What is the real issue? It seems the whole country is in a tailspin over the Kavanaugh nomination and possible confirmation. As a nation we seem more politically polarized and bitterly divided than ever. Each side is accusing the other side of all sorts of things and some Christian leaders are getting sucked into the media maelstrom.

Kavanaugh’s past sex life is not the real issue.

Judge Kavanaugh’s past sexual activity, good or bad, that can neither be proven nor disproven, seems to be the political fulcrum on which each side is trying to leverage a win. But Kavanaugh’s past sex life is not the real issue. I do not think either side gives a hoot about unprovable allegations about his sex life from the past; the allegations have only created a politically correct minefield all of them are trying to dodge.

Roe v. Wade isn’t the real issue.

The liberals fear a Kavanaugh confirmation will swing the delicate balance on the Supreme Court in the conservative direction eventually jeopardizing Roe v. Wade. From a medical and legal perspective Roe v. Wade is constitutionally tenuous, it will eventually collapse under the weight of its own fatuity. Kavanaugh’s confirmation may or may not hasten its demise. But Roe v. Wade isn’t the real issue.

God’s first command to the first couple after creating them was, “Be fruitful and multiply,” Genesis 1:28. God created sex for the purpose of procreation within the context of a loving, committed relationship. Believers call such a relationship marriage, defined in the Scriptures as being between one man and one woman. This is the only God ordained way for any nation to flourish.

Our current culture has forsaken God’s plan for marriage and the home, for the idea that sex is meant to be an adult playground. We invented oxymoronic terms for what happens when we “play around,” we call them “unplanned pregnancies.” Despite our best efforts at contraception, as long as men and women have sex they should plan on pregnancies, to plan otherwise is to stupidly ignore created reality.

The inconvenience of unplanned pregnancies created the market for planned abortions. And it is the market principle of supply and demand not the Constitution that gave us Roe v. Wade.

The real issue isn’t abortion either, it’s our depraved heart.

The real issue is not Kavanaugh’s pending confirmation, Roe v. Wade, or abortion itself. The real issue is there came a point in this nation’s consciousness when children were no longer considered “a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward,” Psalm 127:3. There came a time when we viewed children as an inconvenience.

As long as there is a demand, there will always be someone who will supply. We need more than a change of judges, or a change of laws, we need a change of heart.

“Scientific myths,” may sound like an oxymoron, but I think it is fitting here. The scientific community claims that religion employs myths to explain the unexplainable, but that is exactly what the scientific community does. When scientists cannot explain certain phenomenon they develop myths to explain the unexplainable; they just call them theories. Theories sound more scientific.

Theoretical physicists like Lawrence Krauss, who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, and director of its Origins Project, and Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics at the City College of New York and CUNY Graduate Center, theorize the universe and all the matter that would ever exist, came into being from nothing, and was dispersed throughout the universe within the first three minutes of the Big Bang.

Theories are just scientific myths.

This means the matter that formed distant stars got to their current location in less than three minutes, but these scientists tell us energy in the form of light took millions of light years to make the return trip. Kaku explained this by saying matter can move through the vacuum of space faster than the speed of light. So I guess matter can move faster than the speed of light, but light cannot move faster than the speed of light. We call this science.

The Scriptures declare, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” that is to say, the universe. He did that during the first day; He created everything from nothing. And I believe He did that in less time than it took for Him to say, “Let there be light,” which was much less than three minutes or even twenty-four hours for that matter. He probably took the rest of the day off to enjoy His handiwork.

What is the difference between the myth of the Big Bang and the myth of Creation?

But some scientists would call me superstitious for believing the universe was created by God, while they claim the universe came into existence without God. It left me wondering what is the difference between science and myth when it comes to the origin of the universe?

Then it struck me; theirs is an educated myth. Then I thought, what makes an educated myth better than a religious myth? Maybe an educated myth is made by educated people using educated language. And maybe they invent an educated myth because they think they must have an answer for things they don’t have any evidence for.

Without evidence theories are just myths.

Scientists invent some theories to explain things they have no evidence for in the same way they accuse believers for inventing God to explain things we have no evidence for (of course, we maintain we did not invent God, it was the other way around).

So we have come full circle back to my original thought, what is the difference between what science says about the origin of the universe, and believers say about the universe’s origin? It is a question of faith; some believe in an scientific myth, and some believe in a Creator.

California state legislators are considering passage of Assembly Bill 2943 that would outlaw gay conversion therapy in the state. Discussing all the pros and cons would entail a lengthy commentary, but there are some notable issues that can be addressed succinctly.

One would be the meaning of conversion. Paul writes, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:23. From the Christian perspective “conversion” occurs when one confesses their sin and turns in faith to Christ for forgiveness.

Repentance and Trust

Repentance and trust equal conversion, this is also called salvation and regeneration. It is an act of faith in response to the grace of God proclaimed in the Gospel, Ephesians 2:8-9. If this legislation is an attempt to compromise the proclamation of the Gospel it should be opposed, and there is the likelihood it will not pass constitutional muster if it hinders religious liberty.

I have no experience with gay conversion therapy, but from what I have heard tortuous practices and brainwashing techniques have been employed to accomplish a so-called “conversion” from homosexuality to heterosexuality. You cannot torture someone into trusting Christ nor brainwash someone into believing; that is not how it works. Such practices should be outlawed and opposed; they are unbiblical and inhumane.

The California legislature in considering passage of this bill found, “Contemporary science [whatever that is] recognizes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is part of the natural spectrum of the human identity and is not a disease, disorder, or illness.”

Sexual sins are not a disease, disorder, or illness

I agree with the wording of the bill that says, “being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender…is not a disease, disorder, or illness.” Each of these deviations from God’s created purpose for sex is the natural expression of man’s sin nature. If they were a disease, disorder, or illness they might have an excuse before God, but as Paul tells us “they are without excuse.”

The hypocrisy in the bill is its one-way perspective of conversion. “Sexual orientation change efforts means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

So, attempting to change the sexual orientation of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender individuals is unlawful, but it is open season on trying to change the sexual orientation of heterosexuals? Despite what “contemporary science” may say there is not a scintilla of evidence that being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is genetic or is irreversible. It’s a choice, always has been and always will be.

Nature is a discriminate bigot

Herein lies the rub; nature being the discriminatory bigot it is has denied homosexual couples the ability to reproduce. The only hope the homosexual community has of insuring the next generation of homosexuals is to convert heterosexuals to their lifestyle and way of thinking. But that’s okay, because that kind of conversion will be legal, in California.

Where is the religious liberty task force when you need it?

Capital punishment is in the news again and the subject is polarizing even among people of faith. Those who oppose the ultimate penalty argue it demeans the dignity of man. As it turns out, that argument against the death penalty contradicts God’s reasoning for instituting it.

What truth is the dignity of man based on?

The reason Christians believe in the dignity of man is because man is the only creature God made in His image, cf. Genesis 1:26-27. Man’s dignity arises from the fact that he was created in the image of God. That image has been marred by the fall into sin, but is indelibly innate in every human being.

There came a time in the history of man that “the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,” Genesis 6:5. This is an accurate description of a society completely corrupted by the absence of law and order. It was this cultural climate that precipitated the flood.

Emerging from the ark Noah and his family were tasked with repopulating the earth and restoring the civilization that had succumbed to anarchy. To do that God gave mankind its first law, “Whoever shed’s man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man,” Genesis 9:6.

The principle of justice is a necessary foundation.

If mankind were to survive as a civilized society, it would only be possible established on a sense of right and wrong founded on the principle of justice. So the Father took the most serious of human offenses, murder, to lay a foundation of justice from which all other lesser offenses could be patterned.

God’s reasoning is when a man takes another man’s life without justification; he is destroying the image of God in another person needlessly, and justly forfeits the right to continue bearing that image himself. And He tasked mankind with the prosecution of justice, “by man his blood shall be shed.”

God initiated capital punishment as a just penalty when a man murders the dignity of another. That is clear from the wording of Genesis 6:9. God did not institute the death penalty as a deterrent; He did so to establish societal justice.

The death penalty is integral to justice.

If we as a society forsake the practice of justice we may find ourselves sliding down a very slippery slope to the precipice of anarchy. Nothing so inclines people to take the law into their own hands as a legal system that refuses to administer justice.

When then Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission Officer Peggy Park discovered Martin Grossman, a probationer, target practicing with a stolen gun in a wooded area, Grossman knew his infraction would violate his probation. He overpowered Officer Park beating her unconscious with her own flashlight, and then shot her in the back of her head with her own handgun.

When he was executed over twenty-five years later Peggy’s mother said his execution was “long overdue.” After robbing Peggy Park of her dignity, I would add, “Justice was long overdue.”

President Trump purportedly called the press the “enemy of the people.” Recently Jim Acosta a reporter with CNN suggested in a Whitehouse press meeting that presidential press secretary Sarah Sanders set the record straight by saying those in the press “are not the enemy of the people.” When he got an answer he did not like, he walked out in protest.

The takeaway in that incident for me is there are those within the national news media who are as thin-skinned and narcissistic as Trump. If they cannot manipulate the answer they want to hear then they pout-out. Am I supposed to think such a person will be objective in his reporting?

What is an enemy, a friend?

A working definition of a friend or enemy is; a friend is someone I can trust to tell the truth and an enemy is someone I cannot trust to do the same. I think there is more to being a friend or enemy than this definition describes, but the element of truthfulness and subsequent trustworthiness is certainly an element of friendship and lacking in an enemy.

I expect a friend to not “bear false witness,” Exodus 20:16, nor to exaggerate or slant the truth to the point that what is said is no longer the truth, but “fake news.” President Trump claims to have coined the term “fake news” but according to other sources that may be fake news itself. Who originated the term is not important to me; the fact that it exists and is practiced is a concern.

Tweeting on an interview of LeBron James by Don Lemon, Trump said, “Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made Lebron look smart which isn’t easy to do.”

Racist or narcissist?

James and Lemon are black prompting retired CBS anchorman Dan Rather to tweet that what Trump said was a “disgrace. It’s racist.” I would agree that our president tweets some disgraceful things, but racist?

I don’t think a twitter spat between ego-laden celebrities, even if one of them is the president, is real news, and then to call the president racist when he did not say anything racist in his tweet is an example of fake news. Trump may harbor some racist prejudice in his heart, but I cannot see inside his heart and neither can Dan Rather.

But our president is something just as bad as a racist; he’s a narcissist. He will attack anyone simply because they disagree with him; it has nothing to do with the color of one’s skin or ethnicity.

A race issue that isn’t one.

I know we still have race issues in this nation, but making something a race issue that isn’t one does not help anyone and is racist itself. I pray the day will come in this nation that we all realize there is only one race, the human race; we are all in this together.

Until then journalists like Rather should not slant the truth and needlessly inflame prejudices to win some popularity points. Only an enemy does that.