Yesterday was officially Memorial Day—a day set aside to honor veterans and members of the armed forces. Yet, we should not limit our thoughts to that one day. Pray for veterans and current military personnel. Remember their continued service and sacrifice.
During our history, we have had periods of volunteer armies, a variety of military conscription plans, and a draft lottery system. Today, we use a system of an all volunteer military service. Regardless of the method used, some have complained and called the different programs unfair and discriminatory. One thing unfortunately is clear, given our sinful human nature; this country needs a military presence.
On Memorial Day, the Peoria Journal Star published a column written by Cal Thomas. It was entitled “’Thank you for my freedom.’” Here are some thoughts from that column.
“Eighteen months ago, I wrote about a remarkable young man who I have known since his birth. Specialist Daniel Calvin Dobson of Grand Rapids, Mich., joined the National Guard with the intention of going to Iraq. He served and he came home. Next week, he leaves for a second tour. He tells me the Army has a policy that anyone who has already served in Iraq is not required to go back should his unit be recalled. Daniel volunteered to go back.
In e-mail to his friends, he asks three things: ‘First, do not lose hope in the face of negative reporting. We are doing good work in Iraq and God is with us. Second, pray for those of us who have chosen to serve our nation and the liberties espoused by our Constitution. Third, I ask that you never take advantage of the liberties guaranteed by the shedding of free blood, never take for granted the freedoms granted by our Constitution. For those liberties would be merely ink on paper were it not for the sacrifice of generations of Americans who heard the call of duty and responded heart, mind and soul with ‘Yes, I will.’’” (5/29/06, page A4)
“Find a veteran this Memorial Day and say, ‘Thank you for my freedom.’ (Pray to GOD every day and thank HIM for your freedom—my addition.) Visit a military cemetery and thank God someone was willing to die so you and I might live in freedom. And support those, like my friend Daniel Dobson, who for the second time is about to make an installment payment toward the price free people must pay in order that we might continue to enjoy liberty.” (5/29/06, page A4)
The above quote was the end of the article. However, earlier in the column he had this quote: “Chaplains prayed with the wounded and for the dead. If the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union—my addition) objects, someone should tell them to shut up.” (5/29/06, page A4)
At one time, I believe that the ACLU was actually concerned about correctly adhering to the provisions of the United States Constitution. Gradually over time, I believe the organization changed its concern from following the Constitution to promoting that which they desired to be Constitutional. They discovered they could rewrite the Constitution by convincing the members of the Supreme Court that “the Court knows best” rather than “the Constitution knows best.” Thus, the Court could reinterpret the Constitution to implement that which could not be implemented by state or congressional law.
For the last three years I have been a member of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). It is an organization that works to promote Christian values through the court system—a counter weight to the ACLU. The organization opposes the murder of unborn babies, the inhuman procedure of “partial birth abortions,” and the continuing attempts of the ACLU to build a “wall of separation of church and state” where none is required by the Constitution.
Recently, I received a letter from the ACLJ in relation to a court case in San Diego, California. The following are excerpts from that letter.
“After a 17-year legal battle between the City of San Diego and a self-described atheist, a judge has order San Diego officials to remove a giant cross from a hilltop park or start paying $5,000 a day in fines. Defying the order is something cash-strapped San Diego cannot afford. Still, Mayor Jerry Sanders said he would ask the city attorney to appeal.
U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson, Jr., gave the city 90 days to comply with a 1991 injunction forbidding the cross on public property. The 29-foot-high cross was dedicated as a memorial to veterans in 1954 on a hill that overlooks seaside La Jolla.
The city has tried to sell the half-acre beneath the cross to a non-profit association that maintains the surrounding memorial walls. But federal judges have repeatedly blocked the sale, saying the transactions were designed to favor a buyer who would keep the cross in place.”
“This cross…marks a memorial to fallen soldiers, heroes who deserve to be honored and respected. And a recent survey says 76% of the city’s residents want the cross to stay!” [A survey that you are not likely to see printed or spoken of in the news media—my addition] (American Center for Law and Justice, letter dated May 22, 2006, page 1 and 3)
Answer these questions. Do you believe the veterans who have fought and/or died in past wars sacrificed so that a handful of judges, an atheist, and the ACLU could force their will upon the American people? Do you believe the individuals in the military today are sacrificing so that a handful of judges, an atheist, and the ACLU can force their will upon the American people? If the ACLU, these self-important judges, and this atheist are ultimately successful in this case, will they then attempt to remove all crosses in every public cemetery in America tomorrow?
Crosses have been used in public cemeteries in the United States since before the adoption of the United States Constitution and the addition of the first ten Amendments. Why did not judges earlier in our history rule that these crosses were unconstitutional? Are our present day judges more in tune with the Constitution? Are our present day judges rewriting the Constitution by judicial fiat? Why are we allowing Courtocracy in our democracy?
Yesterday, I discussed an article in the Peoria Journal Star published on 5/6/06, page D7 entitled “Do’s and don’ts for finding a church.” I pointed out the obvious as presented in the Bible. We don’t find a church. We become part of the church when we become a Christian. The church is the body of CHRIST. The head of the church is CHRIST. There is only one church. (See the post on 5/24/06 for the references from the Bible.)
Tonight, I want to discuss one “Do” that Mr. Isom, the author of the article, suggests. “Churches that fight racism, sexism and homophobia as well are even better. Go for churches that stress diversity, not the ones where everyone is just like you.” (5/6/06, page D7) Remember first of all, that Mr. Isom’s approach is completely incorrect. We, as Christians, do not find a church. All Christians together are the church—the called out.
Second, in this quote he proceeds as almost all libertines do. He defines anyone who believes that homosexual activity is a sin as homophobic. This is interesting. My dictionary, the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, has only one definition for homophobia. That definition says “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.” (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A.; © 1995; page 556.) Guess when the word homophobia first came into common usage. My suspicion is that you weren’t able to. According to my dictionary, it was in 1969—the height of the countercultural “anything goes” era. Why isn’t that surprising.
The problem with labeling those who believe homosexual activity is a sin as homophobic is monumental. The Bible in at least twenty-five passages in the New Testament identifies homosexual activity as a sin. Therefore, if Christians are homophobic; then so is GOD if the Bible is the Word of GOD (and the Bible is indeed the Word of GOD). If GOD is homophobic and HE is not because GOD is never irrational, then being a homophobic is good because GOD is good and Christians are being obedient to GOD’S good and perfect will. Mr. Isom, it seems, either does not accept the Word of GOD in relation to homosexual activity or he believes that God is homophobic.
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (I Corinthians 6: 9-11)
All Christians were at one time unrepentant sinners. However, we were changed by GOD when we became Christians. Each of us believed that JESUS is GOD’S SON and is our LORD and SAVIOR. Each of us repented of our sins. Each of us confessed that JESUS is our LORD and SAVIOR. Each of us was baptized for the removal of sin. Each of us became part of the body of CHRIST—part of the church. Each of us gave our lives to GOD in obedience to HIS will. If we did not, we are still in our sins; we are not Christians; and we are not in the church.
As I stated, Mr. Isom also declares “Go for churches that stress diversity, not the ones where everyone is just like you.” He does not define what he means by “stress diversity” but this I am certain of: everyone in the church is just like me! Everyone who is in the church (not attends at the church building, but in the church) is a Christian. Therefore, everyone is just like me. GOD does not support or accept diversity of belief. WE are either a Christian or we are not a Christian. Only Christians are in the body; only Christians are in the church. One can not get any less diverse than that and that is exactly GOD’S will!!!
“Do’s and don’t for finding a church” is the headline for an article in the Peoria Journal Star on 5/6/06, page D7. The article was in the “Faith and Values” section of the paper. The article was written by Paul Isom, “a minister for the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).” (5/6/06, page D7) This is the same Paul Isom who wrote an earlier column expressing his belief that eventually all will be saved. The article discusses 8 things one should not do in finding a church and 9 things that one should do in finding a church.
Unfortunately, the content of the article is wrong, wrong, wrong!
Eight times wrong. Nine times wrong. A Christian does not find a church!!!!!!! When an individual becomes a Christian, he becomes part of the church. The church is those individuals who have put on Christ—the called out.
The church is not ice cream that comes in 57 different flavors. You do not select the flavor that you like best. You do not pick and choose that which is most pleasing to you. You do not decide what is and what is not the church.
“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all; who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4: 3-5) How many bodies are there? Are there 57 bodies? No!!! There is only one body!!! What is that body? The body is the church!!!
“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” (Ephesians 5:22-23) “Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” (Colossians 1: 24) Who is the head of the body? CHRIST!!! Who is the head of the church? CHRIST!!! How many bodies does CHRIST have? One!!! What is the body of CHRIST? The church!!! CHRIST = the head. The church = the body of CHRIST. CHRIST = the head of the body and the body = the church. There is only one church!!!
The Bible does not ever make reference to different denominations that are following GOD’S will. The Bible does make reference to false teachers, false prophets, and false teachings and doctrines. If it is false, it is not part of the church. There is only one church which is the body of CHRIST and CHRIST is the head of that body.
How do you know that you are worshiping with the body of CHRIST—the church? Do they teach the Word of GOD to each other? Do they teach and preach the Word of GOD to those people who are outside of the body? Do they obey the Word of GOD? Do they live the Word of GOD? If they are of the body, if CHRIST is the head of that body, if they are teaching, preaching, obeying, and living the Word of GOD as given through the Bible; then you are where you should be if you are a Christian. If not, you are in the wrong place if you are a Christian.
There is only one church!!! That church is the body of CHRIST!!! If you are not in the body of CHRIST, you are not in the church. You can’t pick and choose the “right” church for you. There is only one church!!!
An interesting article was published in the Peoria Journal Star today. It seems a freshman student at Knox College was murdered in 1998. The killer was a fellow student who was convicted of the crime and sentenced to sixty years in jail. The family sued the college for wrongful death. They sued the college, of course, because the college has much more money (deep pockets) than does the convicted killer. The killer will not likely have much additional money over the next sixty years.
It was claimed in the law suit that the stairway where the student was murdered had inadequate lighting and the college also did not provide adequate security. The jury found that the college was partially responsible. The jury awarded the parents of the student “$150,000 for the emotional stress suffered by the woman before she died, $150,000 for her pain and suffering….” (5/23/06, page B1) The jury also awarded the family $750,000 for the loss they suffered because of her untimely death. The lawyer who handled the case is quoted as saying “The money was always secondary.” (5/23/06, page B1)
Really? If that is true, why did the family file the law suit? Did they file the law suit so that Knox College would improve the lighting in the area and provide more security to prevent a similar tragedy in the future? If that is why, it is commendable! However, if that is why they filed the suit, the verdict did nothing to insure that would happen.
The verdict provided a lot of money to the law firm who handled the case. I don’t know the practice in Illinois; but in Arizona the law firm would probably receive at least 1/3 of the awarded money. Obviously, the murdered victim does not actually receive any money for her emotional stress and for her pain and suffering. Who can put a price on the family’s loss and who can guarantee that the woman would not have died the next day from an automobile accident? “What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” (James 4: 14B)
The present system punishes the college financially for previous “negligent” behavior. However, nothing in the ruling insures that future behavior of the college will improve or be changed.
If, indeed, the money is secondary; I would propose the following changes in the present system.
The family should be made whole. They should recover the costs associated with sending the student to the college, the cost of the funeral, and any other tangible costs associated with her murder. The lawyer (law firm) should receive reasonable compensation for his legal work. For example, if the going rate for legal work is $200 an hour, compensation for work actually done by the lawyer(s) should be at that rate. (The lawyer should be paid by the court not the family filing the case. At the present time, the family normally pays taxes on the money received and then paid to the lawyer. The family can then deduction that payment to the lawyer as a miscellaneous deduction.) All other expenses incurred should be based upon the actual costs. For example, if twenty hours of secretarial work was done and the secretary is paid $20.00 an hour; then that portion of the compensation should be four hundred dollars.
Finally, a new legal category should be added to this type of law suit (when the victim can not possibly actually collect) replacing emotional stress suffered by the victim, pain and suffering by the victim, and loss suffered by the family. (No jury is really qualified to determine these items and the Constitution, as far as I can tell, does not require these categories nor does it require juries to make these determinations.) The new category is “betterment damages.” The responsible party (the college in this case) would be required to make necessary improvements to help prevent a similar tragedy in the future. In the case of Knox College, improved security and lighting throughout the campus could be part of the judgment by the court.
For example, the court in a procedure established by law (not the jury) could determine that $200,000 must be spent in a prudent manner to improve lighting throughout the school. The court might also order that $800,000 over a ten year period be spent for more security personnel.
If the decision of the court is not obeyed, the college president would be jailed for contempt of court for six months. If the order of the court is still not obeyed, increase the jail time. I believe it is reasonable to expect that any college president would obey the order of the court rather than spend time in jail. He almost certainly would after the first six months.
I believe one consequence of this includes the probability that perceived frivolous law suits would be curtailed. Naturally, the lawyers will not like it and I’m certainly they will attempt to point out unintended consequences of such a law. Good! One purpose of a democracy is to openly debate the issues of the day. So, let’s begin the debate. We just might be able to come up with a better system than we now have for this type of law suit.
Do we need to make changes? Will this proposal or something similar to it help to promote a safer environment in the future?
Will this proposal put the costs for that safer environment on the group that should bare the cost?
Debate it? Try it? Improve the system?
© May 23, 2006
I received the following article as an e-mail recently and thought I should publish it as a public service. Take it for what it is worth.
“Please pass this on to everyone in your e-mail address book. It is spreading fast so be prepared should you get this call.
Most of us take those summons for jury duty seriously, but enough people skip out of their civic duty, that a new and ominous kind of scam has surfaced. Fall for it and your identity could be stolen….”
“In this con, someone calls pretending to be a court official who threateningly says a warrant has been issued for your arrest because you didn’t show up for jury duty. The caller claims to be a jury coordinator.
If you protest that you never received a summons for jury duty, the scammer asks you for your social security number and date of birth so he or she can verify the information and cancel the arrest warrant. Sometimes they even ask for credit card numbers. Give out any of this information and bingo! Your identity just got stolen. (As a general rule: never give your social security number out over the phone unless you initiated the call and are sure who you are speaking with and know it is a necessity to provide your number—my addition.)
The scam has been reported so far in 11 states, including Oklahoma, Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and California….
This scam is particularly insidious because they use intimidation over the phone to try to bully people into giving information by pretending they’re with the court system. (I don’t know about all states, but I doubt that many states if any actually contact people by phone for the court system—my addition.)
The FBI and the federal court system have issued nationwide alerts on their web sites, warning consumers about the fraud.”
The problem with the proposal by President Bush is that it rewards criminals living in this country. The rewarding of criminals for past actions is paving the way for more illegals to come into this country. Years later, the politicians will again provide a method for the criminals to stay.
There are thousands of skilled people in the world that are not criminals who would quickly accept such a proposal as this to live in the United States of America. How does one reconcile this discrimination? Our elected politicians continue to ignore the responsibility of managing the government.
Placing military on the border is a good start.
What about a medical checkup? According to the news, we have increased diseases such as tuberculosis, hepatitis, etc. which has been attributed to people from other countries.
I do support a “temporary worker” plan which congress should have put in place fifty years ago. However, all illegals should be returned to the home country.
I believe that people from many countries come across our borders. I have been involved in mission work in the Bahamas for the past fourteen years. There are many Haitians (legal and illegal) living in the Bahamas. Periodically, the government captures illegal aliens and returns them to Haiti. I have talked with Haitians who tell me of their future plans of going to Mexico so they can easily cross the border into the United States. They feel that is safer than the more common method of being dumped in the Florida surf hoping to make it ashore.
What about the Northern Border? Canada has an open immigration policy which makes it easy for terrorists and criminals to come into their country. Therefore, it is not difficult for them to cross the border into the Unites States.
The “illegal aliens” in our country are a problem and our federal government refuses to act.
Their method of solving the problem is changing the law to match the situation. Children know how to do that. Adults are supposed to stand up and do the right thing to protect the United States of America.
Frank Sarver
I confess. I can not remember the last time I saw a movie in a theater. I confess. I have absolutely no interest in viewing The Da Vinci Code. I wasn’t going to bother with it on this blog or anywhere else. However, for some reason for the last week plus the opening of the movie has been in the national news, local news, and the Peoria Journal Star.
I did read the book. My copy has the copyright date as 2003. It says it is a first edition. I imagine that I read it in 2003 or early 2004. It’s not that I had a special desire to particularly read that specific book. I had written my own historical novel and I thought I should read other books to get an idea of what others had published. I don’t normally read fiction although I did when I was in junior high school and high school. If I remember correctly, I read four or five books of fiction a couple of years ago to get an idea of what had been recently written.
Although parts of the book were interesting I thought he misused and abused the use of misdirection. He used it three times in critical situations in the book. The first instance I thought was plausible. The second was unrealistic. The third time was ridiculous. If I had been the villain, the hero would have been dead before he could have attempted the third instance of misdirection. The hero was fortunate the villain did not have Special Forces training.
The Peoria Journal Star had two articles about The Da Vinci Code in the “Faith and Values” section of the paper. (May 13, 2006, page D10) The headline for one of the articles was “Can Da Vinci Code rewrite Christian history?” That’s easy. NO!!! The sub headline was “truth or fiction.” That’s easy too. Fiction!!!
Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows what the Bible says is in contrast to what the book claims. One or the other must be wrong. Why would anyone who accepts the Bible as the Word of GOD change their mind because of a book written 2,000 years later? The Da Vinci Code, by its own admission, is a book of fiction.
In the article, reference is made to the fact page of the book.
The last sentence of the fact page says “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” (The Da Vinci Code A Novel, Dan Brown, Doubleday, New York, © 2003, no page number was given for the fact page.) Now, I don’t know if that statement is true or not. It may be. It may not be. Just because someone claims something to be accurate does not mean it is accurate.
However, for our purposes let us accept that the descriptions of the documents are accurate. So what? That does not mean that the documents are true. And the book does not claim they are true. All the book claims is that the descriptions of the documents are accurate.
Anyone who knows the content of the Bible knows that several of the writers of the Bible declare that there were and will be false prophets, false teachers, and false teachings. In fact, at least two instances of falsehood are specifically mentioned. According to the Bible, people were claiming that the disciples came at night and stole the body of JESUS. They were claiming this because the tomb was unexplainably empty and they did not want to accept and did not want others to accept that JESUS was resurrected through the power of GOD. From the beginning of the resurrection (actually even before that), lies were being told about JESUS by unbelievers. Paul wrote that some were claiming that the resurrection of the dead had already occurred. Paul refuted that claim but the claim was incorrectly being made.
There is nothing unusual with falsehood being proclaimed in relation to GOD’S WORD! No Christian should be misled by the unproven content of this novel!
It is time! It is past time!! It is necessary that the people of this nation take back the country from the libertines and activist judges who have stolen it from us!!! It is time for action not for complaining. It is time to return to the democracy established in this nation over two hundred years ago. If we don’t, we will have a handful of libertine, activist judges making the decisions for us. Courtocracy is here. It is time to end it!!!
Yesterday, I responded to another outrageous editorial published in the Peoria Journal Star. The editorial claimed the Protect Marriage Illinois petition was redundant since Illinois already had a state legislative law protecting marriage. I pointed out the obvious. At any time, a libertine, activist state judge could rule that law to be unconstitutional. Homosexual activists have been trying to convince judges in states where a constitutional amendment has been passed that the amendment itself is unconstitutional. In any year, the United States Supreme Court could rule that all laws and state constitutions that do not permit marriage between homosexuals are unconstitutional.
A small article appeared in the Peoria Journal Star today—May 17, 2006—one day after the editorial writers claimed that our efforts were redundant. Because it is short and because it has to be read to be believed, I’m going to quote the entire article. It was on page A2.
“Judge strikes down Georgia’s gay marriage ban
Atlanta—A judge has struck down Georgia’s ban on same-sex marriages, saying a measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 violated a provision of the state constitution that limits ballot questions to a single subject. (This provision is in numerous constitutions. The purpose is to prevent 2, 3, or more different issues being presented to the people in one amendment so that the voters must accept all of those proposed or none of them. By using this method people have tried to pass an amendment that wasn’t supported by the people by attaching it to a provision that is very popular with the people. That was not the case in the Georgia amendment—my addition.)
The ruling by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell had been eagerly awaited by gay-rights supporters who filed the court challenge in November 2004, soon after the constitutional ban was approved.
Russell said the state’s voters must first decide whether same-sex relationships should have any legal status before they can be asked to decide whether same-sex marriages should be banned.”
Wait!!! Whoa!!! What!!! Reread that last sentence to fully understand this judge’s twisted reasoning. A constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage can not be considered until something else is considered first. How in the world is that a requirement in relation to only one subject matter in a constitutional amendment? It is not. Logically, it isn’t even remotely possible.
How can any group know before hand that a separate issue must be addressed first before another issue can be addressed? Are those who propose constitutional amendments suppose to be mind readers of a specific judge before they can amend a constitution? It is an absurdity. Nothing new to the homosexual crowd who believe a life of sin is a civil right. But now a judge has accepted that absurdity!!!
I don’t know if the Georgia Constitution provides for the impeachment and conviction of judges. If it does, this judge should be immediately impeached and convicted by the allowed process. This is the absolute worst instance of judicial tyranny in the United States that I have ever read or heard about that I can remember.
Now, once again. Does it seem redundant to demand a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in Illinois. We now have an example of a judge not just ruling that a legislative law is unconstitutional but rather ruling that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional. I have never heard or read of such an occurrence in the United States before. The libertine judge unilaterally declared that the vote of the people is meaningless.
Welcome to Courtocracy. Welcome to dictatorship by the courts. Welcome to the new and improved America. After all, JUDGES KNOW BEST!!! NOT!!!!!!!
The question is: Who is redundant? The thousands of Illinois registered voters who are participating in the political process or the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star?
The question is: Is it time to boycott the Peoria Journal Star until they change their positions on the important issues of the day?
The question is: Is it time to boycott the businesses which support the Peoria Journal Star through their advertisements?
The question is: Is it time to impeach and convict libertine judges and justices who believe and practice JUDGES KNOW BEST?
How dare them! Who do they think they are! What absurd arrogance on their part! 11,581 registered voters gathered 345,199 signatures from registered voters who willingly signed the advisory referendum petition. The conclusion of the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star? “Indeed, Illinois already has a law that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman so this is redundant.” (Peoria Journal Star editorial, “Same-sex marriage referendum a divisive distraction,” May 16, 2006, page A4)
Do the editorial writers know how difficult it is to gather signatures on petitions? I do. I’ve done it in Arizona including petitions to recall a governor. I can guarantee you that it was not redundant to the people who gathered the petitions. I can guarantee you that it was not redundant to the registered voters, over 8% of those who voted for governor in the previous election, who gladly signed the petitions. But, to the editorial writers it was all redundant.
Don’t the editorial writers read their own newspaper? Do the editorial writers have a short attention span that they forget recent history? Do the editorial writers think we are so stupid that they can say any lie and we will gullibly accept it?
We already know that Massachusetts allows homosexuals to marry because the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state law prohibiting homosexual marriage was unconstitutional. A headline in the Peoria Journal Star on 2/5/05, page A3 declares “Judge strikes down ban on gay marriage.” This court action occurred in the State of New York. The headline in the Peoria Journal Star on 3/15/05 page A2 asserts “California court voids ban on gay marriages.” The headline in the Peoria Journal Star on 2/21/06, page A5 trumpets “Baltimore judge strikes down Maryland ban on gay marriage.” Again I ask, have the editorial writers avoided reading their own news stories, have they forgotten recent events, or do they just think we are stupid!
In a January 20, 2005 story printed by the Peoria Journal Star the following was stated “The amendment (to prohibit homosexual marriage—my addition) was put on the ballot by the Legislature (in Louisiana—my addition) and approved by 78 percent of the voters. Eleven other states adopted similar amendments in the fall elections.” According to the Peoria Journal Star’s own news story, twelve states approved constitutional amendments to ban homosexual marriage in the 2004 elections.
Another article printed in the Peoria Journal Star on November 5, 2005, page A2 explains “The Oregon amendment, passed overwhelmingly in November 2004 as Measure 36, reads: ‘It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.’
Seventeen other states have similar constitutional bans.” According to this Peoria Journal Star story, eighteen different states and their people have found it necessary to amend their constitutions to prohibit homosexual marriage. Why? The answer is obvious. To prevent libertine, activist judges from ruling state law to be unconstitutional. Eighteen states thought it was not redundant to add a constitutional amendment to their respective constitutions because they know that libertine judges can subvert the will of the people.
Wait. That is not all. “Texas voters overwhelmingly approve a constitutional ban on gay marriage.” (Peoria Journal Star, November 10, 2005, page A3) According to articles printed by the Peoria Journal Star, at least nineteen states have passed constitutional amendments to prohibit homosexual marriage. Again I ask, don’t the editorial writers read their own articles? Do the editorial writers not know what has recently occurred in this country? Do the editorial writers believe we are stupid?
Note this also. The articles about the Louisiana and Oregon constitutional amendments were in the paper because homosexual activists legally challenged the constitutionality of the just passed constitutional amendments. In other words, the homosexual activists were trying to convince a judge in each of these two states that a just passed constitutional amendment to the constitution was unconstitutional!
WE know this to be true also. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual activity can not be a crime according to state law. The United States Supreme Court has ruled contrary to state laws that mothers can murder their own unborn babies. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is “a wall separating church and state” although no such provision can be found in the United States Constitution.
Yes, we need a constitutional amendment in Illinois to protect the institution of marriage from libertine, activist judges. We also need a Constitutional Amendment to the United States Constitution for the same reason. At some point in the future, libertine justices could very well rule that homosexual marriages must be allowed in the United States.
Originally, homosexual activists demanded that “government should stay out of their bedroom.” A libertine Supreme Court granted that demand contrary to the will of the people. Today, homosexual activists are demanding to be legally married as a civil right. The people need to protect themselves from libertine judges and justices who in the future may acquiesce to this demand.
The question is: Who is redundant? The thousands of Illinois registered voters who are participating in the political process or the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star?
The question is: Is it time to boycott the Peoria Journal Star until they change their positions on the important issues of the day?
The question is: Is it time to boycott the businesses which support the Peoria Journal Star through their advertisements?
In March and April I wrote four posts in relation to an article published in the Peoria Journal Star entitled “Living in hope for salvation for all.” Below is a letter I wrote to the author of that column.
I read your article published in the Peoria Journal Star on 3/18/06 entitled “Living in hope for salvation for all.” I wrote a four part response to the article on my blog:
http://www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/
on March 25th, March 27th, April 17th, and April 18th (running consecutively on the blog) entitled “There was an island.”
I thought it only appropriate that I inform you of my response and invite you to comment on it if you so desire. You may mail any correspondence to:
Christian Gunslinger
P.O. Box 481
Morton, Illinois 61550
I will publish any reaction you furnish in its entirety on my blog. I will probably also respond to your reply. At some point in time, I plan to post this letter on the blog whether or not you choose to write a reply. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Not a surprise; he did not respond. I didn’t really expect him to respond. As far as I can determine, he has no basis based on Scripture to believe that all will be saved. He based his opinion not on the WORD of GOD but on his own human desire.
The apostle Paul wrote the following to Timothy in II Timothy 4: 1-5.
“In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.”
What did Paul command Timothy to do? Preach the Word!!! How was he to use the Word? To correct, rebuke, and encourage! What are Christians today to do if they are to be obedient to GOD’S WILL? Preach the WORD! Correct, rebuke, and encourage! Where is the WORD of GOD found? In our own desires? NO!!! In our own interpretation of GOD’S WILL? No!!! GOD’S WILL can be found in one place. GOD’S WORD—the Bible.
If you want to know GOD’S Will, study the source HE has provided to us. Study the instruction manual. Study the Bible. Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take Paul Isom’s word for it.
Ultimately, we are each responsible for what we believe, what we do, and whether or not we accept GOD, JESUS, and the HOLY SPIRIT as our LORD and SAVIOR. I can not believe for you. Paul Isom can not believe for you. I can not be obedient for you. Paul Isom can not be obedient for you. Only you are responsible for yourself.
Choose wisely!!! Your soul depends on your choice!!!
© 2006
Today I mailed a letter to Senators Tweedledum and Tweedledee (I’m sorry, to Senator Durbin and Senator Obama) and to Senate Majority Leader William Frisk. The letter stated the following:
According to the Peoria Journal Star, my local newspaper, the Senate will once again consider “Immigration Legislation” next week. I hope that you and the other Senators will not be coerced into allowing a path to citizenship to individuals who have illegally entered our country.
Enclosed is a letter to the editor as published which I wrote. Also enclosed is the original as posted on my blog site:
http://www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/
I have no doubt that a majority of United States citizens does not want Congress to rewrite our immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to become United States citizens. Please vote accordingly! Thank you.
My original column entitled “Immigration, Immigration, Immigration” was posted on May 2, 2006. The edited letter to the editor (May 11, 2006, page A4) as printed (about one half of the material was edited out) reads as follows:
Under normal circumstances, I support free trade. Under normal circumstances, I support open immigration. However, these are not normal times. We are at war with terrorists and they want to destroy us.
I also support the laws of the United States when they do not violate God’s commands and will. An illegal immigrant is any immigrant who came into this country in violation of our laws. Immigrants do not have the right to rewrite our laws by illegally entering and staying in the United States.
On the May 2 front page of the Journal Star is a picture of a sign declaring “We are workers not criminals!” Wrong. By definition, if they crossed into this country illegally, they may be workers but they are also criminals.
One proposal being discussed is to establish a method to allow illegal immigrants to obtain citizenship. What utter drivel. The proposal would reward people who deliberately and knowingly violated our laws. In some other countries, such violations would more likely get the people shot rather than reward them with citizenship.
If this proposal becomes law, one situation is almost certain to occur. More illegal immigrants will come to the U.S. hoping to achieve the same results. Government should not reward illegal acts.
PS. Although I am posting this tonight, I wrote the above this morning. It’s seems that the Senate has already struck a deal. From the reports given, one of the elements of that deal may be some method of providing citizenship to those illegally in this country. If that happens, it will be the continuation of taking the road of convenience and capitulation instead of actually giving credence to our laws. Break the law; be rewarded by receiving what you demand.
However, it is not yet over even if the Senate has capitulated. A conference committee with the House of Representatives must reach a final determination on this issue. The supporters of illegal immigrants applied pressure on the Senate. What is your response to their demands to be given citizenship for violating our laws?
If you live in Illinois, this is the mailing address for the two Senators that are supposed to represent the State of Illinois and its citizens.
Senator Dick Durbin
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Also, the majority leader of the Senator is:
Senator William Frisk
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
The choice is yours. Sit out the process and let illegal immigrants dictate the laws for our country or take action now and by voting accordingly later.
A short article in the Peoria Journal Star today (May 11, 2006, page B3) reveals why it is important to read the complete story. The headline is “U of I chancellor wants to enroll nonresidents.”
The first two paragraphs of the story declare “The University of Illinois chancellor is defending the school’s decision to try to get more undergraduates from out of the state, saying the goal is intended to make the school stronger—not shut out Illinois students.
‘Let me be clear about one thing: We are trying to create the best education for the students you send us,’ Richard Herman told a group of Chicago-area high school counselors Tuesday. ‘This is why we are trying as hard as we can to attract the best students we can and those who give us as broad an experience as possible.’”
The article also explains that at the present time 10% of the students are from out-of-state. The university’s goal is to increase that figure by 50% to a total of 15% of students who are nonresidents. Furthermore, according to the story, the U of I has the lowest percentage of out-of-state students of any of the Big Ten schools. The high school counselors rightly understand that any increase in out-of-state students means that those out-of-state students are taking the place of in-state students who will not be able to attend the university.
Then the last two paragraphs seem to reveal the true reason why the university wants to increase the percentage of out-of-state students. “Herman defended the decision to attract nonresidents, saying out-of-state students pay about $15,000 more in tuition per year than Illinoisans.
‘Multiple that by 100 and what do you get?’ he said.” There you have it! Out-of-state students are more valuable as a commodity than in-state students! Each nonresident student is worth about $15,000 more to the bottom line of the university than each in-state student is. 100 more out-of-state students are worth about $1,500,000 more to the bottom line. It is money they want.
If the state is not paying enough to cover the bottom line, an easy way to increase that bottom line without increasing costs is to substitute one out-of-state student for one in-state student. Presto! One substitution increases the bottom line by about $15,000. 1,000 substitutions increase the bottom line by fifteen million dollars. Not a bad increase in revenue without any great increase in costs.
Too bad it harms the chances of in-state students to get accepted by the university! It seems the real goal is to increase revenue!
Remember in February when Vice President Cheney accidentally shot a friend while hunting? What was the reaction of the libertine media and of the libertine Democrats in Congress? Did they show any empathy for the Vice President? Did some demand that he resign?
Remember when it was reported that Rush Limbaugh was addicted to pain pills? What was the reaction of the libertine media and the libertine Democrats in Congress? Did they demonstrate any empathy for his situation? Did some demand that he be fired from his talk show? Did some demand his arrest, trial, and conviction? Did some gleefully use the information to trash him personally?
A short article was in the Peoria Journal Star on May 5, 2006, page A2. “U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., crashed his car near the Capitol early Thursday, and a police officer said he appeared intoxicated.” Representative Kennedy is the son of Edward M. Kennedy (Ted Kennedy), the senior, libertine Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. The other Senator from Massachusetts is, of course, libertine John Kerry.
The article continued with this information. “Kennedy addressed the issue after a spate of news reports. His initial statement said, ‘I consumed no alcohol prior to the incident.’
Kennedy said he returned to his Capital Hill home on Wednesday evening after a final series of votes in Congress and took ‘prescribed’ amounts of Phenergan and Ambien, another prescribed drug that he occasionally takes to fall asleep.
‘Some time around 2:45a.m, I drove the few blocks to the Capitol Complex believing I needed to vote,’ his second statement said. ‘Apparently, I was disoriented from the medication.’
No sobriety tests were conducted at the scene.”
The first line of a Peoria Journal Star news story on May 6, 2006, pages A1 declares “Rep. Patrick Kennedy said Friday he was entering treatment for addiction to prescription pain medication, a decision made after a highly publicized car crash near the Capitol that the congressman said he cannot recall.”
“The congressman’s father, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., issued a statement saying he was proud of his son for admitting his problem and taking steps to correct it.” (page A8) In February, I wrote that if any libertine Democrat should have empathy for Vice President Cheney it was Senator Kennedy. The Senator did not demonstrate any such empathy at that time that I am aware of. I’m glad that at this late stage in his life he has finally demonstrated some empathy—of course, it may have more to do with the fact that the situation involves his son that any real change of character. What do you think?
No other libertines were quoted in the article. To date, I have not read of any libertines calling for his resignation or that he in any way be held accountable for his alleged actions. (We all are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.) In fact, these two articles are the only two articles I have read on the situation in the Peoria Journal Star. (I may have missed others.)
Does who you are and your positions on issues seem to make a difference in news coverage and libertine reaction to the events that occur?
I moved from Tucson, Arizona to Illinois less than two years ago. Arizona allows citizens to participate directly in the government process through the initiative, referendum, and recall. Each election year, groups of people attempt to get placed on the ballot issues and/or solutions they support. Most fail to receive the required petition signatures. Those that are successful usually hire professional signature gatherers to achieve the required number.
The Protect Marriage Illinois petition has just been submitted to the State Board of Elections. It was done the hard way. Volunteers were the primary source for collecting the required signatures. And unlike Arizona, the referendum is not binding. It is only advisory. Normally, that alone would be sufficient to discourage both the gatherers and the signers of the petition.
The Family Taxpayers Network website declares “No matter what the media says tomorrow (Tuesday the 9th of May—my addition), today belongs to the people who got the job done. They did it with pages that would contain a maximum of only seven signatures. And they did what hasn’t been done in Illinois in 28 years.”
Quoting further from the website:
“Here are the final petition numbers:
Minimum signatures required: 283,111
Signatures collected: 421,801
Signatures filed: 345,199
Some additional statistics help illustrate the level of energy generated across the state for the cause of defending traditional marriage.
11,581 volunteers circulated the Protect Marriage Illinois petitions.
2,635 church congregations circulated petitions.
329,890 outreach calls were made to registered voters.
164 regional volunteer coordinators were put into place across the state.
Residents of all 102 Illinois counties signed the petition.
More than 1/3 of the petition signers represent minority communities.”
[To read the entire article, go to http://www.familytaxpayers.net/]
Congratulations and thank you to all Illinois citizens who participated in this democratic process to preserve the GOD directed and mandated institution of marriage. Prayerfully, the process has just begun.
On April 1, 2006 the Peoria Journal Star published a story entitled “Finding truths” with the subheading “An environmental scientist re-examines Israel’s Exodus from Egypt.” The story discusses material from a book titled “The Natural History of the Bible: An Environmental Exploration of the Hebrew Scriptures (Columbia University Press) by Daniel Hillel, professor emeritus of environment science at the University of Massachusetts.” (page D5)
Quoting from the article, “Even the parting of the Red Sea—better translated the ‘reed sea,’ which he assumes was a marsh—might have referred to a natural occurrence. Those who escaped could hide in the delta’s reeds while heavily laden troops with chariots got bogged down in the mud and mire. And the pillar of cloud could have been one of the familiar dust devils that reach considerable heights in the region’s deserts.” (page D5)
In contrast, this is what the Bible says about the event. “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on. Raise your staff and stretch out you hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground. I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them. And I will gain glory through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. The Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen.’
Then the angel of God, who had been traveling in front of Israel’s army, withdrew and went behind them. The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them, coming between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other all night long.
Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.
The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea. During the last watch of the night the Lord looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion. He made the wheels of their chariots come off so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, ‘Let’s get away from the Israelites! The Lord is fighting for them against Egypt.’
Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen.’ Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing from it, and the Lord swept them into the sea. The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived.
But the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. That day the Lord saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore. And when the Israelites saw the great power the Lord displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant.” (Exodus 14: 15-31)
Admittedly, I have not read the book. If the article is correct, the author seems to be arguing that the account in Exodus may be explained by natural phenomenon. If that is true, then the account in Exodus is a lie. Clearly, Exodus explains the results by crediting GOD’S power and authority over natural events. The body of water, not a marsh, is parted by HIS control over the wind. HE caused the chariots’ wheels to come off. He caused the waters to return to its natural state.
The author’s explanations have another problem. He seems to believe that both the Israelites and the leaders of the Egyptian army aren’t very bright. The author explains the pillar of cloud as a dust devil. I lived in Tucson, Arizona for twenty four years. I think I know the difference between a pillar of cloud and a dust devil. The Israelites lived in Egypt their entire lives and he doesn’t accept that they know the difference between a dust devil and a pillar of cloud. Even worse, he seems to believe that the experienced military officers of the Egyptian army would irresponsibly rush their chariots into a marsh area within their own country not knowing that the chariots would be bogged down. Does that seem reasonable?
The problem, of course, is that humanists can not admit the existence of GOD let alone HIS awesome power. Until they do, they will never understand the Bible!!!
NBC news on April 7, 2006 proclaimed that “It has been a tough week for Christians.” I discussed some of the elements of that alleged “tough week” on my May 4th and 5th posts. The post on the fifth concerned the “Book of Judas” discovery. Tonight, I’ll continue with the betrayal of JESUS by Judas as reported in the Bible. Last night, I included the accounts from “Matthew” and “Mark.” Tonight, the accounts of “Luke” and “John” and a short portion of “Acts.”
“Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. They were delighted and agreed to give him money. He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.” (Luke 22:3-6) “In the same way, after the supper he took the cup saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.’” (Luke 22: 20-22) “While he was still speaking a crowd came up and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?’” (Luke 22: 47-48)
“The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus.” (John 13: 2) “After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, ‘I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me.’” (John 13: 21) “Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and officials from the chief priests and Pharisees.” (John 18: 2-3a)
“In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, ‘Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.’
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)” [Acts 1: 15-19]
Obviously, I have not read nor do I have a copy of the “Book of Judas.” I can only refer to what others have said about it. However, if the “Book of Judas” does not portray Judas as a betrayer then it is in conflict with the accounts given in the Bible. The conclusion is obvious. If the “Book of Judas” is accurate, then JESUS is at best deceitful and at worse a liar and is not the SON of GOD.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteous, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (II Timothy 3: 16-17) The four gospels are either Scripture or they are not. If they are, they are GOD-breathed and are correct. Judas was a betrayer who betrayed the SON of GOD as declared in Scripture. Study the sections of each of the four books that describe his betrayal. Don’t allow TV news to decide for you.
Was the week a tough week? Not at all. Nothing in any of the three news stories has anything that remotely demonstrates that the Bible is not true, that JESUS did not walk on water, or that GOD did not create the universe and all that is in it.
The three stories did demonstrate the gullibility of NBC! Unfortunately, they think we are more gullible than they are!!!
NBC news on its April 7, 2006 broadcast stated that “It has been a tough week for Christians” (see post on May 4, 2006). This statement was based on three news stories that week. Yesterday, I discussed two of those three stories. Tonight, I’ll deal with the third one. This story dealt with the newly discovered “Book of Judas.” According to the news story, this book claims that Judas, one of the twelve apostles, did not really betray JESUS. JESUS had ordered him to turn HIM over to the religious leaders of that day.
If Judas was ordered to betray JESUS, the implication is that it calls into question the accounts of the events recorded in the Bible. And indeed it would. In fact, either the account in the “Book of Judas” is incorrect or the account as recorded in the Bible is incorrect. Of course, the existence of a “Book of Judas” does not mean that the material within it is true.
Few historians agree with everything that is generally accepted as the true accounts of history. Even today, there are scholars who disagree with the holocaust conclusion that about 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazi regime of Hitler. A researcher recently claimed that Abraham Lincoln was involved in homosexual behavior. A number of people believe conspiracy theories in relation to past events. Some people have declared that the United States was responsible for 9/11. Some still believe that John F. Kennedy was not assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. Writing something in book form does not make it true. That’s true for the accounts in the Bible as well as the account given in the “Book of Judas.”
What are the accounts of these events as given in the Bible? “Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests and asked, ‘What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?’ So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.” (Matthew 26: 14-16) “When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said, ‘I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.’” (Matthew 26: 20-21) “Jesus replied, ‘The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.’” (Matthew 26: 23-24) “Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!’
While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: ‘The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.’ Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, ‘Greetings, Rabbi!’ and kissed him.” (Matthew 26: 45-50) “When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. ‘I have sinned,’ he said, ‘for I have betrayed innocent blood.’” (Matthew 27: 3-4a)
“Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over.” (Mark 14: 10-11) “When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, ‘I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.’” (Mark 14: 17-18) “Returning the third time, he said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise! Let us go! Here comes me betrayer!’
Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: ‘The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.’ Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, ‘Rabbi!’ and kissed him. The men seized Jesus and arrested him.” (Mark 14: 41-46) (To be continued)
