Defending our Christian Heritage ....

To The Last Ditch

My Photo
Name:
Location: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie

Redeemed Sinner. Deep Roots. Southern Heart.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Busy

We are going to have a lot going on these next several days....so much, in fact, that I probably won't be able to post again until next week sometime! We're having company tomorrow and Friday. After that we will be going to a wedding up in Tennessee, where dancing, treasonous talk, music, and other things are anticipated, so, I'll try to do a good long post when we get back.

Fair fa' ye

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Should Christians Own Guns? Part 3

Continuing on from Part II:

What rights do we enjoy as American citizens that are worth taking someone’s life over? Let’s imagine that the government decides that we can no longer own property for the express reason of congregating as a church. For that matter they decide that it’s illegal for Christians to gather anywhere for the purpose of worship in any sense of the term and will confiscate immediately any building whether public or private (including homes) used for that purpose and sell it to someone else. Would we take up arms with the intent of shooting and killing the police who came to seize our property?The issue is this: What scenario could we come up with that would justify the taking of a human life?

The rights we as American citizens enjoy are God given, though undeserved. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I'm willing to kill and be killed preserving those rights because they are God-given and no man has the right to take them away from anyone else, except where God's Law allows, for instance executing a murderer. Also, this dependence on government is absolutely maddening! In case you did not read my father's comments on this, here they are:
Obviously private citizens cannot compete with the military in terms of firepower--that misses the point. The climate of personal firearm ownership is really an indicator of the degree of personal dependence on the state. Am I ultimately responsible for my family's safety and welfare (before God)or is it the states right and responsibility?

One parting question: If I am part of a ruling liberal majority in the U. S. House or Senate, do you think that my policy making philosophy might be influenced by the knowledge that there were 200 million Americans that owned handguns and knew how to use them?

Dad later added, "if I am a rapist/murderer, do you think that my decisions as a criminal would be influenced by the knowledge that 200,000,000 Americans were armed and dangerous?"


That being the case one has to wonder why is it that those who are most ardently pro-life zealously align themselves with those who are the most pro-gun?

Great question. Why am I pro-life and pro-gun?

I am Pro-life because God's Word says "Thou shalt not kill".

I am Pro-gun because I seek to keep from being killed

I hope I did this subject justice. I could have pointed out
1 Timothy 5:8, Ecclesiastes 3:1,3, and Luke 22:36, but for sake of brevity, I'll leave you to come to your own conclusion.

Here are a couple of other posts you might find interesting in response to Pastor Lance.
Response #1
Response #2

Also, you might find the comments to Pastor Lance's original post interesting.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, September 22, 2008

Song Competition

Son3 has begun a competition to create a suitable song for the Gadsden flag.

Read more about it here.

Labels: , , ,

Should Christians Own Guns? Part 2


(Continued from Part I)

In this post, I will attempt to point out some of the fallacies of the anti-gun philosophy you read last time.

First of all, I find it rather interesting that the need for self defense is acknowledged.

While we wish others no harm, we will if necessary defend ourselves and others who may not be able to.

Although this is realized, the use of lethal force is adamantly opposed.

I do not believe Christians should support, own, or encourage the use of these weapons of individual destruction. I realize that the Supreme Court recently ruled that citizens have a constitutional right to bear hand guns. I simply disagree with that decision as I don’t believe it promotes the culture of life that we as believers should seek to cultivate in this country.

From a strictly practical viewpoint, this is an extremely impractical opinion! First of all, this idea presupposes that there is no sin because people have been killing each other since the Fall. Even if guns were completely outlawed and destroyed, crime would still exist. This is proved by the fact that crime rates actually increase when guns are outlawed. Also, what about Christian Warriors like David, who was a man of blood, and yet a man after God's own heart?

Pastor Lance then asks,

But shouldn’t citizens be able to arm themselves in case the government seeks to overthrow our rights by force? Let me answer that in two ways. First, imagine you had a handgun, even a very good one. Do you really think you could take down the average military attack helicopter with it? The second amendment regarding bearing arms was written at a time when the government didn’t have vastly superior weapons than the average citizen. That has changed. The U.S. military now has the weapons and skills to level whole neighborhoods in a matter of hours.

Since when did might make right? What if our ancestors had taken that point of view about the British? Our duty as Christians is clear. We are to obey the Word of God come what may. If our nation digresses to the point at which God's Word commands us to take up arms against a tyrannical government, we should take up arms. Even if that means fighting machine guns with pitchforks. This is the Roy Moore issue over again- do we obey God, or do we obey the word of man?

To be continued, Part III.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, September 19, 2008

Part II


Fiddlin' in the Parlor, Part 2 from Delta01 on Vimeo.

Labels: , , ,

Should Christians Own Guns?

I ran across this rather interesting post a couple of days ago, by a Philadelphia pastor. This is a pretty common opinion of weapons among Christians.

What do you think about what he wrote? Please comment and be sure to keep this in mind over the weekend. Next week, I'll try to answer some of the issues he raised.

P.S.- I welcome comments from the ladies as well as the guys on this subject.

Continued in Part II

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Music Post




Fiddlin' in the Parlor is a husband/wife group, Kenny and Suzy Spencer. They performed at the local St. Andrew's celebration last year, where this video was taken. You may notice the similarity between their music and the music of Natalie Macmaster. This is a style known as Cape Breton music. The trademark of this style is a fiddle accompanied by a piano.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Qualified?

I had originally posted the video clip of Matt Damon slamming Sarah Palin to show that even pagans sometimes see the absurdity of a woman being the commander in chief. Matt's pagan world view is obvious by his slam of Creation near the end of the clip. Although he brings up several valid concerns about Sarah's qualifications for office, it seems that he would consider supporting a future female candidate, if she has the proper qualifications.

So what qualifies a candidate for civil office in God's economy? I believe the qualifications for elder in Titus 1 would also apply to civil government. Those guidelines are (vs 6):

~ Unreproveable (spotless character)
~ The husband of one wife
~ Having faithful children who are also unreproveable,

With this in mind, what candidate meets those qualifications?

Jason, I'd stick to knocking out the CIA, if I were you.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

The Tide Begins To Turn....

A rather fascinating poll by Zogby shows that about 20% of Americans favor secession! Here's an interesting post on the subject by Rick Williams.

A few thoughts:

....Politically, liberal thinkers were much more likely to favor the right to secession for states and regions, as 32% of mainline liberals agreed with the concept. Among the very liberal the support was only slightly less enthusiastic - 28% said they favored such a right. Meanwhile, just 17% of mainline conservatives thought it should exist as an option for states or regions of the nation....

Just 17% of Conservatives? That should make clear the ever broadening gray line between liberals and "conservatives".

...The more education a respondent had, the less likely they were to support secession - as 38% of those with less than a high school diploma would support it, compared to just 10% of those with a college degree....

Kinda makes you wonder, what are they teaching in colleges these days?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 15, 2008

Jason Bourne For President!

I got a big kick out of this!



I always had alot of respect for the guy that ran around shooting up the CIA. We have more in common than I thought! Damon seems to understand the problem better than most evangelical-bible-believing -Christians do.

"Really bad Disney movie".....

Interesting way of saying it. Although I personally think hockey would probably be an excellent way to learn how to fight.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Was Sir William Wallace a Christian?


William Wallace is my favorite military leader for several reasons. First of all, he was dedicated to principle. He was an incredible warrior and he lead by example.


The accounts about Wallace are many and varied. Some say that he was a Catholic and he killed women and children. There is, obviously, no way to truly know if he was a Christian but I hope I can present some interesting facts for your consideration.


As to the idea that he was Catholic, I find this highly unlikely for several reasons. First of all, he was most likely educated at Paisley Abbey, near
Glasgow 1. Scotland had a Christian influence, with early forms of Presbyterianism, since St. Columba, who came to Scotland in 563 2. Paisley Abbey had been founded by St. Mirren, an Irish missionary who came to Scotland in the wake of Columba, in 600 A.D 3. This is where Wallace's uncle, who was a bishop, educated him. Secondly, Wallace had a special love for the Psalms. This noted by the fact that he carried his Psalter on his military campaigns and it's presence at his execution 4. This appreciation for the Psalms is also evident in the lives of the Scottish Covenanters. Thirdly, taking into account the alliances that took place between other Catholic countries, if Wallace was truly a Catholic, he would have had no problem submitting to one.


There are accounts in existence of William Wallace killing and otherwise molesting non-combatants. I sincerely believe that these are false because of the great respect that Scots, at the time, showed to women and children. One of the greatest writings of the time period regarding how women should be treated had been written in
Scotland, by Adomnan 5, a cousin of Columba. This work, called the Law of the Innocents 6, was written some time around 697. This work would have, in all probability, been taught to Wallace as part of his formal education.

Rick Williams states, “Though fierce in battle, Wallace did not abuse his power; he used it to promote the ancient Christian concept of chivalry: “To speak the truth, succor the helpless, and never to turn back from an enemy.” 7

Finally, why was Wallace fighting the English? The English had not only invaded his country, but they were treating the Scots as less than human, abusing them, robbing them, and killing them. Wallace had experienced this first hand through the death of his wife. His defense of Scotland was uniquely Christian because the reasons for resistance presupposed a Christian world view. He could have submitted to English rule and become a highly ranked ruler. But he chose to share the suffering of his people and die, to insure that the following generations of Scots would enjoy freedom to serve God. Personally, I believe that William Wallace was a Christian. Although you may come to an entirely different conclusion, I think we can all agree that without the sacrifice of Wallace, Scotland would have ceased to be a nation. Without Scotland there is no Reformation and without the Reformation there is no America.

  1. William Wallace: Braveheart, by James Mackay, pg. 31
  2. Wikipedia article on St. Columba
  3. Wikipedia article on St. Mirren
  4. William Wallace: Braveheart, by James Mackay, pg. 31
  5. Wikipedia article on Adomnan
  6. Law of the Innocents
  7. William Wallace, A Brave Heart, by Rick Williams in the September/October 2004 issue of Homeschooling Today, pg. 60

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Memorable Day

Lots of blog fodder today. I could choose to blog on 9/11, or on the Scottish Parliament, which came into being on this day in 1997, or on the battle of Stirling Bridge. Well, I thought, most folks will probably be blogging on 9/11. So, that rules that out, what about the Scottish parliament? Other than acknowledging the date and perhaps a short history of Scottish politics, which are extremely complicated, that would be a mighty short post. So that narrows the field down to the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

I would argue that Stirling, Scotland has the richest military history of any place in the world. It's strategic location caused it to be the battlefield for hundreds of years. On this day in 1207 the Scottish forces under Sir William Wallace fought the English army, commanded by the Earl of Surrey and Hugh de Cressingham. One look at the battlefield and the positions of the two armys
would have made clear that the English were being very stupid. The fact that Surrey, who was the supreme commander, was over 60 years old and ill probably added to the confusion. The English had 1-3000 cavalry and anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 infantry. The Scottish army had approximately 10,300 infantry and cavalry.

Wallace made a very strategic and smart decision. He had realized early in the war that he could manipulate a much larger force by controlling a small portion of that force. Also, the Scots realized that if they lost this battle, they would be hunted to death and their families would be killed. The fact that they had so much to lose would dictate how they fought. As Stonewall Jackson once said, "The patriot volunteer, fighting for his country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth". That certainly applied to the Scots at Stirling Bridge and the reason the English would lose is because they did not realize that fact. They thought the Scots would fight according to certain rules of engagement.

They were wrong.

As you can see from the map above, the English began to cross over the River Forth at Stirling Bridge. Because of the narrowness of the bridge, the soldiers could only cross two abreast. This seriously prolonged the time it took for the army to cross. The Scots watched from their position on Abbey Craig until about 5,700 English had crossed over. At this point, Wallace ordered the charge and led his men against the English. The first thing they did was capture the mouth of the bridge, which denied the English reinforcements. The English were now trapped, with the river on three sides of them and the Scots in front. The battle then became a massacre.

Only one English knight escaped the carnage, Sir Marmaduke Tweng. This was a key battle in the fight for independence and would put Edward I on notice that the Scots were serious about freedom.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Of Conservatives And Liberals

I know that many of my fellow bloggers have blogged this but I just had to add my two cents.

In case you have not yet seen this video, watch it!



Rev. Baucham does an incredible job of defending his faith against the so-called Christians. Notice how quick and articulate his answers are. Praise God for giving him the gift of eloquence! Rev. Baucham truly used that opportunity to glorify God.

Meanwhile, over on the left.....

Son3 blogged this a few days ago and I always get a good laugh out of it.



Lyrics here.


Labels: , , , ,

Monday, September 8, 2008

Portrait Of A Man: Samuel Rutherford

Samuel Rutherford was born sometime in the year 1600, near the town of Nisbet, Scotland. He was given an extremely good education, culminating at Edinburgh University, where he joined the clergy. On this day in 1627 he became pastor of his first church in Anwoth. Truly understanding what it meant to redeem the time, it was said that "he was always praying, always preaching, always visiting the sick, always catechising, always writing, and always studying". Tragedy struck after the first year, as his wife and two of his children died. Throughout those trials, his faith in God never faltered. Although it is said that he was not a particularly good preacher, an English merchant, on a business trip to Scotland, once said: "I heard this little, fair man Rutherford and he showed me the loveliness of Christ."

Because of his unwavering dedication to principle, he was kicked out of his pulpit for nonconformity, in 1636, and exiled to Aberdeen. When persecution against Presbyterians quieted down, he was made Professor of Divinity at St. Andrews. After the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant, between Scotland and England, the Westminster Assembly began, in 1643. Although the Scottish delegation had no votes, they had more influence than any other party there. It is thought that Rutherford wrote much of the Shorter Catechism. It was about this time that he also wrote Lex Rex, an argument for limited government and against the divine right of kings.

But with the restoration of the Stuart monarchy, even the possession of the book became a crime against the state. Rutherford was charged with treason and was summoned to appear before the court on his deathbed. Refusing to go, he said, "I must answer my first summons; and before your day arrives, I will be where few kings and great folks come."

He died a few days later.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Battle Of Dunbar


The Scots are my heroes. They are my people and I seek to be like them in many ways, but they are also human.

And humans are sinful.

After Charles II signed the Solemn League and Covenant, the Scots believed that he had reformed, so they crowned him as their king. Charles I, father of Charles II, had been executed for treason in 1649, and Great Britain was being ruled by the parliament. The English fully realized the danger of having another Stuart tyrant on the throne, so they tried to reason with the Scottish leadership, asking them to cease from supporting Charles Stuart II. After much remonstration with the Scottish people, who remained stubborn, Oliver Cromwell was placed at the head of the army and ordered to march for Scotland.

So often had the English army marched for the border in the cause of tyranny but this time they marched in the cause of freedom. D'aubigne writes, Cromwell's feelings, as he marched against Scotland, were different from those which had led him to Ireland. To him the people were brethren- brethren who had gone astray when they invited over the licentious Charles II.

Cromwell sent letter after letter to the Scottish commander, Lt. Gen. David Lesley, pleading with him to reconsider, but to no avail. The Scots were viewing this as merely another English invasion. On this day in 1650 the two Christian armies battled one another at Dunbar.

The English army had been retreating, luring the Scots army after it, until they came to rest at the town of Dunbar. Lesley, assuming that Cromwell would go out to sea, brought his men down from a strong position. Realizing the blunder, Cromwell used the morning darkness to position his men on the Scot's right flank. When the morning broke, he ordered the charge. The flank was broken, the other Scots lost heart, and the battle was quickly over.


Thus ended the saddest battle in the history of Christendom.


Cromwell later wrote to parliament:
Since we came in Scotland, it hath been our desire and longing to have avoided bloodshed in this business; by reason that God hath a people here fearing His name, though decieved. And to that end we have offered much love unto such, in the bowels of Christ; and concerning the truth of our hearts therein, have we appealed unto the Lord.

Because of this victory, Cromwell was able to free Britain from Stuart tyranny for the rest of his life. The Scots, after the Stuart's return to the throne, realized the folly of their actions, but they would have to live with the consequences.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Reign Of Terror In The South

On this day in 1864, Gen. William T. Sherman, and his yankee army, entered the city of Atlanta, after the defeat and evacuation of Confederate forces under John B. Hood. Sherman's entrance in Atlanta marked a major milestone in his march to the sea. His entire campaign is still taught to cadets at West Point, as a prime example of how to break the enemy's will to fight.

And break the will it did. With Atlanta captured and destroyed the backbone of the Confederacy was broken. It is also a horrific example of the yankee's war policy. By Sherman's orders women and children, as well as the soldiers, were killed, wounded, and otherwise molested. This unbiblical action toward non-combatants is despicable!

Fighting against non-combatants was learned from Sherman and passed on to other yankee commanders. The rest of the war was a tale of one atrocity after another on the yankee side. This was the reason that Lee and others cited for surrendering, the suffering of women and children truly broke the South's will to fight.

If you follow the natural progression of Sherman's policy, it's easy to see how Americans justify women in the military today. He made no distinction between killing male and female, so why shouldn't females be allowed to fight too? If they can die for their country, they can fight for their country. If women can fight and die for their country, they should also be allowed to lead their country.....

So we have a woman running for vice president.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, September 1, 2008

Inaguration Of Tyranny, Part II

Two things that are common misconceptions among conservatives.....and really burn me up! Gravelbelly said, in the comment box of my last post,

I think conservatives have been misled for over a generation. They think they can reduce gov't by voting the right candidate into office. Using politics to cure statism is like using gasoline to fight fire.

This is a really interesting observation and very true. I've heard over and over again, "Oh, if we could just vote so-and-so into office he (or she) would fix this problem". Christians should know better than that!
But because they don't study History, which is full of so-called "conservative" rulers who turn against the Law of God, they are deceived. Take Charles II for instance. He signed the National League and Covenant, a covenant between Scotland and England, which states:

"
That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies"

Charles Stuart later became one of the greatest "common enemies" of the Covenanters. They falsely believed that, since he had signed the Covenant, he would be true to his word. They were wrong.

When the "right person" is elected to office, we need to be ten times more critical than we would if the wrong person is elected to office. Wolves are easier to spot than wolves in sheep's clothing.

Here's the second problem I have. Oftentimes, I will be telling someone who I support for a certain office, and they say, "Oh yeah, he's great, but you would just be throwing away your vote, if you voted for him. He'll never win". The main reason I don't like this is because that's a pretty common response, even in Christian circles. It shows how weak and compromising even people who call themselves by the name of Christ are. The second reason is....it ain't true!

History shows it!

The first sodomite legislator in Alabama was elected.....by thirty votes! How pathetic! How many of those pagans were told that their candidate would never make it? I'm not sure, but I guarantee you that many were told that. But a minority, dedicated to principle, made a difference.

These two things, I think, are the greatest reasons for compromise, and result in the bad guys winning every time, and thus, tyranny gains a deeper hold, like it will this next election.

Labels: , , , ,