We are divided as a Country and as Christians.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Abraham Lincoln is most known for that quote, but actually Jesus Christ said if before Abraham Lincoln even thought of it.  

Our Nation is more divided today than I have ever seen it in my lifetime. It is worse than during the turmoil of the 60’s when Vietnam and Love-Ins were festering topics.

How are we divided well let us count the ways: 

We do not listen to one another any longer. If someone does not agree with us we question their motivation. Immediately anyone who does not agree with our religion or our politics or our views in general are judged stupid and evil. We are no longer willing to have reasonable discussions and reach a consensus on what we have in common and work from there.

There was a time when Republicans and Democrats had difference in opinions on how the country should be run. But, we did not hate one another and try to destroy one another. We had political differences and that was it – simple.  The elections came and went and the losers accepted their loss and we moved on as one supporting the elected candidates. What is ironic is there are far fewer differences in the two parties than ever before and we do our best to destroy each other before and after the election and nothing productive is ever accomplished.

One only has to follow social media to see that we no longer have thoughtful, and respectful discussions. We no longer are interested in trying to win anyone over to our way of thinking, instead with our words we do all we can to turn them away by attacking their sincerity, intelligence and faith.

What happen to LOVE!  Mention homosexuality to some Christians and you will see the most vicious, vile rhetoric come from their heart and their mouths. The Orlando massacre shined a light on the bigotry of some lay and some ministers within the church. For example, “I wish one Saturday night a group of people would organize all around the country and go to every gay bar in America and kill ever single queer in there and that would stop them from leading our children and grandchildren astray”, “They were not afraid in that restroom in that queer bar in Orlando. They were too busy having sex to be afraid”, “My only problem with the dumb terrorist in Orlando was he did not kill them all.”  The list goes on and on and on and the people vow up and down they are CHRISTIANS.

I think some Christians are going to be shocked when they reach the Pearly Gates and find them padlocked. I do not think the words some Christians are using in speaking of homosexuals are the words God wants them to use.  

I realize some Christians say they are  tired of being made into the bad guys. They’re tired of being called the bigots, the haters, etc. I was told by one Christian,  “If I do not speak out loud and clear now to stop the homosexuals one day I may lose my right to do so.” I do not think it is the agenda of homosexuals to prevent Christians from believing as they wish or to take away their right to free speech, but it is their agenda to be able to speak and live as they believe. There are bigots on both sides of the issue and if you do not want to be called a bigot then do not act like one.

At the Indiana Statehouse, Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. of the Indiana Pastors Alliance addressed a roaring crowd: “We’re not here today because we’re angry. We’re not here because we hate people. “We’re actually here,” he said, “because we love Jesus.” He went on to say, “How can government force people to act against their religious consciences — against an unshakable belief that marriage is between a man and a woman?” Has the government ask any Christian to do that?  There are laws about discriminating in a PUBLIC business. The government has only ask that we respect the rights of others to believe as they want, just as the Christians opposed to homosexuality do. 

I heard similar arguments at my Grandmothers church, First Baptist Church of Pratt City, Alabama against integration and interracial marriages. The only words coming from his mouth that I agreed with was, “I’m not asking for special protected class status. I’m asking to be left alone, for crying out loud.” Rev. Ron Johnson that is all the gay community really wants.

For some evangelical Christians, who are led by ministers like the Indiana Pastors Alliance there is no compromise. Expanding the state civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes would effectively feel like a betrayal of their constitutional rights.

Not all Christians share their views. Some Christians agree with enacting nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people, including a coalition of mainline Christian denominations and a group of 141 faith leaders who signed onto a letter of support. Bishop William Gafkjen, who oversees Indiana and Kentucky congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, said he doesn’t feel that adding to the civil rights law threatens his religious freedom.

Christian’s are more divided today than ever before in my lifetime. There has always been some that thought if you did not belong to their church or denomination you could not go to heaven. There has always been some that thought they were the only ones that knew how to interpret scripture. But, there are some Christians today that are nearly or they are militant about their opinions.

If you believe me to be wrong then next Sunday after church start a conversation with those you just worshiped God with about immigration.  If one person does not explode like a stick of dynamite has been ignited in them - I would be shocked.  A recent National Public Radio report noted, “Immigration is shaping up to be one of the most contentious and emotional topics in the 2016 presidential race.”  Even among us Christians.

We seem to forget that all Americans have immigrants in their genealogy if they take time to go back far enough.  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned racial criteria for immigration. From that time on, people would be admitted “on the basis of their skills and their relationship to those already here” and to find refuge from oppression. The problem is not immigration the problem is that our immigration laws are not being following by our politicians. The law never intended to allow illegal immigration into our country.

 There are approximately 11.3 million persons in the U.S. today without authorization—without some kind of Visa or Green Card. Of these, roughly half came here on a Visa or Green Card that has now expired, and half came into our country by crossing the border without authorization. The problem is not all immigrants the problem is illegal immigrants and whose fault is that they have freely crossed our borders and overstayed their visa’s without any repercussion. If I was from a depressed country and could get to the Promised Land legally or illegally I would. I would especially do so when the President of that country encouraged it. Now this is the question that will set fire under some - would it be legal or illegal today for the Jewish people to take the land of the Canaanites, which is now Palestine? Would the Jewish people at that time be consider illegal aliens today?

The Bible has many references to immigrants—in fact, foreigners, strangers, and aliens are mentioned more than 150 times.

In Leviticus, God says: “When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:33-34).

The question of immigrants is complicated today by the extreme radical Muslims. I think the main solution to that problem is strict enforcement of our Immigration Laws. I am not convinced discrimination against any one particular group of people is the answer.

All people that desire to enter our country should be vetted and required to meet stringent guidelines regardless of their religion or country of origin.  I think people should prove they can contribute to the betterment of the United States in the future in order to enter and that seems harsh to a lot of liberal thinking Christians. I think there should be set time limits as to when they must demonstrate they have a command of the English language.  But, I am no longer for discrimination against a certain group of people.  I once was because I feared radical Islamic Muslims.

I disagree with many other Christians on taking in refugees. I am for HELPING and protecting refugees in their own homeland. I do not think as Christians we can stand by and not offer assistance, but to bring their problems to our shores when we already face so many problems I simply cannot support it. If we do allow them to enter the United States I think we have a Christian obligation to treat then as  fellow citizens of the United States.

TO BE CONTINUED

Christians wouldn't act that way - really!

Really: How do they act:

You have a “I love Jesus sticker on your bumper” and you pass me going twice the speed limit in a school zone.

I look in my rear view mirror and I cannot tell if you are pushing me or following me, but you do have a cross hanging from your rear view mirror.

You have a “What would Jesus do?” sticker on your rear window and I am sitting behind you watching you blow your horn and shoot the finger at someone taking too long at the stop sign.

You leave church an when you get to the parking lot you see someone has parked too close to your car and the first thing that comes out of your mouth is “Goddamn fool”.  I witness that two Sundays ago.

Its almost laughable when I see people at church (my neighbor) treating others as if they were mortal enemies. Gossiping behind others backs, silently and verbally wishing for their failure, and coveting their possessions.

There’s nothing wrong with a friendly debate among people of the same or different denominations…but when you end up telling me I am not a Christian because I am Catholic and insist on holding it against me…then you have forgotten what Christianity is all about.

When you post Bible verses on my email and go to church each week and I know you are married and using a singles site on the Internet. It makes me question if I even want to be a Christian.

How do you think you’ll ever be able to convince someone that they should investigate Christianity if their only interaction with Christianity is you and you demonstrate qualities even the unbeliever does not want to have.  Have you ever considered that you’re actually hurting Christ more than helping Him with how you treat others? Do you really think that showing up on Sunday and listening to the band or singing in the choir is going to bring others to Christ?

Christ said that you should “let your light so shine” so that others will want to come unto Him. Is your shining light a a red warning light to avoid Christians? Perhaps you are like a fire hydrant extinguishing any light that might be burning faintly within others.

If you call yourself a Christian…then just start loving others and overlooking their faults. Stop trying to make everyone else pay for their sins. God’s got that under control. Become an ambassadors of mercy instead of trying to replace God by being judge and jury. If you make that change you’ll never have to beg someone to listen to your message about Christ again.

There’s not a day that goes by when I don’t see some conservative going on and on about how the Republican party is the party of “good Christian values” and everyone else (specifically liberals) is waging some kind of war on religion. Going to church doesn’t make someone a Christian. Christianity is based on a belief in Jesus Christ and one’s attempt to live their life based on the values for which He taught.

I have really noticed from the comments following the Orlando shooting on social sites and media sites how many conservative Christians base their devotion to their faith on how strong their opposition is to homosexuality.

These are some other things that I have really noticed over the last eight years -Prosperity minsters make all Christians sound like our religion is based on GREED. It seems some Christians believe Jesus Christi would have an AR-15 strapped to His back - that is not a Christian issue that is a political issue. Christians should be  teaching acceptance and tolerance of others, but many are not.  That we’re all humans and it seems some have forgotten that - we all sin.  That we should treat each other with respect and kindness - calling others derogatory names does not seem to fulfill that Christian obligation. Some of the comments certainly do not reflect love and kindness.  Many Christians seem to have forgotten that whole “love our neighbor” thing. Do we should think we should try and FORCE our beliefs on others and judge them stupid heathens if they do not agree with us - God does not - that is why God gave us ‘free will". God gave us the right to choose to believe or not believe. God said “fear not” why are so many Christians on social media sites expressing fear of those that do not agree with their beliefs – I have faith God will prevail. 

Our actions outside of church are what matters the most to others wanting what we claim to have.

Who controls you?

Whoever you allow to shape and control your conscience ultimately controls you!

Socialism/Communism or Capitalism

I wonder how many of the 68% of Americans polled who said they would not object to a socialist president know that communism is an extreme form of socialism. "Socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "Communism", but the two philosophies have some differences. Communism is a political/economic system and Socialism is an economic system. Obama has attempted to transform the United States into a Socialist/Capitalist country with heavy emphasis on Socialism.

Communism claims to deliver free-access to consumption articles through advances in technology that allow for super-abundance. Socialism claims to deliver access to consumption articles through redistribution of profits among the workforce (Obama).

Communism believes the government should own all means of production and land and everything else. People should work for the government and the collective output should be redistributed equally. Socialism believes large-scale industries are collective efforts and thus the profits must be return to society as a whole. Socialism attempts to control the economy through social control.

Karl Marx and Lenin supported both Communism and Socialism.

Communism the government owns the economy and in Socialism the government controls the economy. Socialist actually believe Capitalism can be a stepping stone to Socialism and can work if the government has control instead of the wealthy.  

Communism abolishes religion and Socialism encourages secularism.

Communism and Socialism both desire to control immigration.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was designed to be a socialist economic system, but it did not work.

Socialism and Communism does not necessarily reward on one’s natural ability or ambition. They believe all should be rewarded equally (If you have worked in a Union shop as I have you know your co-worker could be lazy and make the same amount of money as you – a product of Socialism).

Bernie Sanders is a Socialist. He is constantly speaking of free healthcare and free education. Socialism offers free healthcare and education (that are not actually free) because they are funded by taxation. Perhaps that is why Bernie Sanders is proposing tax increases of at least 13.6 trillion dollars on the wealthy and middle class.

The following countries have some form of Communism – China (Communist/Capitalist), North Korea (Communist), Laos (Communist/Socialist/Capitalist), Cuba (Communist) and Vietnam (Communist/Socialist/Capitalist). These are not government that I would not particularly want to live under.

Denmark (highest taxes in the world) and is a Constitutional Monarchy – Socialist.

Some of the most Socialist countries in the world today are: China (starvation), Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden (national debt has gotten so high the government has been forced to take more control of the economy), Norway, Ireland and Belgium (welfare programs have become a burden and a major contributor to their debt).  Not all these countries claim to have a Socialist Government, but they do have Socialistic programs the same would be true today of the United States. It is also important to note where Socialism appears to be working they are countries with smaller populations compared to the United States. There is probably not a true Socialist country in the world today. If there was the people would have to own, manage and divide industry profits.

Capitalism itself is not bad, nor is all capitalist bad. Capitalism is good. People confuse capitalism with corporate America and do not consider the alternative socialism for what it is, fake. The poor in America would be the super-rich in most places in the world. If you think capitalism is wrong, live in a post-communist country for a few years. Most people who make a lot of money give a lot to charity – there are exceptions. Look at Warren Buffett and Bill Gates give away a lot of their money.

People fill their heart with resentment towards capitalist because they feel when someone wins someone else must lose. I have found generally when someone wins someone else wins. Corporation profits create more jobs. A capitalist is creative and risk taker and wants to add value to society. Corporate warriors (workforce) are more about a paycheck and bonus, two different things. Nothing is wrong with either for each needs the other.

Next time you ask the question is capitalism good or bad consider Capitalism like we have in America and the Socialism that Poland or Russian had during Communism. I think you will see that capitalism is not all that bad.

Capitalism allows you to express yourself and gives you the freedom to choose. It does not promise to make everyone equal, but rather lets you decide what you want to do with your life. Self-expression does not sound too bad to me. Capitalism allows you to set up a yoga school or write a book, open of a variety of small businesses or work for a corporation.

People should be careful what they wish for and especially who and what they VOTE for! If you want to find out how socialism can destroy a country read up on Venezuela. 

Euthanasia - a pagan word to most, but not me!

There was a time when I would not have considered or approved of euthanasia in any form. If it had been put to a vote I would have definitely voted against it. I like millions around the world had a closed mind to the idea. I could support my decision with ethical and religious reasons. I think my greatest fear was if the practice was allowed it would be abused and to a certain extent I still fear that. I am still against anyone other than the sufferer making the decision to end their life.  

Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide and more loosely termed mercy killing, means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to end  extreme suffering that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the majority of countries euthanasia or assisted suicide is against the law.

There are two main classifications of euthanasia:

Voluntary euthanasia - is euthanasia conducted with consent. Since 2009 voluntary euthanasia has been legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the states of Oregon (USA) and Washington (USA).

Involuntary euthanasia - euthanasia is conducted without consent. The decision is made by another person because the patient is incapable to doing so himself/herself.

There are two procedural classifications of euthanasia:

Passive euthanasia - this is when life-sustaining treatments are withheld.

Active euthanasia - lethal substances or forces are used to end the patient's life.

Active euthanasia is a much more controversial subject than passive euthanasia. Individuals are torn by religious, moral, ethical and compassionate arguments surrounding the issue.

I think that two factors should be considered when contemplating euthanasia: (1) is the illness or disease non-curable and (2) the extreme suffering involved cannot be relieved by other means.

In many other countries a patient can refuse treatment that is recommended by a doctor or some other health care professional, as long as they have been properly informed and are of sound mind. I think this decision should only be made by the person suffering.

Doctors regardless of the law are forced with making decisions concerning death all the time and they take into consideration what is in the best interests of the patient. Doctors consider what is in the patient's best interests based on: (1) What the patient wanted when he/she was competent, (2) The patient's general state of health and (3) The patient's spiritual and religious welfare.

Doctors and families have to decide the best option for a patient who is declared clinically brain dead and if they should switch off the life-support machines; equipment without which the patient will die. The doctor in charge will talk to the patient's family. However, the final decision is the doctor's, and strict criteria must be met. Is that not a form of euthanasia which we have come to accept?

I have stood with families when a decision had to be made to remove life support machines and I know how difficult it is. It is especially difficult when the decision is made based on suffering and not being brain dead. I would have to advise them what our church teaches about the matter and then I would go against the churches decision and tell them after seeking help from the Holy Spirit through prayer they would have to make a decision based on what they thought their loved one would want. 

I watched as a young man suffered for weeks and the doctors were telling the family he was only alive because of the life support machines. The mother finally requested the machines be taken off and the doctor refused. This was in a Catholic hospital. I ask the doctor if his faith in God allowed him to believe God could perform miracles and he said, “Yes”. I then ask the doctor if he thought if the life support systems were removed and God wanted the young man to continue to live he would and he again he said, “Yes”. I then ask the doctor if that is all true why then are you afraid to remove the life support system. He removed the life support and the young man passed away within ten minutes.

Do you remember the Karen Ann Quinlan case? She was hospitalized and eventually lapsed into a vegetative state. Several months later, while being kept alive on a ventilator, her parents asked the hospital to discontinue active care, so that she could be allowed to die. The hospital refused, there were many legal battles, and a court eventually ruled in her parent's favor. Quinlan was removed from the mechanical ventilation in 1976, but she went on living in a persistent vegetative state until 1985, when she died of pneumonia. The development of advance health directives (living wills) occurred as a result of her case. In 1977, California legalized living wills and other states soon followed.

I watched and prayed while my brother suffered with cancer in 2004. I will never forget him looking up at me and saying, “Bubba, please do not pray that God keeps me alive any longer I am hurting too bad. I am ready to go.” I took his hand and told him, “Raymond, I stopped praying that days ago and have been asking God to take you as soon as possible.” He grasps my hand tighter, his wife leaned over and kissed him and he smiled and died.

The English medical word "euthanasia" comes from the Greek word eu meaning "good", and the Greek word thanatos meaning "death".  Euthanasia is mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath. The original oath states "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." Even so, the ancient Greeks and Romans were not strong advocates of preserving life at any cost and were tolerant of suicide when no relief could be offered to the dying.

Suicide was a criminal act from the 1300s until the middle of the last century; this included assisting others to end their lives. Thomas More (1478-1535) - An English lawyer, scholar, author and statesman; also recognized as a saint within the Catholic Church, once envisioned a utopian community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of torturing and lingering pain. Since the early 1800s euthanasia has been a topic of debates and activism in the USA, Canada, Western Europe and Australasia.

An anti-euthanasia law was passed in the state of New York in 1828. It is the first known anti-euthanasia law in the USA. In following years many other states followed with similar laws. Several advocates, including doctors promoted euthanasia after the American Civil War. At the beginning of the 1900s support for euthanasia leveled off in the USA, and then rose up again during the 1930s. In 1935 euthanasia societies emerged in England and in 1938 in the USA. Doctor assisted suicide became legalized in Switzerland in 1937, as long as the doctor ending the patient's life had nothing to gain. During the 1960s advocacy for a right-to-die approach to euthanasia grew.

I now believe the patient should be given the option to make their own choice. Only the patient is really aware of what it is like to experience persistent, unstoppable suffering; even with pain relievers. Those who have not experienced it cannot fully appreciate what effect it has on ones quality of life. Apart from physical pain, overcoming the emotional pain of losing independence is an additional factor that only the patient comprehends fully. Every individual should be given the ability to die with dignity. It is more humane to allow a person with persistent suffering to be allowed to choose to end that suffering. If a loved pet has persistent suffering we put it down. It is seen as an act of kindness. Why should this kindness be denied to humans? Why should a patient be forced to experience a slow death?

Several religions see euthanasia as a form of murder and morally unacceptable. Some see voluntary euthanasia as a form of suicide, which goes against the teachings of many religions. They claim Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life. Does religion have the right to force their beliefs on everyone?

Some claim there is a risk patients may feel they are a burden on resources and are psychologically pressured into consenting. They may feel that the burden - financially, emotionally, mentally on their family is overwhelming. My father wanted to die and for eleven days he begged that he not be kept alive because of the cost and he did not want to leave my mother financially insecure – that is a valid argument in my opinion and should have been his right, but at the time I opposed.

According to the 1980 declaration from the Vatican, Jura et Bona, "euthanasia", or "mercy killing" is defined as "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated." Some in the Catholic Church say to eliminate all suffering sounds very nice, but it is very unrealistic and also very pagan. They say suffering has value and I agree some types of suffering does, but I question the point in physical suffering when no end in sight. Some in the Catholic Church claim suffering provides us with an occasion to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion - to me that sounds very nice, but may be unrealistic if you are the one suffering.

One priest ask if I Remembered the song, "He Ain't Heavy; He's My Brother". He said, “Advocates of euthanasia do not see the ill this way, but only as a burden. God forgive them.” I am not talking about someone else taking my life. I am talking about me having the right to make a choice if I want to continue to suffer and be a prison to pain and poor health. It is easy to quote grandiose religious and philosophical principles if you are not the one suffering. He claims I have become ungodly and I claim I have just become realistic. He claims all life is worth living, but has he lived in constant pain and unable to leave the house or hospital? He even ask me this stupid question, “If your car breaks down do you throw it away or have it repaired?” I have my car repaired and when it reaches the point that it can no longer be repaired I junk it – euthanasia. I also do not view a human as a “thing” so I think his example is totally asinine.

The Catholic Church is even against “Living Wills” - Catholics must follow the moral teachings of the Church in these matters and should consult a priest in specific cases. But by all means avoid "Living Wills."  I have a “Living Will” I do not want a stranger making that decision for me and I do not want to put that burden on a friend or family member. My “Living Will” states they can try to resuscitate me without using any machines to do so.

No, I do not believe in abortion because the baby does not have the right to choose to live or die, but I now believe in Euthanasia giving the person suffering the right to make the choice to die. Please do not try and tell me there is no difference because taking a life is all the same. I beg to differ with you and I respect your belief.

The reason this subject came to my mind is because yesterday I picked up my Bible and it opened to Psalm 88. The author is unknown, but most likely someone ill and suffering. He pleads with God to hear his prayers. He says he is near death; he is living, but like the dead; he feels like he is drowning; he feels like he is trapped in a prison of bad health; he feels God is not hearing his prayer; he is isolated from his friends and he pleads for a miracle. Psalm 88 sums up how I feel.

I will continue to suffer as long as God gives me the strength to do so, but when the time comes that I can no longer bear the suffering I will choose to end it. I see no glory in suffering for the sake of suffering when you are nearing the end and can no longer contribute to society. This is not a decision I made lightly. I believe if God wants me to live I will live without life support or medication. In fact I believe putting all my faith in God speaks more of my faith than to fight to stay alive by artificial means.  I do not want anyone who has not walked in my shoes to tell me what I should or should not do. I do not judge them and do not want them to judge me – please let God be God and do the judging. 

The Book Of Jonah is more than a fish story.

I am sorry if I offended you when I wrote about Jonah and the big fish the other day. I have never said or written anything in an attempt to change anyone’s mind to believe as I do. All during my ministry I have spoken and written to try and get people to think for themselves. If it helps you to have a better relationship with God by believing that Jonah literally was swallowed by a big fish then I encourage you to do so.

It is significant to me that the fish in the Book of Jonah is only mentioned in three of the forty-seven verses of the book, which leads me to believe that the fish is a minor character in the story, and is not the central theme of the book.

I would also like to clear up that I know technically a whale is not a fish.

I happen to believe the book of Jonah is not really a book about a fish, but a book about priorities, obedience, and submitting ourselves to the will of God, even when God's plans conflict with our own personal plans.

God had a plan for Jonah's life. Jonah had other plans. Jonah had to learn that in the end it is God's will that has to be done rather than his own. The book of Jonah is a challenge to each of us to submit ourselves to the will of God. If we do not we will find ourselves in a struggle with God until we do.

I have said many times we can understand the Bible better if we know the history of the time period in which it was written and the Book of Jonah is no exception.  The issue that would have upset Jonah in the book and the issue that would have upset most of the original readers of the book was not that God had a plan for Jonah's life, but that God called Jonah to prophesy in Nineveh. Nineveh was the capital of Assyria. Jonah and the original readers hated Assyrians. They hated the Assyrians because the Assyrians had a history of killing them.

God was asking Jonah to go to Nineveh to preach to the people there, and call on them to repent and Jonah did not want to go there. If you were in Jonah’s sandals would you want to go?

Jonah was not God he was human and he thought like a human.  He hated the Assyrians and he feared the Assyrians, but he also did not want to do anything good for the Assyrians.  Jonah feared God may use him to do good for the people of Nineveh and Jonah certainly did not want to be an instrument of good for the people of Nineveh.

National hatred of an enemy’s race or religion is a terrible thing, but something we are all familiar with. Hitler hated the Jews, Muslim radicals hate the Christians, in Ireland the Catholics and Protestants hated one another, genocide in Africa and parts of Europe. The Book of Jonah confronts these prejudices.

It is quite possible the Book of Jonah was being read around the same time that Ezra and Nehemiah were active in trying to rebuild the ancient city of Jerusalem - a city that had been lying in ruins since the Babylonians had destroyed it 50 years earlier. It was a time of great nationalistic fervor. The Jews were returning to their homeland and they were rebuilding their ancient city and they were rebuilding their temple, and all of a sudden, for the first time in many years, it felt good to be a Jew again. Ezra and Nehemiah did a great deal to encourage the patriotic fervor of the returning Jews and to get them excited again about their city, about their religion and about their God. In the process of doing that the issue of racial purity became an important issue for a lot of people. Ezra and Nehemiah - became very upset over the issue of inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews.

Ezra accused the men of mixing their 'holy seed' with the people of the lands and he encouraged large numbers of Jewish men to divorce their foreign wives and to send them away, along with the children of their mixed marriages. I'm not saying that the Book of Jonah was written specifically as a response to the nationalistic 'reforms' of Ezra. I am suggesting that some may have been bringing up the story of Jonah to demonstrate the God of Israel loved and respected foreigners too - even the people of Nineveh.

The Book of Jonah is a very appropriate book for our time It is a book that strikes at the heart of every sign of religious nationalism, it confronts religious arrogance in all its forms, it reminds us that the God of Israel, the God of the faithful and the God of the upright, is also the God of the Assyrian, of the unfaithful and of the not-so-upright too. It is time for Muslim, Christians and Jews to once again hear the message of the Book of Jonah.

Catholic Hierarchy - Double Talk.

 The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on Tuesday urged voters not to support candidates in the 2016 elections who are pushing for divorce, death penalty and other measures that it said are against the Church's doctrines.

CBCP President Archbishop Socrates Villegas issued some guidelines for Catholic voters to follow in choosing their candidates in 2016. According to Villegas, a Catholic voter should not support a candidate "who’s legislative or executive programs include initiatives diametrically opposed to (Catholic) Church moral teachings on such vital issues as abortion, euthanasia, the return of the death penalty, divorce and the dilution of the character of Christian marriage," even if the candidate is honest, qualified and the best candidate. We all know there are NO Catholics in the Philippines that are violating their marriage vows taking Communion every Sunday in the Philippines. 

"While we expect every public officer to give life to the constitutional posture of 'benevolent neutrality' in respect to the attitude of the State towards religion, the Catholic voter cannot and should not lend his support to any candidate whose ideology binds him or her to make of the Philippines a secular state that has no tolerance for religion in its public life," Villegas said.

"It has never been the practice of the Catholic Church to hold out a candidate to the faithful as the 'chosen' candidate of the Church," he said. "Church doctrine has remained consistent: Partisanship is an arena into which the Church should not venture."

Villegas also urged the voters to consider political aspirants from other religions. "A Catholic is not closed to the candidacy of a non-Catholic," he said. "In fact, there are worthy candidates from other Christian communities and other religions." "Their qualifications and aspirations must be given serious heed by our Catholic voters, their truly helpful plans and visions must be supported,” Villegas said. As long as they uphold Catholic teachings!

There are an estimated 75,594,148 Catholics in the Philippines according to the latest statistics. The population of the Philippines was estimated at 100,096,496 as of July 1, 2014. The total registered voters in the Philippines as of January 22, 2013 were 52,014,648. Roughly 75% plus (85%) Filipinos are Catholic. That is enough to control any election if 75% (85%) of registered voters are Catholic. I know it is said that Catholics tend not to block vote. But, any time the hierarchy of the Catholic Church speaks out about an election it has to have some influence on the election and to pretend they do not try to choose candidates in my opinion is not entirely honest.

The Philippines is the only country in the world, aside from Vatican City, which lacks divorce laws. How could anyone deny that is not due to the influence of the Catholic Church hierarchy in the Philippines? The Catholic Church does get involved in the political arena in the Philippines the recent battle over artificial birth control is evidence of that. They have a strong influence over any and all laws passed in the Philippines. To my knowledge the only time they have lost a political battle was the one over artificial birth control.

UPDATE: THE BISHOPS LOST THE WAR, BUT WON THE BATTLE THEY MANAGE TO GET THE PHILIPPINE CONGRESS NOT TO FUND THE REPRODUCTIVE BILL IN THE 2016 BUDGET - FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSE NO FUNDS MEANS NO REPRODUCTIVE BILL. 

Any non-Catholic candidate would need to adhere to Catholic doctrine, even if his or her denomination or religion did not support Catholic doctrine, if they wanted the support of the Catholic hierarchy. In other words a non-Catholic candidate might have to go against his or her religious beliefs to satisfy the Catholic hierarchy of the Philippines in order to be elected. Most mainstream Protestant denominations support divorce and artificial birth control.  Many Protestant denominations are not opposed to the death penalty.

I cannot reconcile in my mind how the Catholic hierarchy can maintain they do not demonstrate some partisanship when they dictate what a candidate must believe or support in order to get the Catholic vote.

For a country to have tolerance for  religion in its public life is one thing, but to dictate religious doctrine in public life is quite another. Is the Philippines a secular state where freedom of religion is allowed or is it a religious run state?

While the Philippine law does not permit divorce it does permit Legal separation which allows a couple to live apart and separate their assets, but they are not free to marry again. In fact, they face being charged with adultery if caught with another partner. I wonder how many Filipinos are forced to violate the law because of the Catholic hierarchy’s position on divorce.

Banning divorce in my opinion has not stopped couples from separating and starting new families. Banning divorce appears to me to have contributed to illegitimate births which may cause inheritance problems and certainly could cause emotional stigma for a child.  I have absolutely no problem with Catholic hierarchy requiring Catholics to follow their doctrine, but to attempt to impose their religious beliefs on non-Catholics is unjust to me. 

I have heard obtaining a civil and church annulment can take up to four years and $4000. That would likely be more than a years’ worth of income for the average mall worker. I wonder when forced to choose are they going to choose annulment or to ignore the law. In addition a married couple must have lived separately for five years or had a legal separation for two years before an annulment can be granted.

In 2012 there were only 10,528 people who applied for annulments in the Philippines. There were 476,408 marriages registered in 2011. I find it impossible to believe that only a little over 2% of the marriage ended. It is estimated 40 to 50% of marriages end in divorce/separation in First World countries and I do not believe that number would be much different in any country.

Could it be possible that divorce laws may make couples think twice before walking out on their marriages? Statistics show that the divorce rate in the U.S. in 1981 was 5.3 per 1000 people and in 2012 it had fallen to 3.6 per 1000 people.

The Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines does get involved in politics and governance in the Philippines. When the clergy called for civil unrest and even threatened to excommunicate President Aquino over contraception how can they say they do not. There is no proof that Catholic doctrine pertaining to separation and artificial birth control is even being followed by Catholics and to attempt to impose that on non-Catholics is unjust. 

I would not be surprised if sometime prior to the 2016 election there is a list floating around with the names of candidate that the Catholic hierarchy is supporting.  Of course the Catholic hierarchy will deny having anything to do with it like they did the banner flying from a Catholic church in one of the previous elections.

Is it just for religious leaders in a country that is supposed to have a democratic form of government to use threats of excommunication against any elected official, elected to represent ALL the people, in order to get what they want? 

The Church’s influence in the Philippines is diminishing. The power of social media is taking its toll. It might help the country if they put their devout Catholic past behind them and move toward a more secular state. Politics needs to go beyond religious groups and be more concerned with the needs of all the people regardless of religious affiliation. But, keep in mind no group gives up power without a fight and the Catholic hierarchy will not either.

Protestant denominations are growing in the Philippines and other predominantly Catholic nations like Mexico. How much of that growth could be contributed to the Catholic hierarchy’s desire for influence and control in the political arena. 

The mass conversion of Jews to Christianity will bring about Jesus' second coming - REALLY!

The Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations said, “Catholics should witness to their faith, but not undertake organized efforts to convert Jews.”  The document they issued said, “Catholics should take a different approach to Judaism than to other religions.”

The Vatican commission produced the new document to mark the 50th anniversary of a groundbreaking document on Catholic-Jewish relations, “Nostra Aetate,” in which the church rejected the notion that Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death. The new document describes the Torah as, “… the instruction for a successful life in right relationship with God.” The new document could also be a prelude to Francis visit to Rome’s Great Synagogue on January 17, 2016.

Until reforms in the 1960s, Second Vatican Council, prayers at Catholic Masses on Good Friday, described Jews as “faithless” and called for their conversion. In the past the church was clear on their belief that all Jewish people were guilty for Jesus' death. Many historians and theologians said the prayers and the collective guilt concept contributed to anti-Semitism and the unnecessary persecution of Jews.

In 2008, in response to requests from traditionalist Catholics who reject any theological dialogue with the Jewish religious leaders, Pope Benedict XVI allowed Catholics to return to using the old prayer used in the Tridentine Rite. Benedict tweaked the prayer slightly to refer to “the blindness of that people”, meaning the Jews. Many Jewish organizations still found the prayer offensive and it caused a mini-crisis between Jews and Catholics.

The latest Vatican document appears to be another step toward easing Jewish/Catholic tensions created in 2008 and it comes a week after a group of Orthodox rabbis issued a statement calling Christianity part of a divine plan in which God would have Jews and Christians work together to redeem the world.

The new Vatican document is more in line with the thinking of Pope Francis. Pope Francis has often called for collaboration between religions to obtain justice, peace, conservation and reconciliation. He has also repeatedly stressed that a Christian can never be an anti-Semite, especially because of the Jewish roots of Christianity. Pope Francis has definitely been more compassionate and open than Pope Benedict XVI. He has attempted to move the church further away from entrenched traditions that no longer serve a purpose.

Vatican-Israeli ties were strained again earlier this year when the Vatican signed an agreement recognizing the state of Palestine. The signing of that document damaged the prospects for advancing a peace agreement and slowed international effort to convince the Palestinian Authority to return to direct negotiations with Israel.

I welcome the attempt by my church, the Catholic Church, to improve Christian/Jewish relationships. I vigorously oppose what many in the Evangelical Christian churches are doing to entice vulnerable young Jews to convert to Christianity which is damaging Christian/Jewish relationships.

In some Evangelical Christian churches they do not have Sunday services they meet only on Friday evenings and Saturday mornings. I see this as a deliberate attempt to keep young Jews that are showing an interest in Christianity from attending Temple. They never have a cross or an altar in their meeting room. Instead, there is a Holy Ark with a Star of David adorning its velvet cover, and a stage for prayer services in the center of the sanctuary. The leader will wear the vestments of a Jewish Rabbi. I see their efforts as an attempt to make the young Jewish believers think there are no differences, are only slight differences, between Judaism and Christianity, which is not true.

In some Evangelical Christian congregations they greet each other with joyous shouts of “Shabbat Shalom” and “Baruch Hashem”. The meeting room is filled with the beat of a modern Israeli musical. These congregations are purposely designed to appear Jewish, but they are actually fundamentalist Christian churches which use traditional Jewish symbols to lure the most vulnerable of the young Jewish people into their ranks and their marketing ploys are proving to be successful.

These groups estimate they get 8,000 young Jews to cross over to the “Hebrew-Christian” movement each year. These fundamentalist Christians are unyielding in their commitment to convert Jews to their zealous brand of Christianity. There are an estimated 70 million fundamentalist Christians in America. The Southern Baptist Convention passed numerous resolutions encouraging its more than 15-million American members to target the Jewish people.

They can quote scripture to support their belief and there is scripture that can be used to support their belief. There is scripture that would just about support anyone’s belief. That is why one must read scripture with a critical mindset keeping in mind the historical time in which it was written.

I believe the Evangelical Christian goal is a selfish goal they are trying to hasten the coming of end time. Evangelical Christians widely believe that the mass conversion of the Jews will bring about Jesus’ “second coming”. They believe the Jews, in a sense, are holding up the second coming of Jesus.

A few decades ago, there were only a handful of Messianic congregations throughout the United States. But today, several hundred actively attract and recruit Jews who lack a sound Jewish education and support system. Their mission field is largely University Campuses. These young Jews, often away from home for the first time, are buying the manipulative rhetoric and persuasive techniques of the Hebrew-Christian missionary movement.

These Messianic congregations have been quite successful among all the most vulnerable segments of the Jewish community – the very young, the very old, and the former Soviet Union Jews.

There are over 1,000 Christian missions dedicated to converting the Jewish people. It is estimated that there are more than 250,000 Hebrew-Christians in North America and Israel.

The Roman Catholic Church is by far the largest denomination in Christendom. Yet, despite Rome’s past bitter relationship with the Jewish people, today’s Catholic Church is, for the most part, not interested in converting Jews. Mainline or liberal Protestant denominations, Methodist, Episcopalian, Unitarian, etc., are also not interested in converting Jews. The Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America and the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod has each adopted statements of conviction on the necessity of Jewish evangelism.

It is significant to me that Christianity swept through Europe almost overnight. The same is true for Latin America. Yet, the Jews, despite the unyielding persecution and the forced exile they have endured refuses to convert. This question has perplexed many of the Evangelical Fundamentalist so much that during the mid-1970’s they convened the most significant symposiums ever held in Switzerland and Thailand. They sought to unravel the mystery of why the Christian Church had been so unsuccessful in their efforts to convert the Jews and what new techniques could they employ to finally attract masses of new, unclaimed Jewish souls.

I could have told them Jewish people historically tend to equate Christianity with persecution. Jewish people often feel somewhat uncomfortable just hearing the words “Jesus Christ,” and when they see a Cross or a Church icon, it rarely conjures up warm, affectionate feelings. Jewish people tend to feel alienated by churches and its rituals. I am sure the Vatican’s position during World War II contributes to these feelings. It is my opinion the Vatican was more interested in protecting church property and priest in Germany than they were in protecting the Jews.

To overcome the Jewish people’s anti-Christian mindset the Evangelical Fundamentalist came up with a new strategy. The new sales pitch goes like this: When you’re becoming a believer in Jesus, you are not converting to another religion. On the contrary, you’re becoming a ‘fulfilled Jew’ or a ‘completed Jew.’ After all, Jesus was a Jew and his followers were Jewish; therefore, it stands to reason that believing in Jesus is the most Jewish thing you can do!

They also developed the slick idea of “Messianic synagogues,” that I discussed earlier in this piece, which are designed to look nothing like a church. They are deliberately built, furnished, and decorated to resemble a typical synagogue. They adopt Jewish holidays, for example you can watch on Christian television throughout the world and you will see Messianic congregations holding elaborate and well-publicized Passover Seders.

These groups shrewdly include Christian doctrines into the Messianic Passover Seder like: The matzah has stripes because Jesus had stripes across His back as a result of the scourging that he endured during his trial. The matzah is broken because Jesus was brutally broken on the cross. The matzah is wrapped in a white towel because Jesus was wrapped in a white burial shroud. The middle matzah is hidden because Jesus was hidden away in the tomb following his crucifixion. The matzah is brought back at the end of the meal because Jesus will return in the Second Coming at the End of Days. They claim this is all prophecy that Jesus fulfilled.

I believe God has called Christians to provoke Israel to jealousy—to draw Jewish people to the Messiah through our acts of love and kindness, speaking out against anti-Semitism and by doing so we will introduce the Jewish people to the Messiah. I personally do not seek to make Jewish converts. I prefer to let my life introduce these people to the Messiah. I let my life speak for me, while I pray and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.

 

 

Why do Filipinos ask are you Catholic or Christian?

 

Catholicism is a denomination, and is, therefore, a subset of Christianity. All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics. A Christian refers to a follower of Jesus Christ who may be a Catholic, Protestant, Gnostic, Mormon, Evangelical, Anglican or Orthodox, or follower of another branch of the Christian religion.

Once again I had a man ring my door bell and when I went to the gate he said, “Sir, are you Catholic or a Christian.” My reply, “Sir I am a Christian Catholic.”

The Catholic Church is the largest of the Christian Churches - about 60% of Christians are Catholic. Catholics are expected to participate in the liturgical life, celebrate and revere Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and celebrate seven sacraments Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, Anointing of Sick, Holy Orders and Confession.

Catholics use the same Bible as Protestant Christian, but we do have some additional books.  The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented in the 16th century. There was no Bible until 397 when the Catholic Church decided on what books belong there. Before that there were hundreds of letters and the Septuagint. Even the word Bible is not in the Bible. It was coined by Catholics. It means books.  We believe in the Virgin Birth. We acknowledge the resurrection of Christ. We believe in the ascension of Jesus Christ. We believe in the second coming of Christ. We even celebrate Mass (services) every day of the week not just one, two or three times a week. We believe that mankind needs forgiveness of sins and the Father sent his Son to save humanity from sin. We believe in eternal life, hell and heaven. We believe Jesus Christ made salvation possible. We believe in the Ten Commandments. We believe in the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit – one God.  "Trinity" is a Catholic doctrine that predates the Evangelical community by 1200 years. That word isn't even in the Bible.

When I first came to the Philippines ten years ago I had to scratch my head for a few moments because it never occurred to me that some people didn't think Catholics are Christian. I did not know if Catholics in the Philippines were being taught they were not Christians or that Protestants in the Philippines were teaching that Catholics were not Christian. I have a big problem with any organization that says "Catholics are not Christians," because they are ignoring the history of Christianity. The name Christian predates all Protestant and Evangelical Churches by over a millennium.

The Bible didn't fall out of the sky, spiral bound with a King James Version sticker on it. It has a rich Catholic history.

I even had one ask me if you are Christian then why do you say you are Catholic. That is when I started saying I am a ‘Christian Catholic’. But, to that person and other like him I ask you why do Protestant Christians say they are Baptists, Pentecostals, United, Methodist, or even nondenominational instead of simply saying I am a Christian? The word Catholic was used by the year 110 A.D. to distinguish the Church of the Apostles from heretical teachings. It means ‘universal’.

The modern Evangelical movement is a result of numerous splits that occurred after the Reformation, in the 1500's. Protestant is a word that came from some Christians protesting the teachings and rules of the Catholic Church. The only other Churches not to be in union with Rome before that are the Orthodox Church which split off in 1054 A.D.  For over 1000 years there was only one Church – the Catholic Church. Whether or not someone agrees with Catholic doctrine is their choice. But all who look at history honestly will admit that Catholics are clearly Christian.

I am disturbed even more by Catholics who will say “I am not a Christian, I am Catholic.”  There are Catholics living on my street that say that. To many Catholics, the terms “Christian” and “Protestant” are synonymous.

I am not saying that Catholics and Protestant interpret the Bible the same way. I am not saying all their doctrines agree. I am not saying Catholics and Protestants are in complete unity regarding their teachings. I am not saying Catholics are right or Protestants are right. I am not saying Catholics are wrong or Protestants are wrong. Quite honestly, I think both are right on some issues and wrong on some issues. I do not agree with all the doctrine of any ‘denomination’.

The Roman Catholic Church is indeed a Christian Church, and Roman Catholics are Christians. I agree with Alan Schreck when he says, “Satan has been able to use lack of understanding (both among Catholics and others) to divide Christians from one another and to divert their attention and energies away from proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ and advancing his kingdom on earth.”

Some Christians believe:

•Roman Catholics don’t believe that Jesus is raised from the dead - some people mistakenly think this because of the prominence of the crucifix in Roman Catholic Churches

Some Christians believe:

•Roman Catholics worship Mary and other saints. If any Catholics are they are not following the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Some Christians believe:

•Roman Catholics believe they can save themselves apart from the work of Christ.

Some Christians believe:

•Roman Catholics believe that only Roman Catholics are saved.

I suggest before you start evangelizing for your denomination and trying to covert Catholics to Protestants you know what Catholics believe, not what you have been told they believe! I would give the same warning to Catholics, but frankly I unfortunately do not know any Catholics that try to get people to attend church with them.

Do Trump's actions say he is a Christian?

There was a time when I thought I could and would support Trump, but those days have come and gone. I resent him trying to use Christians to get votes.

Recently, Donald Trump sat down with Christian Broadcasting Network’s (CBN) David Brody and brought up his religion. Trump talked about his relationship with God, the church, the Bible, his being a Presbyterian, and his commitment to attending church.

Trump said: “I believe in God. I am Christian. I think The Bible is certainly, THE book. It is THE thing. The Bible is my favorite book. I was raised and I gave you a picture of my confirmation just now and perhaps you’ll use that picture (Trump is always looking for additional media coverage) I found it from a long time ago

First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica queens is where I went to church. I’m a protestant, I’m a Presbyterian (in past interviews before running for president he said he belong to the Reform Church of America). And you know I’ve had a good relationship with the church over the years. I think religion is a wonderful thing. I think my religion is a wonderful religion.”

As I watch the interview, it seemed that Trump struggled to talk about his faith and even stumbles to articulate his beliefs. But, just how genuine was this interview?  When you read the above transcript it looks genuine, but his demeanor in the video was strange.

He mentions how he always goes to church on Christmas and Easter… wow, big commitment there: “Well, I go as much as I can, always on Christmas, always on Easter, always when there’s a major occasion (weddings and funerals I guess) and during the Sundays. I’m a Sunday church person. I’ll go when I can” (I noticed he did not say how often he has attended in the last year).

Trump is pandering to the Christian right to solicit support for his run for the presidency. He is testing the waters to see if the religious right responds well to his faith statements. The fact that this interview occurred on CBN tells it all.  Why was it not done on CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX or MSNBC? Trump targeted his interview to conservative Christians, who make up the majority of the CBN audience.

Even CBN’s analysis wanted to connect Evangelicals with Trump: “Brody’s File analysis stated: “Donald Trump has piqued the interest of some Evangelical leaders. His bold talk is something conservative Christians like to hear. Remember, Evangelicals tend to operate in a world of Biblical absolutes. Their world is very black and white. Not many shades of gray. That’s how Trump sees the world too.”

It’s great that Trump is a Christian and makes a point to mention it, but I question his timing. Why didn’t he mention it 5 or10 years ago? Well, for one, he was not thinking about running for president.

I certainly commend and respect Trump for talking about his faith, but I would have preferred he did it when it didn’t profit him personally. I would prefer that we knew Donald was a Christian by his actions and not his words.

Trump says he collects Bibles. He saves them and stores them because he would never do anything negative to a Bible. I would prefer he read ‘one’ Bible than have hundreds in a collection.

Trump said on CNN he's never sought forgiveness for his sins. Please explain how you can be a Christian and not have sought forgiveness for your sins. We all sin and we all need to repent and seek forgiveness.

Trump said, "People are so shocked when they find out I am Protestant. I am Presbyterian. And I go to church and I love God and I love my church.” People would not be shocked if he was actually living his faith. They would have known he was a Christian by his actions.

Trump said, “He thinks the Bible is ‘THE’ book”, yet he says, “He does not think God is all into that asking for forgiveness stuff” – what Bible is he reading? Trump believes he does not need to ask for forgiveness because he takes ‘communion’ – WOW!  The call to confession and the need for forgiveness are central to the entire Christian tradition, and particularly to the Reformed and Presbyterian versions of it. In the Presbyterian (USA) Book of Common Worship there is a prayer for repentance and forgiveness, “A Service for Repentance and Forgiveness”.

Trump said, "When I drink my little wine -- which is about the only wine I drink -- and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed (again he avoided saying how often), I think in terms of 'let's go on and let's make it right.” Sound to me like he takes partaking communion really seriously. He talks of it with such reverence.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote, forgiveness without repentance, like communion without confession, is not the real thing.

Although the United States Constitution disallows a religious test for holding public office Americans have always been interested in the religious beliefs and practices of their national leaders ever since Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Among announced candidates for the 2016 race, seven are Catholics, while four are Southern Baptist.

Norman Vincent Peale once said he saw in Trump kindness and courtesy and a trait some missed—“a profound streak of honest humility.” Sorry Vincent I missed that to!

It appears that Donald Trump has apparently decided that claiming the Bible is his favorite book isn’t enough to earn him the continued support of the more religious elements of the Republican Party. He has summoned dozens of influential evangelical Christian leaders to a meeting at Trump Tower in New York City for a ‘prayer’ meeting. I wonder how often he has done that in the past.

Trump the thrice-married former reality television star, once a supporter of abortion rights, purveyor of pageants that parade scantily clad teenage girls in front of television cameras, the man whose name is emblazoned on casinos around the world is currently leading the Republican field among the most deeply religious segment of the GOP electorate.

Money has defined Trump during the 30-plus years he has spent in the public eye. He frequently brags of his billions, and even sued a journalist who had the nerve to question whether those 10-figure pronouncements were severely inflated.

What does Trump do with his money?  Internal Revenue Service returns dating back to 1990 reveals that Trump, the Trump Foundation’s president, may be the least charitable billionaire in the United States. From 1990 through 2009, Trump has personally donated a total of just $3.7 million to his foundation, which was incorporated in 1987. In fact, the billionaire is not even the largest contributor to his own charitable organization. During the past two decades, the Trump foundation has made charitable contributions totaling a paltry $6.7 million to help those in need. This is not much for a man that bragged before he started running for President, “I have seven billion f---ing dollars in the bank.” Does a Christian really talk like that - Donald  Trump does?

Trump’s small donations have also been dwarfed by the charitable contributions of Leona Helmsley; she was the hotel owner whom Trump took great pleasure in mercilessly attacking for being cheap. Helmsley, who died in 2007, left billions to her charitable trust, which last month alone made donations totaling $12.93 million or nearly twice what Trump’s foundation has donated in the past 20 years.

In 2006, Trump’s foundation did give $1000 to the New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Fund, a controversial Scientology program (co-founded by Tom Cruise) that promoted a “purification rundown” for firemen and others who inhaled toxins while working near the smoldering remains of the World Trade Center.

Donald Trump’s religious pandering should insult the intelligence of Christians. I really don’t like it when candidates mislead people about the sincerity of their religious beliefs. Tell us the truth, either you are dedicated to your faith or you are not. Don’t lie about it in order to win votes.

Now that Trump has shown me his true colors I do not know who I will vote for. In the beginning I was eager to get behind Trump, but no more.

I did not think Megan Kelly of Fox News was fair to Donald Trump during and after the first Fox debate, but she obviously knew more about him than I did at the time. She probably knew he needed to be exposed and that she had a responsibility as a journalist to do so.

All I have stated about Donald Trump is fine and good, but the real question is - DOES OUR ACTIONS SAY WE ARE CHRISTIANS?

 

What do you think of politicians who use religion to try and win elections?

Donald Trump knew exactly what he was doing when he said, “I’m Presbyterian, boy, that’s down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don’t know about. I just don’t know about.” He was attempting to alienate evangelical Christian voters in Iowa, who like Dr. Ben Carson. In painting a religion as unknown, Trump seems to me to be suggesting there must be something wrong with Carson’s faith. Trump or his advisors knew that Evangelical Christian’s are a bit suspicious of the Mormon and Seven-day Adventist faith.

The church of Carson’s choice has already touched and will continue to touch the lives of millions of faithful followers around the world, even if Trump is ignorant of the denomination. They own and operate hospitals and clinics. In fact The Adventist lifestyle, which encourages abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and meat, is credited with extending lifespan. Studies have proven that those that follow the Adventist lifestyle live on average seven years longer.

In addition to providing excellent medical care the Adventists maintain a large education system, from kindergarten through postgraduate. They train approximately 1.8 million students around the world at any given time.  The low-cost, high-quality Adventist education is often a way up to escape poverty, especially in Third World countries.

Adventism is a Protestant Christian faith granted somewhat different from Trump’s Presbyterian religion. They worship on Saturday instead of Sunday as all Christians did until the Catholic Church selected Sunday as the Sabbath. They use the same Bible as all other Protestant denominations. They strongly believe that religious liberty belongs to all people, everywhere. They do not believe any writings should take preference over the Bible.

Donald Trump’s comment demonstrated his ignorance, but I am sure there are millions of Adventist that would like to inform him about their faith.  Donald Trump is not the first nor will he be the last who will try to use religion to win elections or destroy opponents. Politicians in Singapore created racial and religious riots in the 1960s. The religious issue is used often in Malaysia in an attempt to win elections. I am Republican, but I have to be honest it seems to me that the Republicans play the God card more than the Democrats. Most politicians would use almost anything, God included, to win elections and to maintain power.

Instead of using God and religion to divide us, I would like to see politicians use religion to unite us.  Christianity according to Jesus is to be used to unite and not divide. I am tired of politicians who have probably never studied the Bible using O.T. scriptures to try and influence voters. My party the Republican Party has been cherry-picking from the Old Testament for years to bash gays and justify capital punishment. If I am not mistaken Christianity began with the words, actions and life of Jesus, not Leviticus and Exodus. The use of Old Testament Biblical scripture to justify a "moral agenda" for America is clearly wrong.

A general lack of Biblical and Christian understanding on the part of Americans has allowed the GOP to present itself as "God's Official Party." The reality is that any reading and interpretation of the New Testament will show that Jesus was not conservative, nor Republican.

Our Founders were correct when they proclaimed that the separation of church and state is paramount for our government. The invoking of God and Jesus Christ by our elected representatives is shameful, but not as shameful as Americans who believe that Jesus-God would take sides in a political debate.