Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘The Millstone Diaries’

Scripture clearly teaches that God does not change His mind. “For I am the LORD, I change not” Malachi 3:6 KJV.

In Numbers we read, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (23:19 KJV)

The Apostle James writes, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (1:17 KJV)

The three verses above state explicitly that God does not change His mind or repent as though He were making a mistake, backtracking, or trying a new approach. Yet, Genesis 6:6 says, “it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

Keep in mind that one verse does not a doctrine make. Clearly Genesis 6:6 does not mean that God created humanity expecting human beings to follow Him, and He was dismayed when they didn’t and strayed.

The Bible uses figures of speech to accommodate human understanding. For example, the Bible uses anthropomorphism to ascribe physical attributes to God. The Apostle Peter refers to “the eyes of the Lord” (1 Peter 3:12), and the Apostle John mentions, the arm of the Lord (John 12:38), which depict God’s watchfulness and power respectively.

The Bible also uses anthropopathism to ascribe human feelings and passions to God. The words “repented” and “grieved” vividly portray, from a human perspective, God’s displeasure with man’s rebellion.

God’s written word uses anthropopathisms and anthropomorphisms to accommodate man’s inherent limitations and basic ignorance and to get a meaningful revelation through to him. A parent using “baby talk” to help toddlers understand more easily is another way to look at it.

The Bible uses words like “repented” and “grieved” after the manner of men to express God’s thoughts and actions. In other words, God graciously describes Himself as having human feelings, human passions, human thoughts, and human body parts to communicate effectively with man who would otherwise have no frame of reference.

Genesis 6:6 is figurative language, and not to be understood literally. God does not have eyes and arms because He is Spirit. Nor does He become emotional or get confounded over the depths of man’s depravity and wickedness because He knows everything that has happened or ever will happen and He inhabits the past, present, and future simultaneously.

The Millstone Diaries is dedicated to the truth that is of service to the Faith.

I.M. Kane

Like me at https://usa.life/misterjkane

Follow me at https://gab.com/imkane

Watch my videos at https://www.brighteon.com/channel/imkane

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Why Won’t Google, BING, and DuckDuckGo allow this published commentary to appear in their search engines? 

Only You Can Prevent Social Media Giant Censorship

“GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION” NOT REQUIRED

by Jerry Kane, ©2019, blogging at The Millstone Diaries

Back in the day when leftists masqueraded as liberals, they’d often say, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Although the aphorism’s meaning was lost on them, it reverberated within their “echo chambers” and gave them the pretense of magnanimity, which they seemed to relish at the time.

Today the leftists have bolted from the closet and have abandoned all pretense of embracing the protection of free speech. They’ve taken off the mask of liberalism, and discarded it along with their “cherished” aphorism. Now they are leading the effort to squelch freedom of speech, demanding that ideas and opinions they deem insensitive and hateful be censored and silenced on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Being hardcore leftists themselves, the CEOs of these social media giants have been more than happy to comply with their wishes.

First Stormfront, a white nationalist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi group lost its web address of more than two decades beginning the “crackdown against hate sites.” Whimpers chimed over the Internet, but not many on the right gave serious attention to what was happening. Next the social media giants collectively set their sights on Alex Jones, which garnered more attention and brought their assault on free speech to the forefront. Although they saw Jones as an easy target, he was the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” (albeit more Kuku than canary) warning Americans that the social media giants had joined forces and were out to purge the Internet from politically “inappropriate” ideas and “offensive” speech.

But the giants weren’t concerned because they viewed Jones as the tin-foil hat poster boy for offensive, insensitive, and hateful speech. They surmised that the mainstream conservative and evangelical opinion-makers would show little sympathy for Jones and wouldn’t make much noise about the violation of his free speech rights. And they guessed right because few of the mainstream talkers and pundits on the right voiced any genuine concern for what was happening to Jones.

As they say, the camel doesn’t stop once its nose is under the tent, so the social media giants went after more undesirable voices that they considered low-hanging fruit. They banned Dennis Prager, Franklin Graham, some lesser-known Christian ministries for posting “unsuitable” content on their platforms. And now it’s become a daily occurrence as more and more evangelicals, conservatives, classic liberals, and patriots are rounded up and shadow-banned by Twitter, censored by Facebook, and terminated by YouTube for expressing ideas and opinions that the giants claim violate their community standards regarding bullying and hate speech.

America needs a kid who’s good with a slingshot because the lauded movers and shakers and heralded opinion-makers with the loudest voices and biggest megaphones on the right are either intimidated, afraid, or controlled and won’t stand up and fight the giants. They know what’s been going on, yet they constantly promote the social media giants’ platforms on their shows, encouraging people to join the platforms and to like and follow them when they go there. They’re appeasers feeding the giants hoping to be the last ones censored and banned.

Conservatives, classic liberals, evangelicals, and patriots on social media find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. If they continue to express contrary thoughts, ideas, and opinions, they will be purged. If they self-censor and stop posting and tweeting their “offensive and hateful” thoughts, ideas, and opinions and go along to get along, some social media friend, social justice warrior, or LGBTQ and sometimes Y-stapo member will uncover something offensive they tweeted or posted years before they got their mind right and they’ll be given a strike or a time out or some other childish reminder that failure to communicate means time in the box.

Yet something must be done to halt the attack on free speech and to keep the giants from purging all their political and religious enemies from their platforms under the pretense of promoting inappropriate ideas and expressing offensive speech. Although the solution may prove to be easier said than done, it will solve the problem, and it doesn’t require government intervention.

If the majority of account-holding conservatives, classic liberals, evangelicals, and patriots on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube would en masse join the giants’ competitors such as Gab, USA.Life, and Brighteon.com and ask their friends on social media to join them there, it’s likely Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube would backpedal their censorship and revise their speech code guidelines and community standards.

If the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and conscience clause, and the Founders’ belief in God-given rights and individual liberty mean anything to conservatives, classic liberals, evangelicals, and patriots in this country, this proposed solution will be easier done than said. What’ll happen next only God knows. “I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. … Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.”

Read Full Post »

Here are five five essential truths from the Reverend Adrian Pierce Rogers that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez either doesn’t know or refuses to accept:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. 

2. You don’t multiply wealth by dividing it. 

3. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else. 

4. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. 

5. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don’t have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don’t get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. 

Read Full Post »

At a Tea Party rally opposing Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s Nuclear Agreement with Iran, the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world, Republican presidental candidate Donald Trump said that “We are led by very, very stupid people.”

AMERICA‘S LEADERS

(L-R) John Boehner, Joe Biden, Barack Hussein Obama, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Andrew McCarthy

(L-R) John Boehner, Joe Biden, Barack Hussein Obama, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Andrew McCarthy

Thousands attended the rally held last week outside the Capitol in Washington, DC.


Read Full Post »

christian symbol2

If God Didn’t Create Evil, Then Who or What Did?

By Jerry A. Kane

Occasionally I’ll respond to a comment on one of my news stories or commentaries, but rarely will I take the time to write a lengthy reply to a commenter. However, there are always exceptions to any rule.

Below is an exchange of comments between me and a responder to my latest commentary, “Whom God Means to Destroy, He First Makes Undiscerning” published at Canada Free Press:

He wrote:

“Wrong!!!!

He [God] does not make them so [undiscerning], but allows them to make themselves so.

God does NOT create evil, but allows it so they can damn themselves – then He destroys them, more often by other evil entities”

To which I responded:

“First off, I’m not always right, but I’m never wrong. Secondly, your theology appears to be Arminian, mine isn’t. I believe God is sovereign, not man. Finally, as to whether or not God creates evil, the prophet Isaiah clearly says He does:

‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.’ Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)”

Then he responded:

It appears we agree on most of this – we are using different terms to say the same thing except for one item.

“Isaiah 45:7 should match Amox 3:6 where the more correct translation would be ‘..shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD not done [known] it?’ He knows of the evil, he does NOT create it. If that were so, He would no longer be God.

‘God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.’ (James 1:13) and ‘God is light, and in Him there is NO darkness at all’ (emphasis mine) (1 John 1:15) As there is much less error in translation in the New Testament, I will believe God Himself over other ideas.

Arnminian? No, but many of his [I think he’s referring to the author of the piece, which of course is me, but he doesn’t realize it] thought processes are in the correct realm, but your [I think he’s addressing the commenter, not the author of the piece] assessment of that group is just opposite of what they say. It is their claim that God is Soverign, and that is the reality of our creation.”

And I wrote:

“How can I discuss the never-ending debate over biblical manuscripts and the central issue of Christianity with someone who knows so little, but thinks he knows so much? The short answer is I can’t. Yet, I won’t let your unsupported assertions go unchallenged.

You say, “Isaiah 45:7 should match Amox [sic] 3:6 where the more correct translation would be ‘..shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD not done [known] it?'” The word “ra” translated evil in Isaiah 45:7 (the same word used in Amos 3:6) is never translated as sin in the Hebrew text.

In the context of Amos 3:6, ra can be correctly translated to mean “sorrow, afflictions, adversity, wretchedness, or calamities,” but in Gen. 5:6, 8:21, 13:13, 38:7 and fifty other verses in the OT, ra can be translated “wickedness,” which clearly implies sin.

In the context and plain meaning of Isaiah 45:7, ra means wickedness and not calamities and afflictions as the fruits of sin. In context, if ra means external calamities in the verse “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil,” then the word “peace” must mean a military peace, i.e., a political matter, because the phrases are parallel.

However, the verses preceding and following verse 7 are not restricted to trivial political matters, verse 3 speaks of treasures of darkness, hidden riches, and the knowledge of God; verse 6 speaks of God’s knowledge extended throughout the world; and verse 8 speaks of righteousness falling down from heaven like a pouring rain.

The following chapter in Isaiah makes it clear that God just doesn’t know things, as you put it, but He actually brings about what He has purposed:

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: … yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. Isaiah 46:10-11 (KJV)

You write that God “knows of the evil, he does NOT [please, let’s not be sophomoric] create it.” By “know” I assume you mean that God knows or permits evil to happen. What you fail to understand is that “permitting” man to sin does not absolve God from the charge of being the “author” of sin, as you seemed to suggest in writing “If that [God created evil] were so, He would no longer be God.”

God “permitted” Satan to afflict Job; but Satan could not have afflicted him without God’s approval. Permission does not exonerate God. If God could have prevented, not only Job’s trials, but all of mankind’s sins and temptations, if He foresaw them and decided to let them occur, how can He be less reprehensible than if He had decreed them?

Put another way, if a bystander could rescue a baby from a burning building, but decided to “permit” the baby to die in the flames, would you say that the bystander’s decision to watch the baby burn was morally acceptable because he wasn’t the one who lit the building on fire? Your position puts you on the horns of a dilemma whether you realize it or not.

You also write that my “assessment of that group [Arminian] is just opposite of what they say.” By sovereignty I mean that God has eternally decreed all that ever comes to pass, and providentially controls all things in his created universe, including the “free will” of man.

The Arminian notion of man’s free will cannot coexist with God’s omnipotence. If man’s free will to fulfill his sinful desires and purposes can resist and thwart God’s perfect will and purpose, then God is not all powerful, man’s free will is.

Neither is the Arminian view of free will compatible with God’s omniscience, because knowing all things renders the future certain. If God foreknows all things, then of necessity those things will come to pass; otherwise, they could not be “foreknown.”

Acts 2:22, 23 and 4:27, 28 teach that God foreknew, even foreordained Jesus’ crucifixion by the hands of sinful men, yet the men who carried out his execution are responsible for murder. If God ordained it, could the high priest and Sanhedrin have done differently? Could Judas Iscariot not have betrayed Jesus Christ? Scripture plainly teaches that God determined or decreed their actions.

I’m not saying that men are robots and don’t make choices. They do have “free will” in the sense of “free moral agency.”

All men have freedom of choice in that they choose to do what they want to do and can’t do otherwise. But man is not free to be indifferent, i.e. his freedom to choose is always governed by the fears, desires, and habits of his sinful nature. Yet, all his choices are subject to the eternal decrees of God.

Romans 3:9-18; 8:7, 8 and Ephesians 4:17-19 teach that man cannot choose what God requires. Man will always choose the evil desires of his flesh, which are dictated by his sinful nature. Man is never indifferent in his willingness to do anything. Even though God has determined all things that will ever come to pass, man is held responsible and accountable for his sinful actions.

As the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith (3:1; 5:2, 4) put it:

“God … did … ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established…. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently…. as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.”

You’re right that “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” (James 1:13).” Nowhere does the Scripture teach that God is evil; however, it does teach that God is both the cause of sin and the cause of salvation. Scripture also teaches that God is not responsible or accountable to anyone or anything for what He does; yet His creatures are accountable and responsible to Him for what they do.

God is holy and righteous, but our sinful nature taints and limits our understanding of His holiness and righteousness. As Paul writes, “For now we see through a glass, darkly… but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).

You write, “As there is much less error in translation in the New Testament, I will believe God Himself over other ideas.” I am always willing to teach those whom God has made willing to learn, but I will not waste my time and energy on people who dogmatically hold to their erroneous preconceptions of Christianity and what Scripture teaches.

So you know, I spent hours researching and writing this response, and you have taken enough of my precious time. Thank you for your response to my piece and please accept this as a final response to any further discussion.”

NOTE:  The hot links were added for this post at The Millstone Diaries. There were no hot links in my responses to in the comment section at Canada Free Press.

Read Full Post »

Ben Carson Is not Presidential Material

By Jerry A. Kane

Potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson apologized Wednesday for saying homosexuality was a lifestyle choice.

Wednesday morning on CNN’s “New Day” show with Chris Cuomo, Ben Carson said:

“A lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight — and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.”

Wednesday afternoon in a post on his Facebook page Ben Carson wrote:

“I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended.”

Later Wednesday afternoon Ben Carson appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show and said:

“I simply have decided I’m not going to really talk about that issue anymore, because every time I gain momentum, the liberal press says, ‘let’s talk about gay rights.’ I’m just not going to fall for that anymore.”

During a January 22, 2015, interview with YouTube personality GloZell Green, Hussein (peace be upon him) said:

“I think people know that treating folks unfairly, even if you disagree with their lifestyle choice… Let them live their lives and under the law they should be treated equally”

So both Hussein and Carson violated the gaystapo’s edict that all Americans must believe there’s no choice in sexual orientation. Both black men said that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice,” yet Carson felt compelled to apologize for violating the gaystapo’s diktat, while Hussein remains unapologetic to this day.

The homofascists have had their way with Carson and have completely discredited him. His anti-2nd amendment stance on gun control took the wind out of his sails, and now this latest mea culpa to the gaystapo leaves him dead in the water. It’s obvious that Carson lacks the backbone to respond with moral conviction and courage against those who promote such a disease ridden, dysfunctional lifestyle.

Clearly, Carson is not presidential material; and were he white, the political pundits would not be talking about him or be paying him any mind.

To quote Homer Simpson, “Let’s file this under R, for arrivederci.”

Read Full Post »

Derrick Jordan grabbed an AR-15 rifle from a pickup truck parked near the entrance of a Conoco gas station and convenience store.

He and four other black Ferguson residents spent Tuesday night guarding the white-owned business from would be looters and shoplifters.

We would have been burned to the ground many times over if it weren’t for them,” said gas station Doug Merello, whose family has owned the business for thirty years

Jordan and his friends were joined on Tuesday night by other armed men from the neighborhood. The men weren’t paid to be there. They said they owed it to Merello, who has employed many of them over the years and treats them with respect.

“He’s a nice dude, [sic] he’s helped us a lot,” said 29-year-old R.J.

Missouri lawmakers recently passed a law overriding local ordinances that banned the open carry of firearms by people who have concealed-weapons permits.

For more on the story, see “Black residents protect white-owned store in Ferguson.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »