Am I Forgiven

A friend of mind recently asked me two questions, and I figured I would share my responses here. Please do share your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree.

The first question was:

“How do I know that God has truly forgiven me when I ask Him too?”

I agree that Christ does forgive, but I also believe that with sin comes chastisement (especially when not confessed) and consequences (with some sins more than others). I think in man’s mind we have little sins and big sins, but in God’s view every sin leads to the same judgment.

“How do I know that God has truly forgiven me when I ask Him too?” can be both a simple and complex question, in my opinion. It can be simple, because Scripture promises [If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9] However, this is only for the saved person – as one must first acknowledge they are a sinner, repent, and put faith in Christ for salvation. What if someone believes they are saved, but aren’t really saved? God isn’t [nor can] forgive a lost person for a sin, because they have not been covered by the blood of Christ – since [without shedding of blood is no remission. - Hebrews 9:22] Also, this is when one seeks true repentance, and not merely says “I’m sorry” because they have been caught. It is a heart issue, and the [The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? - Jeremiah 17:9] So, I think they only way to know if you are forgiven, is to daily [1] fellowship with God through prayer, [2] communicate with God through reading and meditating on the Bible, [3] walk with God in our lifestyle, and [4] repent of sin as soon as we are convicted by the Holy Spirit or confronted with it by ourselves or other persons. Because – most often – our “knowing we are forgiven” is to “feel like we have been forgiven”, and if we aren’t in touch with God daily we will surely [1] not confess and repent of sin and [2] will doubt His promise to forgive us when we do.

What’s Marriage to a Chicken?

I guess I am still somewhat naive when it comes to some things, as I had never really considered the possibility of a restaurant being forbidden to come to a city or state based on its view of marriage. I’ve witnessed some establishments being pressed against due to alcohol and those of indecent attire (or lack thereof) – but I figure those things have brought more heartache to the families, cities, and states in our country than marriage between a man and a woman. Perhaps I’ve been wrong.

I honestly don’t know much about Chick-fil-A – but that they are closed on Sundays and do hold to some personal religious convictions – although I do eat there occasionally. From what I have read, Mayor Rahm Emanuel apparently said “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.” He further adds, “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the First Ward.”

It appears the mayor clearly states that the values of Chick-fil-A are not only in opposition to the values of Chicago, but are also discriminating against a segment of persons. So, what exactly are the values of Chick-fil-A brought into question here?

“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” Cathy said. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

Looking at the above, the expressed values of Chick-fil-A are: Marriage is between a man and a woman. And that God would have mercy on those who try to redefine it.

So, the mayor has stated that Chicago neither limits the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, nor does he ask for mercy upon those who agree with his (and all of Chicago) values.

As for as, “discriminating” against anyone, I don’t believe I have read where Chick-fil-A has said they would not sell their food to those whose beliefs were in opposition to theirs.

I can’t help but see the hypocrisy in the idea where Boston Mayor Tom Menino claims (proudly, I’m sure), “We’re an open city. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” How interesting, they are ONLY “open” and “inclusive” to those they wish to be; for they are neither being “open” or “inclusive” to Chick-fil-A. And, don’t give me the “well, Chick-fil-A isn’t being open and inclusive either”, because it is the mayor who is claiming they are the proud persons of an “open” and “inclusive” city. Does this mean that they currently agree with ALL the convictions of ALL other businesses (and those within them) currently in Boston? Why do I somehow doubt so?

Furthermore, we have “Alderman Moreno call[ing] Cathy’s comments “bigoted” and “homophobic,”” according to the article. Why do we still have the overuse of the words “bigot” and “homophobic”? The very ones who claim one is bigoted [prejudice, extremist] because they believe the biblical and formal definition of marriage are equally prejudice and extremist against those who do not agree to their trying to redefine marriage. This Chick-fil-A fiasco is case and point. And just because a person does not agree with homosexuality does not mean they are "scared of" or "hate" homosexuals. [i.e. homophobic]

City Councilman Jim Kenney joined in the “intolerance” speech, and promotes a resolution to “condemn this anti-American attitude of trying to deny civil liberties that every American enjoys.” How far have we come where standing firmly on the principle definition of marriage (that being between a man and a woman) is now “anti-American”? Every single American has the liberty to join in marriage. I don’t believe any Christian is standing against persons wishing to get married. The stance is against the REDEFINING of a scared institution (called marriage) by those who would wish to embrace what it was never intended to include (namely homosexuality).

Instead of using the name calling of bigot and homophobe through intolerance and the pressure to withdraw person’s freedom of speech, perhaps the homosexual should consider their ideals and create their own defining terms not already taken. Or, better yet, plead for the “mercy” Chick-fil-A has graciously asked God to grant them on their behalf, and refrain from the hate speech toward those who do not hold to their view.

Regardless of Chick-fil-A’s stance on marriage, I do not find any articles whereby they have denied chicken to a homosexual or even those who choose to work on Sundays.

What is marriage to a chicken?

It’s the only way to get those good sandwiches and nuggets at Chick-fil-A. ;o)

Church League Approves Softball and Denies Bisexaulity

Reading FoxNews.com today, I came across an article entitled: Pastor's sexuality splits Missouri church softball league. James Semmelroth Darnell is apparently the current pastor of St. John United Church of Christ in Saint Clair, and feels that persons having issue with his confession of being bisexual is something that “shouldn’t be happening in this day and age.” I ask the question: Why?

Although I can understand the Baptists churches reasoning, in this post I am concerned less about the apparent issue of whether or not other churches would participate in a softball league with his church and more so about his position of pastor – one who professes they have repented of sin, put faith in Christ, lives by the bible, and preaches the gospel – all the while taking no issue with having a scripturally condemned lifestyle or vocalized ideals.

The article declares, “Darnell, for his part, said his sexuality will not affect his ability to lead his congregation off the field.” Do they not read or study the bible? Perhaps the gender neutral versions pervert the nature of scripture against such perversion, but I have never read them so have no true knowledge of where they stand on such matters as sexual orientation. How can sexuality not affect a pastor’s ability to lead his congregation? Either the sexuality of a pastor (whether in private or public) is in line with scripture, or out of sync with scripture and literally God himself.

I know people who are also Church of Christ and would equally agree that scripture condemns any relationship outside of a man and a woman, and there are numerous examples of where persons are and will be punished (by God) for their rejection of such truth. The only true “alternate lifestyle” is if one so chooses not to marry at all.

I am not advocating the mistreatment of those who refuse to obey scripture (even while they claim to believe and preach it), but do believe we should stand firm on the authority and foundational truths of scripture and not the modern man’s perversion of it – and not merely in secret. I will not recount the many references one can find in scripture – as you may take time to read past posts concerning such a topic here – but would find it interesting how a pastor who actually uses the bible can proclaim our holy God is okay with the joining of a man-man or woman-woman in holy matrimony or relationship.

The issue is clearly less about softball, and more about what is truly a biblical lifestyle.

Being Granted the Right to Marry Gives One the Liberty to Divorce

For some time now, there has been much debate over giving homosexuals the right to marry, but what about the liberty to divorce?

Yes, I am a Christian.
Yes, we believe the Bible.
Yes, the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Yes, the Bible says divorce is sin.
Yes, Christian people divorce.
** I am fully aware scripture gives some grounds (if you will) for divorce, though it does not state one must divorce or that one should look for reasons to divorce.

Now that we’ve gotten past that argument, let’s proceed with the ideals of those who do not believe what the Bible teaches but demand homosexuals be given equal rights within the already defined term: marriage.

I found this article today which talks about a lesbian couple who were married in 2008. They were apparently “among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged California's gay marriage ban in 2008.” In 2010 one of them said, "Marriage is so important it's the most important relationship that you can have as an adult when you get older." Presently, they are seeking a divorce.

What happened?

How can two persons having a relationship for 18 years + fight so hard for 7 years for what they claimed to be equal rights + believe God must have wanted it for them = even consider the possibility of ending such a liberty after a mere 3 years on the basis “"We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.”?

Why can’t persons (or rather, why do persons choose not to) fight for their marriage as much as they fight for the right to marry in the first place? If God wanted them to marry, does He now want them to divorce? How scripturally based is this? If one is going to use God’s name, then they need to acknowledge and obey His word. And this goes for the heterosexual marriage just as much as the homosexual unions. How many times is God/rights used to justify both the marriage and the divorce?

My point is this: What purpose did it serve for these persons to fight 7 years for a right they were only committed to for 3 years? Same holds true for those who live together for years, only to divorce shortly after marriage. Why are we so prone to leave, rather than to cleave?

When we see marriage as a right, then we view divorce as a liberty.

Marriage is a privilege: A sacred opportunity instituted by God between a man and a woman, giving the couple the honor of sharing their lives together in a committed relationship.

It’s interesting (and rather sad) how something worth fighting for to obtain as a right can be easily dismissed as worthless by liberty. May God help us!

Courageous Motivation

So, I went this weekend to see the movie Courageous with some people from our church. I thought the movie was pretty good, possibly even better than Fireproof. Of course you can’t really compare the two completely, as they focus on different aspects of the home. Fireproof speaks to the husband, as Courageous speaks to the father.

Courageous was filled with an emotional roller coaster, holding different principles that most likely every father in the theater could easily grasp hold of as something presently in their lives. Shifting from laughter to sorrow, self examination and the reality of what others may be going through, it helps expose the many different things we may actually not even take notice of though they are going on in our very own lives around us every day.

As I walked out of the theater I couldn’t help but feel motivated to be a better father. But, then I thought, if that is all there was, then surely it would be short lived. I mean, what am I going to do – wait till the movie hits DVD and watch it again? Then in a couple of months watch it again? And so on…

As much as I enjoyed the movie, I realize that if we really want to become better fathers, we need to do more than merely watch a movie about being better fathers. We’ve got to actually do what ‘Adam’ did in the movie. I’m not talking about signing the ‘Resolution’ from the movie – I’m talking about the actual seeking God and studying the Scriptures he was doing to arrive at the Resolution.

We can’t simply ride the coattails of someone else’s convictions. We have got to purpose in our own hearts and in our own lives to be better (1) Christians and then we can become better (2) husbands and (3) fathers. Sometimes – well, a lot of times – it seems we fall very short in our potential of being better. Not because the Holy Spirit is not moving us to do so, but because we simply have a ‘fleshly’ motivated time period (whether a movie, song, sermon, etc.) and merely fizzle out when it comes time to actually put our ‘motivation’ into action.

So, what am I saying? I’m saying that Courageous and movies like it can be great motivators that hit home in our hearts, maybe even at times we wouldn’t listen to the message they present any other way – BUT – if that motivation stops at the credits, then what good has it done us? If we fail to actually make a change in our lives – and not merely acknowledge or think about changing – we are no better off than before we saw it.

It all goes back to the Bible and fellowship with God through Christ. Like me, if you saw Courageous – or a movie, program, sermon, etc. – and felt the emotion, wisdom, and Spirit of God exposing parts of your lives that need repentance and growth, then pray, read, study, and mediate on Scripture to allow it to change your life (as a husband, a father, a Christian) forever – and not merely 120 minutes.

So, Whose Fault Is It?

In reading an article today, apparently about six scientists are being put on trial for suggested manslaughter for “failing to predict an earthquake that killed more than 300 people in central Italy in 2009 despite signs of increased seismic activity in the area,” I found something very peculiar. One of the lawyers (Alfredo Biondi) declared, “You cannot put science on trial.”

I find it interesting, because we often hear the claim from unbelievers (yet believers of science):

“If God is real, then why does He not stop bad things from happening?”

Could we not also ask, “If science is real, then why does it not stop bad things from happening?”

Would anyone doubt the existence of science simply because we do not completely understand it, sometimes incorrectly devise ideas about it, become confounded in its complexity, get lost in our formulation of the yet unseen, or its outcome is not what is expected and less than what we hoped for, while other times it is surprising and overwhelming interesting, even though we are limited in our ability to grasp its fullness?

My purpose is not to merely compare God to science or science to God, but rather the mindset of man. We find no error in putting God on trial by declaring He is either non-existent or at fault for not stopping or warning against disasters, yet we have science which has been created to warn us but declare “You cannot put science on trial” when it fails to do that which we believe it should.

But, perhaps they are right. Maybe it is neither God nor science which can be put on trial; for maybe both have indeed given the warning, and it is us (mankind) who have chosen to disregard it. Would not that then make us individually responsible for ourselves and each other? So, then, as a Christian (or a scientist in this case), it would not be God or science at fault but us who know the warning signs and refuse to warn others about it.

Dear Christians, we have the Word of God, we have the gospel of Jesus Christ. Are we sharing the warning of spending eternity in hell if one does not repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, or will we be accused as these scientists before God: "No one expected to be told the exact time of the quake. We just wanted to be warned that we were sitting on a bomb." (Vincenzo Vittorini)

Are We Bringing Others To Christ?

We find in Matthew 9, Mark 2, and Luke 5 a story of a man sick of the palsy, which had persons who were determined to bring him to Jesus for healing.

1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.

2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.

3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.

4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

I would just like to make a few points here I think we could all do to remember sometimes in our busy lives:

1. Christ was preaching the Word.

2. There was a sick man unable on his own to come unto Jesus.

3. There were persons who were interested enough in the wellbeing of the sick man to take time out of their day to help him come to Jesus.

4. There was faith in Jesus that he could heal the man.

5. Luke says “there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by”, but the religious crowd did not stop them from coming to Jesus.

6. The place was apparently so full of people no one else could enter, but the mass of people and crowded building did not stop them from coming to Jesus.

7. By removing the roof to lower the sick man to Jesus, those who bore him went above and beyond normal expectations to ensure he came to Jesus.

8. When Jesus saw their faith the man was healed.

Had there been no faith, no help from others willing to care for another, or fear of the religious and crowd, how would the sick man ever have met Jesus and been made whole?

The Word is being preached. What are we doing to ensure we ourselves come to Christ, and those around us are brought to Him for the cleansing of sin also?

Do Your Social Network Friends Really Matter?

According to an article on FoxNews.com, a lady died from apparent suicide sometime after posting her actions – Christmas Day – on her Facebook status.

The article declares: Simone Back, 42, had 1,048 Facebook “friends,” none of whom came to her rescue or alerted authorities of her suicidal post that read, "Took all my pills be dead soon bye bye everyone."

It also states: [she] received responses calling her a “liar,” “she OD’s all the time and she lies” and saying the fatal overdose was “her choice,” The Telegraph reports.

And adds: Some out-of-town friends did respond wanting to help, requesting her address and telephone number to no avail. Not one of Back’s friends checked in on her.

This is a very sad story. Any suicide or death of an individual should never be seen as a light thing, because that individual has crossed over into eternity. At this point, their relationship in Jesus Christ matters the most, even though they have surely likewise left weary hearts inside family and friends.

But, this brings up questions regarding Facebook, along with other social networks, and how we allow them to take part in our daily lives. How much is too much? Are we spending more of our lives gossiping over the internet with cyber friends, in place of actually spending time with persons face-to-face?

Take for instance, the “friends” list on Facebook. I personally have 300+ “friends” made up of family, friends I grew up with, church members, coworkers, persons I know and have known, along with others I have merely met online through numerous blogs, forums, etc. Within this list, I most likely only converse with a small number of them regularly in person or on Facebook, and do not even attempt to read the 300+ statuses, updates, etc. which happen daily – or even hourly. I just don’t have that much time, or the desire to do so. Sorry Facebook friends!

With that said, along with the numerous TMI and OMG (ha!) postings on just my Facebook Wall, I can somewhat understand how a status could go unnoticed (even a plea for help) by on-line “friends” (regardless how many) or even Facebook personnel. It is also practical to realize that many times we easily dismiss things, because the person is “known” to “cry wolf” or crave attention. This may not totally remove responsibility from us to seek help for those who may need it, but at the same time it does not place the blame on us and remove all the responsibility from the individual doing so either.

I mean, if we can dismiss the soul hurting we may see each day at work, in our homes, at church, or driving along our way, what makes us think we will pay more attention to our cyber relationships? How easy is it to click “Like” or write a quick comment “Praying for you” – but do we really mean it? Are social networks even used as a means to help one another emotionally and spiritually, to truly build better friendships and communication with those we care about? Or, do they merely make us focus more attention on ourselves, and the curiosity of knowing everybody else’s business – with a stand-off type of responsibility, leaving us with no commitment to intervene with hurting hearts and the needs of others?

Is it better to have 1,048 social network friends, or 1 who really cares? And, if we claim to be someone’s friend, what are we doing to make the relationship so? Are we simple appeasing our conscience, yet searing it at the same time?

Proverbs 17:17a, A friend loveth at all times…

Proverbs 18:24, A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award Contest

So, I haven't forgotten my Resolutions for 2011, but have simply added another short-term goal; at least for the month of January.

Here is an opportunity for anyone to submit an unpublished or self-published novel between 50,000 and 150,000 words (of their own writing) in the 2011 Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award, for a chance to win one of two $15,000 publishing contracts with Penguin USA and distribution of their novel on Amazon.com.

How to Enter: The submission period begins January 24, 2011 at 12:01 a.m. (U.S. Eastern Standard Time) and ends February 6, 2011 at 11:59 p.m. (U.S. Eastern Standard Time). The young adult fiction category and the general fiction category are each limited to 5,000 Entries, and we will stop accepting Entries for a category after we have received 5,000 Entries in that category.

Sadly, there isn't enough time for me to finish and submit my latest work, entitled Kristietiba, as I am currently only about midway through writing it. But, I have been slowly reediting and putting together the trilogy of Ekleipsis, Daegsteorra, and Andeis into one book entitle Land of Erde. Perhaps I will be able to complete and submit this work. I at least hope to.

Do you have a novel you have been working on? Give it a go! You've got a month to prepare and submit it. What have you lost?

Thou Shalt Come - Introduction

As I sit here this twenty-sixth day of December in the year of our Lord 2010, I am prepared to embark on a study less than few have intertwined into their lives. Some may find it an unnecessary learning – and perhaps they are correct in the large scope of life, if the mere reading should consume one – yet I cannot but hope that such will rather enlighten me in much greater things of importance along the journey. For what I find at the end may indeed be less significant – in practical purpose – than the gleanings and wisdom which shall become prevalent along the way. Of which, in no small means, would I be equally content with grasping at the understanding of. Though, likewise I am required to retain this expedition must not be satisfied without the acting upon such found knowledge; for what is faith without works[1]?

It is my belief[2] – from experience with myself, along with others I have conversed with throughout my life – when one is presented or seeks out information or questions concerning virtually all things, there appears to be already in place a sense of opinion, thought, or idea – whether partial or in full – concerning it. Even though scripture declares such is folly[3], mankind seems to find it quite easy to do – perhaps even subconsciously acting upon it. Whether due to previous learning we have received through school, media, society, or possibly from family, church, and books, we appear to find it difficult to simply say, “I don’t know” without actually having some preconceived notion of what it might or should be – according to us.

But, is it so wrong to have predetermined ideas of that which we may not know or fully understand? Or, rather – should we ask – how shall truth overcome our presuppositions, if by chance we do not lend our ears and mind to that which is in contradiction? To limit our study to merely one side or the other – of any topic; especially if we are but novice concerning its intellect – does not make that which we believe true, but bounds us to it as though we have become the final authority by rejecting all other knowledge without evenly considering it. Neither do harsh words, name calling, nor misrepresentation of the other make our case stronger and more profitable for those we deem without. We must maintain that truth is truth, without our vain presuppositions; for we do not establish nor define truth, as truth is whole by itself. Just as our assumptions may lead us to the truth, they may likewise disperse us from it.

So, for this study, I shall try to put away my argumentative mind, while attempting to give equal standing with each author and all books, as they present their case for what they believe to be truth. Using the Bible as the final authority, as did those in Thessalonica[4], I hope to take every point of doctrine and exert its truth in my own life daily.

I shall entitle this study Thou Shalt Come, based on John 6:37; whereby, scripture declares, All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

So begins my study of Arminianism, Calvinism, and those who claim the truth – along with themselves – lies somewhere in between...

---

[1] James 2:20, 26 (It would do one well to read the chapter in its entirety.)

[2] I realize, possibly a mere presupposition itself.

[3] Proverbs 18:13

[4] Acts 17:11

Resolutions for 2011

As we draw to the end of 2010, upon reflection, it appears I have been neglecting my blog writing, having only 25 posts in 2009 and 17 posts for 2010. So, for 2011, I would like to make myself a few resolutions.

First, I would like to complete my current work, entitled Kristietiba this coming year. It is my latest book writing project, following my trilogy In the Land of Erde. The storyline is mostly coming about, but just haven’t had the time to formal continue writing it to completion; approximately, halfway through at the present.

Second, I was graciously given a book entitled Unabridged Christianity (Biblical Answers to Common Questions About the Roman Catholic Faith) by Fr. Mario P. Romero. There was a time when I did a good bit of reading about Catholicism and even participated on a Catholic forum, but it has been some time since then. So, perhaps I will make time to read, examine, and respond accordingly. Readers may see some of my musing regarding this posted here.

Third, I was also given a book entitled The Muslim Calvinism Connection by Moody Adams. This perhaps had sparked the greatest endeavor for 2011 (well, in the scope of this blog). For 2011, readers may see a good many posts on the context of Armenian and Calvinist theology, in regards to depravity, free will, predestination, foreknowledge, and the like. I have a shelf of books, along with a CD of writings in PDF for my Nook, which will challenge my presupposition, thoughts, and beliefs.

Of course, last but not least, I hope to increase my prayer and scripture reading time, which the above should also encourage. This also does not include my family time and church responsibilities, so we shall see come December 2011 what has become of these few resolutions.

May you all have a Happy Christmas and Merry New Year…

Christ-Mass at 180 Degrees: A Sin to Celebrate, a Sin to Not

I realize this post may come across as anti-Christmas, as the Grinch, or just plain argumentative, but actually it is more of just a note of thoughts for the individual reader to consider this year.

It is interesting that each year we hear an uproar about people, businesses, or whatever “trying to take Christ out of Christmas”, but I wonder just how many of us know anything about the history of Christmas or actually worship Christ more during the season supposedly celebrating His birth.

First, the word Christmas originates from combining the words Christ (the son of God) and Mass (the Catholic Mass). [1] “The Mass is the complex of prayers and ceremonies that make up the service of the Eucharist in the Latin rites.” [2] Both Baptists (of which I am) and Catholics believe the Lord’s Supper began with Christ [3], but the literal or symbolic nature of the Lord’s Supper is quite different between the two. The Eucharist or ‘Sacrifice of the Mass’ [4] carries with it the idea of Transubstantiation [4]; whereby “Catholic Christian belief [is] in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist” (meaning the bread and wine actually become the literal body and blood of Christ) by their interpretation of such scripture as John 6:53-56 [5]. Whereas Baptist realize the words of Christ were spiritual and not fleshly, for Christ did say in verse 63: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” One may notice all who are saved are also called “one bread, and one body” in 1 Corinthians 10:17. And if the ‘cup of the Lord’ is the literal blood of Christ, is the ‘cup of devils’ the literal blood of devils? [1 Corinthians 10:21]

Point 1: Baptists do not celebrate or believe in the teaching of the Catholic Mass, and the word Christmas appears to have originated with Catholic teachings.

Second, according to some “Christmas history of America” [6], in 1645 Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans took over England, and cancelled Christmas as part of their vow to ‘rid England of decadence’ [moral degeneration or decay]. “Puritans by definition felt that the English Reformation had not gone far enough, and that the Church of England was tolerant of practices which they associated with the Catholic Church. They formed into and identified with various religious groups advocating greater "purity" of worship and doctrine, as well as personal and group piety.” [7] Oddly, during the 1600s, some pilgrims (English separatists, also Puritan in their beliefs) enjoyed Christmas in America, while for others it was outlawed. Even before the Civil War, the North “saw sin in the celebration of Christmas”, while the South celebrated it without guilty conscience. From there, it seems Christmas was promoted in books and Sunday school to the children, then with magazines and decorations to the women.

Point 2: Whereas the Puritans of England seemed to argue that Christmas was not for the Christian (or non Catholic), there were those in America who fought over the idea of whether Christmas was sin or worthy to be celebrated.

Thirdly, when I hear the yearly outcry from professing Christians that this place or that group is refusing the say or promote Christmas, I have to sit back and wonder what all the hoopla is about. Why? Because while we criticize those who do not display nativity scenes or say “Merry Christmas”, I do not see us as Christians doing any more for Christ during a season whereby we claim people are doing less or nothing at all for “Christ’s birthday”. I mean, really, if we would like to demand the lost world (or those “less” Christian) to say “Merry Christmas” to recognize our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (not to mention the Catholic Mass), then why do we as Christians not spend Christmas Eve and Christmas Day spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than sitting lazily inside our homes watching football, overeating, and often spending the day with family and friends we don’t always like, with gifts we usually can’t afford?

Point 3: Before we demand a change in other’s priorities, we need to ensure ours are in the right place.

Why does it seem that we - as Christians (or non Catholic) - have gone 180 degrees in stating that it was once a sin (or Catholic) to celebrate Christmas, but now it is apparently a sin (or non Christian) to not celebrate Christmas?

** note: this is not a post against Catholic's or Catholicism, but a post for my Baptists brothers and sisters...