Cell Phone vs. Bible

I wonder what would happen if we treated our Bible like we treat our cell phones?

• What if we carried it around in our purses or pockets?
• What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?
• What if we flipped through it several times a day?
• What if we used it to receive text messages?
• what if we treated it like we could not live without it?
• What if we gave it to kids as gifts?
• What if we used it as we traveled?
• What if we used it in cases of emergency?

This is something to make you go hmmmm...where is my Bible? (borrowed)

Did this make you think as much as me? I am not as cell phone conscience as many and yet I never leave home without it. I often leave home without my Bible and I often wish I had my Bible with me. Think I'll get myself a small one to keep in my purse.

Dana Burk

Food for Thought

I'm going out of town for the holidays to visit friends and family so the blog will not be blogged til after next Saturday. But, here are some things that are worthy of thinking on during this next week.

• Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
• Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all.
• He who loses money, loses much; He who loses a friend, loses much more; He who loses faith, loses all!

Have a great Thanksgiving and may God bless you and yours.

Dana Burk

One More Thought...Or maybe more!

The point was made that there are two different types of marriage (marriage by law and marriage by the church [I assume by the church is meant to be by God]). I'm not sure I agree with that. I understand that the government allows many to marry who have no right in the eyes of the Lord, however, I do not believe that we as Christians should "recognize" those marriages anymore than God does.

You remember when Jesus was talking with the woman at the well in John 4 what He said:
17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband."
Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no husband,' 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly." NKJV

Jesus understood that the "Samaritan government" had allowed this woman to be married six times and yet, He did not recognize that she was married (not even civilly). In Matt. 19:9, He says, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." NKJV

I don't say all of this to say that we are to be hateful or ugly to those in "adulterous marriages", but accepting and condoning such does nothing to help convict them of their sin. And, just because the government has now begun to recognize divorce and remarriage for any cause does not make it OK. (Even in the 1940's and 50's divorce for any cause was looked upon as shameful in our society and by our government.) As a Christian, I cannot condone that which is wrong. Again, I would say, as we begin to go back to the point of this discussion, I am all for the government standing against the gay marriage issue. In so doing, the government, at least in this one area, stands with God and that is where I shall stand.

As for depriving a citizen of privileges that go along with marriage.....Isn't the whole point to encourage that which is right--to reward those "who do good" and punish those "who do evil", Rom. 13:4. I guess that is "forcing" people to do what is right. But, once again, what is the purpose of government if not to encourage us to "be good" and punish us when we are not? This may not seem "fair" but, as your mother probably told you, "Life isn't fair!"

We, as Americans, have come to believe that we should have NO rules or regulations. Nonsense! God's book is one long list of rules and regulations..."His ways are not our ways" and His salvation is conditional upon obedience. He set up government, so, it only makes sense that it will have restrictions, rules and regulations which we are to abide by. The further our government ventures from adherence to God's laws, the more corrupt and perverted our society will become. Prov 14:34 says, "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. NKJV

Dana Burk

My Thoughts

One of the big "issues" in our recent discussions has been: Does or should government legislate morality? My answer is a resounding YES! Government always has, and to a great extent, currently does regulate morality. Murder is a matter of morality. Incest is a matter of morality. Stealing is a matter of morality. Drunkeness in public is a matter of morality. Indecency (not being allowed to walk around in the nude) is a matter of morality. Isn't lying to a Grand Jury (a "white collar" crime many are sitting in jail for right now) a matter of morality? Government still, granted to a very limited extent, legislates our television and radio airwaves against indecent language, lewdness and sexual content (remember Janet Jackson's Super Bowl exposure?) Isn't that all about morality, limited though it may be?

Can you picture a world where government does not legislate morality in any way? In fact, I would propose that that is one of the primary purposes of government. In Rom 13:1-4, Paul tells us that we have nothing to fear if we "do what is good". But, if we "do evil", then we should be afraid. This certainly cannot be talking about road building and traffic lights, but rather, morality issues. And Paul is not talking about the Jewish Law of Moses, but rather the secular Roman Government. "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." (NKJV)

A society that has NO moral legislation would be a society in total chaos--anarchy! God has ordained government for the purpose of legislating morality knowing that man will not voluntarily choose to "be moral". I recognize that our government has strayed far from the laws of God and yet, what laws of God they will adhere to and legislate, I welcome. The nearer we, as a nation, stand to God the easier it is for me, as a Christian, to practice my religion.

The idea that the government legislating moral issues makes it restrictive; prevents the persuit of life, liberty and happiness is just plain nonesense!!! Living in a free society comes with a price. Restrictions! We must all be willing to obey the laws of the land in order to not live in a chaotic mess. Not to be redundant, but....do you want to do away with the laws preventing murder, incest, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. If not why not? They restrict your freedoms don't they? Pursuing life, liberty and happiness has NOTHING to do with the lack of restrictions.

Legalizing anything that God has forbidden only allows it to grow in its acceptance and propagate. That includes gay marriages and homosexuality. Eventually, this acceptance WILL filter even into the church. It is being incredibly naive to think otherwise. Look around you at the denominations who staunchly opposed the gay agenda 15 to 20 years ago and today are ordaining gays to everything infinitum. Brethren in the Lord's church have followed the lead of denominations in their liberal thinking on everything else...if brethren fail to follow the pursuit of the acceptance of homosexuality it will be the first thing they have not tried to immitate.

Satan's incredibley subtle methods of legalizing and accepting sin have convinced so many (even within the church) that these issues have nothing to do with me--they do not REALLY affect my life and beliefs. If you believe that lie you are decieved already. It is Satan's lie about "freedom of choice" that has allowed millions of babies to be murdered. A woman DOES NOT have the right to choose the death of her child. Only God has that right. God's laws are very restrictive and we would live in a far better society if our government chose to obey them.

Dana Burk

WOW!! I Asked You What You Thought!

These are some of the comments I have recieved concerning the article posted last Thursday.


Ed Rangel's comment:
It seems like some Christians think that the government should outlaw all kinds of immoral things and to some extent I agree with that ideology. However, a people that is forced to be moral will not have a change of heart, the law will be obeyed because of the fear of retribution. King Hezekiah failed miserably when he forced the people to do away with idolatry. He left us the lesson that a people as a whole can only be changed one person at a time and not by force. Although, a preemptive attack on moral issues might not be such a bad idea, but what would it accomplish? Several years ago a Texas law on sodomy was challenged yet sodomy still takes place in that very place wherein it is outlawed. Obviously, as you can perceive, my feelings are mixed towards this ideology.

This type of thinking might also bleed into the church, as you already pointed out. Nonetheless, in this holy realm we cannot legislate only abide and comply.

Tracy's comment:
My fiancée and I have debated this very issue a few times. Here are a few points to consider:

1. Should government legislate morality? I agree with Ed Rangel when he says that this can have disastrous consequences, not only because one cannot force a change of heart on someone, but also because I believe it is the Church who should primarily be doing this work. Often, we as Christians hide behind government, asking it to witness for us, instead of doing it ourselves.

2. There are two types of marriage: I see a distinction between marriage by law and marriage by the church. The first we do to follow governmental protocol (giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s), whereas the second is a union before God, designed by Him, one which no man is to break (Matt 19:6). If these are two separate things, then should we dictate what secular marriage is to be?

3. What is government’s purpose in defining marriage? Since the government is secular and for the people, there must be a secular, beneficial purpose to marriage. If there is such a reason for not allowing non-heterosexual marriage, then this amendment is valid. By faith I know that God does not make mistakes; He designed marriage to be between a man and a woman because He knew it was best. Hence, I can trust that marriage between a man and a woman is beneficial to society, whereas homosexual marriage is not.

4. Would legalizing homosexual marriage make homosexuality more commonplace and give people the impression that it is not displeasing to God? If God hates homosexual relations, then would it be wrong for me to “encourage” it by not voting against it? Is voting for this amendment a way that I can do God’s work, influencing society by the laws I choose to support? On the other hand, a key part of the gospel is our freedom to choose who or what to follow, a principle we can reflect by the form of government we support.

5. What are we withholding from couples by not allowing them to get married? I don’t know the answer to this question, but there are privileges marriage confers in the world, such as the right to know medical information about your spouse when he/she has been in an accident, inheritance, tax cuts, etc., that seem wrong to withhold from a couple who want to be married but legally can’t. I can go on and on in circles about this issue, but the bottom line is that I am quite confused about it and I would really like to understand what God’s will is in all of this.

Ed's comment:
I have been studying Ezekiel 22-23 and the prophet paints a frightening picture of the morality in his society. The priests were a joke and themselves liars and thieves. The political leaders were no better and thus created a corrupt citizenship. Having thought more about Dana's post I feel even stronger that the judicial system is not the place to legislate morality. What propels this thought process is the fact that most of our leaders have a warped sense of what morality really is; what they think instead of what God says. No doubt that many politicians prey on our fears and offer us what we want to hear in order to elect them (hopefully I'm just cynical). Someone once said in reference to the immoral lifestyle of Ezekiel's time: "Ezekiel 23 is a mirror reflecting what current society, including national and state leaders, does behind closed doors. A steady lifestyle of this no longer bars the path to the White House. Such men and women as these are not answers to our moral and spiritual problems; they are part of the problems themselves!"

ukce1861's comment: (These are comments posted in answer to the original blog which my daughter sent me thus explaining this first paragraph. Dana)
I have a few comments on your post and some of the responses. Quite a few actually… I’d be happy to discuss things further or leave it altogether. I would have posted on your blog, but I’m not “Gold” and didn’t feel like paying the $5 a month to do that…

1. “Anybody but a Republican”, huh? So you voted FOR the party that advocates abortion and advancing the gay agenda? You voted FOR the party that advocates for a pull-out from Iraq leading to the further destabilization of an already destabilized and dangerous region? That’s interesting. Why? I can’t believe no one has asked that question in the comments yet, so I’ll be the first. To a point, I understand your frustration with the Republican Party. I too am frustrated. On many issues, they have sold out. Immigration and Prescription Drugs come to mind. However, the Democratic Party is as bad and worse on most issues. I can’t think of an issue where my stance is closer to that of the Democrats than the Republicans. And I’ll be honest with you; this election, I was pretty close to a one-issue voter. We must “stay the course” in Iraq. Osama bin Laden and President Ahmadinejad (of Iran) have made it very clear that Iraq is central to their plan for the worldwide Islamic Caliphate. May I remind you this is the guy who prayed for Armageddon on the floor of the UN? These people are actively working to bring about the “end of the world” as they understand it. They are preparing facilities right now for the return of the Mahdi (their version of the Messiah). It doesn’t matter whether you believe in this stuff or not; they do. We ARE involved in a Holy War, even if it’s not one of our choosing. For that reason, I can’t support the Democrats.

2. Item by item on your gay marriage points.
“Government should not legislate morality.”
So you support giving children access to pornography at any age?
So you support allowing abortions at any time for any reason?
So you support allowing polygamy, marriage to the household pet, etc?
And of course you support the legalization of prostitution and “recreational” drugs, right?

Of course the government legislates morality. I don’t see how the passage from Romans that was posted previously couldn’t apply here. If God appoints government as his minister, you don’t think he’d want them to minister with morality?

“Knee-jerk constitutional amendments are a very bad idea, and are very seldom beneficial.”
Isn’t this a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk amendment? Just because something is “bad” some or even most of the time, doesn’t not mean it is always bad. I don’t know about you, but if there were a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, I don’t care if it was “knee-jerk” or not, I’d vote for it in a heart beat. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

“’Same sex marriage’ is not legal in TN now. We don't need language added to the constitution that is already handled by other legislation.”The judiciary has demonstrated numerous times that it WILL legislate from the bench. The only way to keep existing laws from being struck down as unconstitutional is to add them to the constitution. It will be interesting to see how these [State Constitutional Amendments] stand up when they are appealed to the Supreme Court for conformance to the US Constitution, but it is at least an additional layer of protection. Especially with controversial and “hip” issues like gay marriage, the only protection we have is constitutional amendments. Existing laws have been demonstrated repeatedly to be inadequate.

“The amendment does nothing to "protect" existing marriage. Even if gay people were allowed to marry, it won't affect a straight marriage one bit. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce now already; its a misnomer to cast this initiative as ‘protecting families and marriage.’”
While it might be a BIT of a misnomer, I don’t really see it as inaccurate. Currently, marriage is basically defined by most common sense people as 1 man, 1 woman. There are those who would like to change that to 2 men; 2 women; 1 man, multiple women; 1 man, 1 dog; ad infinitum. So formally and legally defining the institution of marriage as 1 man, 1 woman, will protect marriage. How could it not? Do we need to strengthen marriage between 1 man and 1 woman? Yes. Does that mean we should allow further dilution in the process? Absurd. As for families, it does strengthen them. God has defined a family as 1 father, 1 mother and children. Legal marriage entitles a couple to a whole host of rights. Among those is the right to adopt children much easier. I realize this happens now, but it will become much more widespread if gay marriage is legalized. Not to mention, if you think the gay agenda in education is bad now, just wait till gay marriage is legalized and that becomes even more of an accepted lifestyle. Oh, and if you want to laugh at me for saying gay marriage opens the door for polygamy and other forms of marriage, don’t. What stops those people? Why don’t they have the same right to define marriage as they see fit? What legal standing do you have to deny them? None. The battle for cultural acceptance of polygamy has already started and will intensify in the near future. HBO started a series (http://www.hbo.com/biglove/) featuring a polygamous family and I would say within 5 years there will be at least one network show featuring such a relationship. The gay agenda was advanced in the same way. Remember all the controversy about Candice Bergen being an unwed mother on Murphy Brown? That was 1992, folks, 1992! Less than 15 years ago. Look how far we’ve come now. Gays were introduced into television shows and shown to be an “acceptable lifestyle choice”. If we cave on gay marriage now, we will have NO STANDING WHATSOEVER when polygamy and marrying nonhuman or inanimate objects comes up, and trust me, it will.

“Its restrictive legislation, and does not promote ‘life, liberty, and happiness’ for all citizens.”
I really think this is just a subset of #1. We have all kinds of “restrictive legislation” and I’m not in favor of getting rid of much of it.

Just a couple of other comments I wanted to respond to.

“I think it is equally sinful of government to deprive someone of medical benefits because they are a homosexual... or worse, because their parents are homosexuals.”
What exactly does this mean? I’m totally lost on this one. How is the government depriving someone of medical benefits? Help me understand this, please. If you’re saying it’s a right to have medical insurance and somehow that’s a function of the government, I couldn’t disagree more…

“It is not the job of government to save souls.”
I don’t see how this law has anything to do with saving souls. I see it as protecting families and our society.

“And we will not save souls by alienating them and depriving them of their needs.”
How are we alienating them? Don’t you think we should tell them that their lifestyle is wrong?

“I don't think Christ would have denied someone of health insurance”Is that really what this is all about? Wow… I always thought Christ had bigger fish to fry than health insurance…

One Flaw in Woman

By the time the Lord made woman, He was into his sixth day of working overtime. An angel appeared and said, "Why are you spending so much time on this one?"

And the Lord answered, "Have you seen my spec sheet on her? She has to be completely washable, but not plastic, have over 200 movable parts, all replaceable and able to run on diet coke and leftovers, have a lap that can hold four children at one time, have a kiss that can cure anything from a scraped knee to a broken heart and she will do everything with only two hands."

The angel was astounded at the requirements. "Only two hands? No way! And that's just on the standard model? That's too much work for one day. Wait until tomorrow to finish."

But I won't," the Lord protested. "I am so close to finishing this Creation that is so close to my own heart. She already heals herself whenshe is sick AND can work 18 hour days."

The angel moved closer and touched the woman. "But you have made her so soft, Lord."

"She is soft," the Lord agreed, "but I have also made her tough. You have no idea what she can endure or accomplish."

"Will she be able to think?", asked the angel.

The Lord replied, "Not only will she be able to think, she will be able to reason and negotiate."

The angel then noticed something, and reaching out, touched the woman's cheek. "Oops, it looks like you have a leak in this model. I told you that you were trying to put too much into this one."

"That's not a leak," the Lord corrected, "that's a tear!"

"What's the tear for?" the angel asked.

The Lord said, "The tear is her way of expressing her joy, her sorrow, herpain, her disappointment, her love, her loneliness, her grief and her pride."

The angel was impressed. "You are a genius, Lord. You thought of everything! Woman is truly amazing."

And she is! Women have strengths that amaze men. They bear hardships and they carry burdens, but they hold happiness, love and joy. They smile when they want to scream. They sing when they want to cry. They cry when they are happy and laugh when they are nervous. They fight for what they believe in. They stand up to injustice.

They don't take "no" for an answer when they believe there is a better solution. They go without so their family can have. They go to the doctor with a frightened friend. They love unconditionally. They cry when their children excel and cheer when their friends get awards.


They are happy when they hear about a birth or a wedding Their hearts break when a friend dies. They grieve at the loss of a family member, yet they are strong when they think there is no strength left. They know that a hug and a kiss can heal a broken heart.

Women come in all shapes, sizes and colors. They'll drive, fly, walk, run or e-mail you to show how much they care about you. The heart of a woman is what makes the world keep turning. They bring joy, hope and love. They have compassion and ideals. They Give moral support to their family and friends. Women have vital things to say and everything to give.

HOWEVER, IF THERE IS ONE FLAW IN WOMEN, IT IS THAT THEY FORGET THEIR OWN WORTH.
(borrowed)

What Do You Think?

My daughter sent me this e-mail last night of a discussion she and one of her Christian friends had via an e-mail discussion. She asked her father and me, as well as one of her brothers, what our thoughts were and we expressed them to her. She also responded to the young man in a much longer conversation than is recorded here, but I am curious what some of my readers thoughts are concerning his views. How do you think these types of views will affect the future of the church?


Mom,
One of my Christian friends from TN wrote this on his blog:

"Voted AGAINST the "marriage amendment" to the state constitution. I figure its going to pass anyway, but I'm steadfastly against it. "

so I asked him -
"Why vote against the marriage amendment? interested in hearing your thought process...your comments about politics they are always intriguing :) "

he said:
"Well, there are several reasons.
1. Government should not legislate morality.
2. Knee-jerk constitutional amendments are a very bad idea, and are very seldom beneficial.
3. "Same sex marriage" is not legal in TN now. We don't need language added to the constitution that is already handled by other legislation.
4. The amendment does nothing to "protect" existing marriage. Even if gay people were allowed to marry, it won't affect a straight marriage one bit. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce now already; its a misnomer to cast this initiative as "protecting families and marriage"
5. Its restrictive legislation, and does not promote "life, liberty, and happiness" for all citizens. I'm not FOR gay/same-sex marriage.
It is already illegal, and amending the state constitution for a morality initiative is bad, bad, bad public policy."


Let me know your thoughts on this. I will address this more in the next few days.
Dana Burk

No Charge for Love

A farmer had some puppies he needed to sell. He painted a sign advertising the 4 pups. And set about nailing it to a post on the edge of his yard. As he was driving the last nail into the post, he felt a tug on his overalls. He looked down into the eyes of little boy.

"Mister," he said, "I want to buy one of your puppies."

"Well," said the farmer, as he rubbed the sweat off the back of his neck, "These puppies come from fine parents and cost a good deal of money."

The boy dropped his head for a moment. Then reaching deep into his pocket, he pulled out a handful of change and held it up to the farmer.

"I've got thirty-nine cents. Is that enough to take a look?"

"Sure," said the farmer. And with that he let out a whistle. "Here, Dolly!" he called. Out from the doghouse and down the ramp ran Dolly followed by four little balls of fur.

The little boy pressed his face against the chain link fence. His eyes danced with delight. As the dogs made their way to the fence, the little boy noticed something else stirring inside the doghouse. Slowly another little ball appeared, this one noticeably smaller. Down the ramp it slid. Then in a somewhat awkward manner, the little pup began hobbling toward the others, doing its best to catch up...

"I want that one," the little boy said, pointing to the runt. The farmer knelt down at the boy's side and said, "Son, you don't want that puppy. He will never be able to run and play with you like these other dogs would."

With that the little boy stepped back from the fence, reached down, and began rolling up one leg of his trousers. In doing so he revealed a steel brace running down both sides of his leg attaching itself to a specially made shoe.

Looking back up at the farmer, he said, "You see sir, I don't run too well myself, and he will need someone who understands."

With tears in his eyes, the farmer reached down and picked up the little pup. Holding it carefully handed it to the little boy.

"How much?" asked the little boy. "No charge," answered the farmer, "There's no charge for love."

The world is full of people who need someone who understands. (borrowed)

What a beautiful story about compassion and understanding. Truly each of us needs to express these qualities more frequently. Dana