CARNAL CRIMES CONDONED IN CANADA

Red Deer Advocate, April 9^th, 2011. If you are, or if someone you love is, sexually assaulted, you don’t want the perpetrator to just walk away without doing time, do you? If the villain is judged in Canada, he has about a 50% chance of being just that lucky. And if he gets any jail time at all, that will be of short duration in a facility full of creature comforts, not to mention luxuries: like barbells to make him strong, television to entertain and further corrupt him, and cigarettes to maintain his bad attitude.

Why is Canada like this? By voting in politicians like Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Chretien, Canadians have paved the road that sex offenders walk upon, unmolested, outside the prisons they deserve to spend so much time in. The norm in this country, for a long time now, has been to judge sex offenders lightly or not all. Voters elect morally weak politicians who are for rehabilitating criminals instead of punishing them; the politicians draw up legislation to suit that philosophy; liberal-minded judges are appointed by these politicians to put into practice their ‘judge not’ ideology; and the criminals are free to continue their carnal crimes against Canadian citizens. That’s how it works. And then a runaway Supreme Court is hard even for Ottawa to reign in. Indeed, mandatory minimums have been struck down even by the lower courts.

We must turn our judicial system into the right way: actual and adequate punishment for crimes committed. If persons with mortal contagion ought to be quarantined for the safety of everyone else, why should sex offenders not be locked up for the same reason? God will lock every rebel up in a cell called hell come judgment day. Rebels against decent conduct and moral order ought to be locked up by us until then. That we have no room nor money to imprison criminals is an absurd objection, for Canada wastes piles of money on less important matters and there is room enough in the tundra to house all the criminals on the planet. Why not go so far as to build a penitentiary for prisoners from around the world? That would go over well the world over and criminals from far and wide would be safe from all the torture techniques they would otherwise be subject to back home. And hard labor would instill a sorely needed work ethic and furnish the capital that it takes to run such a facility, or facilities.

If you are a citizen who supports the notion that sex offenders ought to go unpunished, and therefore be permitted to walk freely among the people at the risk of every person they next come into contact with, you may not be adversely affected. You could be, of course, for you, or maybe some member of your family, could be next to suffer at the hands of a fiend. Your support of lawlessness, either through your vote, your voice, or your silent unconcern, will affect you very largely in the end. “What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him?” (Job 31.4.) Support, wherever and whenever you can, the ‘outdated’ notion that sexual assault is a crime that should be punished by the judges (Job 31.11.) The righteous Job, so highly commended by God (Job 1.1), is on the side of punishment, not rehabilitation (which is often just a euphemism for letting the offender go unpunished.) ‘Conditional sentence’ and ‘house arrest’ are other euphemisms for acquittal. It would not be convenient for judges to call such sentences what they in fact are, for citizens, especially those who have been victimized, would then demand that we rehabilitate the judges. Be on the side of the righteous. Be for the prevention of sexual assault by the punishment of predators who commit the carnal crimes that are presently condoned in Canada.

A QUEER CAUSE CARRIES THE DAY IN CANADA

Red Deer Life, May 13^th, 2012; Red Deer Advocate, May 20^th, 2012. I haven’t watched a beauty pageant since about a dozen years ago (which is not long enough.) Does anyone believe that a beauty contestant is the most beautiful woman in the region she represents? Every time you go downtown, in the city or town or even village you live in, you see a woman more beautiful than the one you just saw on television. Contestants for pageants are determined by the whims and fancies of a few persons. As whims and fancies evolve to suit the ‘progressive’ values of our society, it is certain that pageants must eventually become circuses. Eating disorders and plastic surgeries are just as likely to win you a crown today as natural beauty and fitness. It won’t be long before a completely manufactured woman (like a man made to look like one) will win, not just compete in, a major beauty pageant. Queer causes must prevail in societies wherein the politically correct crowd always wins the ear of persons in charge.

It is a short step from calling this queer (word used in the original sense) contestant ‘hot’ (which some men have done) to confessing a homosexual proclivity. This queer contestant is nothing but a man. And I am glad that a pageant makes itself look ridiculous by its own political correctness. Now men may compete alongside women. They just have to look the part they are pretending to be. I do not see this ‘transgendered’ person competing in a pageant for women as a victory for men, though, for normal men would never push for a chance to compete among women. But it is a victory for those of us who want pageants to implode through bombs of their own making. If queer agendas go much farther, beauty pageants will become pageants about nothing specific, and shows lacking direction and focus are not likely to survive for long.

What if this contestant became born again by the power of God? What could he (I refuse to call him she) conscientiously do but live the celibate life of a eunuch? What could he do but bewail his fate, as Jephthah’s daughter did (though we doubt that he would have cause to bewail his virginity.) It is a sad pickle he has gotten himself into. There will be (mark my words) no happy lifetime partnership for him.

‘Beauty is vain,’ the Bible says (Proverbs 31.30.) It is an empty possession and pursuit. This includes all outward beauty, be it natural or manufactured. It is a remarkable fact, and totally in line with what we should expect, that Jesus, when he came to save, possessed ‘no beauty that we should desire him’ (Isaiah 53.2) He who came to save the soul would not be hindered through attracting sinners to his looks. We are not to trust in our own beauty (Ezekiel 16.15), nor even in the physical beauty of Jesus (as many do through depictions of him, which is idolatry.) We are to trust in what is naturally repulsive to us: the shed blood of a Man who was not pretty to look upon but who was the beauty of holiness incarnate.

“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15.50.) Beauty that is made of flesh and blood comes to corruption, and cannot inherit Bliss Above. We must be justified through Christ’s blood (Romans 5.9.) Blood is gory; but blood that saves is beautiful. To trust in Jesus’ blood is to trust in his death for your sins. Once that is done, your sins are washed away, and the gate of heaven must open up for you, and you must gain access to a pageantry fit for those who have been made ‘meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light’ (Colossians 1.12.) 

A BEAST AND A BABE

Red Deer Advocate, March 2^nd, 2012. What strikes the eye as we survey this sorrowful piece of news? Lots of love and concern for a beast, but not one affectionate word about the babe killed by it! This is not just the fault of whoever wrote the article, though he is to blame. The parents of the dead babe are no doubt blameworthy as well. The family pet, they are anxious to inform us, was put down under careful, professional supervision!

Immoderate love for ‘family pets’ is a widespread phenomenon: offers from across Canada to save the beast that just killed the newborn baby! Yes, that would make a nice pet over by the fireplace! He just mauled the defenseless infant to death, so let’s adopt him, poor thing!

Through lust for luxuries and mindless entertainment the people of this country have become increasingly ignorant of the Bible. Because of this, their behaviors and affections have become disordered. Basic distinctions are no longer regarded, if known at all; indeed, they scarcely apply.

The Bible will always set you right on the basics of life. It will do so on this present phenomenon of loving family pets. It would do every child well, if, long before the family pet dies, he has been informed that the pet should be liked but not loved, and that the pet is a lower animal form: what the Bible commonly calls a ‘beast.’ Anything less than wrath and outrage toward a beast that kills, maims, disfigures, or even bites a babe is unacceptable, unbiblical, cold, and unloving to humanity.

Both man and beast are liable to death (Ecclesiastes 3.19.) God waters the beasts of the earth (Psalm 104.11.) He feeds them too (Psalm 147.9.) None of this needs proof from the Bible. Experience soon teaches us these things. But while man is allowed dominion over all beasts (Genesis 1.26), he is commanded to especially care for certain of them, like those that do him service. “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” (Deuteronomy 25.4.) And man has it in him to care for his beast (Proverbs 12.10.) Observe, though, that in this proverb, the regard a righteous man has for his beast is only mentioned to set that low affection in contrast with how cruel wicked men are. And observe, too, that the command to feed the working ox is written down with a higher purpose in mind: as a reminder to sustain the laboring minister of God’s Church (1 Timothy 5.18.) Not to say that comedy pulpiteers ought to be supported, mind you, but only the few ministers who minister the knowledge and wisdom of God to God’s people.

Dogs, by nature, are beasts, nothing more, no matter how cute and ‘smart’ some of them are. To love a pet as a family member is to set a creature possessing life and sense (the wherewithal to smell, see, and hear) on the same level as a creature possessing life, sense, and reason (the ability to contemplate and make logical distinctions.) It is a foolish error, and a repugnant one. Once your beast kills your babe, the wellbeing of your beast is no longer an issue to be concerned with. I remember when people were more sensible, not extraordinarily noble or moral, but more sensible than what is now the norm. The neighbor’s dog bit the face of the owner’s daughter back in 1975 or so. That dog ceased to be the ‘family pet’ the moment that happened. The dad (or it might have been the son) promptly took the dog out back and shot him dead. The family soon learned that a family pet is a beast whose rights are nothing but temporary, precarious privileges.

Whatever animates the dog or beast is of a lower order than what animates man. “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward [not necessarily up into heaven], and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth” (Ecclesiastes 3.21.) Too many people know too little of the difference between man and beast. We know this at least and for sure: dogs are beasts, not humans. Now if that man deserves to die who sheds the blood of man (Genesis 9.6), is it reasonable to extend compassion to a ravaging beast? We need to distinguish between man and beast, love and like, and right and wrong. Babes and beasts are not created alike; they are not to be treated alike. Biting dogs need to be put down without delay and without mercy. Who knows, maybe this dog had bitten before. Maybe danger signs were seen but ignored. More carefulness would have preserved the baby’s life. We can say at least that. If you’re going to have a beast and a babe at the same time in the same house, then it should go without saying that the beast that you choose to have as your ‘family pet’ should be too small to pose a danger to the babe. 

THE CONGREGATION OF SAINTS

Red Deer Life, February 19^th, 2012.  In Psalm 106.16 we read, “They envied Moses also in the camp, and Aaron the saint of the LORD.” Here is one of the only verses in the Bible where one man of God seems to be singled out beside another as a saint. The apparent distinction seems to agree with the distinction that Roman Catholics believe exists between one Christian and another. One is a Christian, it is believed; but this other one is a saint. I’m not saying that any Roman Catholic believes that Aaron is being singled out as a saint in this verse, over and above what Moses was. I’m just saying that this verse is the closest thing I can find in the Bible to support a distinction of saint and non-saint among the people of God. If this is a ‘straw man’ situation, then it is for a good cause: to show that even in the verse in which a man of God seems to be singled out as a saint beside his fellow man of God, there is really no such distinction to be found there, but only an appearance without substance, which is what Roman Catholic sainthood is.

Aaron is not elevated here as if he were greater and holier than Moses. It is not being implied that Aaron is a saint, while Moses is not. Aaron’s priesthood is being singled out in this instance, for he was especially set apart to minister sacrifices to God. Those who are even vaguely familiar with the history of these two men know that Moses, because of the superior degree of his virtues, far exceeded Aaron in the estimation of God. It would be odd for anyone to contest this. Probably no one has. Moses was singled out by God as the meekest man alive. This was done during the event of Aaron’s rebellion for authority over Moses (Numbers 12.3.) Both Moses and Aaron were saints of God. It will surprise most Roman Catholics, no doubt, to know that saints, whole congregations of them, lived in Old Testament times, even a thousand years and more, before a pope existed to canonize any! “Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, his praise in the congregation of saints” (Psalm 149.1.) And then, the New Testament shows that saints are not just people, here and there, canonized through the word of a pope. Salute ‘every’ saint, says the apostle Paul, before closing his letter to the Philippian church (Philippians 4.21.) In the next verse, he sends a salutation from the saints on his end. Many saints, I think, before any pope came into being! And many more saints than the popes all put together have canonized! If any person canonized by a pope is a saint, it is not by virtue of the pope’s declaration, but coincidental with what God has caused. The fact that saints existed before popes came into being should convince anyone, if anything will, that it takes no pope to make a saint.

The definition of a saint is ‘awful thing’: something inspiring awe. Why is that? Because the person called a saint is something? No, but because God has made something out of a sinner. A saint is a sinner saved by the power of God. To be transferred from the kingdom of darkness into that of light is an awful thing. The saint inspires awe, also, because of the change in his character and views. Regeneration from God causes him to have a change of heart on moral issues, like abortion, fornication, and gender roles. Many liberals are awestruck, are they not, when a fellow liberal suddenly turns against abortion on account of a turn toward God? This change of thought happens through the knowledge of God’s Book that the newly minted saint has become eager to learn about. The saints are people of whom it is said, “that keep the commandments of God” (Revelation 14.12.) Genuine faith in Jesus has this effect. Yes, they still sin, but on large issues like life, they become quite dogmatic and stubborn, don’t they? Upon regeneration and because of their active trust in the Redeemer of their souls, the saints of God are people who search the Scriptures for news of heritage, direction, and comfort. They soon learn, and become righteously opinionated about ‘the faith which was once delivered unto the saints’ (Jude 3.) Since that faith respects life, saints become so steadfast on that important point as to inspire awe. But a pope-made saint (if one could be found alive) might be just as jealous for his opinion on an issue like that. So let’s examine sainthood a little more closely.

It is well known that Roman Catholics, including the priests, are ignorant of the Bible’s contents. Read about one of the ‘saints’ canonized by a pope and see if you can find much biblical knowledge in that biography. You will find much confusion, heresy, and superstition. For instance, how many of the pope’s ‘saints’ would know enough of the Bible to be able to connect saints and prayer in a biblical fashion practically? Are saints to be prayed to? What Roman Catholic would say no to this question that the Bible gives such a simple and clear answer to? Far from being the ones to be prayed to, saints are to be prayed for! The apostle Paul would have us ‘watching…with all perseverance and supplication for all saints’ (Ephesians 6.18.) ‘All’ saints need prayer, even saints who are apostles, for in the very next breath Paul says, ‘and for me.’ It is the ‘prayers of all saints’ that are offered on the golden altar before the throne, not ‘prayers to all saints made by the pope’ (Revelation 8.3.) If any of this conflicts with what the Apocrypha says, then a choice must be made between that and Revelation. But in truth, what Roman Catholic would even know where to turn in the Apocrypha to substantiate his beliefs? You see, saints are people who find out about what they say they believe; and they do research in order to determine, to their satisfaction, what books ought to be considered canonical.

Saints are those people of God who, out of zeal, desire to know their roots and offshoots. They desire to know how saints have fared since the close of God’s canon. Beside Revelation, Church history sits on their most treasured shelf. Roman Catholicism might be considered, until diligent inquiry is made, as the number one denomination and the only one holy enough and good enough to possess or make saints. Most Roman Catholics have heard of the Reformation and the Roman Catholic inquisitions that prompted it. But how many pursue the matter in order to find out the extent of, and the reasons for, these persecutions? The diligent seeker of religious truth will bore into history and find out. When he does, especially if his ancestry is Roman Catholic, he will be struck by the fact that the persecution of true saints was authorized by Roman Catholic hierarchy, and that such cruel edicts were widespread centuries before the 16^th century Reformation came to be.

“In brief, the various bloody assaults, to which the united Vallensic and Albigensic Church of the Cottian Alps was exposed, from an early part of the thirteenth century down to the latter part of the seventeenth century, comprising a term of nearly five hundred years, amount in number to about twenty-six, and consequently average about five in each century, or about one in every twenty years” (George Stanley Faber, The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, 1836, p. 252.)

The next quote (by the same author from the same book) shows what the persecuted thought of their persecutors and their Roman Catholic Church: “WHEREVER they went, the Albigenses, with no light hand, denounced alike the unscriptural errors and the personal profligacy of the Popish Clergy: while the Roman Church itself they pertinaciously stigmatized, as the blood-thirsty Harlot of the Apocalypse, or as the Synagogue of Satanic Apostacy to which the Papal Man of Sin, Antichrist ruling over Antichristianism, enacted the part of a head and ringleader” (p. 135.) That the Roman Catholic Church is the ‘blood-thirsty Harlot of the Apocalypse’ was not just the opinion of 16^th century Reformers.

You may be a saint (not one made by the pope, but a real one) and still so new to your studies that you have not walked away from whatever follies and blasphemies (like prayers to Mary and Masses for the dead) that the pope authorizes. The Scriptures teach sainthood to be something other than a distinction declared by the pope. This fact, all by itself, ought to make a Roman Catholic reconsider whether his Church is true. If the pope’s word is truth, then the Roman Church is true, and your chance of becoming a saint hinges on the whim of the pope. But the Bible shows that sainthood depends not on the pope, and so your chance of becoming a saint depends on whether God will do a secret regenerative act upon your heart or not.

Far from a Church that makes saints, the Roman Catholic Church is, if not ‘the’ woman in this passage, then at least ‘a woman’ who is ‘drunken with the blood of the saints’ (Revelation 17.6.) Her adherence to unbiblical beliefs instigated her history of bloody persecution. The saints of God have had to exercise patience for their reward: the end of persecution, which means ‘rest from her labours’ (Revelation 14.) Patience is made necessary by persecution; and Roman Catholicism’s persecution of saints is chief among all persecutions that have been unleashed in Christ’s name.

Imagine having died in 1680, like the woman in the article, then having to wait in the grave and purgatory until 1884 for the process of sainthood to begin, having to wait again until 1943 for the declaration of ‘venerable’ to happen, and then having to wait yet again until 1980 for ‘beatification’ to occur, which finally leads to your sainthood in 2012! Saints, according to the Bible, go through none of this, but are saints even before they die! “Salute every saint in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4.21.) You do not salute the dead, but the living. And far from having to rely on dubious claims of miracles being wrought by you in order to your being considered for the honor (“it has been claimed that her scars disappeared upon her death…sick people who attended her funeral were healed”), you can be a saint whose scars turn quickly to worse decay upon your death, for miracles are not required of saints (‘are all workers of miracles,’ 1 Corinthians 12.29.) Saints, by virtue of faith in the scars of Christ, have the promise of a resurrected, spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15.44.) Their bodies can retain scars until that Day comes. Their sainthood does not depend on scars being said to disappear upon death; much less does it depend upon any pope!