Michael Newdow Can Kiss My Ass

I’m aware that this country is full of petty and annoying people, but I rarely single anybody out as being a specific thorn in my side. That all changes today, because a certain name pops up in the news just often enough to piss me off to the point where I feel I need to vent. His name is Michael Newdow and if you don’t recognize the name, odds are you’ll recognize the issue that practically made him a cult celebrity.

This is the atheist who, back in 2000, sued the Sacramento School District because he didn’t think it was right that his daughter and other children in her school should be made to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. He argued that the Pledge violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution (which demands the separation of Church and State) because it refers to our “…one nation under God.”

Newdow says that folks who are gathered in public venues are supposed to be “protected” from state-sponsored religious declarations and, according to this peckerhead, we need “protection” from the words “under God.”

In 2002, a ruling was rendered in his favor, but about two years later, it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on what can only be described as a technicality (Newdow didn’t have custody of the daughter for whom he alleged to have filed the suit). God had seemingly dodged a bullet… and yet we hadn’t heard the last of Michael Newdow.

In November of 2005, he was back at it again, but not content with just trying to piss on our patriotic traditions, he decided to launch an attack on our money, too.

Side Note: Not long after reading about his first suit, I actually predicted this would be his next move, regardless of whether he won or lost Round One of his God attack.

Apparently, Newdow felt that having the motto “In God We Trust” on our coins and paper currency was a violation of his (and presumably our) First Amendment rights. By the middle of 2006, a federal judge rejected his suit, ruling that the words “In God We Trust” represent a “secular national slogan” that didn’t force any type of individual adherence to a belief in God.

In a follow-up interview (…on the day that the United States House of Representatives passed an act to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from ass-clowns like Newdow), he was quoted as saying,

"A few hours ago, the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America voted 260 to 167 to completely gut the Constitution of its separation of powers and violate numerous other clauses because they thought it was important enough to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't think people would've done that for our political heritage or anything else. They did it because they want God in their government because it stands for a religious view that they adhere to, and they want to see that religious view espoused by government, which is exactly what the establishment clause forbids."

All along, Michael Newdow has claimed to be “fighting for the Constitution” which is obviously a huge load of bullsh*t. He doesn’t give a sh*t about Americans or our rights.

He’s a bitter atheist with an axe to grind against God and this is his way of doing it.

Not surprisingly, he’s a physician with a law degree which is arguably the worst possible atheist in existence. For one, if he's ever saved even so much as one life during his practice, he’s probably already got a God complex of his own. Add to that his legal acumen to pick apart the Constitution to suit his own selfish desires and you get a potentially dangerous litigant who just might one day twist the truth enough to make others see things his way.

What Newdow fails to realize is that the establishment clause was never meant to guarantee that people would never be exposed to any type of religion whatsoever. You see churches all over the place, not to mention cemeteries with countless images of crosses, Jesus, Mary, etc. It does, however, prevent our government from forcing people to worship God... and I'm sorry, but reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or handling money that says, "In God We Trust" is not tantamount to pushing somebody to their knees and praying. Kids stand when reciting the Pledge as a show of respect. I've been to a Brazilian soccer game where their own anthem was sung. I might not be Brazilian and I might not know the words, but I still stood out of respect for the country and what it stands for.

So, what is this country supposed to do? Get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance? Alter it? Wouldn't it just be easier for his daughter to stand (in respect) and remain silent? And how about our “In God We Trust” motto? Do we just get rid of that, too? If so, do we then collect all of the previously minted coins and melt them down? Do we burn our paper currency?

And what about cities like Los Angeles (The Angels) and Sacramento (Sacrament)? Do we rename every city that has a religious name? And what about those cemeteries I mentioned? Do we hit every cemetery in America and remove every religious symbol we find, lest we offend anybody who doesn't believe in Jesus?

Where does this insanity end? Is Newdow gonna try to break into the National Archives and erase “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” from the Declaration of Independence? And before I wrap this up, I'll say that it’s been my experience that liberals will often try to discredit “slippery slope” arguments based solely on principle. Yet I’m already seeing it with the desecration of marriage, I'm seeing it with the gay agenda... and I’m seeing it now with the atheists in our country and their attack on God.

And all of these bullsh*t court rulings start out the same damn way. Some person who lives their life against the grain comes up with an idea on how to get the entire country to conform to what they want, so they file a small suit in a small court. They win the suit and before we know it, the entire country is embroiled in debates that go on for years and even decades. The law changes quickly to favor the litigant, but it takes forever for the voting public to change it back. That is, of course, if we even CAN change it back.

I'm a Christian and a proud American... and whether Michael Newdow likes it or not, this great nation of ours was founded by Christians. The Pilgrims risked everything to come to this land for the sole purpose of having the freedom to practice Christianity without being persecuted or murdered.

This is our history... and I see no reason to try and rewrite it to suit the needs of one pigheaded man.

And yet, people like him are slowly succeeding in their goal to oust God from our country. Don't believe me? Okay, well have you seen the new U.S. One Dollar coins that were recently minted for mass circulation? If not, have a look at one of them and see if you can find the motto “In God We Trust.” If you take a quick glance at the coin, you probably won’t find our motto.

If, however, you squint your eyes and look at the edge of the coin, you just might be able to make out the engraved words. This is how it f**king starts and based on what the courts have done to destroy the institution of marriage in these last few years, I predict it’s only a matter of time before some liberal court votes to do away with all God-related mottos from our currency and our pledges.

Just be careful what you wish for because God doesn't stick around where He's not wanted and if you keep pushing Him out the door, He'll leave... and take His blessings, His protection and His salvation somewhere else. And trust me when I say that America needs God's protection now more than ever.

I don't know about you, but God's always got a place in my home and if Jesus ever knocks on my door, He'll be greeted with open arms. <")))><

My Take on Ephesians 2:8-9

I’ll start off with a little disclaimer:

I’m not a theologian.
Never have been.
Probably never will be.

Then again, the fact that I don’t zap people with a magic wand or fight dragons doesn’t disqualify me from reading a Harry Potter book or having an opinion about it. So, with that said, I want to take a look at a Bible passage that has literally caused several hundreds of years’ worth of arguments between Catholics and Protestants:

Ephesians 2:8-9

If you have a King James Bible handy, grab it. If you’re like most people, you’ll probably wind up coughing and/or sneezing from the dust you kick up by moving your Bible from wherever it’s been, but no matter. Here’s how my Bible reads:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Some Protestants have taken these words and used them to explain that just doing good things won’t get you into Heaven, but that faith in Jesus is, by itself, sufficient. Some Catholics will go on to read the next verse (10), which says,

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

To the average Catholic, this translates to needing to do charity work or perhaps volunteering some time to work for the church. In short, we need to do good deeds because faith in Jesus isn’t sufficient. I believe both sides are a little off the mark. I’ll explain with a visual image that seems to make sense (…at least to me).

Let's say you have a small table and, in the center of that table, sits an empty glass. You’re thirsty and you have a pitcher of water. Pouring water on the surface of the table won't fill the glass, right? All you'll do is make a mess and waste water. Furthermore, you won't be able to quench your thirst by drinking from that glass because, duh, it'll still be empty. At best, you could grab some paper towels, wipe down the table and maybe clear off some dust. That’s the most you could hope to accomplish with a wet table and an empty glass.

However, by filling the glass with an abundance of water, you'll not only have a full glass to drink, but if your glass can't contain all of the water that it's receiving, it will overflow, spilling water on the table. Both examples will get the table wet, but if your primary goal is to quench your thirst, then pouring water on the table is relatively pointless. On the other hand, a glass that is overflowing with water will, by cause and effect, make the table wet.

So, how does God tell the difference between true Christians and people who just say they’re Christians?

Well, only God can answer that question for sure, but if it were up to me to spot the true, blue Christian, I’d look for the dude with the wet table AND the full glass.

Why?

Because God made that table wet… and in my opinion, this is how people will know if you have the love of God in your heart. If the symbolism’s throwing anybody off, think of the water as representing God’s love and the glass as representing the human heart. The spilled water on the table represents your good deeds which, like the water on the table, you can do regardless of whether or not Jesus resides in your heart.

What finite human heart can contain the infinite love of the LORD? None can, so if God has filled your heart with His love, He’s not just gonna give you enough to satisfy your own needs. He’s gonna give you enough love to spread the wealth and actually make you WANT to love and help others. By filling a man’s heart with God’s love, the good deeds that are now within his heart to want to do are actually a very positive after-effect. If you truly have Jesus in your heart and soul, you’re just moved from within to do good for others and it's not something you have to fake.

Doing good deeds because you think they’ll help earn your way into Heaven is like dumping water on your table and leaving your glass empty. If your heart lacks the love of the Lord, then the good deeds you do are relatively worthless in the spiritual sense. God will see your empty glass and know that the water on the table didn’t come from Him.

I’m not saying that this is the correct interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9, but it’s the one that makes the most sense to me. Much like the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, the Ephesians passage reminds me of just how pointless it is to have faith without good works or conversely, to do good works with no faith. The full and complete Christian will have both and I doubt either Catholicism or Protestantism would argue with me on that.

The Allure of Parenthood

I think I may have finally figured out the allure of parenthood. Having been a father for just over three months now, I can honestly say that I never feel quite as calm or as relaxed as I do when I look into my daughter’s eyes. I’m 32 years old and, yeah, I’ve seen and done a lot of sh*t. I’ve sinned and I've regretted it, so imagine how good it feels to look at somebody, knowing that they’ve never done anything remotely wrong in their entire lives.

Bible purists will tell you that we’re all born under the burden of Original Sin and are, therefore, never sinless, but I’m sure that even they would agree that a three month old infant doesn’t knowingly commit sins. Personally, I think that we as new parents are far more protective of our children than even we realize. In a way, I sometimes wonder if my little girl represents, at least on a subconscious level, a second chance for me; an opportunity to show God that I’m not a complete f**k-up.

Certainly, the love I have for my infant daughter is incredibly deep and, if ever in a life and death situation, I’d die for her without hesitation if it meant keeping her safe. But where did a love this profound come from? It’s a first for me and, to be honest, I never thought I could love anybody quite that strongly. Maybe it’s her helplessness or her innocence, but there's just something about her that rallies my heart and soul to do all that I can for her.

Original Sin aside, this little girl has never done a single thing wrong, has never had an impure thought, has never plotted against anybody and has never wanted the world in the palm of her tiny hand. It’s far more than just a refreshing change from the world to which I’ve grown accustomed. It’s as if I’ve been given a very tangible reminder of just how good God is. For certain, God gave me an awesome gift and, just as strongly as I would protect a divine gift from God, I now live to raise and protect my little princess.

I distinctly remember my first drive from the hospital, fewer than 12 hours after she’d been born. Though I’d been borderline lachrymose as I witnessed her birth, I didn’t actually shed any tears. Anyway, I had gone out to shower up, grab a couple of newspapers for scrap book usage and get a little bite to eat. This will undoubtedly sound corny as all hell, but I flipped on the radio and at that moment, a Savage Garden song called, “I Knew I Loved You” had begun playing. It made me think of the first time I saw her (...all four centimeters of her) in the ultrasound six months prior to her birth and, without warning, I just started lettin' em go in the car.

I think the tears came because, in the back of my mind, I knew that my newborn baby girl was the embodiment of unblemished innocence, wrapped up in a six pound package and left in my care. Not only was she this awesome and wonderful human being, but I think the reality of my having to raise her hit home at that moment. It’s all just really overwhelming when you give yourself time to soak in the fact that everything that is good and wholesome in life can be seen through the eyes of an infant and, in my opinion, it’s about as close to God’s goodness and purity that we as sinful humans can ever get while we’re still alive.

I’ve had the privilege of witnessing the very first moments of my daughter’s life and now, I share the honor of raising her with my wife. Now, more than ever, I pray for God’s wisdom and guidance so that He may help me to raise her in His word. That's my new charge in life.

Mary, the Mother of JESUS

One of my favorite comedians (Richard Jeni) used to speak of false syllogisms in his routine by explaining that “...if the first two parts are true, then the last part has to be true.” He remarked how cool that was because he could just hang out in his dorm room, get high and “…make up true sh*t all day.” He used a common example of, “God is love, love is blind, therefore…. Ray Charles is God.”

A similar syllogism has been used by Catholics for a very long time and it’s caused quite a bit of debate over the years. Catholics call Mary the “Mother of God.” Why? Well, God is Jesus, Mary gave birth to Jesus, therefore…. Mary gave birth to God and is His mother.

Well, that’s a great way to sum things up, but since it takes such a great mental effort for many people to understand how Jesus and God could be one and the same, you can’t possibly expect people to just swallow that Mary is the mother of God without hearing a few confused grunts. I mean, pretty much everybody would agree that Mary was the mother of Jesus because Jesus was the human manifestation of the One, True God.

So, is Jesus equal to God? Is Jesus a part of God? Is Jesus the whole embodiment of God?

Well, those are some mighty tough questions for a mere mortal such as myself to answer, even if armed with my favorite Bible and all of the blog space I could ever possibly want. Yet, that's not the most befuddling question of the hour. Here’s where my true confusion sets in.

Say you’re a Catholic, right? With all of the crap that Catholics catch from pretty much the rest of the freakin' planet, wouldn’t you want to eliminate whatever non-essential arguments you could, if for no other reason than to free up more time to tackle the essential ones?

I would think that Catholics would just be content with saying that Mary was the mother of Jesus. I mean, not only is that a true statement, but let's face it - who’s gonna argue with that?

Somebody who doesn’t believe that Mary or Jesus ever existed? How many of those people exist? Like seven? Meanwhile, the rest of the world is pretty much in agreement with the fact that Mary gave birth to Jesus. Protestants would agree. Baptists would agree. I daresay Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses and even Muslims and Jews would agree. Yet, Catholicism takes it to the next level. The syllogism is invoked and, BINGO! Mary is the Mother of GOD…. and people are up in arms.

Now, I’m all for fighting for what I believe in, but I’m also a big advocate of fighting the fights that need fighting. Put another way, I don’t engage in conflicts that I could easily avoid while maintaining the integrity of my core beliefs.

As for the reason why some have a problem with the "Mother of God" title? Well, I would imagine it might have something to do with the fact that God pre-existed Mary, wouldn't you think? Like I said, you can write several theses on Jesus and God being the same or being different and you may never resolve the issue.

One question that haunts me in that long-standing debate is that if Jesus and God were the same, why would Jesus pray to God or ask Him to spare Jesus from the cup of suffering He was about to endure as seen in Matthew 26:39 and Mark 14:36? If you read it, you'll see that the last part of Mark 14:36 says, “…nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt.” If Jesus is separating Himself from God, why wouldn’t we do likewise?

Anyway, that’s pretty much my reasoning for avoiding a title such as “Mother of God” for Mary without getting into a thesis of my own.

So, taking the example that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same… we still refer to them with different names, don’t we? Water, much like God, can exist in three forms: The original state of water (the liquid), steam (the gas) or ice (the solid). Well, steam and ice are still water, but we don't CALL them that, right? One of the reasons why we have different names for them in the first place is so that people can tell which FORM of water you're talking about when you broach the H2O topic.

Simply put, steam rooms aren't called water rooms and ice cream isn't called water cream. The Titanic may never have sunk, had it hit a waterberg, though the same might not hold true for a steamboat if we referred to it as a waterboat.

If I want to have my glass of water with ice, I'll ask for ice - not water. Mary gave birth to Jesus, so YEAH, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Ice and Water might both be H2O, but I'll confuse fewer people if I say I'm going ice skating instead of water skating and I'll raise fewer eyebrows by referring to Mary as the mother of Jesus than I would if I were to refer to her as having given birth to GOD.

I know that Catholicism won’t change a bit, regardless of how many blogs I write about it, but that’s my take on the matter. Calling Mary the Mother of Jesus instead of the Mother of God isn’t me trying to diss her – I’m just telling it like it is…. as clearly as possible. Is that so wrong?

Seriously?

ATTENTION: Agnostics & Atheists

It's funny that, regardless of how many generations pass since His crucifixion, the name of Jesus still evokes great anger in people, particularly agnostics and atheists.

I had the good pleasure of meeting an old friend from my high school for lunch a few months ago. During the lunch, I mentioned that some acquaintances of mine had been saying negative things about me on account of what I believe. I, of course, don't have any problem with people who have a different opinion about Jesus or the merits of Christian living, but it's very telling of a person's character when they can't face me and rant about me to my face. They choose, instead, to make calumnious comments to other people of like-minded perspectives until they've reassured themselves that they're right and Christianity is wrong. They allege to have read my words, yet their feeble paraphrasing efforts only serve to twist them to mean something completely different.

Again, I don't mind if people don't believe in Jesus or consider those who do to be "a little overboard", "Jesus freak" or whatever…. but c'mon! At least muster the backbone to voice your disapproval to my face. All they do is make themselves look incredibly insecure. It's really quite pitiable. Though I never asked for this, my friend defended my beliefs and, as I came to discover, he's actually quite adept at shutting people down pretty quickly when they twist someone else's words to mean something that was never said (…turns out, he's now an attorney. lol).

I wonder what Jesus represents to these haters. Someone says, "I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God" or "I don't believe that Jesus ever existed?" Fine! You're entitled to believe that if you want, but many of us who live our lives according to how the Bible tells us we should live believe differently.

If you don't believe that Jesus said a certain thing, that's fine... but the fact that you can read these words on a page means that SOMEBODY existed long enough to think and say or write them down, so ask yourselves this question: What harm would following the advice within these pages do to me, regardless of who wrote them?

Honestly?

What? Wouldn't be able to drink yourselves into a coma every Saturday night? Guys, are you afraid that reading the Bible will force you to stop bathing in Drakkar in the desperate hope of finding your next meaningless one-night-stand? Ladies, afraid you'll have to stop dressing like cheap dimestore whores to placate some wretched man's wildest sexual fantasy every weekend?

Yeah, taking the words of the Lord to heart does have a tendency to clean a person's act up in more ways than one... and even if you don't believe in God, at least love yourselves enough to learn from the words that have been passed down for several centuries. Think they're antiquated our outmoded? Well, guess what. We still have homosexuality, rape, murder, gluttony, greed, sexual promiscuity and a whole host of other evils that tear us apart as a people.

Can you honestly tell me that we'd even be trying to find a cure for AIDS if people bothered to live and love as the Lord instructed? Think we'd be fighting this ridiculous battle against gay marriage if everybody learned something from Sodom and Gomorrah? Hell no!

Do you disagree? If so, try this: Instead of gathering together with other atheists and agnostics, tickling each other's ears with words of reassurance, why don't you try venting to a Christian, then hearing him/her out in return?

Oh, and one more thing for the atheists of the world: If you're right and we're all wrong, you won't be able to gloat about it when we're all dead.

If we're right and you're wrong, I'm afraid you've got an awfully long swim in a certain fiery lake. Everybody believes in God and Satan in Hell.

Think about it.

Free Will vs. Predestination

First of all, thank you for taking the time to visit and read my babblings and rantings. I am NOT a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, but I love God and love writing about my beliefs. I´m confident that not everybody will agree with what I believe, but that´s cool - just as long as you keep in mind that these are the convictions of just one man - ME.

So...... I thought I´d tackle a particular difficult topic in my debut blog.

I should start with my disclaimer - that being that, decoding the mysteries of our Lord is not exactly my area of expertise. I mean, how could it be? I´m only human, right? However, I do tend to mull over some of life's most perplexing questions from time to time when the mood hits me. Concurrently, I usually wind up with at least one possible answer to the question in my head. The answer never satiates me, but it does satisfy me to the point where I can wait patiently for the true answers to be revealed.

Lately, I've been thinking about FREE WILL.

Some time ago, I was speaking with a non-Christian about free will and he asked me something along the lines of, "If every single person has a predetermined fate, then where's the free will in that?" Well, I gotta admit - it's an excellent question to ask. No doubt, it's already been asked millions of times throughout the ages, but hey..... why not take a stab at it myself and see if I can come up with something feasible?

If you have a Bible and happen to be reading through the book of Romans, you'll see words like "predestined," "chose" and "elect," even though that same book also holds people accountable for their own choices (…or failure to choose). Elsewhere, we read and learn that each individual is expected to choose whether or not to believe in the Son of God. John 3:16 is probably the most well-known example of this basic truth.

In Matthew 7:26, we learn that people can choose whether to be foolish or wise and, in areas such as John 20:30-31 and 2 Timothy 3:15, we read various instructions on the way to salvation. From there, we're left with our own choices to make. Reject His words…. or choose to obey them. Our love for Him manifests itself through our obedience to His word.

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
John 14:21 (NIV)

So, if it's God's will that nobody should perish (2 Peter 3:9), then it must be someone else's choice that separates us from God, right? After all, how could God hold us accountable for our choices if we never had to free will to choose our path to begin with? Simply put, a fair God would not impose His ordinances and expectations on those who are not free to make their own choices.

Now, if what I've just written is true, then how can Scripture be so clear to say that God already KNOWS who's going to be saved?

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
Romans 8:29 (KJV)

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."
1 Peter 1:2 (KJV)

Personally, I try to wrap my head around passages such as the one in Ephesians 1:4 and always wind up with a headache. I mean, could our good LORD really have chosen us "…before the foundation of the world"? It makes me wonder if the mysteries of predestination and free will can ever be fully understood by our finite minds. Well, if Romans 11:33-36 is any indication of what we can expect with regards to full comprehension, the answer is a resounding NO.

As I tend to do with many of life's greatest mysteries, I have oversimplified the answer with an analogy that suits me. It doesn't do the mystery justice, but like I said, it'll hold me off until God reveals the truth to me. So, I see free will and predestination this way:

Have you ever watched a home movie, either your own or someone else's? Perhaps if you're handy enough with a camera, you've even filmed a home movie, like a family reunion or a barbecue or something. Anyway, you film your family doing all of the things that families do and when you're done, you've got a tape to watch, right? Someone pops your tape in the VCR and the first images appear.

You now have your family on film and you can watch their crazy antics as many times as you want. You say to your friend, "Oh, here's where Uncle Al spills his fruit punch all over Aunt Alice's dress. Watch this." You knew he was gonna spill his fruit punch because you've already seen it. You saw everything that your family did, heard everything that they said.... yet nobody on that film was controlled to the point where they weren't allowed to make any choices. Everybody moved and talked and acted in their own way. Their words were their own. Their actions were their own. Their blunders were their own. You caused nobody to do what you wanted them to do, yet you can watch that tape, knowing how it'll end.

So, how can you know all of this? Well, that's an easy one, isn't it? It's because you don't exist inside the tape. You live OUTSIDE of the tape. You MADE the tape and you can see what happens, but you're not living INSIDE the video itself. Now, imagine as you're reading this explanation right now, God is on His favorite easy chair and He's watching a video of you reading what I've written. You decide to log off and go to bed. God knew you were going to do that. As freaky as this thought might be, imagine that we're all on tape right now! We're on God's tape. Now, we really ARE inside of a video -- His video!

Now, if our timeline is like a reel of film, then we must conclude that God is timeless, which is to say that He exists outside of the fabric of time. He had no beginning and He will have no end, yet we can't say the same for that tape… or our existence, can we? God is an infinite Being, watching finite humans living their lives.... the way THEY choose. You can't fiddle with that VHS tape to prevent Uncle Al from spilling his fruit punch. And if you could prevent mistakes…. or sad happenings or tragedies, you could affect free will. With that power, you could even take free will away altogether. The difference is that God doesn't take that away from us. He lets us be free to make our own mistakes.

Have you ever heard people ask questions like, "Where was God on 9/11?"

I wonder what these people expected to get for a response?

For certain, God allows tragedies to occur. He allows us to experience the good and the bad. Yet, anybody who wants God's help in their lives can have it. He left us an instruction manual. It's as if God said, "I won't interfere with your free will. However, if you ever DO want Me to point you in the right direction, read this. It's a basic user's manual to happier living."

That's our Bible.

The answers are laid out. The choice to read or disregard it is still ours to make.

That's our free will.

In the end, I believe our role is pretty basic. We must choose to be obedient to the LORD and, in all likelihood, leave issues such as predestination, foreknowledge and free will up to God to explain to us when He feels the time is right.

Feel free to comment if you´d like to lend your input.... and I hope you enjoy the musings of the Guileless Vituperator.