I pray for them every night that God will keep them safe and protect them from the evils of this world, to avoid the temptations of the devil – smoking, drugs, alcohol, sex and criminal behaviour. I have prayed this prayer every night since they were born; I know God hears me because my girls are good kids. I have faith that God will keep them strong against peer pressure.

                At 13 and 16, if I were to die tomorrow I will miss their whole lives. What will they be when they grow up? They have changed their minds so many times. Who will they marry? They better treat them right. Will they have children? I want to be a Grandma some day so I don’t want to die tomorrow.

                I am afraid of suffering, and I’m afraid of leaving my children. But, I’m not afraid of dying. I know what awaits me on the other side. My father and brother will be there to meet me and escort me to Jesus’ side. My voice will become beautiful and I will sing like an angel. My body will be light and I will float on the clouds. There will be no more pain from illness and heartache. I will feel peace and joy.

                So why would anyone want to stay on this earth when such magical beauty awaits on the other side? Because our job here is not done. We were put on this earth for a reason. Even though I may question that reason every now and then, the real answer lies in the pages of a book, or two, or three… and in the faces of my daughters. They still need me, and I them.

What will you miss?

An atom.  Perhaps the smallest particle known to man.  Composed of a single nucleus with two electrons.  At first glance, it sounds simple enough.  It is a nucleus being orbited by two electrons.  How complex could that really be?  Maybe.  Look a little closer and you’ll find the nucleus consists of protons and neutrons.  A proton being a positively charged, subatomic particle, and a neutron having no charge, thence it’s name.  Furthermore, an atom is more specifically described as the smallest particle of an element that maintains the properties of that element.  When you think about all this, you begin to realize that atoms are the building blocks of life.  They come in numerous forms with likewise varying properties.  Yet, when it comes right down to it, all elemental forms of matter in this universe are composed of atoms.  This is rather remarkable.

Looking even closer at atoms, study shows that not all three of these subatomic particles, i.e. electrons, protons, and neutrons, are equal in weight, mass, and/or purpose.  To coin a phrase, they are not all created equal.  More specifically, a proton is 1,840 times heavier than an electron.  Whereas, the neutron is nearly equal in weight to the proton.  At this point, entertaining the thought that all of this came about by random chance seems unlikely.  Studying into atoms even more provides greater reason for questioning.  For example, consider the fact that electrons are not limited to one orbiting “layer”.  As a matter of fact, consider that there can be as many as four shells, or “layers”, of electrons.  Following through with this advanced study leads to the particles known as ions, isotopes and allotropes.  But why stop there?  Why limit your mind to such primitive information?  Continue following the science to learn of positive ions, negative ions and double-charged negative ions.  Then present yourself with the incredible study of chemical bonds and their many intricacies.  Also, take the time to include quantum mechanics in your adventurous study.  Once all of this has been accomplished, find out how evolution can so wonderfully explain it all. 

This is where matters get interesting.  Evolutionists don’t have the answers to where, how and why.  They know that all of these molecular and atomic systems exist.  They even have a pretty good understanding of their functions.  Yet, though padded by the evolutionary theory of things mutating and changing over millions and billions of years, molecular biology presents evolutionists with a head-scratching challenge.  Explain it.  Or otherwise accept it, and don’t worry about how.  But that’s not good enough, is it?

With great respect for mankind’s ongoing study of the many sciences, I submit there is much we have yet to learn.  All the while acknowledging how far we have come.  Science leaves much to be discovered.  And each new discovery holds amazement and motivation to learn more.

We’ve only discussed atoms on a preschool level.  And I don’t need any more convincing that some form of intelligence had to exist first.  God’s word gives us this answer.  “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” -Genesis 1:1 

Did all of this come about by random, evolutionary chance?  Or did Almighty God create the universe for His honor and His glory, as well as the enjoyment of His children?

Steven Pinker, the evolutionary psychologist, led the case against religion. He said the primary goal of a Harvard education is the pursuit of truth through rational inquiry, and that religion had no place in it. The fight was sidelined for another day, but how smart was that?

With all the religious conflict in the world, shouldn’t our best and brightest know the difference in the major religions? Look at the fighting between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Christians and Muslins, between the religious conservatives and the progressives at home. Each religion has their own scriptures which each believes is the words of their God. Shouldn’t our young people who will be the leaders of the future, understand the basics of all major religions, in order to bring peace and understanding between the believers?

Religion at Harvard doesn’t even have it’s own department. Professors who teach religion generally belong to other departments. A committee oversees the courses. It can hire and fire but it can’t grant tenure. Diana Eck, top scholar of world religions who runs the program, says that it’s second class status keeps it from drawing the brightest, most gifted students. She reports there are great religious teachers at Harvard but because they are members of other departments, their reputations do not enhance the religious programs. Last year only 33 undergrads at Harvard choose to major in Religion.

In a few years these Harvard graduates, who will be America’s brightest and best will be in far flung places all over the world. They will be in influential positions and will have a positive or negative effect on our world. They will be associated with people of all major religions who will be much different than themselves. We had better hope they have enough knowledge of world religions to grapple with the different faiths they will be faced with. And bring the world to a peaceful understanding.

Pictures from triond submit page

If you have interests and ideas you would like to publish click this link.  http://www.triond.com/rw/6239

http://socyberty.com/future/survivalists/

http://socyberty.com/activism/the-coal-industry-said-what/

http://socyberty.com/politics/baptist-and-bootleggers-make-strange-bedfellows/

http://socyberty.com/people/charles-darwin-and-emma-darwin-the-marriage-of-science-and-religion/

http://socyberty.com/society/how-did-we-get-so-rude/

Want to make money by publishing articles, like me? Go to http://www.triond.com/rw/132891 and find out more!

In “unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity . . . and Why It Matters”, authors David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons address what they consider to be Christianity’s “image problem” both in the eyes of outsiders and the eyes of Christians themselves.  Chapter 7 of the book, entitled “Too Political,” discusses the intersection of Christianity and politics and analyzes how the conservative-evangelical political movement has shaped public perceptions of Christians and their religious beliefs and practices.  Kinnaman and Lyons show how many negative stereotypes that outsiders hold about Christians and that members of different Christian sects hold about one another are based on the rhetoric of a subset of evangelical Christians who have been aggressively politically active.  Because the conservative Christian wing of the Republican Party espouses a rigidly defined set of values, outsiders often have the impression that Christians share very specific views from which they never deviate and that all Christians, by definition, adhere to these same political beliefs.  In fact, according to the authors, young people perceive Christian as having a political agenda and the primary mission of Christianity as pushing for the implementation of certain right-wing, conservative public policies, including bans on homosexual marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research.  Identifying himself as a Christian, Kinnaman observes with some consternation that “they [outsiders] think of us as motivated primarily by political goals and as promoting a right-wing agenda.”  Kinnaman notes that when young Americans were asked in a survey to identify famous Christians, political leaders, such as George W. Bush, ranked higher even than Jesus, whose teachings are putatively the core principles around which Christian doctrine is structured.  Even more alarming, young Christians themselves have begun to equate Christianity with political action and rhetoric.  According to Kinnaman, “outsiders recognize Christians in politics more readily than in any other sector,” and “even young churchgoers are more likely to recognize famous Christians involved in politics than other arenas” such as music and entertainment.  

     This equation of Christianity with the political rhetoric and beliefs of a narrow segment of the Christian community, the conservative Christian right, leads to misconceptions of what it means to be Christian and what Christians are like as individuals.  It also serves to alienate outsiders, especially young people, who might otherwise be receptive to learning about Christ’s teachings and even to drive away those who grew up in the church but eventually find it too restrictive and judgmental.  According to the authors, outsiders in general and young people in particular see the intrusion of Christianity into the political sphere as a “problem.”

     Upon reading the authors’ characterization of the harsh and rigid political doctrine that Christian political activists advocate in the public square, I immediately understood why young people, both Christians and outsiders, would be repelled by the notion of Christianity.  Even though the dominant Christian voices in politics represent only a sub-set of the Christian population as a whole, they constitute the primary contact with and experience of Christianity for many in the younger generation.  Outsiders therefore extrapolate from what they see and hear in media coverage of politics to Christianity as a whole and unknowingly adopt an incomplete and inaccurate notion of Christian attitudes.  The media, which sensationalizes Christianity, as well as everything else, by presenting it in the most bizarre and outrageous light possible, also bears some responsibility for instilling these skewed perceptions of Christians in the minds of young people.  When young people watch or read the news, they are treated to stories about politicians who hear the voice of God telling them to run for office and leaders who believe that tragedies like Hurricane Katrina and the AIDS virus are divine punishments for sin.  Christians are rarely portrayed simply as individuals trying to show compassion and respect others and live lives in harmony with the teachings of Christ. 

     If all young people know of Christianity is what they see in the news and the political arena, then it is no wonder that they have a narrow and distorted view of what Christians believe and how they live.  Christian political activists may seem so uncompromising and strident in their opinions that young people will assume that they are trying to impose their beliefs on others or even take over the political system and transform it according to their value system.  No one likes to be told what to believe and how to behave, and this is especially true of young people.  Young people are engaged in the process of forming their own identities.  Outsiders are trying to determine what it is exactly that they believe, and Christian teenagers and young adults need room to figure out what living a Christian life means to them.  However, the bombastic political rhetoric of the religious right seems to admit no possibility of disagreement, discussion, or reservation.  Young people who are both exploring their own identity and seeking a community in which they can find acceptance are bound to perceive Christianity as an restrictive and intolerant institution and feel excluded from and repelled by it.  

     The conservative right viewpoint that is most often associated in outsiders’ minds with Christianity does not represent the spectrum of beliefs, questions, and disagreements that characterize real-life Christians.  It seems as though the focus on Christianity as a political movement emphasizes only one particular Christian viewpoint and only one aspect of Christian life.  As the authors point out, even though it seems from what we read and hear in the news that Christians share a static, unitary viewpoint, Christians actually disagree not only in their takes on political issues but also with respect to the role of Christianity in politics and how individual Christians should fulfill that role.  Indeed, there are “liberal” Christians as well as “conservative” ones, and both factions have been known to criticize one another bitterly For instance, “liberal” Christians have criticized fundamentalists for interpreting the Bible too literally, while “conservative” Christians have criticized what they consider the “sexual permissiveness” of some denominations, such as the Episcopalians and Methodists, who are known to be more tolerant of homosexuality and other sexual practices that conservatives view as sinful and deviant.  

     Ultimately, the relationship of Christianity to politics and the application of Christ’s teachings to political issues are much more complicated than media stereotypes convey.  Unless Christians make an effort to communicate that complexity in their public representations of their commitment to their beliefs and in their political engagement, outsiders will continue to misunderstand, fear, and scorn them.

In addition, although political engagement can and should be an important part of Christian practice, Christians should carry their beliefs into other areas of life as well.  As Kinnaman notes, as Christians, “[o]ur lives should reflect Jesus, which includes not just how we vote, but every element of our political engagement.”   In addition, it is important to note that Christianity encompasses a variety of viewpoints and individual Christians have discovered and are in the process of exploring a myriad of ways in which to express the values that they have derived from Christ’s life and teachings.  Ultimately, the focus on Christian politics is overly narrow because it conveys the impression to outsiders and to young people that Christianity is only a matter of beliefs.  However, it is important to remember that being a practicing Christian can and should be much more than simply parroting an accepted set of doctrines in a public or political arena.  Being a Christian involves not just declaring and advocating certain beliefs but also in behaving consistently with those beliefs and taking action in a way that fulfills the teachings of Christ.  If behavior and action is not integrated with belief, then Christians become susceptible to charges of hypocrisy and outsiders will view them as “judgmental” and “self-righteous.”

Kinnaman and Lyons feel it is important for Christians to be aware of and confront the ways in which their political engagement may influence the perceptions of both outsiders and young Christians concerning Christianity itself.  However, although they argue that the current expression of Christian politics is alienating and intolerant, they still believe that political engagement is an indispensable part of being a Christian and living a life true to Christ.  The authors simply advocate a rethinking of how to express one’s Christianity on the political stage.  Above all, Christian political engagement should accurately represent Christ to outsiders and other Christians and be consistent with his teachings.  For instance, as James Reichley points out in the book Faith in Politics, there is a great difference between civil disobedience and using violence, such as bombing of abortion clinics, to express one’s views.  While one may be carried out consistent with the tenets of Christianity, violence cannot be, even when it is performed in service of a political belief that Christ himself would presumably hold.  Accordingly, it is vital that Christians show respect and compassion for those who disagree with them, even as they advocate for views they believe in passionately.

     I was largely persuaded by the authors’ argument that the current mode of Christian political engagement has created a “bad reputation” for Christianity and that Christians must strive to conform their political speech and actions more closely to the ideals of Christ.  I felt that it was unfortunate, even sad, that some young Christians and outsiders, who would be more receptive to Christianity if they had a fuller understanding of it, turn away from the church because of their perceptions that Christians are narrow-minded, judgmental, hypocritical, and intolerant.  After reading this chapter, I felt motivated to become more politically involved so that I could counteract some of the negative stereotypes of Christian political engagement and carry out the principles set forth by Christ in a public way that would attract, rather than repel, outsiders. 

     However, I did have some quibbles with the way that Kinnaman and Lyons set up their analysis of Christianity and the prevailing misconceptions of it.  First, I found their discussion too heavily biased towards Evangelical Christians.  The authors identified four different groups: evangelicals, non-evangelical born-again Christians, other self-identified Christians, and outsiders.  Even though evangelicals constitute only a small portion of the Christian population as a whole, the authors’ method of identifying the various Christian and non-Christian groups suggests that evangelicals are the “real” Christians and that other Christian groups are defined solely with respect to the degree to which they are like or unlike evangelicals.  “Born-again” Christians, while not evangelicals, seem, in this classification, to be elevated above other Christians because, by virtue of being “born-again,” they are more similar to evangelicals than, for example, Episcopalians and Catholics.  The use of the term “self-identified Christians” suggests, probably without the authors’ intent, that non-evangelicals and non-born-agains are not “real” Christians because they lack the requisite zeal and merely call themselves Christians.  In addition, the use of the term “outsiders” to refer to non-Christians seems problematic.  The whole point of this chapter on Christianity and politics is to reveal how certain modes of Christian political engagement have alienated young people and non-Christians.  Labeling these individuals who feel alienated from Christianity as “outsiders” seems to reinforce the sense that they are separate from and inferior to Christians.  Although the authors have clearly tried to use descriptive and non-offensive terminology, the label “outsiders” has a pejorative connotation that may serve to undermine their message, at least to a certain extent.  In addition, although the authors address in a cursory manner the misconceptions that Christians have of non-Christians or “outsiders,” they do not explore what could be a very fruitful aspect of their subject matter: how Christians’ stereotypes of non-Christians shape their political rhetoric and reinforce the misunderstandings between Christians and non-Christians.

     In addition, I was surprised at how closely the authors equated “biblical thinking” with authentic Christian belief and action.  Although fundamentalists take the Bible as unvarnished truth and evangelicals interpret scriptures with varying degrees of strictness, Christians express a wide range of attitudes and beliefs regarding how, and how literally, the Bible should be read.  I was also disturbed by how the authors opposed “biblical thinking” to “majority rule.”  Kinnaman states that non-Christians generally believe that the “will of the people” should be the guiding principle for political decisions and public policy rather than the Bible.  He argues that “[t]his preference for majority rule stems from not knowing the Bible’s content, questioning its truth, and preferring feeling and expediency to absolutes.”  Although I would certainly agree with Kinnaman regarding the importance of the Bible as the foundational text of Christianity, I take issue with the suggestion that any political viewpoint that is not Bible-based is by necessity a “preference for majority rule” that indicates a degree of ignorance and laziness.  To the contrary, it seems to me that simply relying on the text of the Bible without making an effort to connect it to the outside world is a sign of intellectual laziness.   It should be remembered that the Gospels contain Christ’s teachings, but that Christ did not teach his disciples by writing his beliefs on paper or by giving them “important texts” to read.  Rather, he exemplified his beliefs through his actions, and as any student knows, it is easier to learn by example and demonstration than by reading and studying alone. 

     In making this stark distinction between those who base their beliefs and actions on the Bible and those who do not, the authors appear to discount the importance of thinking for one’s self.  They apparently assume that it is impossible to come to the same understanding as Christians without first reading the Bible.  However, it seems to me that Christians can help guide non-Christians to the teachings contained in the Bible by first exemplifying them in their own behavior and actions.  The authors suggest that Christ-like behaviors and beliefs can only be achieved by first accepting the Bible and using it as a blueprint.  However, if Christians succeed at presenting a Christ-like example, then they may inspire others to follow their lead and from there lead them to a study of the scriptures.  Ultimately, if Christians do their job well enough, they will convince people that they too should follow the example of Christ.  In that case, a political world view based on the “will of the people” would not differ substantially from one that is Biblically-based.

What the Theorists Say:

Excavating the ruins of the Temple, the Knights discovered the Holy Grail, only it wasn’t a physical object but a shocking revelation that undermined the very basis of the established Church. Jesus had survived the crucifixion and gone on to father children with Mary Magdalene. This divine bloodline had ruled most of Europe as the Merovingians but now depended on the guardianship of the Templars to survive and assume its rightful role in fighting the forces of darkness. This and other discoveries – for example, the talking head of John the Baptist and the secrets of monumental masonry – were the true basis of Templar wealth, power and influence, and also led them to follow a new version of Christianity with strange rites, such as spitting on the cross and worshipping heads.

Threatened by the Templar secret, the Church colluded with the jealous French monarchy to destroy the Order and steal its wealth, accusing them of devil worship, homosexuality and suppressing them with great cruelty. Forewarned, the Templars’ mighty fleet fled with the Order’s most valued treasures, setting up a new base of operations in Scotland around the Rosslyn Chapel built by the Sinclair family. Here the Templars lived on, eventually founding the Freemasons and other secret societies, and guiding the discovery of America and later the American and French Revolutions. Meanwhile, the Bloodline of Jesus lived on under the guardianship of these new orders, in particular, a French outfit called the Priory of Sion, whose members included prominent artists, intellectuals and leaders, from Leonardo da Vinci to Victor Hugo. This global network of Templar-descended secret societies guides much of world history from the shadows.

The Official Story?

‘Proper’ historians scoff at most of this tale. It is true that the Templars were suppressed in 1312, and that lurid allegations were made against them, but this was typical of heresy trials of the time. There are no records of the Templars ever having discovered something in the ruins of Solomon’s Temple or elsewhere. They had no fleet and there is no evidence that treasures were smuggled out. However, the Order did live on in a diminished form in Scotland and Portugal, and while they may have had a role to play in Portuguese voyages of discovery, there is no evidence of a significant role in Scottish history. Since the eighteenth century, branches of Masonry and other secret societies have often claimed to be descended from the Templars. This is romantic fantasy and has no basis in fact. The Priory of Sion is basically a fiction invented by a French con man and promoted by modern-day alternative archaeologists to help shift books, as is the entire story about the Bloodline of Christ.

Should you be paranoid?

An entire industry of books, documentaries and even tourism has evolved around the Templar mystery but it is a house of cards. The ‘evidence’ for most of the conspiracy theory is simply a chain of suppositions. There is, however, a core of fascinating historical mystery. The Templars genuinely did have many strange practices and beliefs, doubtless borrowed from time spent in the Middle East during the Crusades. They may be early examples of the mythical tradition of Gnostic Christianity which, as an intellectual movement, went on to inspire the Enlightenment and the French and American Revolutions.

Just who are the MINOR PROPHETS of the Old Testament?

And what exactly is a religious prophet?

Image via Wikipedia

How many of you know that in Hebrew writings the Minor Prophets text are counted as a single book, but in the Christian Bible they are seen as twelve individual books? The wisdom writings of Jesus ben Sirach (190 BC, a venerated Hebrew teacher) exalt the Minor Prophets words. The leading ancient Jewish Historian Josephus wrote about the Twelve Minor Prophets as part of the scriptural canon, which are necessary to understanding the people’s faith in Yahweh. The Dead Sea Scrolls also uplift these writings as a crucial component of the canon to the emerging Christian faith. The “12” writings are cited many times in the New Testament and used in various paraphrases by Jesus.

It must be understood that these writings called “The Minor Prophets” are not considered any less important than the other Prophets of the Christian Bible, but are referred to as minor only due to the length of their writings.

It must also be understood that these prophets were not seers or predictors of the future. Prophets from the Judeo-Christian tradition are seen as a person of wisdom who “speaks for another”….in this case Yahweh speaks through them (“Thus saith the Lord…”) with warnings and challenges to the people of faith.

The Hebrew Prophets (Major or Minor writers as explicated in the Biblical Canon) major role was to “call the people as a community to accountability and responsibility” (Dennis Bratcher, 2009, The Voice/CRI –Voice Institute) in their life with Yahweh. When we see the meaning of covenant depicting the relationship of the people of Israel and Yahweh, it can be said that Minor Prophets (and all ancient Hebrew prophets) “were mediators of the covenant” (Dennis Bratcher, 2009, The Voice).

Wikipedia

Image via

Here are the FACTS ABOUT the “12” …Minor Prophets of Judeo-Christian Tradition

The names of the Minor Prophets are:

1. Hosea
2. Joel
3. Amos
4. Obadiah
5. Jonah
6. Micah
7. Nahum
8. Habakkuk
9. Zephaniah
10. Haggai
11. Zechariah
12. Malachi

The 12 Minor Prophets are commemorated in the Calendar of saints celebrated by the Armenian Apostolic Church every July 31st.

The Catholic Church has the 12 Minor Prophets read in the Breviary, during the 4th and 5th weeks of November each year, (also known as the last two weeks of the liturgical year).

It is believed the 12 writers, known as the Minor Prophets wrote and preached from the 5th Century BC until the 9th Century BC.

The Minor Prophets had no special qualifications other than being called and chosen by Yahweh to be a vessel, whereby a specific message could be given to Yahweh’s people. They came from many different paths of life: shepherds, farmers, priests, and princes. 

Image via Wikipedia

Sources: www.britannica.com

www.wayofchrist.org

www.crivoice.org

I suppose I was just not paying attention. We established early in our relationship that we had very different tastes in reading materials. My husband was a newspaper editor and wrote fantasy novels in his spare time. Occasionally I would edit a chapter or two, but mostly I left his writing to him. It seemed a sacred and private thing to him and I respected his space. He doesn’t ask for much. He wants peace and solitude for writing and cheesecake for his birthday. He doesn’t like sports on television, he is generally passive, and he takes out the trash. I always considered myself fortunate in this regard, but I had no idea he was a loose canon typing away in our den.

Recently I read some of his articles. It started harmlessly enough … a few reviews of books he had read and his take on Domino’s Pizza transformation, and 400 articles about beer. And then I saw the title, “It’s True, Jews Really Are Trying To Take Over The World.” My first thought … we’re going to have to move.

This article is my husband’s idea of humor. I have told him repeatedly that he is not funny, but I stand corrected. He is both funny and offensive; which means he could have a successful career in comedy! But, let’s face it, I am still funnier. For instance, I would have never argued with him about theology like a 9 year old over Grape-Nuts. When he said, “The Jews killed Jesus,” I would have retorted, “Yeah, well you’re next if you don’t pick up your socks”.

The truth is, anyone who knows anything about my husband knows cake is one of his food groups. He loves cake! My guy dreams of cake and gazes through bakery windows like he’s watching porn. Once we were at a friend’s wedding and the cake was bad. I did not know there was such a thing as bad wedding cake and neither did my husband. I swear I saw an actual tear in his eye. The man loves cake. That alone could make him more Jewish than me, because everyone knows Jews LOVE cake!

As for the rest, all marriages have their challenges. Sometimes there are differences in political views, but you find balance. Sometimes there are differences in religious views, but you find harmony. But when one spouse is a brilliant wit and the other has no sense of humor you are doomed. In this I am doubly blessed. Were it not for my jovial disposition, I would have never looked beyond the “Jewish check” comment to see my husband is funny. But I’m still funnier. I have to be. After all, I married a goy.

We have no date of birth for Jezebel, only that she lived in the 9th century BC. She was the daughter of Ethobaal, King of the Sidonians. A Phoenician Princess from modern day Lebanon. She was married at a young age to King Ahab, who ruled the northern part of Israel from his capital in Samaria. This was almost certainly a political marriage designed to establish greater trade links for the Phoenicians, the great merchant people of their time. 

The Phoenicians worshipped many Gods, the most important of which would have been Baal, the God of the heavens, of storms, of agriculture, and of fertility. As a princess of royal blood, Jezebel would have been a Priestess of Baal, a duty she would have taken very seriously. Her new subjects in Israel were monotheistic in their beliefs, and from the outset Jezebel worked to move Ahab away from his worship of Yahweh, the one true God. She was determined to introduce Baal into Israel and that her husband would embrace this new religion. Some say she used her sexual wiles to seduce his body and steal his soul. Whatever her modus operandi it worked, for Ahab built a temple to the worship of Baal in the centre of Samaria and from time to time people would be made to attend. The Israelites were not so easily swayed as their King however, and stubbornly refused to forsake their faith in Yahweh. But Jezebel would find a way, but for now she would have to bide her time.

Jezebel did not rule in Samaria, but she did rule her husband, the King. When Ahab desired a plot of land adjacent to the Royal Palace for a vegetable garden he made the owner of the land, Nabooth, a generous offer. Nabooth did not wish to sell and refused the offer, which he was perfectly within his rights to do. When Ahab appeared willing to accept this, Jezebel turned on him. Who ruled in his Kingdom, she demanded to know, do not Kings have to eat also. She took it upon herself to seize the land and then had Nabooth stoned to death. She was hated and accused of all kinds of iniquities. It was said that the followers of Baal painted their faces and dressed immodestly, and that Jezebel exhorted them to commit adultery with their neighbours wives and to participate in immoral acts in the Temple at Samaria. Her enemies plotted her downfall, but it was Jezebel who struck first. She had the Prophets of Yahweh rounded up and murdered. The people of Israel would worship Baal.

Following the death of the old King, Jezebel’s son Ahaziah succeeded to the throne. The people of Samaria were not willing to accept him however, and rose in revolt, and Ahaziah was killed in battle. Even so, Jezebel managed to manipulate the situation to her advantage and secure the throne for her second son, Jehoram. But it was Jezebel who ruled.

The Prophet Elisha, Jezebel’s mortal enemy, who had earlier fled for his life, returned. He was determined to end, not just the reign, but the life of this most wicked, cruel, and lascivious woman. He anointed a servant, Jehu, to kill the apostate Queen. Jehoram was murdered in a palace coup. Jezebel knew that without the authority of her son as King, she was defenceless. It was only a matter of time before they came for her. She did not, however, attempt to flee. Instead she wore her finest clothes, painted her eyes, applied makeup to her face, and dressed her hair. If she was to die she would die a Queen, a woman of royal blood.

She had no army with which to fight. She had only the woman’s power of seduction, the most powerful weapon in a woman’s armoury. But she had not dressed to seduce Jehu. She was known for her venomous tongue and upon his arrival she taunted and insulted him. In a rage Jehu ordered the eunuchs who accompanied him to throw her out of the window. ” They threw her down and her blood spattered on the walls.” Her body was then left to rot in the street for the dogs to peck at. The sight of the prostrate and bleeding corpse of a woman, however much hated, was damaging to Jehu’s reputation. Eventually, he ordered that the body be buried. ” Attend to that cursed woman and bury her”, he ordered. So ended the mortal life of the Harlot Queen, but the name lives on, painted, tainted, and still cursed.

     Mankind: the overall epitome of a self-absorbed foolishness and a self-serving ignorance.  Like many areas of life, when truth is presented people flee in search of error; they attack that which they do not understand.   But why?  Do people fear what is unknown to them?  Or do they fear truth?  Moreover, do they fear the origin of truth?  Throughout history, mankind has continually digressed into providing their own answers for the origin of our natural realm.  And so enters the everlasting debate between God-fearing Creationists and self-glorifying Evolutionists.   Both claim the other has no verifiable science, but only one says both are faith based.   How do we determine who holds the key to the origin of our universe?  We look at the facts and apply a logical, common sense approach.

     As we begin to explore this timeless debate, consider this example of the perfect evolutionist: 

Please be aware, though the position of Intelligent Design is not in full agreement with Creation, it goes to show the blatant error that even the most prominent evolutionists recognize in regards to the evolutionary theory.

     In the attempt to give a fair and balanced depiction of the positions taken by evolutionists, we will first look at their theory and reasoning for the origin of life.  Of course the most popular theory is the Big Bang.  Though some have described the Big Bang as, “The explosion from zero volume at zero time of a corpuscle of energy equivalent to the mass and radiation that now constitute the Universe….”, it could otherwise be stated as the moment in time past when a single, molecular measure of energy spontaneously erupted into the ever-changing universe.  This “…hypothesis of the evolutionary atom…” is the framework of evolution.  However, what evolutionaries continually disregard is the undeniable fact that their theory only presents a model for what came after.  The Big Bang has no means of revealing what caused it to happen.  Therefore, scientists are merely making an assumption as to what “must” have occurred.  They’re reversely applying what they believe to be a logical cause-and-effect relationship.  No individual, whether claiming the title of scientist, atheist or evolutionist, can with certainty verify this theory as factual.  According to the scientific community, the origin of life is a mystery.  Yet amidst these mountains of error, there are many scientists who would claim otherwise.  Accordingly, these scientists would likewise hold to the existence of a Creator. 

   Other evolutionists don’t even go as far as trying to explain the origin of the universe.  They simply argue that all species evolved from an ancestral gene pool.  These are the same people who uphold that evolution is currently ongoing.  Many of these evolutionary scientists likewise hold to the theories of Global Warming and Climate Shifts.  

     On the other side of the debate stand the Creationists.  In general, these individuals proclaim the Bible to be the inherent, infallible, perfect and complete Word of God.  From it all truth flows, and in it all answers are found.  Creationists firmly stand on Genesis 1 being the literal portrayal of the origin of the universe.  Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”  Unlike renowned evolutionists, when a Creationist is questioned about the origin of the universe, he has an answer.  This fact is upheld in the Bible.  Those who flee from God’s truth have no explanation or reasoning.  Clearly stated in Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”  Yet, despite the outlandish ignorance and blasphemous references given by many atheists, scientists, and evolutionists, they can still be presented with truth.  If He so chooses, God can open their minds and hearts to hear the blessed beauty of truth.  “My son, if thou wilt receive my words and hide my commandments within thee, so that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom and apply thine heart to understanding; yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver and searchest for her as for hidden treasure, then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.  For the LORD giveth wisdom; out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.”  -Proverbs 2:1-6

     Which would you rather believe?  Are you drawn to the inconclusive hypothesis of evolutionists?  Or, do you realize the truth and validity of God’s Word?  For those of you who answer “yes” to the former question, I urge you to reconsider.  Take the time to study both views.  Understand the illogical foolishness of evolution, and come to embrace the steadfast truthfulness of Creation.