Tag Archive: religion


Hang on, y’all. We’re about to get “churchy” up in here. I am going to write about sins and whether the original sin is THE original sin, which we are all stuck with as our own sin, or if it’s just the original (meaning first) sin.

It all starts out in the Garden of Eden. We see that Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit. Then, God comes back to the garden. He knows they’ve sinned, they can’t deny it. He’s, shall we say, less than enthused. There are consequences. Here’s the question:

“Does Adam and Eve’s sin flow down to us, becoming our sin, too? Or are we just at the mercy of the consequences of their sin?”

This is where we have to look at the nature of sins. If a man sins, does his son have to plead for forgiveness to God for his father’s sin, as if he (the son) committed it? Not according to the Bible. Jesus regularly said to people who their sins were forgiven them. Never once did he say, “Thy sins and the sins of thy parents, which are on thy head, are forgiven thee.” Why should the sin of our first parents or any other ancestors be any different?

Do we have to repent for David scheming and murdering to wed Bathsheba? No. Do we have to repent for Solomon taking many wives and concubines and forgetting his God? No. Do we have to repent for Peter denying the Christ three times before the cock crowed? No. Why? They were not our sins. We didn’t choose to commit them…they did. And, He clarifies this in Deuteronomy 24:16:

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Thus, we can equally say that Adam’s sin not our sin, but we are at the mercy of the consequences of his choice. We read in Romans, chapter 5, that because of Adam’s choice, sin and death entered the world. Well, that means that we are mortal, and we can each sin. Being mortal and being able to sin does not mean that we are born with one sin already committed. It means we are born into a body that WILL die, and that we are capable of sin.

See, God is big on agency…free will…making choices. If we TRULY don’t know something is a sin, it’s not a sin. We read in John 9:41:

“Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”

We also see that God gave humans, from the first, free will – meaning, He would give commandments, but they had the capacity to do whatever they wanted – and experience consequences for actions. In Genesis 2: 16-17, we read:

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

If we, as humans, could not choose our actions (have free will, otherwise known as agency), then their hands would have been stayed from being able to take the fruit even off the tree, and each of our hands would be stayed from committing our sins. However, because they could act as they wished, they chose to disobey the Lord, after buying the lies of the Lucifer. The consequence is that they became mortal (in that day, they would begin their death), and that sin was introduced into the realm of possibility for everyone. There was never any discussion of their children already being born with this sin on their heads, only the real consequences of the first parents’ actions.

For those of you who think I’m full of baloney, here’s what ya do. Ponder this, search the scriptures, have a real desire to know the truth, and read James 1. Then, pray earnestly for the Holy Ghost to testify of the truth of the matter to your heart. Voila! And, have a lovely day. 😀

In Obamacare, we find that if someone is of some particular religion, that must be disregarded when they are running their business. They must, even if they object on moral grounds, to offer birth control in the health plans to their employees. Many seem to think this is okay, and, in light of some Supreme Court cases, that seems to be the trend.

But, all we have to do is look at the first amendment to see that this is wrong. It’s simple English: The Congress cannot make any law that prohibits (restricts) the free exercise of religion.

first amendment

Let’s not worry right now about free speech, press, or assembly. This is about religion. Now, it’s clear that CONGRESS ONLY is not allowed to “make [any] law prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The state governments are not denied this. They ARE denied some things, and those items are listed in Article I, Section 10. There are only a few things denied to the states, such as not being able to, as individual states, enter into treaties with foreign governments. It’s a logical list.

Now, you might be all up in arms about this saying that there can be NO restriction on speech or religion!! But, states make laws about slander and libel, and they can outlaw Satanic rituals. That makes sense, and keeps society civil. However, Congress cannot make laws about slander and libel. They also cannot regulate religion.

So, the Congress cannot make ANY law in regards to the free exercise of religion, even telling businesses what type of health care insurance they have to provide to their employees.

If this is not enough to make you understand and be persuaded to see the truth of my argument, let’s turn the tables and see how this works on the reverse. If you are an atheist, and you do want to provide your employees with health insurance that covers birth control, but Congress makes a law that this is illegal. Regardless of your personal beliefs, you cannot offer that type of health insurance. Is that right? No. And, neither is it right to force those who don’t want to offer this to do so.

Another argument is that the employees do not have the right to choose. But, that choice was made when they agreed to work at a business that is run by a certain religion. If I applied for a job where I knew the proprietors were Scientologists, I might not be surprised when they don’t offer health insurance for antidepressants. Since when am I forced to work for them? I’m not, and neither are the people who work for Catholics.

The right of conscience, the ability to live your life, in all spheres, according to your beliefs, is a foundational right in this country. Only when your beliefs infringe on the rights of others can the STATES intervene. For instance, if your religion believes that if a child misbehaves, that the parents can kill the child, this is an illegal act and will be considered a crime, even though it’s in your belief system. This is because the child’s right to life is not to be taken from them. That can only happen legally if they have been convicted of crimes suitable for the death penalty, or if some individual kills them in self-defense. States have the duty to protect the inalienable rights of their citizens. If you are confused about what a right is, or whether health care insurance is a right (hint: it’s NOT), please see my blog about rights.

This bill was passed by the SCOTUS because they said the government has a right to tax its people. Even if we ignore the fact that the tax is on NOT doing something (one of the “taxes” is for those who don’t get what the government deems proper insurance), the ruling totally ignored the first amendment rights  of all individuals to exercise their religion, even in the public square. The amendment does not read, you see, “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion], unless you open a business or are out in public.”

Get a copy of my book about The Declaration of Independence by clicking the link on the right. That document is the premise for our country, and everyone needs to read it. Now, it’s Made Easy! Get your copy today!

Imagine, if you will, that it’s 1944. Some brave military personnel have killed a high Nazi officer. They are American soldiers that fought valiantly and America sings their praises. Sadly, there was a helicopter crash that, amazingly enough, kills about 20 of them. On the aircraft were some 7 Germans that died, as well. They have a funeral, and the American government tells them that, along with their Rabbi (the men were Jewish), they must allow a German priest to speak.

When the German priest speaks, he states that the Jews will not go to heaven because they are not Aryan. They are not equal to the Germans who died in this fight. The Germans will go to heaven and the infidels will go to Hell.

How do you think Americans would have responded to that? I’m guessing there would have been outrage! And, rightfully so.

So, why is it that the MSM is silent about a Muslim cleric doing this to the Christian Seal Team Six members who were killed in a helicopter crash after they took out Osama Bid Laden?

Imam Damns Seal Team to Hell During Funeral Prayer: The Blaze

(Image from AP)

Koran

Alright, there have been some who call themselves the Christian Left or whatever who seem to think that Jesus would have approved of their redistribution of wealth policies. However, that cannot be so because the very teachings of Jesus and his apostles beg to differ.

 

Romans 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

Ephesians 4: 28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

 

These scriptures are all stating that it is not okay to steal. It’s wrong, and thus a sin. But, how can one steal if there is no private property?

 

In Socialism (collective ownership of goods), there is no private property, which contradicts the sin of theft. How can you steal that which does not belong to any one person?

 

In redistribution of wealth, the money is forcibly taken by threat of jail by the government from one to give to another. Some say this is charity, but forcibly taken is theft. Theft is sin. It cannot be charity.

 

Jesus would not condone sinful behavior. Period. Therefore, Jesus never condoned redistribution of wealth (though he said we must individually give of our own will), nor did he condone theft of any kind.

 

In order to steal, one must first own the property. So, turns out, Jesus is a proponent of private property and individual ownership. When we do not give of our bounty willingly, as individuals, we will face HIM. No government action can make someone charitable because it starts within our own hearts, not within the IRS.

%d bloggers like this: