who voted for Proposition 22, it's quite another for the state of California then to go so far as to make it impossible for a man and woman to be married as husband and wife in the state of California," Dacus continued.
Bird, pastor of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, said he was told by officials in the county office that "Bride" and "Groom" amounted to "unacceptable alteration" to the form.
"What's next?" Bird wrote in a Sept. 4 letter. "Will the State of California force [ministers] to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?"
The state Supreme Court in May, in a 4-3 decision, declared that legal definitions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. Since the ruling, the generic designations were added by bureaucrats to legal documents.
Voters several years ago under Proposition 22 approved limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But the measure was a statute, which the Supreme Court simple disregarded. The Proposition 8 proposal would establish the definition in the state constitution, putting it beyond the reach of judicial activism.
from: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76833
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Biblical message now criminalized
Penalties created for those who criticize homosexuality outside church walls
Posted: June 12, 2008
12:45 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
"A new Colorado law is helping homosexual activists achieve their goal of forcing Christians to teach biblical condemnation of homosexuality only behind the closed doors of their sanctuaries.
The as-yet untested state law promotes sexual identity "perception" to the level of skin color under state discrimination laws.
Some opponents are calling it a "bona fide censorship law," and top analysts for Focus on the Family, the Christian publishing and broadcast powerhouse, are expressing concern over the "mischief" they expect to follow the signing by Gov. Bill Ritter.
As WND reported, Ritter, a Democrat, struck gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms statewide when he signed the plan into law in May.
The law makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the "perception" of gender identity.
"Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?" said James Dobson, founder of Focus.
"Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence," Dobson said.
But now an analyst for Focus, Bruce Hausknecht, has told WND there are other, significant, potential ramifications hidden in the fine print of the new law.
The law provides an exemption allowing religious groups to continue teaching, inside their doors, the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. But the exemption itself is ultimately harmful to the church, Hausknecht contends.
"It tends to marginalize the church," he said. "They'll say, 'It's just a church.' It will allow gay activists to continue to marginalize Christians. They'll say, 'Keep it within your four walls. That's all.'"
But there's further possible mischief that can result from a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation or "perception" when deciding "full and equal enjoyment of facilities, accommodations" and other factors, he said.
Religious publishers, he acknowledged, could be accused under the law for publishing biblical condemnation of homosexuality. Colorado Springs, where Focus in located, also is home to the huge Christian publishing operations of NavPress and the International Bible Society.
"There are those who simply by publishing Christian materials could find themselves charged with a violation of this statute," he said.
A spokesman for Ritter did not respond to a WND request for comment.
The actual impact of the new ban on people responsible for "public accommodations" expressing beliefs that do not support homosexuality is unclear at this point, largely because charges haven't been brought and challenges weighed regarding the law and its potential impact on First Amendment guarantees of freedom exercise of religion.
However, Hausknecht warned there is "danger" in those waters for any church that provides any service to its community.
It is possible the law's anti-"discrimination" demands could be triggered when outside groups come in to use a church meeting room, auditorium or recreation facility. For the safety of the churches, perhaps outsiders will have to sign a document stating agreement with the church's religious beliefs before being allowed in, he said.
The targets of complaints likely won't be churches themselves, but more likely church schools, programs that offer services to communities and the like, critics of the law said.
"The intent of the homosexual activists who put this law in [was to] marginalize the church, keep it inside the sanctuary," Hausknecht said.
Worse yet is that many small or medium-size churches will have to go out of their way, including halting programs, to avoid a potential conflict, because they don't have the resources to wage a war over their beliefs, he added.
"It's a lot easier to avoid the conflict than incur the costs of fighting," he said.
Dobson earlier had nothing but criticism for Colorado's elected officials.
"This is your government in action. It represents a payback to Tim Gill and two other billionaires who have essentially 'bought' state legislators with enormous campaign contributions. Coloradans deserve better!" Dobson said.
"And by the way, because of the way this bill is written, it is not subject to the initiative process. There is no recourse," Dobson said.
Pastor Bob Enyart, a Denver-area activist on Christian issues, agreed with Focus's concerns over what appears to be a newly minted state discrimination against Christian beliefs. But he went further.
"WND reported on Canada banning opposition to homosexuality; likewise, Colorado's SB200 has 'forbidden' much publishing of Christian teaching on homosexuality, cohabitation, etc.," he said.
"This censorship aspect of the law has been utterly ignored," he said.
"The law exempts churches, but that's not good, that's an insult. I.E., bigotry is allowed only in churches. Whereas every other place of public accommodation including bookstores, retail & wholesale businesses, etc. cannot sell or even 'give away' anything that would advocate discrimination [against] gay adoption, homosexual marriage, etc.," Enyart said.
He cited one part of the new law:
Section 8. 24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation... shall publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or tuition or any accommodation, right [marriage], privilege [adoption], advantage, or convenience... on account of... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... [which] is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or solicited."
The Old Testament condemns homosexuality as an "abomination," Enyart told WND. The New Testament includes a reference in 1st Timothy calling for the use of laws against crimes such as murder and homosexuality.
"There are free speech rights to condemn cohabitation, homosexuality, state that homosexuals should not marry, should not adopt children," Enyart said. "It's now illegal in Colorado for anyone involved in a facility or business of public accommodation to give any communication that would advocate discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation."
He said many people simply choose not to believe what's happening.
"I have a hard time believing [it myself]," said Enyart.
He said he expects the law to be only "lightly" enforced until "it just becomes an entrenched part of our legal framework. They're not going to go out and arrest somebody for selling a Bible at Barnes and Noble."
But then in a few years, watch out, he said.
Enyart has printed a document he hands out that says, "This Anti-homosexual Flyer is Illegal in Colorado." It condemns the promotion of homosexuality in no uncertain terms.
"Homosexuality should be re-criminalized in Colorado," it states."
from: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66829
Posted: June 12, 2008
12:45 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
"A new Colorado law is helping homosexual activists achieve their goal of forcing Christians to teach biblical condemnation of homosexuality only behind the closed doors of their sanctuaries.
The as-yet untested state law promotes sexual identity "perception" to the level of skin color under state discrimination laws.
Some opponents are calling it a "bona fide censorship law," and top analysts for Focus on the Family, the Christian publishing and broadcast powerhouse, are expressing concern over the "mischief" they expect to follow the signing by Gov. Bill Ritter.
As WND reported, Ritter, a Democrat, struck gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms statewide when he signed the plan into law in May.
The law makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the "perception" of gender identity.
"Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?" said James Dobson, founder of Focus.
"Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence," Dobson said.
But now an analyst for Focus, Bruce Hausknecht, has told WND there are other, significant, potential ramifications hidden in the fine print of the new law.
The law provides an exemption allowing religious groups to continue teaching, inside their doors, the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. But the exemption itself is ultimately harmful to the church, Hausknecht contends.
"It tends to marginalize the church," he said. "They'll say, 'It's just a church.' It will allow gay activists to continue to marginalize Christians. They'll say, 'Keep it within your four walls. That's all.'"
But there's further possible mischief that can result from a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation or "perception" when deciding "full and equal enjoyment of facilities, accommodations" and other factors, he said.
Religious publishers, he acknowledged, could be accused under the law for publishing biblical condemnation of homosexuality. Colorado Springs, where Focus in located, also is home to the huge Christian publishing operations of NavPress and the International Bible Society.
"There are those who simply by publishing Christian materials could find themselves charged with a violation of this statute," he said.
A spokesman for Ritter did not respond to a WND request for comment.
The actual impact of the new ban on people responsible for "public accommodations" expressing beliefs that do not support homosexuality is unclear at this point, largely because charges haven't been brought and challenges weighed regarding the law and its potential impact on First Amendment guarantees of freedom exercise of religion.
However, Hausknecht warned there is "danger" in those waters for any church that provides any service to its community.
It is possible the law's anti-"discrimination" demands could be triggered when outside groups come in to use a church meeting room, auditorium or recreation facility. For the safety of the churches, perhaps outsiders will have to sign a document stating agreement with the church's religious beliefs before being allowed in, he said.
The targets of complaints likely won't be churches themselves, but more likely church schools, programs that offer services to communities and the like, critics of the law said.
"The intent of the homosexual activists who put this law in [was to] marginalize the church, keep it inside the sanctuary," Hausknecht said.
Worse yet is that many small or medium-size churches will have to go out of their way, including halting programs, to avoid a potential conflict, because they don't have the resources to wage a war over their beliefs, he added.
"It's a lot easier to avoid the conflict than incur the costs of fighting," he said.
Dobson earlier had nothing but criticism for Colorado's elected officials.
"This is your government in action. It represents a payback to Tim Gill and two other billionaires who have essentially 'bought' state legislators with enormous campaign contributions. Coloradans deserve better!" Dobson said.
"And by the way, because of the way this bill is written, it is not subject to the initiative process. There is no recourse," Dobson said.
Pastor Bob Enyart, a Denver-area activist on Christian issues, agreed with Focus's concerns over what appears to be a newly minted state discrimination against Christian beliefs. But he went further.
"WND reported on Canada banning opposition to homosexuality; likewise, Colorado's SB200 has 'forbidden' much publishing of Christian teaching on homosexuality, cohabitation, etc.," he said.
"This censorship aspect of the law has been utterly ignored," he said.
"The law exempts churches, but that's not good, that's an insult. I.E., bigotry is allowed only in churches. Whereas every other place of public accommodation including bookstores, retail & wholesale businesses, etc. cannot sell or even 'give away' anything that would advocate discrimination [against] gay adoption, homosexual marriage, etc.," Enyart said.
He cited one part of the new law:
Section 8. 24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation... shall publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or tuition or any accommodation, right [marriage], privilege [adoption], advantage, or convenience... on account of... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... [which] is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or solicited."
The Old Testament condemns homosexuality as an "abomination," Enyart told WND. The New Testament includes a reference in 1st Timothy calling for the use of laws against crimes such as murder and homosexuality.
"There are free speech rights to condemn cohabitation, homosexuality, state that homosexuals should not marry, should not adopt children," Enyart said. "It's now illegal in Colorado for anyone involved in a facility or business of public accommodation to give any communication that would advocate discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation."
He said many people simply choose not to believe what's happening.
"I have a hard time believing [it myself]," said Enyart.
He said he expects the law to be only "lightly" enforced until "it just becomes an entrenched part of our legal framework. They're not going to go out and arrest somebody for selling a Bible at Barnes and Noble."
But then in a few years, watch out, he said.
Enyart has printed a document he hands out that says, "This Anti-homosexual Flyer is Illegal in Colorado." It condemns the promotion of homosexuality in no uncertain terms.
"Homosexuality should be re-criminalized in Colorado," it states."
from: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66829
Saturday, January 3, 2009
1-2% MINORITY RULES in the United States
"While homosexuals claim they make up 10% of the population, the reality is closer to 1-2 percent A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005).
According to this survey, only 2.3% of the males surveyed considered themselves to be homosexuals; 1.8% considered themselves to be bisexuals."
(from: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php )
Since this is true, then WHY do so many TV shows and movies represent homosexuals as if they made up the majority of the population?
And WHY is this now the case?:
"One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.
That's because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won't let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client."
(from: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84984 )
WHY is it that 1-2% of the population is getting laws passed giving them SPECIAL rights over 98-99% of the population? This is RIDICULOUS!!
According to this survey, only 2.3% of the males surveyed considered themselves to be homosexuals; 1.8% considered themselves to be bisexuals."
(from: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php )
Since this is true, then WHY do so many TV shows and movies represent homosexuals as if they made up the majority of the population?
And WHY is this now the case?:
"One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.
That's because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won't let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client."
(from: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84984 )
WHY is it that 1-2% of the population is getting laws passed giving them SPECIAL rights over 98-99% of the population? This is RIDICULOUS!!
Friday, January 2, 2009
What does the Bible say about forgiving yourself?
"Never does the Bible talk about the idea of “forgiving yourself.” We are told to forgive others when they trespass against us and seek forgiveness. When we ask for God’s forgiveness based upon Christ having already paid for our sins and our having trusted in Him as Savior and Lord, He forgives us. It is as simple as that (1 John 1:9). However, even though we are released from the bondage to sin (as spoken of in Romans chapters 6-8), we can still choose to wallow in it and act as though we are not freed from it. Likewise with guilty feelings, we can accept the fact that we are forgiven in Christ, or we can believe the devil’s lie that we are still guilty and should therefore feel guilty.
The Bible says that when God forgives us, He “remembers our sins no more" (Jeremiah 31:34). This does not mean that the all-knowing God forgets because He forgives us. Rather, He chooses not to bring up our sin to Himself or others. When our former sins come to mind, we can choose to dwell upon them (with the resulting guilty feelings), or we can choose to fill our minds with thoughts of the awesome God who forgave us and thank and praise Him for it (Philippians 4:8). Remembering our sins is only beneficial when it reminds us of the extent of God’s forgiveness and makes it easier for us to forgive others (Matthew 18:21-35).
Sadly, there are people who don’t forgive themselves because they really don’t want to forget their former sins, choosing rather to continue getting a vicarious thrill out of reliving them in their minds. This, too, is sin and must be confessed and forsaken. A man who lusts in his heart after a woman is guilty of the sin of adultery (Matthew 5:28). In the same way, each time we mentally relive our sin, we commit the same sin over again. If this is happening in a Christian’s life, the pattern of sin/guilt/sin/guilt can be destructive and never-ending.
Remembering that our sins are forgiven should make it easier to forgive others their sin (Matthew 7:1-5; 1 Timothy 1:15). Forgiveness should remind us of the great Savior who forgave us, undeserving though we will always be, and draw us closer in loving obedience to Him (Romans 5:10; Psalm 103:2-3,10-14). God will allow our sin to come to mind (Satan may intend it for an evil purpose, but God allows it for a good purpose), but He wants us to accept His forgiveness and rejoice in His grace. So, the next time your former sins come to mind, “change the channel” by choosing to dwell upon His mercies (it might help to make a list of verses that encourage you to praise) and think about how we should loathe sin."
(the above is from GotQuestions.org
The Bible says that when God forgives us, He “remembers our sins no more" (Jeremiah 31:34). This does not mean that the all-knowing God forgets because He forgives us. Rather, He chooses not to bring up our sin to Himself or others. When our former sins come to mind, we can choose to dwell upon them (with the resulting guilty feelings), or we can choose to fill our minds with thoughts of the awesome God who forgave us and thank and praise Him for it (Philippians 4:8). Remembering our sins is only beneficial when it reminds us of the extent of God’s forgiveness and makes it easier for us to forgive others (Matthew 18:21-35).
Sadly, there are people who don’t forgive themselves because they really don’t want to forget their former sins, choosing rather to continue getting a vicarious thrill out of reliving them in their minds. This, too, is sin and must be confessed and forsaken. A man who lusts in his heart after a woman is guilty of the sin of adultery (Matthew 5:28). In the same way, each time we mentally relive our sin, we commit the same sin over again. If this is happening in a Christian’s life, the pattern of sin/guilt/sin/guilt can be destructive and never-ending.
Remembering that our sins are forgiven should make it easier to forgive others their sin (Matthew 7:1-5; 1 Timothy 1:15). Forgiveness should remind us of the great Savior who forgave us, undeserving though we will always be, and draw us closer in loving obedience to Him (Romans 5:10; Psalm 103:2-3,10-14). God will allow our sin to come to mind (Satan may intend it for an evil purpose, but God allows it for a good purpose), but He wants us to accept His forgiveness and rejoice in His grace. So, the next time your former sins come to mind, “change the channel” by choosing to dwell upon His mercies (it might help to make a list of verses that encourage you to praise) and think about how we should loathe sin."
(the above is from GotQuestions.org
Thursday, January 1, 2009
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009!!!
For those who are not Christians, may you realize that each and every one of us has broken God's Law, the Ten Commandments. Each and every one of us has sinned by thought, word and deed, countless thousands or millions of times during our life. We have cursed, used God's Name in vain (as a curse word), lied, stolen, cheated, envied, gossiped, hated, lusted, committed adultery, and probably even worse things. Not just once, but many, many, MANY times, over and over again. Our sins are an offense to a holy, righteous God. Our only hope of forgiveness, salvation and eternal life is in Christ Jesus, who died for the sins of the elect. Therefore, may your heart be broken over your sins, and may you see them as horrible and repulsive, and may you repent (turn away) from your sins, and humbly turn to Jesus Christ, God the Son, and ask Him to wash away your wicked, evil, putrid sins and make you white as snow; and recognize that He and He alone can forgive you, and only He can keep you from spending all of eternity in Hellfire and damnation. May you die to self (i.e., put 'self' on the cross), and ask Christ Jesus to take over your life and make you a brand new creature inside. May you accept Him as your personal Savior and Lord, and follow Him for the rest of your life, forsaking the pleasures of this world, and putting Him first in your life, above all other things and people.
For those who are Christian, may Yahweh continue His work of sanctification in your heart and life, and may you come to love Christ Jesus the Messiah, God the Son, more and more, each and every day; and, as you draw closer to God, may your love for people increase daily. May you spend more time reading and studying God's Word, and may your desire to spend time in His Word increase daily. May you pant after God, after His Word, and have a deep hunger for spending personal, intimate time with Him, as a thirsty deer pants after water. May you spend more time in prayer: talking to Him, worshiping Him, praising Him, and interceding for others to Him. May you love the people of His Church, who are your brothers and sisters in Christ, more and more. May you spend more time telling others about Jesus, and warning them about Hell, and pleading with them to repent of their sins and come to Christ in humility and brokenness, lest they perish. And may you set your mind on things above, not on the things of this world. No matter what things this new year may bring, good or bad, may you look only to Him as your hope, and may you live to glorify Him alone.
To HIM be all glory, honor and praise!!!
For those who are Christian, may Yahweh continue His work of sanctification in your heart and life, and may you come to love Christ Jesus the Messiah, God the Son, more and more, each and every day; and, as you draw closer to God, may your love for people increase daily. May you spend more time reading and studying God's Word, and may your desire to spend time in His Word increase daily. May you pant after God, after His Word, and have a deep hunger for spending personal, intimate time with Him, as a thirsty deer pants after water. May you spend more time in prayer: talking to Him, worshiping Him, praising Him, and interceding for others to Him. May you love the people of His Church, who are your brothers and sisters in Christ, more and more. May you spend more time telling others about Jesus, and warning them about Hell, and pleading with them to repent of their sins and come to Christ in humility and brokenness, lest they perish. And may you set your mind on things above, not on the things of this world. No matter what things this new year may bring, good or bad, may you look only to Him as your hope, and may you live to glorify Him alone.
To HIM be all glory, honor and praise!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
