Subscribe to posts by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

April
27

I was recently blessed with the opportunity to listen to world-renowned Christian artist Ron DiCianni speak on the subject of excellence in the arts. DiCianni imparted to the mainly teenage audience his life story in the arts. He told us briefly of how he spent many years of his artistic career going from paycheck to paycheck, striving to earn as much money as he could. While he experienced a high degree of success in this endeavorer, it was simply not quite enough. Although he was making a lot of money, and his artwork was very popular, Mr. DiCianni just didn’t feel…fulfilled. His life still lacked real purpose.

DiCianni then proceeded to tell us of his new found vision that drove his artistic efforts. He had found new purpose in the person of Jesus Christ, and His death and resurrection as prophesied in the books that make up the Old Testament, and recorded in the New Testament. DiCianni found that the Biblical account of Jesus Christ, the literal Son of God, confirmed by a mountain of historical and bibliographic evidence that is simply undeniable, gave Him a new reason for pursuing excellence in the arts. If, as the biblical account says, Jesus Christ, as the Son of God in human form, really rose from the dead as the perfect atonement for all of the shortcomings that you and I have (And we all have them, in abundance even)  when we fail to live up to God’s standards of living, and if, as the Biblical account is accurate when it says that Jesus is the only way to enter God’s paradise after death, then DiCianni wanted to spend the rest of His life imparting this knowledge to others, so that they could experience this same joy in their own lives.

From the very beginning, God has had as His plan for us to be with Him. He created us for the purpose of communion with Him. However, since God is a perfect God, He cannot be in the presence of  imperfection. We have all fallen short of God’s standards of living. As human-beings, we all sin. We are all imperfect. If this was the end of the story, then we would be doomed to an eternity without God, because our imperfection would hinder us from being with God. However, from the very beginning, God has had a plan to restore us, to save us from this imperfection. His plan was to send His son to this Earth to die in our place, to, as Paul writes in 2 Corinthians chapter five, in verse twenty one: “Be Sin, who knew no sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God”. When Jesus Christ died outside of the city of Jerusalem, and was later raised from that death on the third day of His being dead, this happening two thousand years ago, it was a real historical even that saved you and I from our sins. All that is left for us to do is to accept that free gift of salvation from Him, and then to live our lives with faith in Him, striving daily to live our lives in accordance with His will.

This brings me to an important point for those of us who have already accepted Christ’s gift of salvation, being renewed in our minds (Ephesians 4:23). Now that we have this salvation, we owe our entire lives to Jesus Christ. Our entire lives. Every aspect, every field of study, every activity, every day,  every thing under the sun that we do, we should do to glorify the God who is perfect, and has provided a way to save us from our imperfection.

Essentially, my point is this: Those of us who have been given new life through Jesus, must live like it. We need to get out of our comfort zones, blast past the mediocre, and begin to do our best to honor our Lord in every situation.

Calvin Seervald once said that: “Whatever arena that Christians withdraw from goes to hell”. What this means is that whatever arena of life that Christians do not do our best to excel in, will be prone to false doctrine, philosophies, and world views that do not present purpose, but instead produce purposeless strivings that are ultimately vain.

So I challenge you, my readers, to find purpose in the person of Jesus Christ. Put your trust in Him, and He will give your life purpose. If you need further evidence to convince you of this truth, I would encourage you to first read some of the New Testament, especially the Gospels. This will give you a better understanding of the salvation and purpose that is offered through Jesus Christ, and how you can take hold of it.  Secondly, read Joshua McDowell’s The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.  Maybe you feel that the Christian religion is just like any other; based in the “feel-good” teachings of a great person who died a long time ago. No! The Christian religion is the only one based in historical reality. There is much more bibliographic (literary) evidence supporting the belief in a real time, historical Jesus than there is of Homer’s existence! No other book in the history of the world has any where close to the amount of manuscripts confirming it’s accuracy than does the Bible. In McDowell’s book, this truth is shown with stunning detail. If you are skeptical, please read his book. If you have any further questions about Christ’s Divinity, the accuracy of the Bible, or the impact that the Gospel can have on your personal life, then please contact me through the site’s contact form.

Thanks and God Bless!

Calvin

Share
February
17

Many assume that because our Country was founded on Democratic ideals such as those laid out in the Bill of Rights, that our form of Government is a Democracy. For a very long time, I had been under this same impression. Know that I know differently, I am appalled at how widespread this belief has become in American society. A step backwards and a look at the big picture in regards to governmental system becomes necessary. In this essay, I will explore the differences between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic, which is America’s self-pronounced system of Government.

To begin with, I want to examine the Democratic system of government, so that you can see what that entails. According to Wikipedia,org, aDemocracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus (consensus democracy), direct referendum (direct democracy), or elected representatives (representative democracy) exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests.[1] The term comes from theGreek: δημοκρατία – (dēmokratía) “rule of the people”,[2] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) “people” and κράτος (Kratos) “power”, in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC”.

A Democracy is ruled by either the people, or else directly elected officials. In this respect, we are very much like a Representative Democracy. We directly elect our officials, just like a Representative Democracy. However, there is a key difference, which you will soon see. In order to better understand Democracies, examine this chart from the Economic Intelligence Unit measuring the “Most Democratic” countries of the world: http://www.economist.com/images/rankings/Democracy.jpg. Note that the United States is not on the list. Why is that? After all, we elect our officials, in the same manner as a Representative Democracy would. However, as I said before, there is a key difference between our country’s governmental system, and that of a Democracy.

The difference is that in the United States, our elected officials are not given all of the power, and that power is not ascribed to the people either. In this country, our government is based on a Federal Constitution, a document that sets forth the checks and balances of our government, while ascribing all political power as initiated by God and upheld by the people and our Representatives. Due to the presence of this document, we are considered a Constitutional Republic. I am convinced that there is an astronomical difference between the two forms of Government. In a Democracy, there is no limit to the power of the people or their representatives. What the people decide, is essentially what happens. Need I remind you that the Holocaust was a result of the majority of the people confiding in Hitler and his ideologies? People are easily swayed by political leader’s, and in the case of Hitler’s Germany, the results became disastrous.

However, A Constitutional Republic like our own is less susceptible to this danger. This is because all of our beliefs as a nation have already been set in stone, and we have designed our entire legal system to protect those beliefs. Although not flawless, this system has been greatly beneficial to American citizens throughout the Centuries, as well as to countless others worldwide.

I believe that it it highly important that we as American citizens understand this difference between these two systems, as well as understand why our Constitutional Republic has outperformed all others in the preservation of human liberties.

Share
February
15
The argument to artificially raise the amount of women in the Legislature is part of the feminist platform worldwide. Feminists argue that this is precisely what must be done in order to achieve their goal of equal gender representation in Government. Various organizations such as Quota Project and International IDEA (Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance) have initiated quotas for the amount of artificial stimulus of women in legislature’s worldwide. These quotas are defined as “Mandatory or targeted percentages of women candidates for public elections. An electoral quota for women may be constitutional, legislative or be in the form of a political party quota. It may apply to the number of women candidates proposed by a party for election, or may take the form of reserved seats in the legislature.” (www.quotaProject.org/aboutProject.cfm#quotas)
IDEA has stated on their website that they are “…committed to ensuring that gender equality is integrated in democracy building.  As a cross cutting dimension of democracy, gender is addressed through two complementary and critical approaches; gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment. Through the global program on Democracy and Gender as well as regional program initiatives (in Nepal, Bolivia and Sudan etc.) we support knowledge transfer and capacity building on gender equality and women’s empowerment in electoral processes, political parties, constitution building processes, state of democracy assessments and democracy and development processes.”
But other political groups from across the ideological spectrum have attributed ulterior motives to groups like IDEA who suggest the implementation of such practices. One example of such a group is found at www.ifeminist.com. In regards to feminist’s push for the artificial stimulus of women in the Legislature, Wendy McElroy from Ifeminists.com says in an essay entitled: “Boss Tweed” Feminism, that organizations such as the United Nations and the Feminist Majority, an American group, are…trying to rig the election. They’re not trying to control the voting-just the nominations.”
McElroy continued with an example of these policies being implemented in Kosovo, “…where the parliament functions under a U.N. mandated quota guaranteeing women will constitute close to a third of its members. Every third candidate in the 2001 election had to be a woman.”
My personal belief on this topic is reflected to some degree by McElroy (Although our opinions on specifics are profoundly different) when she stated that: “The ideal of equal representation for women in democratic governments around the globe sounds praiseworthy. But its implementation has little to do with “equality” or “democracy.” Instead, it has become a policy of privilege and quota, driven by elite powers that disregard the wishes of “the people” in regions where it is applied. It is affirmative action applied to the political realm.”
Share
February
10
My answer to this question is positively in the negative. I believe that with the sole exception of illegal content, the government (whether on City, State, or Federal levels) should have no censorship over material on the world wide web. My reasons are purely of philosophical root. I give this answer because I believe that every individual is “Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” (US Federal Constitution). Allow me to explain.
Our government was founded as a Constitutional Republic which paid homage to Democratic ideas such as the three major ones listed above. The implications of such a government (A government run by a written Constitution) were such that allowed the unrestricted access of citizens to those Democratic ideals which were treasured by the individuals who framed it. For example, the Court System in the United States is such that if I intrude upon another in a why that violates a Constitutional right, I will pay a penalty for my actions. If I steal from an individual or group of people, I will either pay a fine, or spend some time in jail. This is because our government was framed in such a fashion that it’s primary function is to protect the rights of the people. When a governmental activity steps across these bounds, it is no longer considered to be constitutionally protected.
Any form of government censorship of otherwise legal content found on the word wide web would be a violation of the First Amendment, which grants the right of freedom of the press, as well as freedom of speech.
However, not all Americans are of this opinion. This is because not everyone believes in the Constitutional principles on which our Republic was formed. Some do not believe in the unrestricted access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as articulated in the US Constitution. The most widespread ideological alternative to a Constitutional Republic is Statism. Statism, according to www.Dictionary.reference.com, is: “The principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.”
Thus, this ideology is inconsistent with the principles on which our Constitution was framed. A Statist’s answer to the question of whether or not the government should censor the word wide web would most definitely be an aberration from Constitutional standards and the opinions derived by those who agree with those standards.
My point in detailing both of these opinions to you is to show that the question posed has deep philosophical roots. I answer that government should not censor the world wide web, because doing so would fall under my definition of intrusion on freedom of speech. However, the way in which any individual answers this question will be determined by the way in which their worldview handles the discipline of government.
Share
February
4

Hey guys, I just want to leave a note encouraging you to check out collegeplus!’ essay contest going on right now. There are several insightful essays to look at, all on the subject of: “Wise Solutions for Fixing the College Debt Crisis”. You can visit the essay contest here:

http://www.collegeplus.org/scholarship/vote/essays/

I have posted an entry myself, and you can find it (And click on the like button next to my name as well in order to help me towards winning an i-pad) at this link:

http://www.collegeplus.org/scholarship/vote/essays/calvinlyman

Share
© Teens for Liberty
Wordpress Theme designed by DT Website Templates