Archive for November, 2004

To and fro

Monday, November 22nd, 2004 at 8:53 pm

2 Chronicles 16:9 (KJV) For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.

Job 1:7 (KJV) And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Satan once again tries to copy God in his vain attempt to be as God. But notice a significant difference: Satan has to walk to get to any spot on the earth but God just has to move his eyes to see that spot. Before Satan can get to a spot, God is already there!

Posted in Quick Thoughts
by Gordy

How in the world?

Thursday, November 11th, 2004 at 8:33 pm

This past week I’ve read many articles about this election and how the ignorant, un-educated conservatives voted to re-elect President George W. Bush. I’m also seeing more articles appear about voting irregularities and schemes that gave President Bush more votes. Now, I’m one of those conservatives who voted for President Bush, so I’m wondering if anyone can help me figure this out. If the conservatives who voted for President Bush have such lower intelligence levels, then how in the world were they smart enough to rig this election with so many intelligent liberals keeping watch?

by Gordy

The Pursuit of Happiness

Wednesday, November 10th, 2004 at 8:37 am

In a post entitled “Behind The Beauty, Cracks Appear” Eric Meyer of CSS fame shared his thoughts about the recent election. While I have much respect for his work in CSS, he must not have the same zeal when it comes to understanding social issues. He apparently is very upset with the eleven states (including my home state of Ohio) which passed measures to prevent gay marriages. I admit upfront that I am what many may label an ultra-conservative. I live in Warren County where 72% of the voters gave their support to re-elect President George W. Bush. But putting aside labels, Eric Meyer is not looking at this issue logically.

…by enshrining your discomfort with homosexuality, you�ve done your level best to promote rampant homosexual promiscuity.Mr. Meyer states that “by enshrining your discomfort with homosexuality, you�ve done your level best to promote rampant homosexual promiscuity.” How does defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman promote promiscuity in anyone? Obviously, a legal paper hasn’t prevented promiscuity on the part of husbands and wives up to this point. Have you seen the latest divorce rates? Legal status has absolutely nothing to do with promiscuity. Holding a legal paper in your hand does not magically endow the holder of that paper with the ability to remain faithful. In today’s society, a marriage is just about as easy to end as it is to end a subscription to a newspaper. Saying couples need a license to be able to form long-term, committed relationships is just plain false.

Mr. Meyer then laments how conservatives have shattered the American dream of the pursuit of happiness. I really hope he is not trying to say that every citizen of this country should be unlimited in his or her pursuit of happiness – but that is how his statement seems. I’ve watched a few demolition derbies at the county fair. That looks like it would be fun to do and would make me happy. Does that mean I should be allowed to drive around on the streets and smash into cars? Why was John Wayne Gacy locked up for only doing that which made him happy? Polygamists are happy when they have multiple wives. Why is that prohibited? Men of NAMBLA are happy with little boys. Should we allow those men to pursue their happiness? My children are happy when I let them eat ice cream, cake, cookies, and candy. Am I keeping them from the American dream when I don’t let them eat those things all the time?

Mr. Meyer also quotes some statistics that state that 10% of the population is homosexual and then to make a point states the size of the homosexual population is roughly equivalent to the size of the Baptist population in the United States. First, I’ve seen studies that put the size of the homosexual population at 1% – not 10%. I know the first study that put the number at 10% has been widely discredited because it was conducted by a child molester – a sexual pervert (The Kinsey Report). Secondly, one can argue that the actual size of the homosexual population is 0%. That’s right. There is not a single homosexual. Those who label themselves as homosexual have taken polls about sexual fantasies. Every single one of these people admitted that one of his or her most erotic fantasies is one that involves a member of the opposite sex. So to be honest, these people are not homosexual at all if they have desires for the opposite sex. They may be bisexual but not homosexual.

Some countries in Europe have legalized gay marriage years ago and now we can see the results: less marriages and more children born out of wedlock. Using Mr. Meyer’s logic, less marriages mean less long-term committed relationships – the exact opposite of the intended result. Many studies have shown the importance of having a mother and father when raising children. Mr. Meyer recently had a child with his wife. I’m sure he’s begun to see the importance of having both male and female influences for his child. As the child ages, the importance will grow.

Have you ever wondered why a marriage license is even needed? I mean, what interest does the government have in who is allowed to get married? If you remember back long ago when blood tests were required you will begin to understand. The blood tests were performed to ensure that the couple were compatible for having children. The original purpose of marriage is to produce and raise children. Back in my grandparents day, teenage pregnancy wasn’t a problem – even without the prevalence of birth control. Back then, sex wasn’t about the couple – it was about having children. Back then, marriage was about having a family. Back then, when a girl got married, she expected to have children. Ever since the advent of the birth control pill, girls have been able to delay child-bearing. Marriage wasn’t necessarily about raising a family. The girl could now get married and have a career (I’m not saying girls should not have careers – I’m just showing how people’s attitudes have changed). Marriage started being less about family and more about the two individuals. Over time, fewer marriages produced children and the blood test was dropped as a requirement. Today, people don’t always equate having children with marriage. To them, marriage has nothing to do with children and that has brought us to the point today where some think it is OK for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. It’s all about the two getting married today. It’s all about what they want. Who cares if the foundation of a strong society is a strong family? Who cares if raising a child is best done by a mother and a father? Who cares if those kids raised by only one parent or by only one gender will be the leaders for the next generation? It’s all about the individuals’ pursuit of happiness, right? If I’m happy, who cares about what happens to society? This country could not survive a depression today like the one it saw in my grandparents day.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.As President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.” It’s time the citizens of this great country start looking out for what is best for our country, for our society, for our grandkids, and not just what is best for me. I’m more than willing to sacrifice a little personal happiness today so that future generations have a strong foundation to move forward. It’s time, my fellow Americans, that we stop being so selfish by looking at what will make us happy and we start looking at our children and our grandchildren and what kind of society we will leave them.

by Gordy

Inner Strength of President of George W. Bush

Monday, November 8th, 2004 at 4:26 pm

This is a great video about President Bush’s faith: watch the video: Inner Strength. It is about 28 minutes in length.

by Gordy

Moral Values

Monday, November 8th, 2004 at 3:13 pm

One liberal said that allowing poor people to prevent childbirth (i.e. free abortions) is a good moral choice because those people cannot afford to have a child.Most reports I see say this election was decided because of moral values and that has many on the liberal side trying to justify many of their positions as moral positions. One liberal said that allowing poor people to prevent childbirth (i.e. free abortions) is a good moral choice because those people cannot afford to have a child. Taking the life of an innocent child to save a few bucks is not a good moral choice. Others say that providing healthcare to those who do not have it is a good moral choice. I agree that helping those in need is indeed a good moral choice – but is it the government’s responsibility? Liberals will argue against legislating morality but isn’t that what government funded healthcare is? Taking care of the poor and needy is really the responsibility of the church – not the government. Most of those who are in favor of government funded healthcare are also in favor of abortion. How can those people say they are taking the moral high road when they are for killing innocent children?

Moral values must be in agreement with what God says.Moral values start with the utmost respect of life. Moral values must be in agreement with what God says. God is against hands that shed innocent blood. God is against the perversion of homosexuality. God is against adultery. God is against selling out for the sake of the pocketbook.

by Gordy

The choice is clear

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004 at 8:57 am

Who would you rather have: someone who thinks he is perfect and relies on his own abilities or someone who recognizes he is weak and relies on a perfect God?In many elections, I hear people say they are voting for the lesser of two evils. I’ve even said that myself. But in this election, I am not voting for the lesser of two evils but rather the one clear choice. I am voting to re-elect President George W. Bush. This may anger many supporters of President Bush, but I don’t always agree with every decision he makes. Nonetheless, I stand behind him in support not because he is perfect, but because he recognizes he is not perfect and that he recognizes he must rely on God. Who would you rather have: someone who thinks he is perfect and relies on his own abilities or someone who recognizes he is weak and relies on a perfect God?

As for me and my house, the choice is clear: we are voting to re-elect President George W. Bush.

by Gordy