Envy The Dead

There are some things in this world that are more terrifying than others. For instance, a firecracker exploding at one's feet pales in comparison to an atom bomb doing the same. A windstorm with fifty mile an hour winds is troubling, but a hurricane is far worse. One tornado is bad, but being surrounded by multiple tornadoes is panic inducing to the extreme.

The point is, there are often more important things to concern ourselves with than whatever has got our ire up. This is certainly not always reality, but it is quite often the case. I remember hearing a story about a man who chose to weather a hurricane at home rather than evacuate. At one point in the midst of the storm, there was a break in the clouds and the sun shone through. He was on the phone with his son at the time, and complained that the bright sunlight off of the floodwaters was hurting his eyes. He complained about the sun's light, but was surrounded by devastation. As unbelievable as this story sounds, there have been a lot of accounts where people were more concerned with petty inconvenience than with potential destruction.

I was thinking about this because of late, it seems as though we're seeing a storm of "worse." Yet for some reason, everyone is apparently ignoring it to focus on the "bad." What's even more strange is that the "bad" is often a side-effect of the "worse," yet one is still focused on to the exclusion of the other. Tears For Fears had it right: It is a mad world.

The Plight of the Living

Take for example the illegal immigration issue. It's certainly a hot topic these days, and for good reason. No reasonable and rational citizen will argue that the United States was not founded and created by immigrants. Most will also agree that the conditions from which many of these immigrants are fleeing are deplorable. I think one might also be hard pressed to find a reasonable and rational person disagreeing with the sad state of these people when they arrive at the border. However, focusing solely on the people, the conditions they fled and their state upon arrival ignores a fundamental fact: The United States has a process by which all of these people can enter into the country without fear of Immigration Enforcement.

AOC and other deluded members of Congress seem to believe that the definition of the phrase "fundamental fact" is "kook thought." In reality; something which they seem to be wholly out of touch with; it is a foundational truth. Immigration has been provided for by law in this nation since 1791. While opinion on immigration has fluctuated significantly between 1800 and today, there has always been a path to citizenship for any who wish it. To react to news of immigrant caravans as though there is no structure in place is to live in a world of fantasy. Moreover, it does seem as though many legislators have some form of dementia when they begin speaking about this subject.

The Plight of the Unborn

Another example of ignoring the greater threat for the sake of the minor annoyance is the subject of abortion. Since Roe v Wade, there have been over sixty-one million abortions in the United States. There have been over one and a half billion world wide since 1980, and over eight million performed by Planned Parenthood since 1970. At the time of this writing, there have been over one hundred and seventy-seven thousand abortions this year. A little over seventeen hundred were stated to be due to rape or incest. There are no solid figures for how many abortions are done for the sake of the mother's life, but most hover around the one percent mark since 1973.

In the United States, it was initially taught to society that a fetus was nothing more than a blob of tissue. The rhetoric was changed over time to suggest that a fetus was then a parasitic organism, and now they teach that a fetus is... Well, a fetus. An undeveloped baby. Yet in New York, legislators passed a bill later signed into law by Governor Cuomo that allows abortions to be performed by anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Many states are now trying to do the same. The inconvenience is that actions (namely sex) have consequences. The greater threat is that the United States, first by ruling of the Supreme Court and now by legislation, has made murder legal.

"Murder" is defined as the termination of life, and "life" is loosely defined as the ability to function independent of aid. A baby is considered to be a live person in the United States when they can live apart from their mother. Over ninety percent can do this at twenty-six weeks, and seventy percent can do this at twenty-four weeks. Thirty-five percent of babies born at twenty-three weeks can now survive, and this percentage is growing every day with the advancement of medical science. Thus, the termination of a viable fetus is by definition murder. It is not considered to be such by law though, because inconvenience triumphs over reality.

The Plight of Society

We live in a mad world. We decry the genocide of third-world dictators, yet approve of the deaths of sixty-one million innocents, even though both are carried out in the name of convenience. We shed tears over the plight of people wanting to move freely into our nation without being inconvenienced by background checks and other safeguards, but we grow angry when acts of terrorism by foreign nationals inflict death and destruction upon us. We want to prevent our feelings from getting hurt, but have no problem in oppressing entire people groups to accomplish this task.

In short, our society in general wants to have life both ways. We want to have our cake and eat it as well. We want to live life free from consequence; we want to be free from the laws of nature by enacting laws of men. There is only one group of the world's population that has found the way to be free of consequence, and that group is growing by the minute. They are the dead, and no more apt a phrase can be applied to the world today than the words penned by the author of Ecclesiastes:

Erdogan's Egregious Error Part 1

Otherwise titled: How to make 6,000 a total of 600,000 with one phrase verbally expelled by an ignorant troglodyte.


In a recent interview, Recep Erdogan stated that Israel has killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, while only "a few" Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets.  He made another statement which was just as ludicrously bogus, but let's deal with this first.

I have to notice, right off the bat, that the man does not challenge the fact that the Palestinians fires rockets into a sovereign nation.  That in and of itself should flip on a few lights as to the reliability of the man's statements; not to mention the true nature of his motives.  The Palestinians firing rockets are, at little best, terrorists.  Period.  There is no other accurate portrayal, no matter what the Mass (Sheep) Media says.

I am sure that there are Palestinians who want nothing more than to live in peace.  I am convinced of this.  Since this is the case, their fellows ought to cease their terrorist activities and work things out via proper procedure.  That, or the peace desirous Palestinians ought to hang their terrorist neighbors; that would make a greater impact than white flags, I guarantee it.

Either way, they cannot bring a demand for recognition of their "sovereign state" while inside the boundaries of a recognized sovereign nation.  Not without the go ahead from Israel.  In this case, Israel will not allow them to do so, and why should they?  The national boundaries they have now were gained through legal and proper channels; one with Egypt, and one with Jordan.  The area occupied by so-called Palestinians?  A part of Israel according to the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace.  Those in the Gaza Strip?  Part of Israel according to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.

Back to Erdogan's idiotic remark.


The first and most obvious is the number he used.  According to B'Tselem numbers, there have been nearly 6,500 Palestinians killed since September 29, 2000 to the present day.  Even as a conservative estimate, these numbers are a far cry from "hundreds of thousands."  More interesting, perhaps, is the breakdown of this number.

According to B'Tselem, 98.8% of these figures are "killed on their own land."  How can that be, I ask, when these lands are properly Israel?  The fact that B'Tselem calls these areas "occupied territories" brings into question their own allegiance.  If you go to IfAmericaKnew, you find a further distortion of the facts: They state that according to B'Tselem, between 3,535-4,226 of these deaths belong to civilians.

Here's the problem- Palestinians have no actual army.  The entire population, fighting age, IS the army.  In a word, there may be no army, but there are also no civilians.  The only reason they can be classified by "civilians" by this so-called humanitarian organization is because they could not be "actively tied to violent activity."

By the way- Israeli deaths stand at roughly 1,262- Rough because it is not a complete enumeration.  This number is significantly higher than the "few" Erdogan stated.  While it is significantly lower than the deaths of Palestinians, take into account the emergency medical accommodations available within Israel.  If not for these, the large majority of the more than 8,000 injuries would surely have been mortal.  Incidentally, this would place the number of Israeli deaths at far higher than Palestinian losses.


Let's look at the beginnings of "Palestine."


They came into being roughly about 135 A.D.  Prior to this, the land was- Israel.  Palestine was formed as a direct result of the Roman Empire- It was a move by the emperor Hadrian in 135 AD to prevent the conquered Nation of Israel from attempting to rise up any longer.  He moved his armies into the region and scattered Israel.  At this time, Jerusalem was leveled, and two foreign peoples were moved into the new regions he'd created, respectively named Palestine and Aelia Capitolina, part of the new province Syria Palaestina.

So to recap, Palestinians claim to own land for which they never had right to; land which was wrenched from Israel by Rome for the origination of Palestine.  Israel finally reclaimed the land which was theirs prior to ancient occupation with the peace treaty signed between Israel and Jordan.  Now, Palestinians are attempting to claim land which was not rightfully theirs to begin with as theirs now- Though the land in question has been legally and rightfully Israel's since 1979 and 1994.


So- With all of this being said, I have just one question:

What is the issue here?  Bottom line, Israel is dealing with squatters, and they're even willing to give them portions of Israel.


Try taking over someone's home and see if they're as kind.

PS: Hello to the readers from the United Arab Emirates and other Middle East countries.  I welcome all of your comments, but for those of you who are prone to aggressive linguistic jabs, I say this: Save any threats for some other person.  I'm not intimidated. Thanks.

HELL: Eternal Justice, Eternal Love - part 2

Earlier, I spoke of the next destination in our lives- Not this finite one you and I live on planet Earth, but the one we live within it. Like a box within a box, our eternal spirit is merely housed within a finite physical shell. We are created as dependent eternal beings; able to live beyond physical death, but dependent upon our Creator for that life.

This is overlooked in modern Christianity, and has been for some time. In fact, there have been those "hellfire and brimstone" preachers which have pushed forward the idea of our earning our right to enter Heaven here on Earth. These say that if one dies in sin, one falls through into Hell. Strangely enough, no sin is present in this world save that which grieves the Holy Spirit- That is if I'm reading my Bible right. Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying that humans are perfect, nor am I committing heresy.

What I am saying is that MY Bible states Christ died for the sins of ALL. That means every one of them, not just the ones we repented of this morning. In fact, the only sin which is not forgivable- Is not accepting that very forgiveness. It's the ticket to board the cruise ship; if you have it, you go- If not, you don't.

Nevertheless, these wonderful preachers made their money convincing people that they were hot because Hell was right beneath them... And not because they were packed into a tent tighter than sardines. It was this ministry of condemnation that gave rise to such mindsets as that of the noted agnostic, Robert Ingersoll. It was he who stated thusly:

They say that when god was in Jerusalem he forgave his murderers, but now he will not forgive an honest man for differing with him on the subject of the Trinity. They say that God says to me, "Forgive your enemies." I say, "I do;" but he says, "I will damn mine." God should be consistent. If he wants me to forgive my enemies he should forgive his. I am asked to forgive enemies who can hurt me. God is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt him. He certainly ought to be as generous as he asks us to be.

Individuals who say these things seem not to be understanding a very crucial fact: We humans are eternal, within a finite vessel. In the beginning, after the Fall of Man, yet before the Sacrifice, all of humanity understood this. Indeed, Cain mourned that his punishment for killing Able was too great to bear. "Everyone who comes across me shall slay me," he states, giving reference to his own eternity within the finite.

Today, however, this seems to be the sum of existence for many, and how sad is that?! Regardless of the tragedy encompassed by such a life stance, it progresses and grows. Many are taken in by this foolish thinking, and the various forms of "logic" which spring up around it. Such as the idea that mankind is doomed for its rejection of God's love, when in reality, man is doomed for its fallen nature.

Much like a car with a shorting central computer, our lives spit and sputter and refuse to run well. Continuing on with this sort of problem could lead to far more serious disaster: A sudden seizing of the brakes and the remainder of life as a paraplegic, for this example. We could continue on, not knowing this fate is awaiting; or we could bring it in to the mechanic, who has already paid for the replacement so as not to burden us with the price.

This truth is NOT what Bell operates under in his most recent book. Instead, he presents his version of "truth," one that leaves out the troublesome issues of Hell and eternal justice. He asks, in essence, what kind of loving God would damn a human soul to eternal punishment? The answer, he states, is that God would not. Thus he commits to the ages an atrocious error, one which Satan himself has fabricated: The assumption one knows the Creator based upon a sole aspect.

If God is Love, than how could He damn a soul? If God were solely and completely the sort of fuzzy love we associate with teddy bears and Santa Claus, than He could not. Fortunately, God is so much more. In fact, we often start at the wrong end when teaching on the love and/or wrath of God. However, before we get to that point, we first must define terms according to the Bible, not according to today's understanding.

First, we must understand that Love is not merely a fuzzy feeling. The opposite of love is not hatred, and love has the ability to be seemingly cruel. The opposite of love is apathy, for even hatred errupts based upon love. The seeming cruelty of love takes place when it must allow for discipline and punishment. A parent hates punishing a child, but it must be done at times. Why? Because love desires the very best. Allowing an action heedless of future wellbeing would not be love- It would be gross indulgence. Thus, love will seem very cruel when the object of love does not act in its own best interest.

Then we must look to wrath. Wrath is not the form of anger we see today. If anything, it too comes from a point of love. Wrath is the natural response when the object of love acts contrary to its best interest. It is anger, disappointment and sorrow together as one. Anger that one could be so thoughtless as to disregard one's wellbeing so entirely. Disappointment that one could do so more than can be credited to mistake. Sorrow that one must be opened to punishment as a result of wrongdoing.

Where we tend to get things backwards is our teaching of the reasons for the Wrath. Most say that it is man's rejection of Christ's Love that brings the wrath. In fact, this is wrong. It is man's fallen state which brings the wrath. Sinful man does not reject the love of Christ- he rejects the sacrifice, thus taking the full weight of his own sin back upon himself.

God is not only Love. He is also just. Justice can abide nothing but complete and absolute conformity to upright living; that is, living according to the desires of love. Anything other must be punished. It is perfect love which leads to perfect justice. Love desires the very best; wrath is the result of infraction upon obtaining the best; justice responds to the infraction.

Our sin affects our entire being, a blemish upon an undying spirit. Yet we seem to believe it a temporary thing. Because of this false belief, many see the idea of Hell as being entirely too much. In reality, however, it is a just punishment based upon the lasting decision of an eternal being to reject a permanent covering. In effect, man is already charged with his crime, and the punishment is death. When man rejects the sacrifice, he rejects his own plea bargin- The one thing which could get him out of that death.

And yet, with all of this, people seem to believe an eternally lasting crime not worthy of an eternal punishment. The crime not forgiven, the only one, is the one for which forgiveness is not sought. Those eventually sent to Hell are sent, not because of God's desire to punish, but because they have condemned themselves.

HELL: Eternal Justice, Eternal Love - part 1

The Roman poet Virgil stated that "we each bear our own Hell."

William Shakespeare once famously penned "Hell is empty, and all the devils are here."

Oscar Wilde observed that "we are each our own devils, and we make this world our Hell."

Each of these statements seem to be a point that Rob Bell's latest book could originate from. In actuality, they reveal something rather true about this world; namely, that it can be a living hell, and that such a hell is based solely upon our own choices. Our decisions and the subsequent consequences can be disastrous, affecting not only our lives, but those of the people around us. It can truly be a hell of such dark and terrible conditions that we may be happy to see the Hell of the afterlife pale in comparison. Such a notion would truly bring happiness to many and satisfy most who are itching to hear something they like.

Now where have I heard that phrase about itching ears before?

Oh, yes. Second Timothy 4:3-4 --

³The time is coming when people won't listen to good teaching. Instead, they will look for teachers who will please them by telling them only what they are itching to hear. ⁴They will turn from the truth and eagerly listen to senseless stories.

That pretty much speaks to the latest happy-happy thoughts to come from the mind of Rob Bell. Now, within this book Rob suggests that Hell is a myth- Not outright, but in so many words. More literally, he makes the same historically rooted arguments every other anti-judgment person has ever made: That Gehenna was the local city dump always on fire, etc. He then jumps from these points to say that Christ never once spoke of eternal damnation.

Is he reading the same Bible I am, or did he mistake his Emergent Church Translation for a copy of Finding Peace Within? Before anyone gets upset with me about this, bear in mind that the Seventh Day Adventist church is founded on the idea of annihilation and soul sleep, as opposed to an eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. Bell does not suggest this, but he's on board at least as far as Cecil Perry, President of the SDA church in England, has remarked. Perry made the statement in 2000 that:

“The message of hell is in stark contrast to the message of hope and love and tends to engender fear”

(“British Seventh-day Adventists Warn Against ‘Stoking’ Hell Fires,” Religious News Service, April 2000).

That's right- Apparently, fear is no longer allowed within the Christian faith. Now, I'm not going to outrightly claim the SDA church is not Christian. I am not doing this right now because at this point, I do not want to be sidetracked.

The reason I find it interesting that there is this sudden desire among the various Christian branches to erase Hell from the picture. It is almost as if everyone would rather the idea of an eternal judgment is TOO wrong, or TOO harsh. In fact, the idea of an eternally lasting judgment issued by an eternally just God makes eternal sense.

There is a strange correlation between this thought and some other observations. The first observation was made by Ms. Madalyn Murray O'Hare, when she famously stated: "The fear of hell is the basis for the Christian faith." In fact, that is not the basis of the Christian faith- Though such stark contrast in viewpoints has not been helped in current times by the likes of Fred Phelps.

In fact, it is the fear of God that is the basis of Christianity, and not fear as defined by 1, 2, and 4 of Websters Dictionary. Let's be honest about this- Even our modern definition of fear does not begin to describe what is spoken of in the Bible. Admiration, reverence, and the sort of "fear" felt when entering the presence of a very powerful but highly respected leader is what's spoken of... Not terror.

However, it IS this terror sort of fear that is spoken of by Perry and O'Hare. It is also this sort of fear which has led countless people to reject the truth of the Bible; these people who would rather be happy in a finite and mortal existence than be infinitely secure. The sort of fear that encourages people to make a joke and mockery of its very existence. It was funny man Jim Carrey whose character stated: "Maybe there is no actual place called hell. Maybe hell is just having to listen to our grandparents breathe through their noses when they're eating sandwiches."

This same fear is what has led people such as O'Hare and Perry to reject its teaching, or object to it, one of the two. The idea that there could be justice in the world, and beyond it, apparently does not sit well with those who do not wish to live by any moral or ethical code but their own. These are the people who claim that Hell is already present here on Earth; that we need not have one which will last for eternity, because we have one which can last our entire pitiful existence. As some might say, one which can last the most important part of our life: The part for which we are alive, and not merely memory. In the words of Ed Babinski--

Given headaches, backaches, toothaches, strains, scrapes, breaks, cuts, rashes, burns, bruises, PMS, fatigue, hunger, odors, molds, colds, yeast, parasites, viruses, cancers, genetic defects, blindness, deafness, paralysis, mental illness, ugliness, ignorance, miscommunications, embarrassments, unrequited love, dashed hopes, boredom, hard labor, repetitious labor, accidents, old age, senility, fires, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, hurricanes and volcanoes, I can not see how anyone, after they are dead, deserves "eternal punishment" as well.

Here's a twist, however. What if this so-called "most important part" is not? What if the most important part, that which we should live for, is to come? Some may argue that we should not look ahead, that we should live in the moment and for today. What good is that, I answer, if today's rash decision impoverishes one tomorrow? Every part of life is dependent upon the preceding part: An infant dependent upon his birth; a teen his childhood; an adult his teen years; and an elder their entire life experience. What if the transition of life to death is much like the transition from womb to cradle? The womb is all the infant knows, yet there is another eighty plus years before it outside of that womb.

As such a possibility cannot be ruled out, and no evidence can be presented to conclusively prove otherwise, one can certainly entertain thoughts of the outside world- The world beyond this existence. However, there is a serious misconception regarding the destination of the dead. This misconception hinges on the idea that there are merely two places a departed spirit can go: The first being Heaven, the second being Hell. There is, in fact, a third; the hall of judgment. There is no purgatory, no place to work off one's sins, but there is a place where one discovers if one's sins are covered by the Blood of the Lamb... And their own acceptance of that gift. It is here that we, having shaken loose the bonds of time, gather after death. It is not our final destination, but it is our next.