If You Believe In Jesus, You Must Believe In Satan

If you believe that Jesus is real, then you must believe Satan is real. Why? Because just as the Bible discusses Jesus as a real being, recording His conversations, actions, and character, it also refers to Satan as a real being, recording his conversations, actions, and character.

Satan’s Conversations

We find the first recorded conversation in Genesis 3:1-5. Satan is disguised as a serpent:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (ESV)”

A lot of people scoff at the idea of a talking snake, but they fail to understand that this wasn’t your standard snake. Satan is referred to the “ancient serpent” twice in Revelations (12:9 and 20:2).

“Most scholars hold that it was Satan in the Garden of Eden who was speaking through the snake, not the snake itself speaking on its own.1

Later, in Job, God has two discussions with Satan:

In Job 1:6-12 and Job 2:1-6, we find that Satan had been “going to and fro on the earth” and “walking up and down on it.” In other words, he had a presence on earth; he wasn’t sitting in Hell biding his time. After roaming about, he then left the earth and presented himself to God, presumably in Heaven, where the two had a conversion regarding God’s servant Job. In both instances, even though God allowed Satan to test Job, there were restrictions. Satan complied both times, which teaches us that God is in control, not the devil.

In the third conversation, which takes place in Matthew 4:1-11, we find Satan having a conversation with Jesus. It is during this conversation that Satan tempts Jesus three times in the wilderness.

Satan’s Character

In 2 Corinthians 11:14, we learn that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Why is this important? Because when he visits you, chances are, he’s not going to be scary. He’s going to show up and make you feel comfortable, and he’s going to make you feel good about yourself, your actions, and your beliefs. You’re going to believe he’s bringing puppies and kittens, but the reality is he’s bringing unicorns and fairy dust. You’ll think he’s bringing good, but he’s really bringing evil.

Finally, in John 8:44 we learn that he is a liar by nature; there is no truth in him. Again, this treats Satan as a real entity. He is a liar and he is the father of lies.

Cautions

We are cautioned numerous times in the Bible to not only be wary, but many are ensnared and don’t realize it.

1 Corinthians 7:5: Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (ESV).

2 Timothy 2:24-26: And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will (ESV).

If you look around, and listen, everyone thinks they are going to Heaven when they die. Jesus told a different story:

Matthew 7:14: But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it (NIV).

Only a few will find life. Most will find death; Hell. Most people are ensnared by Satan’s lies. While he can certainly make you feel like you’re worthless, he can also tell you things that make you feel good. He’ll make you feel like you’re doing the right things, and believing the right things, but in reality, you’re furthering yourself and others to destruction. If you’re in with the “most” crowd, it’s time to second-guess yourself. There’s nothing wrong with asking questions.

Remember, if you don’t believe in the devil, but believe in Jesus, you are believing a lie, and rest assured, he believes in you.

The Illegal Immigration Problem Is A Democrat Problem

The illegal immigration problem falls squarely in the lap of Democrats. The laws are clear that illegal immigration is a crime, but Democrats, primarily, have been aiding and abetting these criminals for years. Hundreds of people have died attempting to cross the border. They try to blame it on tightening security along the border, but the bigger problem is the hope on the US side.



They can get jobs. There are US citizens who will hire them, despite knowing they are here illegally. They hire them for the work “no one wants to do” and they pay them less than minimum wage. Generally I’m all about keeping down the cost of doing business, but I’m against breaking the law to do it.

There’s a good chance they won’t be sent back to where they came from. Democrat run sanctuary cities won’t arrest them, and at times, have even let them go after committing crimes. Democrats actively try to skirt the law, because of “compassion.” Don’t worry about the law, we’ll fix that. We’ll ignore the parts we don’t like.

It’s the fault of Democrats who allow illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses, attend public education, vote in some towns, and they even hold office in one town!



It is the fault of Democrats because they refuse to differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants.

Amnesty won’t stop the flow of people dying in the desert between Mexico and the US. If anything, it will only encourage more people to try and make it.

People didn’t just start complaining about the illegal immigration problem in the last couple of years; they’ve been complaining for years and no one has been taking them seriously. The laws are there, but law enforcement has gotten lax. It’s finally come to a head. I would argue that’s one of the reasons Trump was elected over Hillary. It has nothing to do with xenophobia: “a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries1,” and everything to do with the law and the burden placed on society. People watch the news and see illegal immigrants getting better treatment than many of our actual citizens.



It is time to deter people from illegally coming to, or remaining, in the US. Right off the top of my head, I can think of five places to start:

  • Pull federal funding from sanctuary cities
  • Pull federal funding from colleges and school districts that allow illegal immigrants to attend
  • Fine, heavily, companies that hire illegal immigrants
  • Arrest people for aiding and abetting illegal immigrants
  • Deport illegal immigrants

I know. I’ve heard the Christian argument about taking care of the foreigner, but let me remind you of what else the Bible has to say:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ~Romans 13:1-2 (ESV)

How does one reconcile following the law and taking care of foreigners? Simple. Differentiate between the legal and the illegal. It’s called discernment; another Christian principle.

For more information on Illegal Immigration:

Hillary Clinton Lost To Donald Trump: Here’s Why

vote-1319435_1280

If you think Trump was elected because of racism, bigotry, prejudice, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., you’re living in an alternate reality. While some of these things certainly exist, it’s on a smaller scale than Democrats believe, and it wasn’t enough to swing the election. The real reason Donald Trump won is because Hillary Clinton lost.

Most everyone can agree that Donald Trump was not the ideal Republican candidate. The man is deeply flawed. But, so is Hillary Clinton. But, so are we. No one is good, not one. Whether Clinton or Trump is the better person is debatable, but in the end, what matters, is that Hillary Clinton, as a candidate, is the more deeply flawed.

How? Let me list some of the reasons:

  • Trump wants to build a wall. Whether practical or not, the message is that he will work to keep illegal immigrants out, and deport the illegal immigrants that are here. Democrat’s refusal to distinguish between legal and illegal hurt them.
  • Trump wants to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the country. He wants to make sure they’re properly vetted. When 99% of terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims, this is common sense; Ismlorealism if you will. When a candidate refuses to acknowledge terror attacks for what they are, it shows a lack of concern for American lives and security.
  • Trumps wants to make American great again. Once upon a time, American was looked up to in the world. Now we’re frowned upon. It’s time to reverse that. Many people want a President that likes this country, instead of one who appears to not like it. They want a President to look out for the citizens of this country, after all, the position is President of the United States, not President of the United Nations.

These issues were a big deal, but should not have been. The insistence of Democrats that they have to have it all or have it all, probably helped drive voter turn-out against Hillary. Here are more reasons people didn’t vote for Hillary:

This isn’t a discussion of right or wrong. It’s simply a list of reasons Hillary lost to Donald Trump. There are more. I could go on. This is enough for now.

If It Feels Good…

Our kids…

No. Let me restart this.

Many in this society, but especially our kids, have stopped asking questions. And when they do, they don’t seem to listen to the answers. And then, if they do, they have a tendency to dismiss the answers, even if the answer is true.

Especially if the truth conflicts with their feelings.

Feel good feelings are the new drug. They trump everything.

Introducing the “Voice in the Wilderness” Party Platform

I think about politics a lot, but when I think about politics, I think about what’s happening from a Christian point of view. I think about the unintended consequences. Where do things lead? Sometimes it may be a slippery slope, but I’ve seen too many things slide down the slope. It’s better to stop bad ideas before they get on the slide. I don’t believe in the separation of Church and State; at least not the version non-Christians try to push. I don’t separate the two. Jesus doesn’t wait outside the voting booth. He’s a smart guy, but c’mon, He doesn’t get it when you tell Him you need to keep politics and religion separate. Actually, I’m sure He does, but I can’t imagine it makes Him happy.

I hear the arguments: Jesus would have been a Democrat! Jesus would have been a Republican! I’ll be honest. I think it’s all speculation, and I’m going to speculate as well.

I don’t think Jesus wouldn’t have belonged to any party. I think he would have been an independent–small i intentional–in the truest sense of the word. Would He have voted? I don’t know. I think He would have. When Jesus walked the earth as a man, certain things were hidden from Him by the Father, but I think He would have known exactly what each politician would have done in office. What if He knew each would bring Israel to further sin? Would He abstain, or would He vote for a third-party? Would He vote for a third-party candidate He knew–as a matter of fact–wouldn’t win? Would He throw His vote away by voting His conscience? Would He skip the vote knowing His vote “wouldn’t count anyway” allowing the greater-of-two-evils a victory? Would He vote for the lesser-of-two-evils? Think about that for a minute. Knowing that all men fall short of the glory of God, and all candidates have some amount of evil in them, isn’t that what we’re always doing? Voting for the lesser-of-two-evils? Jesus would certainly be in the best position to know who the lesser-of-two-evils actually is.

So, I’ve written this political platform for a fictional party called the Voice in the Wilderness Party. I’m not saying I’m any John the Baptist, by any stretch. But I am, at the moment, a lone voice, yelling in the digital wilderness. If the number grows, the name will change. It won’t fit any more.

But the goal is to get down, in writing, an idea of what I think a Christian’s political platform would/should look like. It’s not done. It’s a first draft, but with elections looming, I thought that a draft is better than nothing. It’s supposed to make you think. Eventually it will contain links supporting every position I’ve staked out.

If you read it, you may get the impression that I’m anti-Democrat. Don’t be afraid to say it. I’m not. I am stubbornly, proudly, anti-Democrat. That doesn’t mean I’m Republican though. I’m also stubbornly, proudly anti-Democrat and independent. If that means I have to vote for Republicans, then so be it. I’m still waiting for a third-party candidate I actually like that has a change of winning.

In the meantime, enjoy.

The Voice in the Wilderness Party Platform

The God Caricature

Caricature is defined by Google Search as:

a picture, description, or imitation of a person or thing in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.

Some of the synonyms listed are: cartoon, parody, satire, and lampoon.

The bottom line is that a caricature is an inaccurate depiction of, usually, a person. Some parts are exaggerated, which means that some parts are understated, or sometimes deemphasized or ignored. It is, in reality, a false image.

People have different views of God, and many of them are exactly that; a caricature. They exaggerate and distort His image. They create their own image of God. Sometimes it’s intentional, and sometimes not, but everyone’s caricature is a little different:

  • One person inaccurately highlights God’s justice as genocide.
  • Another person inaccurately highlights the happiness God can bring, while forgetting persecution.
  • Another person inaccurately highlights God’s love for us, while ignoring the fact that He also calls us to repentance.

There are two different caricatures of God, but they are both negative. One shows God in a negative light, using false, negative descriptions, creating a false image. One famous example comes from Richard Dawkins1:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

The other shows God in a positive light, gushing about the great attributes, but ignoring the "uncomfortable," while still leaving a false image. An example of this comes from the "care for the poor" crowd. I’ve created a meme that highlights that:

I told them, feed the poor. I also told them, "Go and make disciples of all nations." Where's the fiscally irresponsible government bureaucracy for that?

Go and make disciples of all nations.

Both are negative caricatures because they are both false. The thing about a caricature is that it’s close enough that you can you recognize who it’s supposed to be, while still remaining a false image. It’s the cliché: the most dangerous lie is the one closest to the truth.

What does your image of God look like? Is it a cartoon? A parody? A caricature? A false image is just that: false. It isn’t real. It’s man-made, and it’s no better than the images crafted by Demetrius2.

Or is your image Biblical? True? Both comfortable, and uncomfortable? Loving, but righteous? Do you conform to God, or does your god conform to you?

Do you worship God, or a parody?


  1. Dawkins, Richard (2008). The God Delusion. New York: Mariner Books. (p. 51).

  2. Acts 19:24

Stop Using the Word Homophobe

Yes! Calling someone a HOMOPHOBE is OFFENSIVE!

Yes! Calling someone a HOMOPHOBE is OFFENSIVE!

Stop using the word homophobia. It’s offensive. It implies an irrational fear, which very few people have. Most people who oppose homosexuality have good reasons for doing so; there’s nothing irrational about it. Calling someone a homophobe in response to someone’s argument is like responding by calling them ass hole. That’s not a counter-argument; it’s name-calling. And did I mention offensive?

Yeah, I know there are a few people that are actually homophobic, but they’re few and far between, and to use it for every person that is anti-gay is foolish and inaccurate. Did I mention offensive?

When one person calls another person a homophobe, I feel like the targeted person would be correct to respond with dumb ass.

The Marriage Equality Myth

Gay Pride God

Always the marriage equality argument. This is, of course, a big fat lie.

Marriage equality has always existed. The law never said gay people can’t get married. It said men had to marry women, and it applied equally to ALL men regardless of sexual orientation. That’s equality.

But, but, gay men couldn’t marry whoever they wanted!

Neither could straight men! Straight men couldn’t marry their mother, sister, brother, male neighbor, dog… whatever. The same restrictions that applied to gay men, applied to straight men. That’s equality.

The laws said a man has to marry a woman. Is a gay man a man? Is he different from a straight man? I imagine most gay men consider themselves to be men. And if a gay man is a man, like any other man, the laws will apply equally to him. That’s equality.

Changing the law to allow men to marry men, does not change the equality aspect unless the law is rewritten to say: gay men can only marry gay men, and straight men can only marry straight women. Obviously, it will/does not. So, new laws, or allowances, or rights, under the law will remain equal. If men are allowed to marry men, it will apply equally to straight men. Because that’s equality.

Why would a straight man want to marry another man? The only reason I can think of are economics, but the point is, they would be legally, and equally, be able to do so.

The equality issue is a false argument. It’s a myth. It’s a distraction from the real issue, and the real issue is that they want to redefine marriage.

There’s No Such Thing As A Homosexual Human Being

Gay Pride God

He created them male and female, and he blessed them and called them "human." (Genesis 5:2 NLT)

Human beings come in two kinds: male and female. Human beings, reproduce, naturally, through sex. And it takes one of each kind. That is, it takes one male and one female to reproduce a human being. Even if you take the natural out of reproduction, you still require the sperm from one male, and the egg from one female. There is no other way, unless you count some sort of weird biological alchemy. This is a fact, and this fact alone, means that human beings are heterosexual. Every single one of them, er, us.

Human beings who have sex with other human beings of the same sex want to be treated different that other human beings, but in reality they’re not different. They’re heterosexuals like the rest of us. They may have homosexual sex, but they cannot reproduce except through heterosexual means. They must involve another human being, either through surrogate mothers or IVF. It is not something two human beings claiming to be homosexual can do.

I know. The claim is that sexuality has to be separated from sex, but in reality the two are inseparable. If you indulge your sexuality, you do it through sex. In other words, it’s indulged through an action that has been chosen; a sex act, that has nothing to do with making babies, even though that’s part of what sex is. Sex is not just the act of getting your rocks off. That way of thinking reduces it to an animal instinct, and we’re more than just animals. We can think about what we do. We can consider the results, although, nowadays, that seems to be out of fashion.

The bottom line is:

  • If you have male parts, you’re a male. You reproduce by interacting with a female, thus, you are heterosexual.
  • If you have female parts, you’re a female. You reproduce by interacting with a male, thus, you are heterosexual.

I don’t care if you’re attracted to members of the same sex. You’re still heterosexual. You’re a human being! Or are saying you’re something different? It doesn’t matter what you’re attracted too. It doesn’t matter what you’re turned on by. These do not change the fact that you’re a heterosexual. They may change your attraction, but that’s not physical, it’s mental.