The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God is inerrant, unmalleable and eternal.
 
It begins with the established truth that God exists, necessarily, as Genesis 1:1 says: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” It predetermines God’s existence in a universe devoid of anything, and depicts Him as the Creator of everything. Without God, there can be nothing, as something can’t come from nothing. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, or “out of nothing, nothing comes.”
 
Us Christians understand this, at least when we put our minds to it, and trust in the Word of God as Truth. And this is not a blind trust either, as the Bible, if nothing else, is a basically reliable historical document, depicting stories and events throughout history which are backed by archaeological discoveries.
 
The Word of God is Truth, and seemingly, this is what psychologist Jordan Peterson has come to realize very recently.
 
Peterson appeared on a recent episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, in which they discussed culture, society and the Bible, with Peterson saying that the Bible serves as the bedrock of culture.
 
“If categories just dissolve, especially fundamental ones, the culture is dissolving, because the culture is a structure of category,” began Peterson. “That’s what it is. So and in fact, culture is a structure of category that we all share. So we see things the same way. But that’s why we can talk, I mean, not exactly the same way, because then we have nothing to talk about. But, roughly speaking, we have a bedrock of agreement. That’s the Bible, by the way. So, I just walked through the Museum of the Bible in Washington. That was very cool. It’s [a] very cool museum.”
 
Joe Rogan then asked Peterson: “So the structure, that’s what the Bible provides?”
 
To which Peterson gets into the meat of his argument and revelation:
 
“Yeah, that’s what I figured out. I just figured this out this week. So it was a cool, it was cool thing to walk through, because it’s, it’s chronological, they have one floor, which is the history of the Bible… it’s really what it is, is the history of the book. Now, in many ways, the first book was the Bible. I mean, literally, because at one point, there was only one book, like, as far as our western cultures concerned, there’s one book. And for a while, literally, there was only one book. And that book was the Bible. And then before it was the Bible, it was, you know, scrolls, and it was writings on papyrus.”
 
“And… we were starting to aggregate written texts together. And it went through all sorts of technological transformations. And then it became books that everybody could buy, the book everybody could buy, and the first one of those was the Bible, and then it became all sorts of books that everybody could buy. But all those books, in some sense, emerged out of that underlying book. And that book itself, the Bible, isn’t a book, it’s a library. It’s a collection of books.”
 
“And so what I figured out was, partly because I was talking to my brother in law, Jim Keller… we were talking about meaning and text, because we were talking about translation and the problem of understanding text. And Jim said, the meaning of words is coded in the relationship of the words to one another, and the postmodernist make that case that all meaning is derived from the relationship between words. That’s wrong, because, well, what about rage? That’s not words. And what about moving your hand? That’s not words. So it’s wrong, but part of it is right, because the meaning we derive from the verbal domain is encoded in the relationship between words. So now, then you think, well, let’s think about the relationship between words while some words are dependent on other words, some ideas are dependent on other ideas, the more ideas are dependent on a given idea, the more fundamental that idea is… that’s a definition of fundamental.”
 
Peterson then brings up the idea that, whatever texts exist in a civilization, there must be a fundamental text on which all the other texts depend, and that the Bible is said fundamental text. He brought up authors like Shakespeare, Milton and Dante for being part of the “Western canon”, as he put it, as they influenced other texts in the West. But even those books have the Bible at its base, as Peterson said.
 
Peterson concludes his lengthy and rather round-about explanation by saying: “And so it isn’t that the Bible is true. It’s that the Bible is the precondition for the manifestation of truth, which makes it way more true than just true. It’s a whole different kind of true, and I think this is… not only literally the case, factually, I think it can’t be any other way.”
 
What I believe Peterson to be arguing is that, in order for anything else to be true, the Bible must be the first and fundamental Truth.
 
Whatever truth other books and texts provide must first be true according to God.
 
For example, the truth of binary genders. There is only male and female, as Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
 
God never created “transgenders”, because there is no such thing as “transgender.” If you are male, you cannot become female, no matter what body deformations you put yourself through. The same is true of females. Any book which acknowledges the truth of binary genders, namely biology textbooks which haven’t been corrupted by their woke publishers, is thus speaking a truth which first relies on the Truth of Scripture.
 
Another example is anything pertaining to other things which are uncontestably true, such as gravity, the sky being blue, the way human or animal bodies work, cellular biology, etc. Scientists may not all have everything figured out, at least when it comes to the scientific studies of the universe, but what they do say as truth is first dependent on the Higher Truth, or Ultimate Truth.
 
For example, we don’t really know how black holes work, but we know they are there because God created black holes. As a result of that lack of knowledge, we can’t presently tell people whatever truth pertains to black holes apart from the fact that they exist and that they usually are formed when massive stars reach the end of their lifespans and implode, collapsing in on themselves and forming a small but massive black hole.
 
Funny enough, in researching this very matter, I came across an article which talks about how black holes form, and it talks about two twists regarding what we know about black holes, only one of which is really important.
 
It reads: “[I]t would take longer than the universe’s current age for black holes that started as dead stars to grow to galaxy-center-sized black holes. So astronomers also think the universe may have jumpstarted the process by creating giant primordial black holes in the moment just after the Big Bang – though this is just as weird and problematic as you might think.”
 
One doesn’t really think it’s all that weird, let alone problematic, if one understands the Truth of God.
 
The theory here is that black holes take longer than the universe’s current age to form into the massive black holes that we see at the center of galaxies, such as the one in the middle of the Milky Way, or the closest galaxy to us, Andromeda. As a result, the fact that such massive black holes not only currently exist but have existed for a very long time has godless scientists scratching their heads in confusion.
 
How can it be that they exist if black holes take longer than the age of the universe to form? Assuming that their calculations are correct, both regarding the age of the universe and how long it takes for black holes to become that big or massive, the only logical explanation is close to what the article provides, though with a different source.
 
God, not the universe, created giant primordial black holes after the Big Bang (or when God created the universe) to situate planets and solar systems, thus creating galaxies. Though regarding the age of the universe, God created Adam and Eve to be adults rather than mankind's usual starting age of infancy, so He could have created the universe to appear aged as well (either that, or age is an effect of sin, but that's a different discussion entirely).
 
Regardless, God designed and created a universe that makes sense and isn’t random (for such a universe would be contradictory to the idea of intelligent design), and made things work in particular ways. He created the Earth to be habitable, created the animals which roam it, and created man and woman to live on it.
 
He designed the other planets to not be habitable, as they were unnecessary for the purpose of creating life. Though, if He desired to, obviously, He could change that either gradually or immediately.
 
Regardless, God created the heavens and the earth, and this is knowledge we derive both from the world we inhabit and the Word of God, which directly tells us so. The Word of God is Truth, and without it, nothing else can be.
 
I am glad that Jordan Peterson is beginning to see the Truth of God and I hope this means that he is saved.
 
Hebrews 4:12
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

The Book of Genesis covers a great deal of people throughout a great deal of time. From the creation of the universe to Adam and Eve in and out of the Garden, Cain killing Abel, Seth being born to Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, Abraham being the forefather of the faith, his son Isaac’s long-awaited birth, Jacob and Esau’s rivalry, ending with Joseph’s story of betrayal and hardship until reaching the second highest position in the land of Egypt and helping his family move there.
 
The Book of Exodus, in turn, covers the story of Moses, for the most part. And in the beginning of Exodus, starting from verse 6, we read the following:
 
“Then Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation. But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them.”
 
“Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, ‘Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.’ Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel. So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves.”
 
“Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, ‘When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, ‘Why have you done this, and let the male children live?’ The midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.’ So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, ‘Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.’”
 
The reason I bring this story up, at least up to this point, is because much like Pharaoh, it seems as though Chinese President Xi Jinping is afraid of the surge in numbers of people of faith.
 
According to The UK Express, who quote Director of Strategic Research at Christian charity, Open Doors, Dr Ron Boyd-MacMillan, “China’s premier is becoming increasingly concerned by the size of the Church – currently estimated at 97 million people.”
 
Dr. Boyd-MacMillan claimed that the size of the church in China is expected to increase rapidly in the next couple of decades, reaching 300 million people by 2030 at the rate it’s currently growing (roughly 7-8%), thus “creating a group big enough to challenge Xi’s government.”
 
He said: “We think the evidence as to why the Chinese Church is so targeted, is that the leaders are scared of the size of the Church, and the growth of the Church. And if it grows, at the rate that it has done since 1980, and that’s about between seven and eight percent a year, then you’re looking at a group of people that will be 300 million strong, nearly by 2030. And, you know, the Chinese leadership, they really do long term planning, I mean, their economic plan goes to 2049, so this bothers them. Because I think if the Church continues to grow like that, then they’ll have to share power.”
 
The UK Express also shared an infographic depicting China’s military power (which they claim is accurate as of November 2020, so the numbers are probably a bit higher at this point, assuming that the CCP would even share these numbers to begin with), as you can see below.

As you can see, it depicts a few notable things. First, the population, which currently stands at 1,384,688,986. The fact that, already, the Chinese Church stands at 97 million is rather bad for Xi, as they make up 7% of the total population, and as I have already mentioned in prior articles, it only takes 3.5% of the population actively protesting peacefully to drive meaningful change. With the Chinese population growing at approximately 0.3% per year, the 300 million Christians would be roughly 20% of the Chinese population by the year 2030.
 
These are not insignificant numbers, whatsoever. Second, they show China’s military power in terms of military personnel and vehicles.
 
2.7 million total personnel is not insignificant, unfortunately, as the U.S.’s total military personnel is roughly 2.4 million. Those numbers may not be too far apart, but during times of war, the personnel tend to go up (following 9/11, the military saw a surge in enlistment, and that was just to hunt down illiterate savages sleeping in sand), and there are roughly a billion Chinese compared to 330 million Americans. Not that every single resident of the countries would be fighting, of course, but I’m largely talking about total possible manpower.
 
We do, however, have an advantage in terms of vehicles, most likely. I don’t know the estimated number of military vehicles we have available, but I know for sure that we have more than just two aircraft carriers unlike China.
 
But these numbers are only interesting to know in the event of war against China, which isn’t the main point of this article. Like I mentioned before, the Chinese Church makes up roughly 7% of the Chinese population and that number is increasing year-over-year at a rate of seven or eight percent.
 
With Christians being the natural enemy of communism and communists, it’s no surprise, really, that Xi would feel threatened by such a massive surge in faith every year. Particularly as he has tried his darndest to oppress and Chinafy the Church, trying to turn people’s faith away from God and towards himself.
 
But as Exodus 1:12 says, “But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad.”
 
My comparison to the Book of Exodus isn’t to say that we might one day see a Christian exodus from China. What I’m trying to do is draw comparisons between Xi and Pharaoh, the conditions of their targets in their own times, and what faith in God will do for the believers. God delivered the Jews out of Egypt. He might do the same for Christians in China, or He might even lead Christians in China to rule the future former-communist country.
 
Can you imagine how delightful it would be for China to become a Christian nation, run as a Republic, and faithful to God? Instead of an economic and political rival, we would have an economic and political friend (assuming Christianity further grows in the U.S. as well and defeats the Satanic Left).
 
I don’t know the plans that God has for His people in China, but knowing His goodness, I know that He will deliver good things to them, even if there is hardship along the way.
 
I pray that the latter option happens, and Christians begin ruling China, dealing a deathblow to communism worldwide.
 
Galatians 5:1
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”

In a recent video released by PragerU (below), psychoanalyst and author Erica Komisar made the argument that children should be exposed to God and religion, even if the parents aren’t believers themselves.
 
She explains that, as a therapist, she is often asked questions about anxiety and depression and why they are so prevalent in children and teenagers. She argues that one explanation for it, which is “almost surely the most neglected” is declining interest in God and religion in the U.S.
 
Komisar cited a Harvard study which shows that children who attended a religious service at least once a week “scored higher on psychological well-being measurements and had lower risks of mental illness.” This weekly attendance was also linked to “higher rates of volunteerism, lower probabilities of both drug use and early sexual initiation, and a sense of purpose.”
 
Regardless of the psychological benefits of weekly church attendance, there has been a 20% decrease in weekly religious attendance in the last 20 years. And in 2018, the American Family Survey showed that “nearly half of adults under 30 do not identify with any religion.”
 
Komisar commented on those surveys saying: “From a purely psychological point of view, this is not a good trend. Nihilism – the belief in nothing – is a rich fertilizer for anxiety and depression.”

As a result, Komisar argues that parents ought to expose their children to God and religion, even if those parents are themselves unbelievers.
 
Generally, I agree with Komisar and also believe that people ought to come to faith, in part, because of the moral and psychological benefits it would bring.
 
However, my one issue with JUST making this argument is that it’s no different from arguing that religion is a crutch for people to deal with their daily lives. This is an argument I often hear from unbelievers “Oh, you just believe in this pie-in-the-sky nonsense because you can’t properly deal with the daily stresses of life. It’s just a crutch for you and those who don’t believe in this unscientific nonsense have more mental/intellectual maturity.”
 
Obviously, such an argument is false and rooted in a misconception of religion, but it’s arguments like the one Komisar gives that sort of fuel that. Again, I am not disagreeing with Komisar on this, and I even understand why she’s making this argument. She’s a therapist, after all, and she wants to help people be better off psychologically and recognizes the mental benefits of religion, belief in God and regular church attendance.
 
I’m not taking away those benefits because they are, of course, very much there. If you’re going to teach your child something, better it be that God has them in the palm of His hands than that the world is on fire and they might not even get to see their adulthood.
 
However, to only argue in favor of religion and God in this manner is to lower them to crutches to deal with the truth of life. It ignores the very fact that there can BE no life in the first place without God.
 
I’m not saying that that’s the argument Komisar is making whatsoever, or that she believes that this is the only purpose of belief in God, but it does have the issue of giving those unbelievers credence they neither have nor deserve.
 
Parents should 100% expose their children to God and religion even if they don’t believe themselves. Komisar actually makes a fantastic point in the video that there are parents who say “I want to give my children the ability to choose what they believe themselves rather than force anything on them.” If that’s the case, then, Komisar argues, shouldn’t you be more willing to expose your children to God and religion? How else are they to make a free and informed decision about what to believe if they aren’t exposed to such options?
 
And that is a great argument. For parents to say that they don’t want to force a religion on their children, and so don’t expose their children to religion, because they want their children to choose for themselves is like parents saying they don’t want to force children to eat a particular type of food, so they don’t expose their children to that food, because they want them to choose for themselves.
 
Ultimately, they are accomplishing the exact OPPOSITE of what they claim to want. They are making that choice for their children to NOT be part of a religion by depriving them of the experience of it.
 
After all, who chooses to be part of something they have no idea what it is about? “I don’t want to tell my child what he should do when he grows up, so I’m not letting him do anything in any field so he can choose for himself what he wants to do.” That is a dumbass argument when put that way, and yet, it’s the standard operating procedure for some parents when it comes to their child’s beliefs?
 
If you expose children to nothing, they will know nothing and believe in nothing.
 
But at any rate, like I said, I generally agree with what Komisar is saying about God, religion and the psychological benefits of both. They definitely are true, and the benefits can be seen in anyone who is actually faithful to God.
 
God teaches us a myriad of things throughout the Bible, from that which He commands of us in the Ten Commandments to what Jesus said was the most important commandment “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind,” as well as another commandment which He said was equally as important: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
 
We are told by God, who is the author of morality (among all other things except for evil and sin), what is good, what is profitable, what must be done and how, all for His glory and His kingdom.
 
I am reminded of a guest speaker I once had for my Religion class in high school who was an atheist but argued in favor of the teachings of the Bible because they were, according to him, “good moral teachings.”
 
They certainly are, and had I known then what I know now, I would have made the same argument I had been making earlier in this article. God is, indeed, moral as He is the author of morality. We are taught that there is no sin in Him and He is not the author of sin and evil. So the speaker wasn’t technically wrong in that regard. However, the Bible is FAR more than just a guide on morality and God and religion are far more than just safe havens from the stresses and harshness of life.
 
The Bible is God’s very word to us. It depicts the history of not just the Jewish and Christian faiths, but of the entire world and its existence. It shows us who the author of the universe is, with the declaration of the very first words of the Bible being: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” showing the reader that before everything was, He IS. He is eternal, He is omnipotent, He is omniscient, omnipresent, and the Creator and originator of all.
 
He created the heavens and the earth, all living things on it, above it and underneath it, including mankind. Mankind then was deceived by Satan into rebelling against God, and thusly was punished, along with Satan, for such rebellion, taking away their eternal life and their place in paradise.
 
Following that, mankind continued to rebel against God, sinning and sinning and being evil by nature, which was once not the case but the punishment by God for their original sin of disbelief in God’s word that if they eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they would surely die.
 
Despite this continual, natural sinfulness and rebellion, God sent His only begotten Son to, among other things, die on the cross for the sins of the people who believe in Him, that they should not perish but have eternal life. God had absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do that, and would be perfectly justified to have sent no savior at all and punish all mankind for its sins. And yet, He did send us a savior, because He is a kind and merciful God who loves His children.
 
When you understand this about God, one cannot possibly relegate Him to being a mere comforter (though He is a comforter) of the downtrodden, anxious and depressed. One cannot relegate His word as mere good guidance for how to live a moral life. One cannot relegate belief in Him and His word to just a crutch for dealing with life.
 
Again, I don’t think that’s what Komisar was saying, at all, and don’t think she believes this is all religion and God are good for. And again, I agree with almost everything she said in that PragerU video, with my biggest gripe being that at one point, she said “[B]etter for kids to use their imagination constructing something positive – such as a God who cares about us – than the dark, nihilistic idea that there’s no creator and protector…” which is problematic because it implies that God is someone we create ourselves, according to our desires. God cannot be created by people and a “god” created by evil people will permit evil deeds. I understand what she was trying to say here, but it’s rather problematic how she put it together.
 
God is a comforter and a protector, yes, but it’s far more beneficial and important to know that He is the Master of the Universe and not a single thing that happens happens without His permission. Even Satan, in all his evil deeds, is held back by God in his wickedness.
 
God created the world. God controls the world. God created you. God is in control of your life and has you in the palm of His hands. More than just a good psychological answer to the stresses of life, He is the Lord Almighty, in whom people can find comfort. And they can find said comfort precisely because of who He is, not because of who we want Him to be.
 
Yes, parents ought to expose their children to God and religion, even if they don’t themselves believe, and even if they only do it for the psychological benefits of it, because it can lead to a calling from the Lord to Him. But it is also very important to understand WHY God is even a good source of comfort to begin with and that begins with understanding WHO He is.
 
John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”

There have been plenty of stories surrounding this year’s Olympics which either irritate or utterly disgust anyone who is of sane mind, from men competing against women to Olympians representing the U.S. protesting when the national anthem is played, etc.
 
And these stories have been circulated plenty, giving these undeserving bastards more recognition than they deserve. While such horrid situations ought to be discussed in the negative light they deserve, I would like to focus on the exact opposite today: an Olympian who represents her country well and who is not only happy to do so, but considers it a blessing and gives all the glory of her victory to God.
 
Sydney McLaughlin is an Olympic hurdler, who this past week managed to edge out her teammate Dalilah Muhammad and beat her own world record in the 400-meter hurdles to win the gold medal for her country, with Muhammad taking home the silver (and also breaking the previous world record but being a bit slower than McLaughlin).
 
The 21-year-old Olympian spoke to the press following the race, where she said “Just trusting the process, giving the glory to God… I’m just really grateful to represent my country and to have had this opportunity,” also mentioning the “hard work and dedication” which went into the season.
 
McLaughlin was also able to see footage of her Catholic high school celebrating her victory.
 
She also made sure to give thanks to God for her victory on Instagram as well:
 
“The face of a woman who is in awe of God. I could feel this meet was going to be something special… but MAN. Weeks like these are some of the hardest in a track athletes life. The mental strain of preparing for the rounds in order to solidify your spot is heavy enough. But the amount of weight the Lord took off my shoulders, is the reason I could run so freely yesterday. My faith was being tested all week. From bad practices, to 3 false start delays, to a meet delay. I just kept hearing God say, ‘Just focus on me.’ It was the best race plan I could have ever assembled. I no longer run for self-recognition, but to reflect His perfect will that is already set in stone. I don’t deserve anything. But by grace, through faith, Jesus has given me everything. Records come and go. The glory of God is eternal. Thank you, Father. Congrats to everyone who made the team, as well as my awesome competitors!! Let’s go represent the USA the best way we know how!”
 
It’s not often you get to hear competitors speaking like this. Usually, we focus on the stories like the ones I mentioned in the beginning, where people make asses of themselves and somehow take pride in it, or generally push for some Leftist, anti-God agenda. And while, again, it’s worthwhile to talk about those things in the negative manner which they deserve, it’s equally as important to talk about situations like these in the positive manner which they deserve.
 
Sydney is proud to represent her country and more importantly is proud to be a Christian. She gives the glory to God, not herself, for her ability to break her own world record and bring home the gold. She admits that she deserves nothing, that by grace, through faith, Jesus has given her everything, and that mortal things like records will come and go but God’s glory is eternal.
 
These are things which we should be celebrating and promoting, perhaps more so than the other stories. Yet, it will be talked about far less for a number of reasons. Namely, the fake news media loves to promote the filth that the other Olympians are pushing like anthem protests and men cheating by competing against women, so it’s only natural that these other stories get talked about more.
 
But it’s still true that stories like McLaughlin’s ought to be shared and talked about far more, giving her the recognition she deserves for being willing to stand up for what is right and righteous in a culture which has long hated what is right and righteous.
 
She expressly is grateful to represent her country, while other Olympians simply take the opportunity to bash it and embarrass it on the world stage. She thanks God and gives all the glory and credit to Him, while other Olympians will be self-absorbed and talk about “their” accomplishments as if they were solely theirs and might even hijack the stage to talk about the disgraceful filth the fake news media and elites would love to hear.
 
McLaughlin stands apart from these competitors, and I am certainly glad to see that. She is the type of competitor we ought to be talking about more and celebrating. She represents her country very well, as opposed to the other Olympians who only represent the minority of the elites who push their Leftist agenda.
 
Not only does she do a fantastic job as an Olympian, but also as a Christian, witnessing to the whole world of the wonder of God. Of course, she doesn’t have a whole lot of time to witness, but she takes whatever opportunity she can get to do so, and I am certain that this is utterly pleasing to the Lord.
 
God bless Sydney McLaughlin.
 
Luke 2:14
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

I will freely admit that that might be a cliched title, but it isn’t very often that I speak of matters so personal to me. I usually talk about what idiotic things Leftists said or pushed, or about what great things Trump would do as President, or generally tried my hand at some apologetics, defending the Christian faith from those who foolishly attack it at their own peril.
 
However, with the recent event of America’s Anchorman Rush Limbaugh passing away due to complications with cancer (screw cancer, by the way, and I really want to say something stronger but I feel like that wouldn’t honor Rush), I feel like I should take some time away from focusing on other current events such as the disaster that is the illegitimate Biden administration to just discuss Rush and what he meant to me personally.
 
I, unfortunately, never got to meet Rush, so it’s not like I can share some personal anecdote about the man of something we did together. But I listened to him as often as I could, particularly as I got older and began to pay attention to politics a little bit more.
 
I don’t exactly know what qualifies one to be a “Rush baby”, whether it means to have had his radio program on since I was literally a baby or at least a toddler, but I can call myself a “Rush teen”, if you will.
 
I began listening to him, admittedly, against my will. That’s not to say that I did not like Rush or that I was a mad liberal with vitriol and hatred in his heart. I was just a 14-year-old kid who recently moved to a new state and awaiting the movers to have all our stuff, there were few things to do apart from listening to the radio. At the time, I was hardly paying much attention to politics.
 
I remember occasionally watching Fox News (back when it was good and personalities like Bill O’Reilly were present) with my parents over the years, but again, could hardly care about the politics. I remember when Obama was elected president in 2008 and how disappointed my parents were about it. So I knew who was President of the United States by the time my family and I moved to the country, but again, being a kid, I hardly cared about that.
 
As a result, there was not much I cared about with regard to what Rush was talking about. I remember that Rush was railing on Obama and the Democrats as basically trying to be “Santa Claus” and just trying to win elections by giving out free stuff to Americans.
 
Keep in mind that this was around the time that Obamacare was being talked about the most.
 
But, again, as a 14-year-old kid whose interests lied primarily in playing Call of Duty or other games on his Xbox, the topics of discussion were barely important to me. But I kept listening, on and off, and began to pay more attention to politics as time went on, particularly around the time of the 2012 election.
 
Though I ashamedly supported Romney back then, a large part of the reason why is because, while even then I knew he wasn’t exactly the most conservative option (back then, I liked Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman and Rick Perry far more than Romney), he would likely still have made for a better president than what Obama was. In some ways, I still think that to be true. I think Romney would have made the economy better, because Republicans tend to be able to fix the economies that Democrats wreck. And this was a sentiment that Rush shared.
 
He backed Romney and supported him because, even if he was far from his first choice, he was a better option than Obama. He made the same rationalizations and justifications for supporting McCain, who was also not Rush’s first choice.
 
So I got invested a decent bit in politics back then, certainly more than what I previously had but obviously nowhere near as much as I do now. As a result, I began to pay more attention to what Rush was saying as well. It certainly helped that my dad would often put him on the radio when he picked me up from school, at least for the short amount of time that I wouldn’t take the bus home.
 
And so, my journey went as follows: I became a Republican in large part because my parents were Republicans and taught me right from wrong (for the most part, at least, as even they were still on that same journey as me). They, themselves, became Republicans because they were in finance, and what Republicans propose economically are what always made sense for them. Then, we became conservatives.
 
Funny enough, this happened in part because of Obama. Early in his administration, quite literally on his third day in office, Obama had reportedly told Republican leaders who were invited to the White House to “quit listening to Rush Limbaugh.” “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done. There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats. We shouldn’t let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.”
 
For all the “unifying” that Obama was seemingly trying to do there, he went on to say to a Republican critic: “I won. I will trump you on that.”
 
Clearly, Obama was as full of crap back then as we always knew he was. But at any rate, that’s not what I want to focus on. Following that moment in the White House, Fox News reported on it, and my mom asked: “Who’s Rush Limbaugh?”
 
She went on to look him up and that is how my parents (and eventually I) started listening to El Rushbo. So thank you, Obama. You are at least part of the reason as to why my family and I are as conservative as we are today.
 
And so, we became Republicans, and then through Rush, we became conservatives. After that is when my mom and I became Christians, some time later, at least.
 
And that’s all well and good, but you might be asking how that relates to what Rush means to me. Well, I think it was a little important to share this backstory of mine, detailing the journey of my conservative politics. It is because of Rush Limbaugh that I am a conservative, particularly as much of one as I am.
 
He (as well as my parents who also deserve credit for this) taught me not what to think but how to think. To analyze things with a critical eye. It’s why I analyze what Leftists say and can discern what they mean or imply from them.
 
I attended the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and that is a school from which one does not graduate. Even now, with Rush’s passing, there is plenty that we can learn and know from him.
 
It’s because of him that I have been writing these articles for the last four years. I even sought a career in radio so that I could become “the next Rush Limbaugh” before I realized that even speaking for half an hour became tiring for my throat. Not to mention I think I can convey messages more clearly in the written form, particularly as this mode of communication affords me more time to think about what I want to say and how to say it.
 
Of course, now, I no longer want to be “the next Rush Limbaugh” not merely because I hardly think I’m cut out for radio, but also because there simply cannot be a “next Rush Limbaugh”. When they made him, they broke the mold, as those who listened to Rush through Rush 24/7 understand. I cannot aspire to be someone I’m not, or the “next” someone I’m not. I can only be the best version of myself and I think that’s what Rush would want of me.
 
Kathryn Limbaugh opened Rush’s show on the 17th to convey the sad news of Rush’s passing. She pointed out how “Rush will forever be the greatest of all time. Rush was an extraordinary man, a gentle giant – brilliant, quick witted, genuinely kind, extremely generous, passionate, courageous, and the hardest working person I know…”
 
“He was polite and respectful to everyone he met. Even most recently when he was not feeling well in the hospital, he was so appreciative to every single doctor and nurse and custodian and first responder. He never wanted to put anyone out, and always thanked them profusely for their help.”
 
Rush was someone who unabashedly and unapologetically loved his country, our military, flag, Constitution, and Founding Fathers. It’s because of that love that he wanted to defeat the Left, who bear the exact opposite feelings about all those things.
 
He’s someone who touched the hearts of tens of millions of people every day for 32 years. You can tell what awesome things he did in his life by the way people reacted to his death. Those who loved him and love this country mourned, while those who loathed him and loathe this country vilely celebrated. He was loved by all the right people and hated by all the right people. I saw it as a badge of honor for Rush that the Left reacted the way that they did. That Rush had enemies means he stood up for something, and particularly, for the right thing.
 
That he was loved by God is infinitely more important than that he was hated by the Left and Satan. He now rests with the Lord, free from the evil cancer that damaged his body, and probably striking up a conversation with Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, to name a few, about how silly the Left is for believing they are headed for victory.
 
Rush was a big part of my life and a big part of how I have shaped my life and my beliefs. I didn’t always agree with Rush, though the times I disagreed were as few and far between as the times in which he was wrong. That is to say, I would disagree with him 0.2% of the time, agreeing with him the other 99.8%.
 
Though he and I never met, as I said earlier, he was my brother in Christ. I am young, so I don’t plan on meeting my Savior in heaven any time soon, and by extension, America’s Anchorman. But what I will try to do from now on will be the same as what I hopefully have been doing for the past four years: write truthful articles that convey why the Left is evil and ought to be defeated and destroyed. This is what Rush, in his own way, did for over 30 years. With talent on loan from God, and by the Grace of God, he did all he could with the time that the Lord gave him, and I hope to do the same.
 
God bless Rush Limbaugh and may his soul rest in peace, as we all know he is.
 
Romans 14:8
“For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.”

Dear reader, I am sorry. In my last article, where I discussed TIME Magazine taking a victory lap after the Washington Establishment stole the election away from Trump by borderline admitting and confessing what they did (after months of denying it), I finished that article with a bit of a dour message.
 
I insisted that we ought to take secession as an option seriously because the alternative could well be that we would be forced to getting used to American gulags and concentration camps.
 
I even finished that article by saying: “Understand, above all else, that the 2020 election wasn’t the death of the Republic. The Republic has been dead for a very long time. 2020 was just the signing of its death certificate.”
 
I am not taking back any of those things, as I largely believe them to be true. We ought to take secession as a serious option, if not necessarily our first one. We ought to be thinking about the future because it most definitely is possible that we will one day see American gulags being created and filled by conservatives and Trump supporters (and, eventually, anyone who dissents from the State, as communist countries tend to do).
 
I believe it’s important to warn people about this because, for a long time, we kept hearing from people that such things “would never happen in America.” The American people, to their fault, have gotten far too used to the Constitution working and being applicable for them to believe that it is even plausible that it might not or that tyranny could rear its ugly head as blatantly and obviously as in the Soviet Union or in China.
 
The thing about the Constitution is that it is a truly unique document, and its establishment a truly unique event. The writing and signing of the Declaration of Independence is also unique.
 
Freedom, in human history, is the exception, not the norm. Communism didn’t always exist, but its most fundamental principle of government control over everything has existed for a very long time. Oliver Cromwell fought and won against the tyranny of King Charles I, changing the way England was ruled from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional one. General Washington led the Rebels against the tyranny of King George III, helping establish the United States of America and becoming its first president (despite largely just wanting to retire but understanding his sense of duty to become the first POTUS).
 
During World War I, once Russia had folded, they had two armies fighting for power: The White Army which fought for the Russian royalty and the Red Army which fought for communism. Knowing that this led to the creation of the Evil Empire, we tend to believe that one side was good and the other evil, but that was not necessarily the case. Tsar Nicholas II was no less an authoritarian than the communists which sought to replace him.
 
So for the United States to be born and for it to exist as it has for as long as it has is truly miraculous; the work of the Lord.
 
And despite what we see today – the troubles and the worries – we must, above all else, have faith and trust and hope in God as we live from this point forth.
 
This is roughly what I said in the title and it is somewhat of a callback to an earlier article titled: “Regarding Election, We Must Have Hope In God Above All Else.”
 
The only difference between this one and that article is that the situation has obviously changed somewhat. In that article, I was expressing hope that God would lead Trump to success over the fraud and the attempted theft of the election, so that we would both have Trump in the White House for another four years and so that we would be better able to understand the size and scope of the swamp in order to better deal with them.
 
That, obviously, didn’t happen. I am not one to often show my despair, and I generally hope to maintain a positive attitude towards things for, if nothing else, your sake. I am not a very important person in this world in regard to fame or influence (and, frankly, I believe that to be a blessing in disguise now), so it’s not like I saw myself as this charismatic leader who could not afford to show weakness in front of those who “follow”, or read, him. But the Gospel is all about having hope and faith in the Lord, so I hoped to share that with you all. My mistake was, even if for a moment, not saving some of that hope and faith for myself.
 
Dear reader, I have sinned. I have allowed for the enemy to take control of my thoughts, though largely private, and for him to dictate how I lived my life for some time and how I would view the world and the situations which will follow under the illegitimate Biden administration.
 
One of the biggest reasons I even suggested secession from the Union (apart from the fact that the Union was basically dissolved when the Supreme Court told 20 states that they had “no standing” in suing other states for the way they blatantly stole the presidential election) is out of fear of the possible future, which I still believe has the possibility of occurring. I still fear that there will one day be American gulags, because I could not possibly afford to try and keep my head in the sand and ignore that as a possibility.
 
However, I cannot also lean so heavily into that fear as to believe it will absolutely happen. I cannot allow myself to believe what the enemy says.
 
MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace recently suggested drone striking Trump supporters in order to “fight domestic terrorism.”
 
Upon hearing that, I am left with two things to do: Either believe her when she says that or believe they can’t actually do that.
 
By which I mean believing that that’s what is to come next, or at least, sometime in the near future. I see the military surrounding D.C. in a show of force, not against the Establishment but to protect the Establishment from We the People. Of course, even the Establishment has clearly not fully trusted the military, if the calls to purge the military of Trump supporters are any indication, but my general belief with this whole situation is one of distrust for much of the military. They could have stopped the steal and ensured Biden would not illegitimately sit in the Oval Office. And who’s going to challenge them when they are the ones with the guns?
 
Wanna know why Maduro is still in charge of Venezuela and not Juan Guaido, despite the fact that Guaido is the legitimate president of that country? Because Maduro has the people with the guns on his side.
 
If the military wanted to, they very well could have stopped Biden, but they didn’t. Likewise, if the military wanted to, they could establish American gulags and do terrible things as well. The thing is that they reasonably would not be willing to do that (even under the assumption that they are all on the side of the Establishment, which is clearly not the case). I think they would far rather control the population as opposed to imprisoning us and executing us en masse. They make the bulk of their money fighting in foreign wars, which is why the top brass was so unwilling to pull out of Middle Eastern countries (apart from the fact that many of them hated Trump to begin with).
 
But at any rate, my point is that, while it’s not out of the realm of possibility for a powerful military to do this crap, it’s also not particularly likely.
 
Which brings me to my overall feelings and thoughts regarding where we are headed as a nation. What we must do, first and foremost, is trust in God. We all know, very well, that He would not be allowing even one of these things to be happening if there wasn’t a purpose for it.
 
Do you believe God to be an evil God? If there was even an ounce of evil in God, we would be absolutely screwed. So, what God allows has to be for the better, correct?
 
Sure, it’s hard to see how The System taking over this country would be for the better, but understand that it didn’t take over the country in 2020 – it just revealed that it was in control in 2020.
 
Like I said in my previous article, 2020 wasn’t the death of the Republic. It died long ago, but we just found out about it. God has allowed us to open our eyes to the reality of the state of this country. Communism isn’t what killed America; corruption did.
 
And it’s a lot easier to be able to make things better when you understand the situation at hand. We had some idea as to what we were dealing with in 2016, which is why we elected Trump. But we were unaware of how truly big the swamp was, even as recently as last month.
 
Were you expecting Mike Pence, Trump’s very own VP, to be a traitor and even declare “Freedom wins” upon the certification of the installation of a tyrant? Because that sure took me by surprise. I also wasn’t exactly expecting Republican freshmen who rode Trump’s coattails to turn on him and vote to impeach him first chance they could.
 
I most certainly also did not expect for the Supreme Court to tell 20 states that they had “no standing” in suing other states for how they ran their elections. I was not expecting the SCOTUS to dissolve the Union with a single decision like that.
 
But it would be far more difficult for us to beat these people if we didn’t know who we were dealing with or how bad the situation truly was. So we cannot fall to despair as I have, ashamedly, done in private.
 
We, particularly I, have to remember just who is in control. It’s not Biden, it’s not Obama, it’s not Harris, it’s not Soros, it’s not whomever else is pulling the strings in The System. It’s God.
 
God allows even evil kingdoms to flourish only for Him to then destroy them. To punish the Israelites who were turning their backs on God, He allowed for other kingdoms around them to destroy them to one extent or another. But He never abandoned His Chosen People because that’s not in God’s character. Likewise, He will not abandon whom He has adopted into His Royal Family.
 
We are children of God; siblings of Christ. This doesn’t mean we won’t face tribulation, but it does mean that whatever tribulation we do face, we will face with God on our side.
 
There are likely a lot of reasons why God allowed for the election to be stolen in 2020. Among them, at least personally, was to test my own faith. It was easy to believe God when He said that “we are more than conquerors through him who loved us,” when things were going well. It’s easy to thank God for the good times. It’s easy to walk with the Lord when good things are happening to us. It is more difficult, however, to do so in the troubling times. And I am afraid that I, even if for a moment, failed.
 
Don’t misunderstand, I am still a Christian. But as I always say, it’s one thing to profess faith and another thing to possess it. I need to live by that standard as well and not just profess faith but also possess it. There are times when I have failed and so, I repent. God, my Lord, please forgive me for this doubt I have had.
 
I have feared the enemy and believed him when I should have put my faith and trust in You entirely. Had I done that, I would not have feared a potential genocide of Christians and conservatives.
 
Again, it’s not that it couldn’t happen or that it’s out of the realm of possibility. One million Armenians were killed in Turkey. Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Hundreds of millions of people have died to communism.
 
It’s rational to be aware that tyranny can occur. But it is not rational to assume that such a thing will inevitably happen to us. At least, not in the current climate.
 
Sure, Nicole Wallace wants to drone strike Trump supporters and she’s far from the only person to either say or think that, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s what’s absolutely and positively going to happen in the future, near or far.
 
Why? Because we are in the palm of God’s hand and He never allows for something to happen if there wasn’t a purpose for it. And a good purpose, at that.
 
I understand that this is an argument for those who irrationally deny the Holocaust or try to minimize it, but Israel would likely not have been founded in 1948 had the Holocaust not have happened. That’s not to say the Holocaust was a good thing, by any stretch of the imagination. But that is to say that God takes even egregious tragedies and uses them for good; for His own plan.
 
The Jews undoubtedly suffered in the Holocaust, but they are also undoubtedly in a better position in the world today with their own land as opposed to being sojourners in other lands.
 
God restored Israel after nearly two thousand years. God has always restored Israel. Why would I expect Him not to do something similar for His own children?
 
Luke 11:13 says: “What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
 
So we must stay in faith that God will restore this nation. We cannot allow for the enemy to dictate our way of thinking. I don’t know how many more of you were in my same camp regarding this present problem. But even this problem, if we remain in faith (and have good people around us to help us), can be used by God to bring us to our knees.
 
I am positive that far more people are currently on their knees and praying to God now than there were before this all happened or would have if none of this had happened.
 
My faith would not have been as tested if Trump had won either in a landslide on election night (as he legally should have) or through the state legislators or the courts. But because my faith was tested, I have been forced to retreat, not away from the battle against the enemy, but into the arms of the Lord Himself.
 
I have had to do plenty of introspection since this whole thing started, and I have found myself lacking. I have stumbled and erred. I have shown distrust as opposed to trust, and felt fear as opposed to faith.
 
It may look like we are losing, but that is certainly what the enemy wants us to believe. There is, indeed, something off about their desire to both keep the military active in D.C. and to want to purge it of Trump supporters.
 
The enemy wants to tell us we are losing, and indeed, they make things look like that’s the case. But for everything that makes it look like we are losing, they certainly aren’t acting like they are winning. At least, not as much as one would think.
 
The TIME Magazine article was a victory lap, but the military presence in D.C. shows the Establishment’s caution and fear. They have them there seemingly for no reason, but there has to be one.
 
So, if you are/were like me at any point, or if you feel yourself despairing at any point in the future because the situation may look bleak, I ask that you do the same as I now do: put your faith and trust entirely and wholly on God. We all stumble sometimes, but we cannot have a defeatist outlook on things. It’s one thing to stumble and fall, but quite another to assume we can’t ever get up again.
 
Isaiah 30:18
“Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.”

I am not a Catholic whatsoever and find many faults with the Catholic theology and doctrine. However, despite those differences, I know very well that to be a Catholic still means to be a Christian, and simply professing one’s faith does not mean that one possesses such faith.
 
That is the sort of faith that Joe Biden and other faux-Christian Democrats have professed for decades and even most recently, as the media has attempted to portray Joe Biden as a “devout Catholic” particularly before the election to try and take away some of the evangelical vote from Trump (even though evangelicals are not Catholic). That any of these killers of the young and old would consider themselves Christian is deeply insulting to anyone who actually is a Christian.
 
Despite that, they do, indeed, call themselves “Christians” or “Catholics” and have people within the Church backing them up (the devil attends church, after all). Actual Christians, however, recognize the fact that such people are not really Christian and do not stand for anything that is Christian.
 
Archbishop Jose Gomez, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is one such Christian who sees the evil morals that Biden holds, at least for the most part.
 
Gomez issued the following statement on Wednesday, saying that “working with [Occupier] Biden will be unique… as he is our first [occupier] in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith.”
 
“Mr. Biden’s piety and personal story, his moving witness to how his faith has brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, his longstanding commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor – all of this I find hopeful and inspiring.”
 
I’m far more certain it wasn’t his “faith” which brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, but remembering that he is obscenely wealthy and in a good position as part of the Washington Establishment to make far more money still. This, obviously, is where I wholeheartedly disagree with Gomez, as I find no actual faith within Joe Biden. Certainly, none of his policies and actions are indicative of someone who trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor? The economy is shut down and he wants MORE of that, which will only hurt the vast majority of people and especially those who were already poor.
 
Saying on the campaign trail that he would help the poor or the working class or whatever is not actually doing any of those things, particularly if his policies will not help the poor but only serve to further enrich himself and his Wall Street buddies.
 
Biden serves only himself and those who can help him at any capacity. The poor are nothing to him except servants at his feet.
 
But at any rate, Gomez continued:
 
“[A]s pastors, the nation’s bishops are given the duty of proclaiming the Gospel in all its truth and power, in season and out of season, even when that teaching is inconvenient or when the Gospel’s truths run contrary to the directions of the wider society and culture. So, I must point out that our new [Occupier] has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences.”
 
“Our commitments on issues of human sexuality and the family, as with our commitments in every other area – such as abolishing the death penalty or seeking a health care system and economy that truly serves the human person – are guided by Christ’s great commandment to love and to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters, especially the most vulnerable,” Gomez continued.
 
For the most part, this is good stuff. I disagree on the issue of the death penalty, as the death penalty is reserved for those whom deserve its harsh punishment, namely killers. Genesis 9:5-6 says: “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. ‘Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.’” And Exodus 21:12 says: “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.”
 
And regarding the health care system and economy, I agree only insofar as the Left has destroyed both and changed it enough to really only benefit the wealthy and not give the little people the ability to compete. Just look at Parler trying to compete with Twitter and getting utterly nuked off of the internet to see what I mean. Not to mention that the Wayfair ruling of 2018 (though a “conservative” majority was responsible for that ruling) is the primary reason as to why we don’t have a store to sell merchandise, as selling things online to people outside of our own state would require more financial and legal muscle than we have.
 
But with that small tangent out of the way, let’s get back to the overall grievances of actual Catholics against the faux-Christian Democrats like Joe Biden.
 
“For the nation’s bishops,” Gomez continued, “the continued injustice of abortion remains the ‘preeminent priority.’ Preeminent does not mean ‘only.’ We have deep concerns about many threats to human life and dignity in our society. But as Pope Francis teaches, we cannot stay silent when nearly a million unborn lives are being cast aside in our country year after year through abortion.”
 
This made a lot of faux-Christians mad, such as the Vatican and the Chicago Cardinal Blaise Cupich, though interestingly, most of their complaints were regarding procedure which seemingly Gomez broke with issuing that statement. That isn’t to say that the Chicago cardinals agree with Gomez, as they were pretty clearly in support of Biden and calling the statement “ill-considered”.
 
Biden’s press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about this, and only said that Biden “attends church regularly” which is a non-answer. Attending church doesn’t mean someone is a Christian.
 
One of Biden’s first executive orders was about forcing educational institutions which receive government funding (that is to say, most of them) must allow biologically male athletes on the women’s teams and forces girls to share restrooms and locker rooms with boys if the boys wanted to use those facilities.
 
He has constantly reiterated his commitment to killing as many babies as he can with pro-abortion legislation and has told people he fully intends on lifting the Mexico City policy which bans NGOs which promote and provide abortion internationally, and intends on lifting the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funds from going to domestic abortion providers.
 
For that one issue alone, he is utterly disqualified from even calling himself a Christian. No Christian would EVER be in support of abortion because abortion is murder, no matter how you dress it up.
 
So Gomez is entirely correct to note that Biden would advance moral evils. Biden is morally evil himself and there is NO defending him, no matter what one tries to do. The Left views evil as good and good as evil and when in power, demonstrate it at its worst.
 
I pray that we will one day crush the evils of the Left and make abortion as morally detestable as the Holocaust, seeing as abortion is a holocaust in itself.
 
Proverbs 8:13
“The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.”

Allow me to better explain what I say in that title. I’m not saying that the students support churches being allowed to reopen – they very much want them closed, at least most of them do. I am saying, however, that they recognize, to some extent, that it is hypocritical of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to allow some places to reopen, like college campuses and some businesses, while forcing churches and synagogues to remain closed. So, in all, I am at least glad that they can recognize the hypocrisy of the governor.
 
At any rate, let’s get to the Campus Reform video (below). In this video, Campus Reform has Addison Smith reporting at, presumably, a New York college (they don’t mention which one).
 
Smith begins by noting that during this pandemic, particularly during the summer, we have seen plenty of protests (and riots, though he doesn’t mention that) over the death of George Floyd while in police custody, and notes that that was happening while multiple states were simultaneously pushing heavy lockdown restrictions on businesses and other types of gatherings, such as religious gatherings. He then goes on to ask if the protests should have been condemned for being allowed to violate the same orders that other people had to follow, or if they were rightfully exempted.
 
One of the students said that “You can’t really outright ban the ability to, you know, assembly and protest, but what we believe is that they should’ve, sort of, restricted it in a way… like enforce social distancing.”
 
So this student believes that, as it is recognized in the constitution, the states cannot outright ban assembly and protest, but the government should have been able to enforce, at the very least, social distancing a bit more. To which I somewhat agree. I do not have an issue with the protests themselves (I have plenty of issue with the riots, of course, since no one has the right to do that), and the protestors have the right to protest. What I have an issue with is the blatant double standard that governors were cool with people not social distancing and, in some cases, not wearing masks (both Schumer and Lightfoot were seen not wearing masks during a celebration following Biden’s “win”), saying that those gatherings are allowed because of the purpose of the gathering being important to those people or important to society.
 
Gathering for worship is also important for the people who do so/desire to do so, and it definitely is also important to society since Psalm 33:12 says: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His inheritance!” A nation which turns its back to God is not a nation blessed by God, so for the sake of the American society, it is important that we worship God, and part of that means being allowed to do so in churches. No, it is not necessary for people to worship God in churches, as a church is wherever at least two Christians gather to worship, but corporate worship of God is considerably better when done in one’s local church building.
 
The protesters have the right to protest, as it is detailed in the First Amendment. The First Amendment also recognizes freedom of religion, and restricting church gatherings in this way is not only hypocritical but also a restriction of people’s First Amendment rights. If this were a disease like the plague, Christians would know to take the best precautions available and would be willing to forego going to church so as to not needlessly gather. But this virus is nowhere near as deadly as many claim it is, with a 99.97% survival rate for most people. There are more dangerous things out there, but we are willing to go to church anyway despite those risks. So why can’t we be allowed to go to church over the Chinese coronavirus, particularly when others are allowed to gather, in massive numbers, to protest the death of a very troubled man?
 
This is a constant theme throughout this article and even throughout the overarching argument. The woman who answers after the first student says that the protesters were “rightfully exempted”, but even she ultimately recognizes that if they are allowed to physically attend college, that people should be allowed to go to church.
 
Another student said: “I think… you should listen to the rules but I also think… if you really believe in what you say and you think… you’re, uh, being treated unfairly, I do think there is maybe some wiggle room with that.”
 
I also somewhat agree with this student. I think people should listen to the rules (when they make sense, at least), but it is still hypocritical to allow people who say they are being treated unfairly to be allowed so much wiggle room so as to outright JUSTIFY AND DEFEND the very actions which have been disparaged when done by others.
 
Before the George Floyd protests and riots, there were anti-lockdown protests. The Left disparaged and attacked those protesters, saying they were putting themselves and others at risk by gathering in such a way, even if they were wearing masks (and many of them were). The George Floyd protesters did pretty much the same exact thing, but because it was a favorable narrative to the Left, they were allowed to happen.
 
I don’t mind following the rules (that make sense), but you can’t expect me to be willing to just accept such blatant double standards. If anti-lockdown protesters aren’t allowed to protest, then neither are George Floyd protesters. If George Floyd protesters are allowed to protest, then so are anti-lockdown protesters.
 
And according to this kid’s line of thinking, if Christians gather because we believe in what we are saying and because we believe we are being treated unfairly (and we are in many places), then there should be allowed some wiggle room in the rules to allow us to gather together for our cause.
 
Humans don’t tend to like injustice when we see it. It’s why we have gotten rid of slavery. It’s why we have done away with segregation (though the woke people out there seem to be, at best inadvertently, wanting to go back to segregation of the races for the “benefit” of black people). It’s why looking at Joe Biden be illegitimately called President-elect infuriates me to no end.
 
Protesters are allowed to protest (not riot, and don’t let anyone tell you there is no difference); the cause should not be what determines whether one kind of protest is allowed and another disallowed.
 
At any rate, the woman who earlier said the George Floyd protests were “rightfully exempt” also went on to say: “I think the reason for pandemic lockdown is because people are dying and, like, prioritizing the group of people dying that includes white people versus just black people is… I think you kind of have to put pandemic regulations on the same level as protesting for George Floyd.”
 
Now, I don’t know what her point is in bringing up the white people vs. the black people in relations to the Chinese virus, but basically she is saying that protesting for George Floyd is just as important as the regulations, meaning that the regulations should not prevent those protests.
 
But again, how is it fair to allow the George Floyd protests over the anti-lockdown protests or the church gatherings? Why is it okay for one group of people to gather for one reason, but another group of people cannot be allowed to gather for a different reason?
 
And if the protests and regulations are important, and the regulations exist because “people are dying” then doesn’t that mean that allowing the protests to happen means those are acceptable deaths? Do their lives no longer matter in terms of protecting them from the virus because they want to go out and protest what they perceive to be racial injustice?
 
Of course, the vast majority of the protesters will live because the virus is very survivable, but that’s not a point liberals tend to make. When talking about the virus, they view it strictly through the lens of it being deadly (thanks in part to Cuomo himself saying that “the virus is death” in one of his press conferences). So if the virus is so deadly, then why allow for “grieving black people” to gather and protest, risking catching this deadly virus?
 
When the protesters are allowed to protest, that means that their right to protest supersedes the lockdown orders. It’s not true, at all, that they are “on the same level”. Lockdown orders and protests are antithetical to one another, and when one is prioritized over another, that leaves an imbalance. By their very definitions, they cannot be on the same level.
 
It’d be like saying that planes are allowed to fly, but can’t be allowed to take off. If you’re allowing the planes to fly, by definition, you have to disregard the take-off restrictions.
 
At any rate, getting to the question of Cuomo banning religious gatherings but allowing other things like liquor stores and other businesses to open, many students noted how hypocritical Cuomo was and how wrong it was for him to do that.
 
One of the students pressed the issue of thinking about others and not just ourselves, which does not really answer Smith’s question and does not answer why churches should be closed but George Floyd protests should be allowed to happen. Again, if the virus is as deadly as they say it is and we should be thinking about others and not just ourselves, then why allow protesters to gather? Don’t their lives matter? Doesn’t their safety matter? Are they selfishly thinking about only themselves when they gather in such a way? And if not, then why am I thinking about only myself for wanting to go to church but they aren’t only thinking about themselves for wanting to protest? Why is it different for the two situations?
 
If it’s because of the cause, that’s an awful reason. It means that only *certain* kinds of people have rights and others do not. It’s the Animal Farm quote of “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” It’s bullcrap inequality and anyone with a brain could recognize that.
 
The cause of “racial injustice” should not supersede my cause of worshipping the Lord and growing His Kingdom. The cause of Joe Biden’s “victory” should not supersede my cause of wanting to reopen so that people don’t starve to death.
 
Now, interestingly enough, that very same student also went on to say that the governments should NOT be forcing churches to close, and it should be up to the churches themselves whether or not they wish to close or remain open, which I 100% agree with. If a church’s leadership thinks that there is a great risk for the people in the congregation (one of the churches I used to frequent in Florida was almost entirely comprised of older people, so I suspect they chose to close down at least for a while), then they have every right to decide to close. But that decision should not be taken away from them. If a church’s leadership does not think that there is great risk to the congregation, and the community around them, then they should be allowed to remain open.
 
It's about weighing the risks versus the benefits, and that decision should be left up to church leadership, not the government, regardless of whether or not they are well-meaning.
 
To end things, since this article is long enough as it is, Smith asked if Cuomo overstepped the boundaries of his power, and the students pretty much all agreed, and that churches have the right to remain open with proper Chinese virus guidelines.
 
So I am glad to see that the students of this New York college (whichever one it is) can recognize that, even if they still support lockdowns, churches should not be forced to close down particularly when other things such as college campuses and businesses are allowed to reopen.
 
Here’s hoping they further develop their reasoning skills and come to recognize how utterly hypocritical and damaging the Leftist ideology is.
 
Psalm 144:15
“Blessed are the people of whom this is so; blessed are the people whose God is the Lord.”

The Never Trumper and liberal would look at that headline and believe that I have given up on Trump or the fight to ensure Biden and the Democrats do not steal this election. They will think I am a pro-Trumper who is looking at the situation and thinks it is so bleak that I have no other choice but to pray to God for a miracle. Make no mistake: praying to God is our FIRST choice, not our last.
 
It is not rare for soldiers to pray to God before they set off to battle. They do so, not because they are at their wits end and can only pray for a miracle. They do so because they believe God will deliver them from the present darkness of war. They do so because they believe God will protect them from the enemy. They do so because they are believers first and soldiers second. They do so because they know the awesome power of the Lord.
 
Read the following written prayer from a Russian soldier during World War II:
 
“O God, hear me! Not once in my life have I ever spoken to you, but today I feel the urge to make you an act of worship. You know that even from my infancy they always told me that you didn’t exist… I, stupid, believed them. I had never marveled at your great works. But tonight I looked up from out of a shell hole at the heaven of stars above me! And fascinated by their brilliant magnificence. All at once I understood how terrible the deception…”
 
“I don’t know, O God, if you will give me your hand. But I say this to you, and you understand. Isn’t it strange, that in the midst of a terrible inferno, the light should appear to me and I should have discovered you? Beyond this I have nothing to say to you. I am happy just because I have known you. At midnight we must attack, but I have no fear, you are looking out for us.”
 
“It is the signal. I have to go. It was wonderful to be with you. I want also to tell you, and you know it, that the battle will be hard: it could be that, in this very night, I’ll come to knock at your door. And even though up to now I haven’t been your friend, when I come, will you let me come in? But what’s this? Am I crying? My Lord God, you see what has happened: only now I’ve begun to see clearly… Farewell, my God, I am going. It’s scarcely possible that I’ll return. Strange; Death now has no fear for me.”
 
Realize the magnitude of such a prayer. Children in the Soviet Union were taught not to believe in God. Teachers would often, under order of the Soviet school systems, organize an exercise where children would be given two potted plants: one which they would water themselves and take care of themselves, and another which “would be left up to God to take care of”. The point of the exercise was to “prove” that God didn’t exist because the plant that would not get watered or put under the sun or overall taken care of would die, and the one that the children took care of would live.

So, it is not surprising that a Russian soldier in the midst of the Second World War would have spent much of his young life not having known God at all. And even still, it is clear to me, through reading that prayer, that the Holy Spirit came down upon him and his eyes were opened to the Lord. That soldier, as he had predicted, would die in that battle. But he did not despair at the thought. He felt tranquil, as he expressed in the end of the prayer.
 
Prayer to God may have been among his last actions, but it was not out of desperation for hope of making it out of there. Again, he demonstrated he was not afraid of meeting his end there. Similarly, those who support and have voted for Trump, whether twice now or for the first time this election, we do not hope in God because He is our last hope or choice; He is our ONLY hope and choice.
 
Shall we have hope in an imperfect system (which is still pretty good, all things considered) created by imperfect men? Shall we have hope in even Trump himself or his legal team? I’m not saying that because I think they will fail; I say that because I believe God will let them succeed and has the power to do so. I say that because, at the end of the day, whether we are talking about war, a rigged election, or whatever else, we can truly do nothing more than to put all our trust, faith and hope in the One who is Master of All.
 
We see what we have to face. Many of us saw much of that during the recent State Senate hearing in Philadelphia.
 
The State of Pennsylvania sent out 1.8 million mail-in ballots and received 2.5 million. A clear sign of a rigged election. Republican poll watchers were not allowed to watch the polls, and even Philadelphia sheriffs didn’t allow them to go in, despite them having a judge’s order to be allowed to watch the polls. Another clear sign of a rigged election. At one point, the vote count received 570k votes going to Biden and only 3,200 going to Trump. Yet another sign of a rigged election.
 
There is plenty more, but also keep in mind that this was JUST in the State of Pennsylvania. There are other states like Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia and Michigan to consider, and even then, I doubt those are the only states where massive irregularities occurred.
 
Did you know that Biden severely underperformed Hillary Clinton everywhere in the country, with just about every demographic, except in four key cities? The only places where Biden did “better” were Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia, all of which are in states where some of the worst irregularities occurred and which are being challenged (Arizona is another state where such irregularities occurred, but no particular city “carried the day” for Biden there).
 
So we know what we are faced with. On the natural level, there are plenty of reasons to be worried. However, we do not serve a natural god, we serve a supernatural God. Absolutely none of this is a surprise to Him. He knows the exact number of votes stolen, illegally thrown away, illegally counted, etc.
 
We likely will never know the extent to which Democrats have been trying to steal this election (and I suspect this is far from the only election they have tried to steal, given Biden’s comments about his “voter fraud operation” and how “you guys did it for President Obama’s administration before this”, pointing to the possibility of Obama having stolen at least one of his elections, most likely 2012). However, what is important is to keep them from stealing this one, because if we are successful in doing that, I believe it will serve as a wake-up call to many Republicans (not the establishment ones) about election security.
 
I’ve said this before but I will repeat it here: it’s possible that this is all a blessing in disguise. Had Trump won in a massive landslide like I originally hoped he would, the topic of election security and fraud would not have been a priority. Sure, a Trump landslide would have been evidence that it clearly didn’t work, but consider that Trump is very much unlike other Republicans in many regards. He has the kind of pull many other Republicans do not. He is the most popular Republican president and candidate since Ronald Reagan. Had he won in a massive landslide and nothing was done about election security and defeating the Democrat fraud operations, they would have taken over in 2024 very easily, and the fears and worries we have today would become guaranteed realities four years from now.
 
If Trump succeeds, as I believe God will lead him to do, this close brush with fraud victimization will lead him to do something about the election. Keep in mind, also, that he sought to secure this election from foreign influence JUST because of the allegations made against him that he colluded with Russia.
 
If he is willing to implement policies which secure the elections from foreign influences just because of what people say about him, don’t you think he will be more willing to implement policies which secure the elections from domestic influences because of how close he was to being cheated out of re-election?
 
Election security and fighting fraud are now unmistakably a part of the Make America Great Again agenda, because without it, Democrats will have a much easier time stealing all future elections wherever they need them, with varying degrees of success in some places, at least.
 
There will be no Red Wave in 2022 if we don’t keep this election from being stolen by the Democrats. But again, despite all our earthly trials and tribulations, we must place our faith and trust, first and only, in the Lord.
 
Just as He hardened Pharaoh’s heart, He can also soften the hearts of our enemies. He can guide even wicked people to righteousness. Consider that before the Apostle Paul was an apostle or a Christian, he was the biggest helper of the Roman Empire in persecuting and hunting down those who walked with Christ.
 
If Christ can cause Saul of Tarsus to have a change of heart and become His follower, and further to writing about half of the New Testament and being one of the most influential apostles of the 12, God can make even people like Justice Roberts to do the right thing (and yes, I am aware of how he voted in a recent SCOTUS case regarding Cuomo’s unconstitutional shuttering of religious services, but that case does not go against the truth that God can guide Roberts’ steps away from wickedness and evil).
 
So do not put your hope in Trump, or his legal team, or the justice system of the United States. Rather, put your hope in the One who is above all things, who created all things, and who is Master over all things. Put your faith and trust and hope in the One who cannot be cheated, who cannot be victimized, and who knows the plans of the wicked and laughs at them.
 
Put your hope in God first and only.
 
Romans 12:12
“Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”

In Hellywood, it is extremely rare that we would see or hear of a major actor being unapologetically Christian and/or conservative. It isn’t because there aren’t any, but because the town is so owned by radical Leftists who have only grown more and more violent and vitriolic towards differing schools of thought that one could risk their careers being utterly ruined if they were to speak out against the things that they support or even not do things that the Left is supportive of.

As a result of such intolerance, Christians and conservatives usually opt to remain in silence about politics or religion, at least until they get so big they are basically uncancellable.
 
In some way, this is the level that Matthew McConaughey has reached, as he is such a major star that he could probably hit Leftist Hollywood like he did and not suffer greatly in his career moving forward.
 
During an interview with famous podcast host Joe Rogan, McConaughey recalled some times when fellow actors whom he has prayed with would sit in silence as opposed to clapping whenever the A-lister would thank God following an award win.
 
“I have had – and I won’t throw any people under the bus – but I have had moments where I was on stage receiving an award in front of my peers in Hollywood, and there were people in the crowd that I have prayed with before dinners many times, and when I thanked God, I saw some of those people go to clap, but then notice that ‘bad thing on my resume’ and then sit back on their hands.”
 
“I’ve seen people read the room and go, ‘whoa, that wouldn’t bode well for me in the future,’ if for getting a job or you’re getting votes or what have you. I have seen that; I’ve witnessed that… I don’t judge them for it, I just wish, you know – that it seems like a silly argument.”
 
It is not only a silly argument; it is a sad state of affairs that one’s very career in Hollywood could be in jeopardy if they were to CLAP when a fellow actor thanks God for his or her award win. But it is the reality in far-Leftist Hollywood, where the Left owns just about everything there. They own the studios which employ the stars. If a star is a conservative, they can get blacklisted for their beliefs. It happened to James Woods, after all, and perhaps even to some others as well.
 
Off the top of my head, here are the following actors whom either are conservative or whom I believe are conservative but have not really made any notable political statements that would indicate they would be a Leftist:
 
Chris Pratt, Matthew McConaughey (largely because of this on its own), Renee Zellweger, Vince Vaugh, Rob Schneider, Jon Lovitz, and Adam Driver (mostly because he keeps his private life more private and doesn’t really talk much about politics, as far as I have seen, which is usually a conservative trait in this hellish town).
 
Now, there might very well be others that I am missing, but this is the list of actors that I could think of that either are definitely conservative or strike me as fairly conservative (at least in relation to the rest of Commiewood).
 
Suffice to say, the list of far-Left radical actors is far bigger than this. And since they all have to work together in order to make a living, the more conservative actors have to keep a tight lid on what they say or do, and even that is beginning to not be a viable option, seeing as Chris Pratt was attacked for not attending a Biden fundraiser (though fairly liberal colleagues of his did come to his defense, including Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, whom I know to be far-Left people).
 
So while I won’t excuse those actors and actresses’ hesitation in clapping whenever McConaughey thanks God when receiving an award, seeing as Jesus was perfectly clear when He said: “But whomever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven,” in Matthew 10:33, and doing so is extremely dangerous, I can at least explain why it is that they do this. In my opinion, it is better to forsake one’s acting career than one’s soul (and I do hope those people repent for their sins following such an action).
 
Now, one could make the argument that they are not necessarily denying Christ, only not clapping when someone else thanks God but still acknowledging Christ as their Lord and Savior, but it’s a bit of a moral mess, if you ask me. They demonstrate a feeling of embarrassment about acknowledging God, or at least, demonstrate prioritizing their career over acknowledging God. Even if it doesn’t go as far as to denying Christ, it does still present a problem for the soul of anyone who does this, in my opinion. It is better for all Christians to appease God, even if that leads to making enemies of men, than to appease Man, if that leads to making enemies with God.
 
At any rate, McConaughey did not end there. He also hit the “illiberal” Left as being “condescending and patronizing” to half of the world.
 
“One of the things that… some people in our industry, not all of them, but there’s some that go to the Left so far – as our friend Jordan Peterson [says] – that go to the illiberal Left side so far that it’s condescending and patronizing to 50% of the world that need the empathy that the liberals have.”
 
Frankly, that is just about the only thing I slightly disagree with him on. Not the part about the far Left being condescending and patronizing, he’s right on the money there. I’m talking about the part about liberals having empathy. Some of them might, but for the most part, liberals have taken the word “empathy” and forced it to mean something else entirely.
 
Empathy is the ability to identify with or understand another’s situation or feelings. It’s a feeling all humans can have, even liberals, but liberals have largely taken it to mean “tolerance and supportiveness of something that is anti-Christian or anti-conservative.”
 
We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the transgender who is trying to rape a kid in a bathroom because we don’t know exactly how they feel. We’re supposed to feel “empathy” for the homosexual man because, despite the fact that the Bible is perfectly clear about it being a sin and that one who embraces sin and does not repent of it is not regenerate, we don’t “know how they feel” being so marginalized. We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the illegal immigrant who killed an American girl while playing around with a gun he is not legally allowed to have. We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the black thug who attempted to kill an officer with a car door or with a taser or even with a gun. All because each of these people is “marginalized”.
 
The Left has taken the word “empathy” to mean we have to be tolerant of their actions when their actions are as egregious as that. We can feel empathy for these people (not for the child rapist) without attempting to excuse their actions or even justifying them as somehow being correct. Isaiah 5:20 says: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.”
 
You can feel pity for those who commit wrongdoing without justifying the wrongdoing. What liberals have done in the last few decades is justifying wrongdoing, but that’s not the definition of empathy whatsoever.
 
One might try and argue that I’m a bigot because I *correctly* pointed out that homosexuality is a sin, but that is not a true statement whatsoever because, unlike the Left, I actually DO care about these people and do not want them to sin any more. Much as I do not want the prostitute or the adulterer to sin no more, I want the homosexual to sin no more.

This is about one’s salvation. Jesus justifies the person, not the sin. He justifies the person in spite of the sin, only if the person repents of their sin. This is not a popular take anymore in part due to the fact that many “Christians” would try and push back on this, but there isn’t a single homosexual person today who is regenerate. They may be conservatives and Trump supporters, ardently so, which is great. They might even acknowledge God and Christ and call themselves a Christian, but the full embrace of sin does not justify anyone.
 
We are all sinners, that is true, but we repent of those sins, even of the ones we are not aware of. A homosexual fully embraces a sin which does not lead to one’s salvation. The liberal has always pushed back on this idea because he hates God (while claiming he does not believe in God) and wants to be perfectly free to sin as much as he wants. He twists the definition of words like “empathy” and “tolerance” to mean things that they never meant purely for political gain.
 
The liberal is considered “tolerant” even if he venomously hates those who do not share his political view point, which as we all know, is the exact opposite of tolerance. The liberal is considered “empathetic” if he supports transgender bathroom laws or open borders. They give us sob stories about “poor migrants just trying to achieve a better life for themselves and their young ones” when talking about an illegal immigrant who has illegally crossed the border dozens of times and is on trial for murder.
 
The idea that these people are “empathetic” is a complete lie. They support whatever is good for their own political side. They hate this country and illegals vote for Democrats, so they support illegal immigration. If illegals voted for Republicans, Democrats would make a wall at the southern border and make the illegals build it before kicking them out.
 
At any rate, with that little tangent out of the way, McConaughey also hit the Left for cancel culture, pointing out their arrogance and hypocrisy, and noted that his openly Christian faith did not hinder his career.
 
At one point, Rogan and McConaughey got into a bit of a discussion about science and religion, with the award-winning actor noting that he is a believer and also believes in “science”, and pointing out that there is no contradiction between the two which is perfectly correct.
 
God would not reveal in nature something which contradicts what He says in scripture, and vice versa. The complexity of our universe, as scientists have discovered the smallest of subatomic particles and the biggest of galaxies, denotes that the only possibility for things existing is intelligent design.
 
The idea that the universe is a cosmic accident or that it created itself defies logic, as for something to create itself would require that thing to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship, which is a logical impossibility. Nothing can’t do something. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, or out of nothing, nothing comes. So the universe could not have come into being by itself. If anything exists, there has to at the very least be a being which exists within itself and is eternal.
 
No scientific discovery that has ever been made argues against the existence of God. Not even the theory of evolution argues against the existence of God, as the existence of that first amoeba – the first living organism – could not have come from nothing, as that defies logic, and could not have created itself. We also know it was definitely not eternal, as there used to be no Earth a long time ago, and it initially was a massive rock of lava before it cooled down; an environment which no living organism can survive in.
 
The only reason people believe there is a divorce in religious thought and scientific thought is because of the enlightenment era belief that “the God theory” was no longer necessary to explain the origin of the universe, which itself is a theory which has not been proven (and can more easily be disproven).
 
Atheists took that and ran with it, saying “see? Scientists don’t think God exists, so clearly He doesn’t exist.” But religion and science are not at odds with one another, as again, God would not reveal something to be true in nature which contradicts what He reveals in scripture, or vice versa.
 
I am glad that McConaughey pointed this out in his exchange with Joe Rogan, who is himself more liberal.
 
I just wish more people in Hollywood had the guts to say these kinds of things and be more open with their Christian faith and conservative beliefs, even if it goes against the mainstream of Hollywood and even if it could potentially cost them some amount of employment.
 
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”