Exposing the “Mental Health Crisis”

In sociology, mental health has long been viewed as a “social construction” like gender, race, etc. It is absolutely true in this case. Autism is new a “spectrum” that can be as wide as the mental health community wishes it to be. Homosexuality and transgenderism used to be afflictions that no longer appear in the DSM-V (the psychologists’ Bible for mental illnesses).

The United States of America is the most medicated society in the history of mankind. Do we really have a mental health crisis in which growing numbers of citizens are suffering from a mental illness, or are doctors and therapists merely prescribe more medication? I have always believed that the latter is the most likely answer, but my recent experiences have served to solidify that opinion.

I have been working as a mental health counselor in a local middle school for a few weeks now. It is a personally rewarding job, as helping kids overcome their social problems is an extremely important job. However, the unholy alliance of the education system, mental health industry, and government healthcare in the pockets of a private business has created an incredibly dangerous and destructive environment for our children.

My employer requires a minimum number of billable hours known as “productivity.” These hours are billed to Medicaid. The company needs to bill Medicaid so they can cover costs (payroll, rent, keeping the lights on, etc.) of doing business. I have to provide an average of 5 hours of productivity every day. I also need to have enough students on my caseload to meet those productivity standards. I share my caseload with a therapist who also has their own productivity numbers to meet.

Thus, a school therapist is incentivized to diagnose “enough” kids in the school to meet the productivity standards in order to bill Medicaid enough money to pay all of us.

The real consequence of this policy is an uptick in mental health diagnoses. I have already met with a number of students who have behavioral problems, not mental health problems. Most of them are on the “spectrum” – basically any kid who has trouble making friends ends up here. Several have been diagnosed with ADHD – any kid who has a hard time paying attention to boring teachers in classes that they don’t care about.

I have sat in public school classrooms. My clients are supposed to sit and exhibit ideal behavior while a half-dozen students who have not been diagnosed are acting like wild animals. My kids have “mental health” problems, but these other kids do not.

Many of my clients do not take prescribed medication because they say, “it makes me feel weird” or “I don’t feel like myself.” I completely understand this. In college, I read a paper about “the medicated self” which argues that those on anti-depressants are unsure which “self” is their true self.

Imagine being told that your “self” is not complete unless you are taking medication that basically turns you into a different person. This medicated “self” is the “good self”, while your natural existence is viewed as incomplete.

So we now have a group of students who are “mentally ill”, while other students who exhibit the same behavior are “mentally healthy.” One group is told that they need drugs to be complete, while the other is told they are whole. One group is diagnosed with “mental illnesses” whose definitions change over time, often due to social pressure from social justice lobbyists. One group needs to be diagnosed as mentally ill in order to keep therapists and CPSTs employed. One group is told they are incomplete, and we wonder why they grow up into adults who continue to exhibit mental health problems.

This does not even address the potential damage that a psychotropic drug can have when introduced to an otherwise healthy brain. Most people who are diagnosed have not had any sort of brain scan. An “expert” who sits in an office determines the brain chemistry of a client after a conversation or two – not an MRI or C/T scan, but a chat determines that neurons and synapses are not working properly –  and prescribes drugs to these individuals.

This is the reality of America’s “mental health crisis.” We are creating mental illness by redefining what makes someone ill and introducing brain chemistry altering drugs into potentially healthy brains.

**This is not to say that there are not legitimate cases of mental illness. I am merely saying that they are far less prevalent than we are led to believe.**

Many of our schools are filled with mental health workers who are incentivized to diagnose a certain number of students as mentally ill in order to fulfill arbitrary “productivity” standards.

It is my experience that the overwhelming similarity between clients is the lack of a two-parent household. Some poor kid who experiences abuse or abandonment in the home acts out at school to get attention to show that he has power somewhere. These kids do not have broken brains, they are victims of broken homes.

We must fix families. We must worry more about making these kids whole rather than meeting “productivity”. We must allow teachers and schools to deal with kids in a more effective way than slapping them with a mental health diagnosis that excuses bad behavior and will follow them for the rest of their lives.

We must stop telling our kids that they are not whole.

I would gladly sacrifice my job for the greater good. The “mental health crisis” needs to be discussed. We must shine a light on the dark corners of the mental health industry before it all gets worse.

If you are a mental health worker, do you agree or disagree? Where am I wrong? Where am I right? I would love to hear from you by either commenting on this post or you can email me at scornedchaos@hotmail.com.

Advertisements

Social Suicide and Mass Murder

On Valentine’s Day a 19-year-old kid marched into his old high school and opened fire on students who walked out of their classrooms when the killer pulled a fire alarm just before the end of the school day. Reports have come out giving us some insight on his life. The media (both mainstream and social) is focusing on guns and mental illness. Here is why I believe they are looking at the wrong thing.

In Emile Durkheim’s seminal work, Suicide, he looked at death records from several countries in Europe. He found that there are essentially four types of suicide: 1) Egotistic – when someone experiences a lack of social integration or are isolated (widows, hermits, victims of bullying); 2) Anomic – lack of moral regulation or a sudden change in life where the “new normal” feels overwhelming. There is a sense of “normlessness” where all of the social norms we abide by change and the new rules are difficult to grasp (losing a job or loved one; moving to a new country); 3) Fatalistic – overwhelming oppression and hopelessness (prisoners, terminally ill); 4) Altruistic – for the greater good (soldiers, firemen, suicide bombers).
Durkheim found that suicide is not a psychological phenomenon, but a social one. Changes in one’s social integration is a greater indicator of violence against oneself than any psychological condition.

Now, let’s apply this theory to what we know about the Valentine’s Day shooter.

  1. He was social isolated. Most reports are that he was bullied pretty regularly. He had very few friends. He was kicked out of school and other social organizations. This is indicative of Egotistic suicide.
  2. His adopted father died a few years ago, but his adopted mother died just three months ago. This dramatic social event would be a likely catalyst for anomic suicide.
  3. He apparently exhibited numerous histrionic outbursts – I believe these were to draw attention to an otherwise lonely boy – yet still managed to fly under the radar of law enforcement.
  4. Therefore, he was isolated from peers by choice (making numerous threats) or force (expulsion and bullying), as well as dealing with the death of his last remaining parent (and I have to wonder if being adopted started his feelings of social isolation). He also lives in a country where guns are weaved into the fabric of the nation and are constantly depicted in the media in both positive and negative lights.

It seems to me that this is a social recipe for a disaster. Rather than turning the weapon on himself, he turned it on others. Regardless, he follows a similar pattern to other mass murders, serial killers, and the suicidal. Reports are that the Vegas shooter, Steven Paddock, lost a lot of money before his rampage and was socially isolated from almost everyone except his roommate/girlfriend. The Columbine shooters were socially isolated and bullied. The same goes for the Aurora shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter, and almost all other mass murderers over the last 20 years.

I truly believe that we need to stop thinking of these events as psychological anomalies. There is something wrong with the SOCIAL fabric of the nation right now.

We have been in perpetual war since 2001. We just experienced a major economic recession. Social media and online video games are keeping kids from face-to-face interactions. We are the most medicated society in history. Our social and demographic categories are being constantly challenged and redefined. Religion is becoming less and less of an effective institution. Our electorate is becoming more and more divided.

Basically, we are in a national state of anomic normlessness that is leading to increasing social isolation. As our institutions continue to crumble, so does our ability to maintain solidarity. Without social solidarity and stability, we feel hopeless. We feel socially suicidal.

Some of us develop depression. Some of us do kill ourselves. Some are committing mass murder. The signs and symptoms are all there.

Since Suicide was published in 1897, data continues to back up Durkheim’s theory. I truly believe that we are experiencing social suicide that is beginning to manifest in social homicide.

These shooters are not “mentally ill”, they are socially constructed monsters. No laws can stop the inevitable destruction brought about by social unrest. Medicating the problem like we medicate our citizenry will not solve the problem.

Sons of God: Angels or Sethites

Apparently this is quite the interesting argument in Christian circles. When reading Genesis 6, the KJV says in verses 2-4: “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

One side believes that the “sons of God” mentioned here are angels (fallen angels, to be more specific). The other side believes them to be the “sons of Seth”, or a godly line of male descendants from Adam’s “good” son who fell for the secular line of Adam’s “bad” son, Cain.

The “Seth” proponents point to Hebrews 1:5 which says “5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”

Let’s break this down a little. This verse is saying that God has never said the words “thou art my Son” to an angel, therefore, the “sons of God” could not have possibly been angels.

HOWEVER, the next words are “this day have I begotten thee.” This is important because Jesus Christ is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON (John 3:16). Begotten is an incredible important word here. Christians are “sons of God” through our Faith. We are essentially adopted into the family of God when we get saved. The angels are “sons of God” through creation. ONLY Jesus Christ was born into this world as the Son of God. He is the only one who is begotten.

The NIV and MEV (among others) leave out the word begotten here; a grave error in translation. The NIV, ESV, and others also leave “begotten” out of John 3:16. Whether you believe Genesis 6 is referring to angels or sons of Seth, someone other than Christ can be a “son of God”. Leaving out “begotten” is incredibly dangerous as it removes the deity from Jesus Christ, but I digress.

When the “sons of Seth” side leaves out “begotten” when they argue Hebrews 1:5, they are making a huge error. Their use of the verse to counter Genesis 6 is faulty.

They also claim that the very idea of the “sons of God” being angels comes from the “Book of Enoch” ch. 6 and 7 where the fallen angel leader “Semjaza” devised a plan to mate with human women and his followers made a pact to go through with the plan no matter what.

The Book of Enoch is, of course, not a book of the Bible. Therefore, the very idea that the angels are “sons of God” must be extra-Biblical as well. Right? That’s like arguing that since Jesus in mentioned in the Quran, that we should dismiss his mentions in the Bible.

Well, here is MY POSITION.

The “sons of God” are angels. In Genesis 6, they are fallen angels who came to Earth and did produce hybrid offspring with human females.

Yes, I know that this is a very strange concept, but bear with me through my arguments.

  1. The book of Job (not Enoch) references angels as “sons of God”.

Job 38:4-7 has God asking Job “4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

Did you catch that? When God was laying the foundations of the earth, the “sons of God” shouted for joy. Were the sons of Seth around when God was creating the earth? No. No human beings were. Clearly the “sons of God” are not human. However, there is more!

Job 1:6 (Job 2:1 says something quite similar) says “6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.”

So here we are in heaven where God sits on his throne, and the “sons of God” present themselves alongside Satan. To me, this is a picture of the fallen angels walking behind their leader, Satan. Those who believe they are the “sons of Seth” have to reconcile how in the world those human souls made it to heaven and why Satan enters among them.

Here’s the big problem. The “old testament saints” did not go to heaven. They went to “Paradise” or “Abraham’s Bosom”, not the third heaven where God is seated. The sons of Seth could not have presented themselves to God in heaven, because they simply were not there.

Angels, however, were.

Furthermore, Jude 6 says “And the angels which kept not their principality but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” This is a clear reference to the fallen angels. They “left their own habitation [heaven]” and came to Earth. I believe that they are “reserved in everlasting chains . . .” because they had sex and produced children with humans.

Finally, 2 Peter 2:4-5 states, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Thus, the flood came upon the “world of the ungodly” when the “angels that sinned” were cast into hell. How did these angels sin? By mating with humans.

  1. The hybrid offspring of angels and humans are the “giants” and “men of renown” in Genesis 6:4.

This is consistent with the idea that these half-angelic offspring would be supernatural supermen. If an angel and human had a child, I would imagine that child would be a giant (and we are talking GIANT – as in 9 – 12 feet tall, like Goliath). I would also imagine that it might have some supernatural abilities. Could these beings be worshiped as gods? Absolutely! In fact, I can think of no better explanation as to how the concept of the gods could so thoroughly infiltrate every civilization on the planet virtually simultaneously unless there was a common genesis (pun intended) for their existence. Furthermore, there are countless stories of the gods (angels?) creating demigods by having sex with human women.

It also makes sense of how giants could still be around after the Flood, when only Noah and his family were on the ark. I believe that either 1) one of Noah’s daughters-in-law may have carried some of the hybrid genes into the new world (see my Notes on Genesis 8-11); or 2) more fallen angels could have come and mated with humans again to produce entire races of giants like the Anakim of the giants of Gath, where Goliath and his brothers hailed from.

  1. Angels are capable of producing offspring.

This is a point of contention that usually ends with the other side simply saying “I just don’t believe it,” although there is Biblical precedent that is often overlooked.

Opponents of the “sons of God” as angels who can mate with humans often point to Matt. 22:30 which says, “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” We see that the angels in heaven do not marry, but the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 did. Therefore, they cannot be angels. Right?

The key here is “in heaven.” As I mentioned before, the fallen angels “left their habitation” (Jude 6). They were not in heaven.

“Yeah, but angels cannot produce offspring,” you might say. However, this has a simple response.

Genesis 3:15 says, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

God is speaking to Satan here, so “thy seed” means the offspring of Satan while “her seed” is referencing Jesus Christ. Satan was an angel. Satan can produce offspring. Therefore, angels can produce offspring.

  1. The “sons of Seth” were not a part of some special, godly line of believers.

There is no evidence that states otherwise. This took place centuries before the Law of God was written for God’s children (Israelites). A believer marrying an unbeliever was not a sin at this time like it would be later, and polygamy was actually quite common even after the flood (Abraham, Joseph, David, Solomon) and was rarely punished by God. It would take a fall of epic proportions to progress from a godly line of Seth to the destruction of all life on Earth save for those in the Ark.

Furthermore, there is absolutely ZERO evidence of the “sons of God” being the line of Seth in any other mention in the Bible. The aforementioned passages in Job are clearly not the sons of Seth, and in no other place are the sons of Seth found. In fact, the “sons of Seth” are not mentioned at all other than by name (Enos, for example) in the listed genealogies.

Just look at the text of Genesis 6. We see “sons of God” not Seth. We see “daughters of men” not Cain. There is no mention of the daughters of men being ungodly or of whose line they belonged. The daughters of Seth and Cain were most likely included, and we have no idea of their religiosity.

This topic will continue to be debated, as both sides seem to be engrained in their positions (which is common in almost all debates these days). However, there is more Biblical evidence to support that the “sons of God” are angels than there is to support that they are sons of Seth, or of any human being for that matter. It seems to me that the true “extra-Biblical” stance is to ascribe the non-Scripture based interpretation of the “sons of God” to anything other than angels.

What do I know, though? I’m not a “Bible scholar” and have never been to seminary. I’m just a regular guy who reads his King James Bible and tries to understand the worlds of the natural and supernatural in the way God intended me to.

Notes on Deuteronomy 3-7

The children of Israel continue to move from place to place destroying every man, woman, and child (Deut. 3:6) who lived within the great walled cities (Deut. 3:5). Unfortunately, these are the passages that Mohammad usurped when he created Islam. He put himself in the place of Moses as an attempt to steal the blessings of Isaac’s offspring and give them to Ishmael’s.

Allah is essentially Yahweh (the LORD) if only the most violent, genocidal verses were applied. However, Allah is NOT Yahweh. The LORD commanded the Israelites to wipe out only the nations who occupied the Promised Land. Allah wants his people to wipe out all nations around the earth who do not bow to Islam.

These are not the same beings. Like all Antichrists, Mohammad wanted to mimic the real thing. Islam is like a distorted version of Judaism. Mohammad perverted the Scripture for his own gain. Now there are almost 2 billion warlike people who live on this earth who support the teachings of jihad and the wrath of Allah who are entirely focused on killing those of us who will not submit to Islam, especially Israel.

Chapter 4, verse 2, is a warning that once again fits with the fight over Bible translation that still rages today. It says “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it. . .” I believe the King James is perfect. Therefore, any “Bible” that adds or takes away from the words of the King James is violating the numerous verses of Scripture that warn against messing with the WORDS of God.

Moses and the LORD spend a large portion of this passage reminding the Israelites of what they have done and just how blessed (Deut. 7:14) they are to have been chosen (Deut. 7:6) by God as his people. They are “wise and understanding” (Deut. 4:6), great (Deut. 4:7), holy, special, and “above all people that are upon the face of the earth” (Deut. 7:6).

Sorry, Christian. We are the children of God and will be wedded to Jesus Christ for all eternity, but the Israelites are STILL the preferred group.

This is also interesting because of all the races, ethnicities, and nations throughout human history, none have been so hated by the world for so long as the Jews. This is because God and the world are completely at odds. They are enemies, because the world is sinful. God promises to “repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them. . .” (Deut. 7:10).

The Israelites have been slaves to ancient Egypt and Babylon, they were the ones targeted by Hitler’s Holocaust, and are still under constant threat of destruction by ISIS, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Taliban, PLO, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the entire Middle-East, and the entire United Nations.

No other people can say that. However, through all their strife on this Earth, they will be eternally blessed on the New Earth when their city of New Jerusalem comes down from the heavens and lasts forever.

Notes on Numbers 26-30

Numbers 26 once again numbers the sons over the age of 20 for each tribe. Thousands have been killed due to their incessant complaining, so the need to tally the remaining Israelites was necessary. The largest decrease is from the tribe of Simeon, which dropped from 59,300 to 22,200.

An issue of inheritance arose in Numbers 27 when a man who died in the wilderness had only daughters to pass his possessions down to, although the law said that sons were to inherit. The LORD told his people that if a man dies, his possessions pass to his sons. If he has no sons, then his daughters. If no daughters, then his brothers. If no brothers, then the next of kin.

Beginning in Numbers 27:15-23, Moses’ successor was named. Because of the issue of smiting the rock twice rather than speaking to it (Numbers 20), Moses lost his opportunity to enter the promised land. Joshua (from the same root word as Jesus) was anointed the new leader who would bring the Israelites to the land of milk and honey.

Numbers 28 and 29 are instructions for sacrificing during the 7 major feasts (see Notes on Leviticus 22-23). This is a bit of a rehashing, but a couple things stood out. The first is how many feasts and holidays occur in the seventh month. The Hebrew calendar is little bit off from ours due to the way they calculate the days of the month. The Feast of Tabernacles, for instance, is supposed to begin on the 15th day of the seventh month, but in 2017 it is on October 4th. (I have always found it strange that our 7th month is July, given the root “sept” means seven, which shows that September should be the 7th month).

Another interesting tidbit is the number of bullocks to be sacrificed during the Feast of Tabernacles begins with 13 (a traditionally unlucky number) and decreases by 1 each day of the feast so that on the 7th feast day, 7 (the number of perfection) are sacrificed. We have 7 bullocks on the 7th day of a feast that occurs in the 7th month.

Chapter 30 is another “sexist” chapter of the Bible. Basically, if a man makes a vow, he responsible for fulfilling it. If a woman makes a vow, the man must sign off on it immediately. His silence is a form of consent. A father must consent for his daughter, and a husband for his wife (even if divorced or widowed). If a man does not give consent, then the vow need not be honored by the woman. She is forgiven. However, if a man waits to nullify the vow, he must bear the punishment for breaking the vow.

The point that should be taken is that the home, although the dominion of a woman, is the ultimate responsibility of the man. One of the great social factors in the breakdown of the family that we see around the world, but especially in the West is that men are afraid to be the leaders of their own homes.

This is no excuse to abuse or manipulate wives and daughters. In fact, the opposite is true. Men are supposed to lead and protect their wives and daughters. Too many American men abdicate their responsibilities. They ignore what happens in their own homes, or they literally run away from them. Single motherhood is at an all-time high in the United States. About 83% of single-parents are mothers.  In a supposedly Christian nation (over 70% identify as Christian), the divorce rate (over 50% now) and children born without fathers (25% overall, but 72% in the black community) are insanely high.

All the statistics on deviance and criminality show that having both a father and mother is one of the single greatest predictors of deviant behavior in a child. The median income for a single mom is $26,000 compared to $84,000 for married couples. The poverty rate for single mothers is over 36% compared to 7.5% for married couples. A two-parent home allows a child more access to income, education, and healthcare. More importantly, is that the child can spend more time with a parent, which is the key to stopping deviant behavior. When a child feels ignored, they lash out.

71 percent of teachers and 90 percent of law enforcement officials state that the lack of parental supervision at home is a major factor that contributes to the violence in schools. Sixty-one percent of elementary students and 76 percent of secondary children agree with this assessment (Maginnis 1997, “Single-Parent Families Cause Juvenile Crime).

You can say that passages like this one that are throughout the Bible are sexist. However, there is absolutely no denying the vital role that fathers play in the lives of their children. Real life statistics in 2017 validate what Moses wrote in 1450 BC. Men need to take responsibility in the home.

Notes on Leviticus 14-15

Leviticus 14 is a chapter of continued instruction on how to treat leprosy. In short, when in doubt, destroy everything that a leper touches. Even the stones of the person’s house are to be tossed out, and the entire home torn down if need be. Leprosy was no joke!

Leviticus 15 is a chapter I’ve wanted to tackle for a while. It is one of the most oft used passages (always taken out of context, of course) cited by anti-Christians because of how women are unclean when they are menstruating. This, once again, proves how sexist God is.

The truth is that, as I’ve mentioned in my “Notes on Leviticus 1-4” blood is unclean. Many diseases are spread through blood today, and it takes very little imagination to consider the impact of a bloodborne illness on a group of people who spent 40 years wandering through the wilderness, relying on supernatural manna falling from heaven and water from rocks, and did not have antibiotics.

So when a woman is menstruating, blood flows from her body. This makes her unclean for, wait for it, seven days. We all know how long a period lasts. Everything that she touches becomes unclean for health reasons, including men. It’s essentially a quarantine procedure. This is not a sexist thing, unless you consider the fact that only women have periods as sexist; it is for safety.

I think a seven day waiting period is pretty tame considering what the children of Israel had to do when someone contracted leprosy.

Another reason why the charge of misogyny arises is because the rest of the chapter is never addressed. Verses 19-28 deal exclusively with a bleeding woman. Verses 1-18 deal with men who have their own issues. No anti-Christian ever talks about that.

The first problem regarding men is “a running issue out of his flesh.” This is an infected discharge of some kind. Pus, blood, and spit are considered unclean. Just as with women, anyone or anything touched by an infected man is considered unclean. When he is finally free of the disease he must wait for seven days. The same as a woman.

The SECOND issue pertaining to men is purely sexual in nature. When a man ejaculates, he is unclean for the remainder of the day. The woman he lies with is also unclean for the day. The bed and sheets where it happened is unclean as well.

Furthermore, notice that Hebrews 13:4 says “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Therefore, we can see that the unclean ejaculation here in Leviticus is within unmarried, adulterous relationships. The Bible is telling us that sex outside of marriage is “unclean” and can lead to the spread of diseases. It appears that even the ancient children of Israel may have been dealing with sexually transmitted diseases (carried by pus, blood, and spit).

No, this chapter is not sexist. It is not calling women unclean. It is a scientific text dealing with stopping the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and bloodborne pathogens about 3500 years before Pasteur gave us germ theory and Fleming discovered penicillin.

Notes on Exodus 39-40

Exodus 39-40 is the completion of the priestly garments and tabernacle itself. As I have mentioned in my previous notes, the Levite ephod is covered in the same gemstones that one would find on a cherub. Thus, the Israelite high priest was decorated in the same fashion as the highest order of angels (see my “Notes on Exodus 28-29”).

Over the last decade or so, the Jewish people began to fashion new utensils for a temple that does not yet exist. The third Temple will eventually rest on the area which houses the Muslim Dome of the Rock. Just last year, the Jewish Sanhedrin began training up new priests for the first time in close to 2,000 years. Because there has been no Temple since about 70 A.D., there has been no need for any utensils or priests. The Jewish preparation for another Temple is an interesting move toward the prophecy in Revelation 11; a prophecy that most Jews do not believe is true.

Exodus 40:34 says “the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.”

1 Corinthians 6:19 tells us “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”

Just as the literal glory of God filled the tabernacle, the literal Holy Ghost fills our bodies. How seriously do we take this?

Most of us have respect for a church building. When someone steals from or defaces a church, something inside us makes us uncomfortable at the mere thought. Just imagine coming to your church one day to find someone spray-painted graffiti all over it.

Yet the modern Christian has no problem with tattoos.

Imagine arriving to worship at church, and you walk in on piles of festering garbage left to rot. Yet the modern Christian eats fast food and dessert, getting fat and sick.

Would you pour gasoline on your church floor? Then why do you drink alcohol? Would you set fire to something inside your church? Then why do you smoke?

What would you do if you walked into church, and pornography was being shown on all the televisions? Yet we allow ourselves to consume such filth through our eyes.

Our bodies are supposed to be temples filled with the glory of the LORD, yet we desecrate our temples with no regard for what GOD wants us to do. We do not see our bodies as temples. When you hear someone say, “it’s MY body!” you must understand that it is not, especially if you are a Christian. We should stop filling our temples with perversions and filth. We should stop desecrating our temples with tattoos and cigarettes. If you wouldn’t do it to a temple or church, then you shouldn’t do it to your own body.