Anthony Martin’s Weblog

Karen told me she read "The Foot Book" to Hannah months ago.  As result, Hannah, who is almost three, can now tell the difference between her left foot and her right foot.

Tonight, Hannah asked me to read this book to her for the first time.  I am astounded to see how silly this book is.  How she picked up such a useful piece of information is completely beyond my ability to reason!  Here's a video of me reading the book with comments about left feet and right feet at the end:



I then cryptically reference Jonah Chapter 4 at the very end of the video.  To me, this information take together is an indictment to Christians.  Children most certainly do qualify as worthy to receive the Gospel.  But they are largely ignored.  Usually, Christians claim children are "under the age of accountability" but if God was so willing to destroy Nineveh though it contained those who could not tell their left from their right, what does that say about children who can?  Maybe I'm taking things too literally.

Fact is, I am a Christian.  I largely do not believe in this "under the age of accountability" stuff.  If we are to "become as a little child" then I would like to become as Hannah and love Christ.  Then be judged rightly.

Thus, it seems like any age of accountability is perhaps two and under.  Which means we have been mislead by most pastors in the church.  What else are they wrong about?

Spurgeon was cautious that prophecy, when misused, would be a detriment to the proclamation of the gospel; that it was foolish at best, and wicked at worst, to delve into such speculation.  Yet in Spurgeon's day, like today, silly arguments over things like the number of the feasts, beast, and the identity of the anti-christ were topics of deep discussion.

During his ministry there was a great deal of prophetic speculation that Jesus would return in the year 1866.  When Christ did not return in that year, the very thing Spurgeon feared began to happen.  Unbelievers began to ridicule all Christian preaching.  Regarding this Spurgeon stated, "I am afraid of that spirit —'where is the promise of His coming? etc. etc.' And to pronounce 'all prophets as liars' came to me exceedingly harsh; yea, more than that, it was calculated, I feared, to influence thousands of minds, and lead them in a wrong direction."

It's not that Spurgeon didn't value prophesy, quite the contrary.  He just saw it as a secondary matter to the Gospel; a valuable endeavor, but one which should never "overlay the commonplaces of practical godliness," or start before "first you see to it that your children are brought to the saviour's feet."

Salvation is a theme for which I would fain enlist every holy tongue. I am greedy after witnesses for the glorious gospel of the blessed God. O that Christ crucified were the universal burden of men of God. Your guess at the number of the beast, your Napoleonic speculations, your conjectures concerning a personal Antichrist —forgive me, I count them but mere bones for dogs; while men are dying, and hell is filling, it seems to me the veriest drivel to be muttering about an Armageddon at Sebastopol or Sadowa or Sedan, and peeping between the folded leaves of destiny to discover the fate of Germany. Blessed are they who read and hear the words of the prophecy of the Revelation, but the like blessing has evidently not fallen on those who pretend to expound it, for generation after generation of them have been proven to be in error by the mere lapse of time, and the present race will follow to the same inglorious sepulcher.

Only fools and madmen are positive in their interpretations of the Apocalypse.

I really like this comic for some reason, although I know the author is essentially reducing God down to infinite space and time and that is not what I believe.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.  Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.  For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.  Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

So I'll break it down thought-by-thought.

In the show, called "90+ Minutes," Adam and Torri took on Tom and Sean to debate the topic of gay marriage. It might be a good idea to listen to the show before reading my comments. I decided to post on my (new) blog instead of writing feedback because my comments were so prolific, I didn't want them to take up too much time reading my views "on the air."

Show notes, mp3: http://www.thesitterdowners.com/2008/09/23/90-minutes/

First of all (and foremost), I believe the biblical commandments in the New Testament, that homosexuality is a grievous sin, just like gossip. It is immoral. I believe the Old Testament commandments about homosexuality need to be taken in light of the New Testament. If we don't, we run the risk of a perceived double standard because the Old Testament forbids lobster and shell fish in some of the same books as homosexuality (for example, see Leviticus 11:9-12, Deuteronomy 14:9-10). Non-religious don't understand how God can hand down one type of law that is still valid today while another kind of law is ignored today. It's not as simple as that because the non-religious aren't really studying their Bibles, and why should they?

Parenthetically, I think they should study the Bible like I study things like evolution so we all know what we're talking about, but that's not the discussion here. In fact, Adam and Torri avoided the biblical arguments altogether, which was wise since Tom and Sean do not see the Bible as any authory.

On the other hand, I am also commanded not to judge people outside the church. And since I do view the Bible as my authority, this extends to more than just keeping my mouth shut. It means loving my neighbor and not not cramming Christianity down anyone's throat in the hopes that no one will try to cram their world-view down my throat.

Schools teaching that the homosexual lifestyle isn't a problem with the homosexual lifestyle. It's a problem with the centralized planners in our federal government having a say in what goes on in our local schools. As a parent, if you don't like what the schools are teaching, you are basically out of luck unless you take drastic measures, and that's a big problem.

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6). If this cannot be accomplished because the federal indoctrination programs are getting in the way, guess what? You aren't raising your child adequately. If the government is getting in your way, it's an attack, and you should defend your family using drastic measures (home schooling, for example).

But if I have a fellow brother in Christ who claims to hold the Bible as an authority, and it turns out he has a gay lover, I will feel compelled to confront my friend and ask him where his loyalty is. I think I have a valid case to make to my friend. I have an obligation to point out a compromised principle at work here.

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." - I Corinthians 5:9-13

I don't think my personal belief should be "revised and extend" into federal government statute nor a constitutional amendment. I personally believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I don't believe the federal government as any say in the matter. In addition, I don't believe the several states are required to be part of the marriage covenant.

To me, getting the state involved is a type of prenuptial agreement to facilitate an easy divorce. My wife and I got our marriage license like good obedient citizens, but if I knew then what I know now, I might have tried to make a case against it, opting only for the wedding ceremony before God and man. I don't know how well that would have gone over, though.

Adam suggested that government could grant rights (show time index 0:33:01, in case you're curious). Now, I'm assuming he's talking specifically about the right to marry whomever we want to marry. Part of the problem is that we think we need permission from the state to get married. What happens if the state won't issue a marriage license?

Later, it was suggested that because the US Constitution doesn't mention marriage, we don't really have the right to marry. But the Constitution does not grant any rights to citizens, it only grants privileges to the federal government (originally, anyway). Furthermore, the ninth and tenth amendments restrict the federal government from entering into the subject entirely, leaving it to the states and the people to decide how to conduct themselves.

Sean pointed out a lack of what I like to call "corpus delicti" with regard to gay marriage. Corpus delicti is the Latin term for "body of crime," the principle that it must be proven that a crime has occurred before a person can be convicted of committing the crime. Since we're talking about mutually consenting adults, there is no corpus delicti, thus no standing for the government to intervene in consensual activity.

To suggest that if human action is not recognized and "sanctioned" by government then it must be a crime, is incorrect. Did George Washington and Martha Washington get a marriage license? I don't need to get into common law for this article, but if they were married without permission from the state, why can't a gay couple go about it the same way? I don't want the government to be involved in sanctioning and regulating *any* marriage, not heterosexual nor homosexual.

At one point, Adam went total red-liberal-socialist-lefty-pinko on us (at time index 0:34:00), saying, "The homosexual life-style is destructive to individuals that practice it. And gay marriage would be destructive to society. And I say that because traditional marriage increases the health and life expectancy of men and women who practice it."

Then he invoked some overwhelming statistical data that I'm sure was collected thoroughly and properly. Adam later tried to get Tom and Sean to stipulate to these statistics and say the homosexual life-style was more destructive. They wouldn't quite stipulate that, but I will. Now let's do a little search-and-replace on that statement:

"The [chain-smoker] life-style is destructive to individuals that practice it. And [people who chain-smoke] would be destructive to society. And I say that because [actively avoiding cigarette smoke] increases the health and life expectancy of men and women who practice it."

"The [anti-seat belt] life-style is destructive to individuals that practice it. And [people who avoid wearing their seat belt] would be destructive to society. And I say that because [buckle-up] increases the health and life expectancy of men and women who practice it."

"The [doing-anything-that-might-pose-personal-risk] life-style is destructive to individuals that practice it. And [doing-anything-that-might-pose-personal-risk] would be destructive to society. And I say that because [avoid-anything-that-might-pose-personal-risk] increases the health and life expectancy of men and women who practice it."

In other words, so what?

Even if the statistics are irrefutable (and we all know what Samuel Clemens said about statistics), you are advocating the regulation of behavior between consenting adults and how they peaceably conduct themselves. I know it's shocking to call Adam a socialist, but to invoke the "greater good" is a socialist idea because it implies that the individual does not own his or her own body. Do we uniformly apply the notion that the government knows better? If we regulate one type of risky human activity but not another, I have an obligation to point out a compromised principle at work here.

Adam and Torri seem to think the federal government's role is to either ban something or subsidies it. But that is a recipe for an ever growing government. There is a third role for government and that is to take no position on the matter, which would be my
preference, obviously.

I don't think married couples with kids should get any special tax incentives. The public education system amounts to nothing more than welfare for the middle class. Tax credits would be meaningless if we weren't taxes so heavy in the first place. If we stop all this tax code nonsense, we'd all be better off and homosexual couples would be on a more equal footing.

I think the optimal situation cannot be planned by a central government. I think the states should be allowed to take a crack at it without federal interference, but I believe they'll fail as well.

Torri (index 0:40:15) believes that once gay marriage becomes "accepted," more and more people are going to do it. So my question for Torri is, if gay marriage became the norm, are you going to be more likely to be tempted to divorce your wife and marry Adam? Are you at all tempted merely because society has accepted it or because something becomes government sanctioned? I know that's a silly way to put it, but I'm really just asking if you are really that influenced by society to do whatever society is doing? If not, then we're going back to regulating the behavior of mutually consenting adults. Why do you assume that role for non-Christians (which is the context we're talking about)?

Tom seems to think there's something pathological about homosexuality. I don't think so. I think it's a matter of preference and that's all. There are people who have an unhealthy fascination, but that could apply to anything from legos to sky-diving. Sexual fascinations are just so disturbing to people, we have to place them in their own pathological category, for some reason.

There may indeed be genetic causality for preferences, but I don't think the preference good or bad in and of itself. Maybe they are strong preferences that are difficult to shake. If a homosexual becomes a Christian, the Holy Spirit may change his or her preferences. Or not. If a homosexual who becomes a Christian does not have a change of preference, they have a difficult road ahead. The way I read scripture, it is a road of celibacy, if there is more to it than simply a preference.