The majority of the house speaks.
That is democracy, as it works in Canada.
Nathan Weatherdon
(Green Party)
Nathan,
The excuses of democracy, legality, and of majority do not make it right. There are men’s imperfect laws and God’s Perfect Law. Just because the majority of members of the House would reject the present government policies does not make them right. What they do is wrong, if not by law, then by motive, pretending to serve the true needs and wishes of the people when you and I both know otherwise.
You see that Harper’s Conservatives won 143 seats. On the other hand, the 2 other national parties, the Liberals won 77 seats and the New Democratic Party 37 for a total of 114 seats, 29 seats less than the Conservatives. The Bloc Quebecois won 49 but the BQ is only for Quebec; not one BQ member was elected by Canadians for a united Canada. To allow them to tip the scale and say it is a legitimate coalition in Canada’s favor is like saying a bit of arsenic is fine in your food.
If you were representing the BQ or speaking for them, I would understand your prejudiced logic, but if you presume to speak for the Canadian people in general, who can question that you do them disservice with your devotion to legal procedure and lack of understanding?
Furthermore, God is finished winking at the nonsense that goes on in the government and everywhere else in Canada. Oppose what is right and true and just in the name of playing by the rules of the game, no matter what the keeping of them may usher in, and you play with fire, coming against God, Who is fed up with the whole charade. I am here to tell you so.
Better to get on the winning side, for good, don’t you think?
Victor
Are you telling me that God appointed Stephen Harper?
The majority of the House of Commons is the majority of the House of Commons, whatever way you cut it.
Nathan Weatherdon
Yes, Nathan, God appointed Stephen Harper, as He does every ruler at any time, no matter who that may be – Duceppe, Trudeau, Churchill, Hitler, Cyrus, Pharaoh – every one of them. The Scriptures are full of such testimony. And their appointment has nothing whatsoever to do with any virtue. There is no virtue in man intrinsically.
You are right about the majority in the Commons, but this is not about majority so much as morality. It is evident to us that God knows this coalition has not united for the good of Canada, but for its own selfish purposes. You don’t fool God. Neither does God place system before wisdom or might above right.
Here are some explicit examples of God appointing whomsoever He will:
“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth’” (Romans 9:17 MKJV).
“Who says of Cyrus, He is My shepherd, and shall do all My pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, You shall be built; and to the temple, Your foundation shall be laid” (Isaiah 44:28 MKJV).
To Nebuchadnezzar, likely the most glorious ruler in unbelieving mankind’s history, God said, “And they shall drive you from men, and your dwelling shall be with the animals of the field. They shall make you eat grass like oxen, and seven times shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He will. The same hour the thing was fulfilled on Nebuchadnezzar. And he was driven from men, and ate grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of the heavens, until his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws” (Daniel 4:32-33 MKJV).
To Pilate, the pagan Roman governor, Jesus said, “You could have no authority against Me unless it were given to you from above” (John 19:11 MKJV).
Yes, Nathan, I am telling you God appointed Stephen Harper. I will tell you something else – until God changes His mind or His course, those who oppose His appointed ruler oppose Him and will reap the consequences, no matter who they are, technicalities and laws of men notwithstanding. God is not interested in man’s systems, majorities, or anything else men can come up with.
I also tell you that you can watch and see for yourself.
Victor
You’re a perfect example of why separation of church and state is one of the most sacred articles of faith in modern politics.
It worked well to prevent revolution among ignorant peasants in the 18th century.
Seriously though, if you’re willing to go on record stating that God appointed Harper, then I’m willing to go on record to state that you’re an ideologically blinded religious zealot.
A question though – God also appointed us to be stewards of the earth. Does this mean destroying the environment for our own economic interests or protecting what nature there is left?
I would suggest that your proclivity towards literal interpretation of religious texts could be much more usefully targeted towards encouraging people to respect nature. Be a steward of the earth rather than blindly supporting a leader who puts partisan interests ahead of his country.
Nathan Weatherdon
Hi Nathan,
Well, it is obvious that you believe nothing of the Bible, the Word of God. Whether you know it or like it or not, God runs the show. Whether men think to combine church and state or not, God is still sovereign. Here is a proverb you need to know:
“Start with GOD–the first step in learning is bowing down to GOD; only fools thumb their noses at such wisdom and learning” (Proverbs 1:7 MSG).
You make many brash, ignorant, and foolish assumptions. You need to learn before speaking. There is another proverb tailored to suit you:
“Answering before listening is both stupid and rude” (Proverbs 18:13 MSG).
I am not seeking to combine church and state. That is an impossibility in the true sense of what the Church of God is. The original Greek word translated “church” means “a called out assembly.” The True Church is the Body of Christ – those called out of the world and man’s religious inventions that use the name of “church.” God does not mingle Himself with unbelievers or with men’s institutions. If one ever sees the combination, it is the works of men, and there is a verse for that (which agrees with your viewpoint, by the way):
“Concerning the works of men, by the Words of Your lips, I am kept from the paths of the destroyer” (Psalms 17:4 MKJV).
God forbid that we should have another Catholic, Church of England, Lutheran, Islamic, or any other kind of religious tyranny. I much prefer the status quo. Not that the wedding of man’s church and state is the only curse or even the worst curse there is. Try the Soviet communist experiment, in which the state declared, “There is no God or Church,” or the Maoist version of atheism – no church but plenty of Hell, to which tens of millions can testify by their blood crying out of the ground in both dominions.
However, there is still a much better way than democracy, a way of which the prophets of long ago and to the present have spoken. It is rule, not by men or a combination of church and state by men (an abomination to God), but the rule of God in the hearts of men. Think about it, Nathan – when men’s hearts are changed so that they will only desire to do good to one another, then will we be on the way to peace, health, and prosperity. There is no other way. That is known as the Kingdom of God on earth.
Now, no man or earthly organization can accomplish this. Only God can do so. That is why He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to lay down His life, raise it up again (demonstrating He is God), and give His Spirit to us, regenerating us and redeeming us from the corruption that leaves us incapable of any true good.
You are a silly and ignorant young man, Nathan, with plenty to learn. That is corruption. The sooner you begin to avail yourself of true knowledge rather than man’s, the better you will like it. Jesus Christ came to change everything and therefore, as His emissaries, we speak. You cannot have light or knowledge or wisdom or understanding of the true kind without Him. It is that simple, even as the proverb quoted declares.
Because I will be posting your letter in full context on our site, you have already effectively gone on record, foolishly and without cause calling me “an ideologically blinded religious zealot,” as you said you would.
We have gone on record that God appointed Harper, like it or not, agree with it or not, even as the Scriptures clearly testify in implicit, if not explicit, terms. In your opinion, this makes God “an ideologically blinded religious zealot,” too. As I have already told you, God appoints all leaders, and He raises up and pulls down nations and empires. All is in His hands; all things are determined from above, way above even you and your learning and wisdom, Nathan. Here is what God has to say about your intellectual prowess:
1 Corinthians 3:18-21 MKJV
(18) Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this world, let him become a fool so that he may be wise.
(19) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, “He takes the wise in their own craftiness.”
(20) And again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.”
(21) Therefore let no one glory in men.
Curiously enough, while you believe nothing of the Bible, you still make reference to God. How so? You believe in God, yet call Him a liar? The Bible is the Prime Source of written knowledge of God, as long as you value and respect the Author of It, Whom He is. You now say:
“God also appointed us to be stewards of the earth.”
Yes, He would that we treat creation with all due care and respect.
You then ask, “Does this mean destroying the environment for our own economic interests or protecting what nature there is left?”
Why ask such a foolish question? Are you suggesting I support destructive policies because God has given me to curse the corrupt and pretentious spirit and motivations of the coalition and ask God to give wisdom to the present government in power (which wisdom would include environmentally-healthful policies)?
You then go on to say in your youthful and arrogant manner:
“I would suggest that your proclivity towards literal interpretation of religious texts could be much more usefully targeted towards encouraging people to respect nature. Be a steward of the earth….”
What would you know of “literal interpretation” of the Bible or its validity?
Nevertheless, we are just a bit ahead of you in your suggestion: HarvestHaven.com.
Again you speak hastily, in carelessness, irresponsibility, and ignorance, though you think yourself to be wise. You may also read Back to Basics and Christian Physical Diet, and see how you fare in your posture as a true environmentalist.
But how did we get there? That is the crucial question. We can take no credit for it. You see, Nathan, you need a change of heart, a new heart, replacing that stony one of yours with which you now think, speak, and act. Only Jesus Christ can do that for you.
You say of yourself:
“Nathan is an idealist with little interest in unrealistic solutions. He believes that each and every vote for the Green Party and its well-rounded platform is a powerful message from the public that it is in the interests of every political party to engage in a genuine debate regarding the best policies to encourage sustainable social and economic development that will benefit Canadians today and in the future.”
I am not sorry to burst your idealistic bubble, my friend. Read:
For Whom Do We Vote?
Why Do We Vote for Jesus Christ?
How Do We Vote for the Lord Jesus Christ?
Are We Suggesting You Should Put Your Head in the Sand?
Trash your man-educated ignorance and begin to learn from his Creator. Pray to God (which happens to be Jesus Christ), the One you can rightfully believe to be the Creator of the earth, of which you rightly think you are to be an effective steward. Find out from Him directly just what it takes to accomplish such an awesome, monumental, and impossible job – successfully.
I can tell you right now that, notwithstanding all good and sincere intentions, the Green Party will not do it, nor will Harper. I think you know that, too. The thing is, will you be honest and admit it to yourself? Or will you go on being a hero, deceiving yourself and thinking to impress others? You don’t impress us, and you certainly don’t impress God.
Try again, Nathan. We have the counsel to lead you in the right direction, and we are giving it to you now.
Victor
Well, I can certainly see that you’re a man of principal, and I always respect that, whether I agree with the fine points or not.
I think you might be the first person to ever call me either silly or ignorant, but I 100% agree that I (like every human on earth) has much to learn. In my mind, the best way to learn is to make an effort to expose oneself to as many different possible perspectives.
You are correct to guess that I don’t believe that the Bible is the direct word of God (although, as son of a pastor, I sure do know it). In truth, I am a complete atheist who takes refuge in agnosticism if push comes to shove, but I find great spiritual satisfaction in the exploration of philosophy and the possibilities of the human mind. Please don’t take that as an indication that I am a target for conversion because I guarantee you that it would be a waste of your time. It is my preferred path and one that I am intent on pursuing.
________________________________________
I do, however, have a question though, that comes from a more respectful tone than I exhibited before. If man is infallible and (as per the analysis of Kierkegaard in his concept of the absolute paradox) is inherently bound to misinterpret truth at every step, I wonder if we might agree that the individual must be permitted to carry out their spiritual development as they see fit. This is a question that has interested me since discussing religious philosophy with a religious community in Indonesia, where we all came to an agreement that honestly stating ones disbelief is always preferable to a false profession of faith. After all, what can ‘the right choice’ mean if there is no choice? They believed I would go to hell either way because I didn’t accept Mohammed as the last prophet, but why not at least get there as an honest man?
My guess is that you will say that God fills us with truth, which would leave me exactly where I stand now with this question, believing that perceived truth is a unique experience for every individual and that genuine truth will forever elude even the most enlightened of us fallible beings.
While I don’t believe in God, I believe that faith in God represents a desire for truth that is ultimately respectable in every manifestation.
________________________________________
Finally, I apologize. My comments, however, represent a reaction that a significant portion of Canadians would share, which is something that you might want to consider when choosing the words to maximize the impact of your message when targeted to people outside your religious community.
I have been known to say many times over that I am willing to respect all beliefs as long as the same is extended to me. I dropped the gloves first, and did so in a dishonourable manner. I had thought your organization may have been part of the Conservative Party propaganda machine. Ultimately, I fear the possibility that the principle of divine right will again be used to justify dictatorships, which is what motivated my response.
Keep doing what you think is right. And good work with the Harvest Haven. God or no God, it’s good news.
Nathan Weatherdon
Hi Nathan,
Your apology is thankfully accepted. No harm done; no offense taken.
Whether you call yourself an atheist, agnostic, or believer, I can tell you that relatively speaking, as we deal with all the mail, your conduct and attitude have a trace, a faint fragrance, of your Judeo-Christian background, and maybe not so faint as all that. Though many will deny it, there is extraordinary value in the Mosaic Law and the true Biblical Christian doctrine and ethic, unlike any other religion.
True Christianity is much more than a religion; it is God Himself. I am not saying that you have God; you yourself have denied Him as your God. Yet He may not have denied you.
This is not an expression of partisanship or religious bigotry as some suppose, but a sure and living knowledge of the Lord and Savior of all mankind, Jesus Christ, Who is Risen-from-the-Dead, Almighty God. The problem with the vast majority of Christians is that they are so in name only, as sincere as they may be.
False Christianity is religion; the true is anything but. Jesus Christ came not to give us religion, Christianity, or “churchianity,” but Reality in its glory and splendor by absolute identification with Him.
Of those ascribing to orthodox Christianity, they are poisoned with many falsehoods, not the least being doctrinal “pillars of faith,” which are not truths, but lies. Some of these they regard as keystones of true Christianity, such as the pagan doctrines of the trinity, free will, and eternal torment, all of which serve to increase their confusion and reinforce their instinctive doubt.
Narrowing it down to a segment of nominal Christendom, evangelicals preach a false gospel of, “Accept Jesus into the heart and you are saved – that’s all there is to it.” They deceive themselves, terribly so, thinking to have the Rock as their foundation, but finding themselves in quicksand.
Then when we come and preach the Truth with full assurance and conviction, by the anointing He has bestowed upon us, which anointing He IS, we are called false prophets, dogmatists, arrogators, fanatics, religious bigots, fools, heretics, and a cult. So be it; we knew it would be coming because He told us so in advance.
Think about it, Nathan: Religious establishments are recognized, readily accepted, and respected in the world, yet Jesus plainly declared that if we were truly His, we would be hated by all men because the world hated Him first, and does hate Him to this day. But those in established orthodox nominal Christianity just don’t see it. As far as they are concerned, they are the beloved of God and we, who are hated by all men for His Name’s sake, are the offscouring of the earth – no different than it was 2,000 years ago and prior.
Sour grapes, Nathan? Not at all! I speak for your sake now. Am I trying to convert you, as you warned that I shouldn’t try? Not at all. I know that unless God decides to call and choose anyone, you and I don’t stand a chance of changing your mind or heart. Nobody could do a thing with me until the time.
As Jesus said to His disciples, “You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you.” That’s the way it is, and not as mainstream Christendom would have you believe, so that listeners might join them and become members of their kingdoms (not God’s).
I took a long time to get to your letter because there was plenty to be said. I am not wasting my time on you. What I have to say is no waste of time and will bear fruit, if not with you, then somewhere, somehow. I am not writing in vain.
Now to your question. You and your companions in Indonesia came to a right conclusion, which was, “Honestly stating ones disbelief is always preferable to a false profession of faith.” Of course that is true! Who would or should argue? That is straight out of the Bible, which I know to be the Word of God. Who has ever said differently?
Yet you struggle with the fact that you have seen many profess but not truly believe, and more importantly, you have professed without true belief. You felt the hypocrite or unsettled about it, but relieved when you decided to be honest, mostly with yourself, but also with your family and neighbors, and ironically, even with God, Whose existence you have honestly confessed to question or doubt. There is nothing wrong with that.
You write: “If man is infallible and (as per the analysis of Kierkegaard in his concept of the absolute paradox) is inherently bound to misinterpret truth at every step….”
If you mean to say “fallible,” Kierkegaard was perfectly right insofar as this statement is concerned, if this statement accurately represents his thoughts. This is the fate of all unregenerate mankind; it is the very essence, source, and condition of sin. The Bible tells us that. Man, in and of himself, cannot know the truth, because he is disconnected from the Truth, Creator God.
That is precisely why we needed a Mediator, a Bridge, a Gate, an Intervener, a Savior (I capitalize the word not because of an implicit religious reference to Jesus Christ but in respect to God, the only Power, above us all) – the Creator, Who is able to give us the change of nature that alone will solve the problem that Kierkegaard so perceptively observed and elucidated.
So while he accurately stated the problem, even as the Bible does, he, true to his philosophy and in his unbelief, was unable to come to the solution for it, not that he could come to the solution in his own power, and not that the solution was nonexistent. He needed a Savior! He greatly erred in believing that people are entirely free and thus responsible for what they make of themselves, based on the external appearance of things. And he has led you, or will lead you, down a dead-end alley, if you have been, or are, following him.
He and Nietzsche were two intelligent, but spiritually dead, men, perfectly locked in their own well-defined state, as are all men without the One Who came, as you know, saying, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man can come to the Father but by Me” (John 14:6), and, to those receiving Him, “You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free” (John 8:32 MKJV).
Is there choice? Yes, there is, but there is no such thing as free will. We have some things to say on this topic. You could start with Diabolical Doctrine: Man Has Free Will and then read the selections in Free Will.
I think one way to put it is that we have the freedom, it seems, to choose, but not to do. All things are determined from above, even as Jesus indicated to Pilate. If we happen to do as we choose, it is only because we are granted it.
“You may make your plans, but God directs your actions” (Proverbs 16:9 GNB).
Jeremiah, by the Spirit of God, declared:
“LORD, I know that none of us are in charge of our own destiny; none of us have control over our own life” (Jeremiah 10:23 GNB).
Indeed, we have choice to demonstrate that we have no free will – it certainly proves so.
At the risk of being won to Christ your Redeemer, read the papers we offer. Even if you don’t believe God, our writings will prove those whom you do believe to be in manifest error, rationally and logically, as well as spiritually.
As you said, I can’t convert you, but as you reserve or presume the right (whether you have it or not is another matter) to speak what you believe, so do I. If you were to believe me, your searching would be over. I have the map to the destination you seem or think to seek; indeed, all those in Christ ARE the map, which map He is, in that He said, “I am the Way.” True Christians are duplicates in process of the One Who creates them in His own image.
Because you don’t believe, I must allow you the “freedom” to keep banging your head against the wall and searching, even as I was subjected to doing for a time, even as all men are made subject to vanity until the time. It is part of the process, Nathan; it is part of the process that is not of our doing or in any way in our control.
“All creation is eagerly waiting for God to reveal who His children are. Creation was subjected to frustration but not by its own choice. The One Who subjected it to frustration did so in the hope that it would also be set free from slavery to decay in order to share the glorious freedom that the children of God will have. We know that all creation has been groaning with the pains of childbirth up to the present time” (Romans 8:19-22 GW).
So much for free will. The Bible certainly does not teach it, and what a relief that we don’t have it! We would have perished long ago.
So you are wrong in your guess that I will say that God fills us with truth, unless you mean at some point in time. No, we are all full of lies until the time when He does fill us, one person at a time, perhaps sometimes a household, and rarely a group of people, as He did at Pentecost when 3,000 were saved.
You write: “While I don’t believe in God, I believe that faith in God represents a desire for truth that is ultimately respectable in every manifestation.”
I think you refer to worship or religious affiliation and activity, but that is not what faith is according to Scripture. James had a word on this that may clarify somewhat:
“You believe that there is one God, you do well; even the demons believe and tremble. But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:19-20 MKJV)
Those who truly desire truth and are prepared to enter into it or to have it rule them will find it:
“I alone know the plans I have for you, plans to bring you prosperity and not disaster, plans to bring about the future you hope for. Then you will call to Me. You will come and pray to Me, and I will answer you. You will seek Me, and you will find Me because you will seek Me with all your heart. Yes, I say, you will find Me, and I will restore you to your land. I will gather you from every country and from every place to which I have scattered you, and I will bring you back to the land from which I had sent you away into exile. I, the LORD, have spoken” (Jeremiah 29:11-14 GNB).
Until then, you will search and ponder in vain, and those who indulge in idolatry and their own chosen machinations are less than respectable to God.
You write some interesting things here, Nathan:
“I stand now with this question, believing that perceived truth is a unique experience for every individual and that genuine truth will forever elude even the most enlightened of us fallible beings.”
One, people have their opinions and perceptions of truth, that is true, but truth is not relative. There is the Real, the Original, the Origin.
Two, I note that you do acknowledge, wittingly or otherwise, that there is the genuine truth.
Three, truth is indeed, as you and your philosopher friends acknowledge, perfectly elusive to, and unattainable by, man, no less than catching the wind in your hands. As to the word “enlightened,” I think you use it clumsily. “Enlightenment” means “having light.” Here is what the Bible says about light:
“Everything came into existence through Him. Not one thing that exists was made without Him. He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity. The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it” (John 1:3-5 GW).
“He (John the Immerser) himself was not the Light; he came to tell about the Light. This was the Real Light—the Light that comes into the world and shines on all people” (John 1:8-9 GNB).
Jesus said this of Himself:
“Jesus spoke to the Pharisees again. He said, ‘I am the Light of the world. Whoever follows Me will have a life filled with light and will never live in the dark’” (John 8:12 GW).
In other words, there is no true enlightenment without the Light of men.
Now here is where Kierkegaard is right, and also how the problem (and not knowing the Truth is a problem) can only be solved:
“He went to His own people, and His own people didn’t accept Him. However, He gave the right to become God’s children to everyone who believed in Him. These people didn’t become God’s children in a physical way-from a human impulse or from a husband’s desire to have a child. They were born from God” (John 1:11-13 GW).
It is God’s doing and not man’s to come into Light and Life.
You say, “I have been known to say many times over that I am willing to respect all beliefs as long as the same is extended to me.”
Do you, and can you, respect all beliefs? God comes and says, “Believe My Son Whom I send to you,” but the Muslims say, “God has no son.” Jesus comes to lay down His life for the world, while Muhammad comes to take lives for himself in God’s Name.
Another example: Pro-lifers say, “Killing unborn babies is wrong,” while abortionists (“pro-choicers”?) say, “It is not wrong to kill unborn babies.”
To respect all beliefs, Nathan, is to be a classical schizophrenic. As one person said, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” That same person may not have gone far enough to say, “Believe the ‘genuine Truth.’”
Or are you saying that you respect their right to believe as they choose? I think the latter. Even there, do we allow such a thing? Did you respect our entry when you suspected we were of the “Conservative Party propaganda machine”? I don’t think so. Therefore, while the philosophy sounds objective, unbiased, understanding, tolerant, and wise, it contradicts itself. It is patently irrational, illogical, foolish, and frankly, insane.
Without the Light is only darkness. Jesus being the Light, without Him is only darkness. To exist stumbling and fumbling in darkness when there is Light is insanity. Without Christ, all men are insane, as the creatures in I Am Legend.
You write: “Ultimately, I fear the possibility that the principle of divine right will again be used to justify dictatorships, which is what motivated my response.”
This has been the bane of mankind throughout all his history, from the fall of man. It is the very nature of the man of sin, the son of perdition, which lives in, and is, every person ever born except for Jesus Christ. That is precisely why He has come and is now here to do what He has always intended to do. There is no other hope or solution. He is it, and He will perform His will to perfection. Read The Restitution of All Things.
We know, and therefore we speak.
Victor