•

PROPOSAL 06-1
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY HELD IN CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the Constitution and establish existing conservation and recreation accounts as components of the fund.
• Use current funding sources such as state park entrance and camping fees; snowmobile, ORV and boating registration fees; hunting and fishing license fees; taxes and other revenues to fund accounts.
• Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.
• Provide that money held in Funds can only be used for specific purposes related to conservation and recreation and cannot be used for any purpose other than those intended.

Should this proposal be adopted?

The Detroit Free Press says :

It would protect forever the license and user fees people pay for activities such as fishing, hunting, camping and snowmobiling to make sure the money is used only for recreation and conservation.

The measure would convert 13 existing accounts under the Department of Natural Resources into three constitutionally protected, raid-proof funds. In his last term, Gov. John Engler's administration took $7.8 million from the Waterways Fund to balance the state budget. The proposal is to prevent that from happening again.

As a camper, I know that one of my favorite state campgrounds has doubled their camping fee - this year.  And that the money I pay for camping and entrance fees are being used elsewhere.

Also, a few years ago one of our governers raided the school employee's pension fund and ended his term with a balanced budget...this should not happen.

If funds are supposed to be protected, they should be protected.  I think I'll vote yes on this one.

• 91 Comments

•

From jswranch, is a comment on this post that begins with a statement "...before we can begin to look at something like annulments, we have to understand marriage is indissolveable. If it is dissolveable, the whole annulment thing is bunk. Is marriage dissolveable?"

I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.

But does this mean that it cannot be dissolved? What does the Bible say?

First, what is a covenant? Strong's says, b@riyth {ber-eeth'},
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
..a) between men
....treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
....constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
....agreement, pledge (man to man)
....alliance (of friendship)
....alliance (of marriage)
..b)between God and man
....alliance (of friendship)
....covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges)
2)(phrases)
..a) covenant making
..b) covenant keeping
..c) covenant violation

Covenants are not meant to be broken, but can they be?

Between men (or - in the case of marriage - a man and a woman) can treaties be broken, or agreements between monarchs and subjects? Obviously, treaties are broken nearly every day. Between humans, covenants can be broken.

(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)

If we take the stand that marriage covenants cannot be broken, then divorce cannot happen. Or, at the very least, breaking a covenant in order to divorce would be a sin and that puts God in the difficult position of regulating (and not prohibiting) sin (Search the Levitical Law). Levitical priests were the only men who were prohibited from marrying divorced women, and they were also prohibited from marrying widows.

We know that covenants have terms.

Can a Covenant be broken? Can a divorce (for Biblical cause) validly break a covenant?

God seemed to say so. Jeremiah 3:6-8

The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: "Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore.

God sent Israel away (for the cause of adultery) with a writ of divorce. This is a clear confirmation that sexual sin within a covenant is cause for a divorce.

What does this do to the covenant?

From Hebrews 8:6-7

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Verse 13

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Note: In this passage, the author writes (verses 8-9):

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

God will make a NEW covenant with Israel and Judah - IT IS NOT THE SAME COVENANT, THE OLD ONE WAS BROKEN.

(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)

Biblically, we cannot say that a covenant cannot be broken, because God Himself has demonstrated that covenant can be broken.

Biblically, with God as the model, God Himself has demonstrated that there is Biblical cause to break a marriage covenant - because God Himself has done it.

(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)

This is Biblical and I have used Scripture as a foundation for my belief.

•

Merriam-Webster online says:
(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
(marriage: b: the mutual relation of married persons"

Strongs says:
(In the Old Testament, `ownah {o-naw'}.
1) cohabitation, conjugal rights

(In the New Testament, gamos {gam'-os}
1) a wedding or marriage festival, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast
2) marriage, matrimony

What are the Biblical requirements for considering oneself to be "married"? (What does the Bible say?)

1) Marriage is God's invention
Genesis 2:18 "Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."

2) Marriage means to leave and hold fast
Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

3) Marriage is a covenant - and God is the witness.
Malachi 2:14 "But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant."

4) Marriage is a relationship that is recognized and/or regulated by law.
Romans 13:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities." Unless we have a real reason to believe that the state is asking us to sin by following the law in order to be married, we must obey the laws of the land.

5) Marriage is a reflection of God and His people. In the Old Testament, the people were Israel, in the New Testament, it is the church. As Paul wrote, this is a mystery.

What do you have to DO to be "married"?

Do you need to have a ceremony? No - the Bible never says that there must be a ceremony in order to be married in the eyes of God. Marriage is an life-long agreement between a man and a woman.

Do you need to be married by a minister? No - the Bible never says that.

Does marriage belong to the church? No - God created marriage to be a life-long agreement between a man and a woman and virtually all societies have had marriages of one sort or another. The Bible does not say that marriage belongs to the church.

What about traditions?

They are traditions - and some very nice ones, too. But they are only traditions. The wedding traditions of the ancient world were very different from our traditions today. But their marriages were just as much marriages then as ours are today. Nearly every society marks the beginning of a marriage with a ceremony or rite, but it is not necessary, except to our human minds.

God and His Word clearly tell us that marriage is designed to be for life. A man and a woman in a covenantal arrangement, with God as the witness.

•

The ESV

Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions.

In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.

My daughter and I took a beginning Greek class and this was the one that the instructor told us was most faithful to the ancient text...

• 5 Comments

•

I have to deal with rosacea in my life. I have discovered what my triggers are and how to minimize it, but not how to really control it.

Until now (I think).

I recently found an article on this little critter that lives in your hair follicles. What I did find was a website that urges natural treatments instead of pharmaceuticals . That website recommended "Grandpa's Pine Tar Soap"

I have not had a flareup in a month.

This concludes the advertisement....

😉

(oh yes...tonight is my first night with a CPAP)

•

In honor of Reformation Day.  I was listening to a local radio program this morning and Martin Luther's entire speech was read.

Read this line a couple of times: If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his country. I stand here and can say no more. God help me. Amen. 

MOST SERENE EMPEROR, AND YOU ILLUSTRIOUS PRINCES AND GRACIOUS LORDS:—I this day appear before you in all humility, according to your command, and I implore your majesty and your august highnesses, by the mercies of God, to listen with favor to the defense of a cause which I am well assured is just and right. I ask pardon, if by reason of my ignorance, I am wanting in the manners that befit a court; for I have not been brought up in king’s palaces, but in the seclusion of a cloister.

...continue reading →

• 183 Comments

•

(NOTE: FOR SOME REASON, THE LAST COMMENTS ARE NOT SHOWING UP IN FIREFOX, BUT ARE IN IE.)

About the Roman Catholic church and divorce and remarriage!

The more I learn, the more I realize that (as Moonshadow pointed out), the dogma/doctrine of annulment runs in the opposite direction. We can examine this dogma (or is it doctrine?) against Scripture. We know that that Scripture is my final authority (and considered here as the only infallible rule of faith and conduct). In examining traditions/dogma/doctrine of other denominations/religions I examine against Scripture to see if "it's in there".
From what I understand, getting an annulment means that you have to:

  1. make different "categories" of marriage (sacramental vs. "not") - which I don't find in the Bible. The website I linked to referred to "true marriage", meaning that some marriages are not true, a concept that I cannot find in the Bible.
  2. make a case before the church that your marriage before God never existed.

Having entered into a marriage contract (which is in the Bible and is considered "marriage"), you are married. Or (according to the Roman Catholic church) maybe not.

If you find yourself in a "not a marriage" (for lack of a better term) it's because of

  • psychological reasons
  • misrepresentation or fraud
  • Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex)
  • Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)
  • Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one's will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)
  • Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage)
  • Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.
  • Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.
  • Illegal "Form of Marriage" (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)
  • One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.

Which of these is actually Scriptural? As one who believes that Scripture is the final and only infallible source of faith and conduct, we can examine each of these reasons against Scripture to see if they are Scripturally sound.

The first thing to look for is any place in the Bible where a marriage is labeled "not a marriage" before God. I don't find one.

  • Christ, while talking to the woman at the well, said that she had had several husbands - were these all annulled? Jesus considered them valid marriages, or He would have said something different. But He didn't, He called them marriages.
  • Consider Onan, who married Tamar in a Leverite marriage and didn't fulfill his end of the bargain. The Bible never tells us that it was not a valid marriage.
  • Because it's the law of our land (in the USA), bigamy and incest would have the marriage not be valid to start with (without the judgment of the church). No annulment should be needed, because it was an illegal marriage. Inthe Bible, Jacob married his first cousins and the marriage was never considered anything but a marriage. In the New Testament, living with your father's wife was condemned and church leaders are prohibited from plural marriages.
  • Canon Law; Scripture doesn't give a form for marriage (meaning that it must be done in a church and/or by clergy). In the Old Testament, the Law said that if a woman in captured in war, a man shaves her head, waits a period of time and then has sex with her. I suppose you could call that a "form", but it also contradicts the Roman Catholic exception for "duress" - at least for the woman). There was no ceremony in a church.
  • question: if a man becomes impotent, can the wife get an annulment?

The New Testament gives us two reasons for a Biblical divorce. In the Bible, we are never told that there must be additional paperwork by the "church" in order to remarry. In the Bible, a Biblical divorce comes with the right to remarry.

The Roman Catholic Church considers a marriage valid when:

  • It is celebrated in a ceremony according to church law
  • both parties are free to marry each other
  • each party intends from the beginning of the marriage to accept God's plan for married life, as taught by the church
  • each party has the physical and psychological ability to live out the consent and commitment initially given to the marriage.

Again, let's examine this against Scripture. The Bible never tells us that a "valid" marriage must be celebrated in a ceremony.

That both parties are free is a Biblical concept.

Intentions don't appear to matter (again consider Onan) and (other than the ability to consumate the marriage) physical or psychological reasons don't appear in the Bible.

My conclusion is:

If you are divorced for Biblical reasons, the divorce is Biblical and the marriage DID exist. A person is free to remarry. You don't need an annulment.

If you are divorced for unbiblical reasons, there is still hope an forgiveness (read this). But the marriage still existed and you still don't need an annulment.

(One thing, though...I know a woman who married a man in prison and that was never consumated. Even according to our court system, that was called an annulment by the law.

  • NOTE: Any debate on this post MUST be on a Biblical basis. We can examine the doctrine of annulment against Scripture or we can not discuss it.

• 2 Comments

•

If there was the same justice for all - across the board, I'd on the fast track to hell.

God is a just God, but somehow, unjustly, He saved me.

Our text this morning was Luke 18; the parable of the Pharasee and the tax collector. Read the parable and then click read what came before (you'll have to go to chapter 17) and look at who Jesus was talking to. He was with His disciples. The section that the parable was in begins, "He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt..."

If salvation was about "justice", those who were "good" would be the ones saved. Instead, the ones who know that they are "bad" - those who rely on Christ (and Christ alone) who are saved by grace, through faith.

Jesus used this parable to tell his followers (the ones who were trusting in themselves and their own good works) that it wasn't about justice, it was about mercy.

If it had been about justice, the Pharisee had it all together.  He tithed, he fasted, he did all the right things.   He belonged to the right church, he did the "paperwork", performed the right rites.  And he thanked God that he wasn't like that man over there...the one who didn't have it all together.
But it's not about justice, it's about mercy.  The tax collector knew that he didn't have it all together.   He knows it's about mercy.

In the broadest sense, there has been justice, Blood has been shed.  Christ's blood.

But in the narrow sense - the "me" sense - I have not paid my debt; it was paid for me.

It's not about what we do, it's about who Christ is.

It's not about what we have done, it's about what Christ has done.