I believe that God is the only rightful ruler of the universe, and I believe that He has set up human authorities to protect and train His children. There is a role for parents, governments, spiritual leaders, employers, etc.

But there is also something about Individual Freedom. Self-Government. Only if this is installed in a person will they be safe from Tyranny when God’s appointed governors are in violation of God, or if someone who is not God appointed is trying to control a person.

This blog represents my quest to discover and proliferate the hunger for and ideas of True Freedom. I intend to explore Freedom from Spiritual, Civil, and Individual points of view. There may be more points of view discovered as I explore.

This is also my place to post my thoughts about what is going on in the world around us, to discuss the state of those who have not heard the good news about Jesus, and to share things that may help you grow in your relationship with God.

Please join me in my quest by reading and commenting with your ideas and responses.

In Jesus – the only true source for True Human Freedom,


23 thoughts on “About

  1. great site. Found it after I read your comment on the CNN blog about Pres. Bush new upcoming book. Although a canadian, I’ll probably get it. Some people don’t know what they’ve got till it’s gone…I liked the comment about atheism being the worst evil and greatest of wars…Did you hear the one about the judge in Florida who dismissed the case fo an atheist who protested because he did not have any holiday to celebrate while other groups had such as Christmas, Passover…Case was dismissed as the judge quoted Psalms 14 and 53. Hum!

  2. ThirstyJon,

    Interesting site. I am always deeply curious about the various intersections of religious and political thought.

    Out of that curiosity, I’d like to ask how you reconcile the teachings of Christ with the practice of modern warfare. You clearly support the current war and would clearly identify yourself as a Christian.

    I can’t do that. I could support the war or I could be a Christian, but I can’t see room for both in the same philsophy. Do you have some sort of Gospel justification that I have missed?

    Don’t bother me with anything from the OT. Whole point of Christ, as I understand it, is that everything changed in terms of the man/God interaction. Christ is pretty clear in his answers to the Pharasis ( forgive my spelling) and his treatment of people that the OT religious laws and morals shouldn’t apply anymore.

    I remember a famous “fighting chaplin” coming over to me at Fort Benning and wanting to bless my M-60 in Christ’s name. Kind of turned my stomach. An M-60 and the Prince of Peace ? Not exactly penut butter and chocolate.

    Anyway, I’m actually seeking an honest answer here, not trying to change anyone’s mind or behaviors or beliefs.

    Take Care,

    1. Without going into the deepest of theological arguments, I'd like to make a quick address of Jeff Lindsey. As Christians it's easy to focus solely on the NT and disregard the OT. I found it disturbing (though I am sure you didn't mean as totally dismissive) that you said, to disregard the OT in part of the answer regarding your question about the war. The Bible begins and the Gospel begins with Genisis, not Matthew. We have to take it as the whole. That does not mean, as you have agreed, that every item carried through into applicability with the NT. The moral and religious laws DO apply. The specifics of cerimony do not but each law given was applicable for a reason and Jesus fulfilled the Law. Anyhow, long subject. On to my point.

      Jesus did not teach pacivism (spelling?) There was never a prohibition given by Jesus against the defense of one's self, loved ones, property and country. We live in a physical world and just as we would take precautions to protect the human body against deadly disease, we are obligated to provide protection against those forces in the world which would do us bodily harm on a national level. Any nation which will not protect itself will not survive. Lacking that survival we are in a sense like the servant who was given one talent and instead of using it, burried it in the ground. I know that may seem like a loose analogy, but if given some thought, it will make sense.

      We may have arguments either way about a particular war being just or unjust. There matters of individual conscious may dictate but if so, we must do so with full knowledge of all of the facts and ramifications of our actions and what will result from our taking one course of action or other. The fact is, serving in an armed capacity in protection of our land, and our people (and remember it's fellow believers we are protecting as well) is honorable and not only not condemned by Christ, but well within His Will.


  3. Response to Jeff:

    Well Jeff, that is a doozy that might require a whole post later on. I am currently getting ready to leave the country and won’t be able to leave an extensive answer now.

    Ultimately your question revolves around whether or not Jesus was teaching pacifism. Would a Christian ever use violence? What about self-defense.

    The Old Testament is relevant in a different way. We are not obligated to obey the ancient Israeli law to “get to Heaven” or to be “righteous,” but it is the only time in history that God has ever founded a nation by direct, authoritative revelation. If I were to found a nation, I would want to consider “what is God trying to do with Israel in the Old Testament?”

    My short answer now is this: Jesus said to love your enemies. The Bible says to “do justly and love mercy.” War should not be a delight to a Christian. I do think a good case can be made for self-defense and for using violence to protect the innocent and/or helpless, or those weaker than yourself. Perhaps I’ll write a post on that eventually.

    And, for the record, I don’t think I am clearly “for the war.” I have had questions from the start. But we did it. I am for taking responsibility for the invasion of Iraq and finishing well.

    I can think of good reasons for the war in Iraq, but I also have concerns and questions. So much to say, so little time.

    Keep in touch! I am learning too, and I am open to new insights and information.


  4. There are so many directions a person can take in points of view; but I believe it goes back to a personal relationship with Christ and being able to listen to the Holy Spirit, and doing what we hear from the Spirit. God has many tasks for many people and our true freedom is giving up our life and giving it to Christ, to do his will. The world is changing rapidly, and according to His Word, things are going to continue to get worse until the final moment when Christ has to intervene, or the world would utterly be destroyed. We have to be ready to have everything taken away, but have the promise that NO ONE CAN DESTROY OUR SOUL, BECAUSE OF OUR ETERNAL LIFE IN CHRIST. THAT IS TRUE FREEDOM!

    I personally feel led to support Mike Huckabee, one reason being, that more people will be able to increase their faith, and some come to Christ, by his influence on the nation.

    Making Christ an intrinsic part of our mind, body and spirit is crucial to being empowered by the Holy Spirit, therein lies our own individual freedom. God controls this universe, resting in that assurance is true freedom.


  5. Some more thoughts for Jeff Lindsey –

    Before you write off the OT completely, consider a few things.
    Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it – Matt 5.17 (specifically the term “the Law” refers to the first five books of our OT, but it was also used generally to apply to all the OT writings)

    We don’t nullify the Law by our faith but we establish it – Romans 3.31

    All Scripture is given by God and is useful in teaching and instructing us so that we might be mature in Christ – 2 Tim 3.16

    The OT was written to instruct us, to encourage us and to give us hope – Rom 15.4

    ThirstyJon is correct, we do not acheive salvation through the obedience to the law, but we obey the law because we have received salvation. There is an axiom in theology, the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed (hidden) and the New Testament is the Old revealed. It is impossible to fully understand one without the other.

    Of the Ten Commandments, the only one not repeated (and usually expanded) is the requirement of the Sabbath day (which is Saturday). The other nine were reconfirmed in the NT and expanded
    i.e. Jesus reconfirmed the commandment against murder and expanded the definition to include extreme anger in Matt 5
    and He reconfirmed the commandment against adultery and expanded the definition to include lust within one’s heart in the same chapter.

    I encourage you in your pursuit Jeff and my purpose in writing is to help you in this journey. A pursuit for truth is a journey worth taking.

  6. Steve,

    It does not seem to me that any living Christian who wishes to stay out of prison or a mental hospital can fully obey the laws of the OT, which go beyond the Ten Commandments.

    You just can’t gloss over the issue that a lot of those rules indicate a man/God relationship that is fundamentally different from the relationship presented by Jesus. “Go forth and sin no more” is itself a rebuke one of the Mosaic laws. She was a woman taken in adultry and had a prescribed, non negotiable punishement ordained to her.

    If some of the laws apply, but others don’t, I don’t think it’s intellectually honest to regard the OT as a functioning covenant at all. How are we to know which laws apply?

    Jesus is either purposefully vauge on the subject or as in his commands to the young prince, ignored by his most visable modern followers.
    If Jesus is not the clearest on the subject, what other authority is worth defering to?

    Even a notable such as Timothy suffers from historical distortion–he was refering to a body of scripture that is not the same as the Bible of Kings James time or of today. Does Timothy mean all scripture? The Vedas?All Hebrew scripture? All post Jesus scripture? The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of John are not compatable, for example, and “The Bible” was not formed when Timothy was writing. Which Gospel should I regard?

    With these questions unanswerable, his –and any other man’s -lose any real validity. That’s why I say that Jesus’s approach should be regarded as a whole new covenent. It’s workable and it’s complete on it’s own if you have faith. If you have faith that he came back after the cross, you don’t need the OT to justify him at all. That miracle alone is sufficent to justify his words about the man/God relationship. Any thing else is gilding the lilly.

    All that said, I still don’t see an outpouring of philosophical reconcilliation between a stated Christian’s support of modern war and their faith in Jesus’ explict teachings.

    My intitial comments on the OT were simply meant to limit the discussion to the teachings of Jesus, rather than a pick and choose interpretation of the faith of his ancestors.

    Again, I’m looking for insight into an important issue confronting your faith rather than trying to play a game of moral “GOTCHA!”

    John, I hope you had a good trip to Australia.

    Take Care,

  7. Thirsty Jon,
    We are currently moving Revival Theology Promotion to a new state and the website is temporarily down in the move.

    I enjoyed your response on the war, and I also think we cannot dismiss the OT. I look forward to reading your blog in the future.

  8. wow, what a wide variety of responses! This is an amazing, timely blog! Just remember to put on your full armor as you enter waters that are filled with treachery and attacks!
    He is Faithful, and as you stand on His Word (being a David of your time), you will see Him defeat the lions, bears, and Goliaths that will inevitably come against you and the Truth for which you stand!
    Believing this connection is directed by Yeshua, and sending blessings to you in His name,

  9. what follows is an article I fread from Breakpoint on Pres. Bush visiting China this past week. Wish more people would stand up against countries like China who have no respect for human rights.

    Courage of Conviction – Bush in Beijing
    August 15, 2008

    “I know President Bush to be a man of courage and of deep Christian faith. So several weeks ago, when I read press reports that he was going to the Beijing Olympics merely as a ‘sports fan,’ I was dismayed. And I said so over the airwaves.

    “Echoing Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Va.), one of the most vigorous defenders of human rights in the U.S. government, I urged the president to use the world’s greatest stage—the Olympics—to press the Chinese on their abysmal human-rights record. I suggested that the president might follow in the footsteps of another courageous man, Ronald Reagan, who spoke out about religious freedom at the Danilov Monastery in front of Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988.

    “Well, I need not have worried.

    “President Bush spoke out—firmly, positively, and for all the world to hear and see.” … [Read More]

  10. That picture at the top of this post … where did you get it? Is it yours? Can I borrow it for our prisoner reentry webpage? Or can you tell me where to find it?

    1. Hi Eric!

      I assume you are talking about the man looking victorious in the sunset picture. Just click on the picture and it will take you to the source. It is a stock photo.

      You can see the original picture, find out if you need permission, ask for permission if necessary, look for other photos etc.

      Good luck! Come back and tell us how it goes.


    1. Thanks Evan!

      I haven't been writing on here very much for some time. Mostly because it is so easy to post things on Facebook and I have more readers there. Eventually I might get back to this blog, we'll see! And I do post occasionally.


  11. Honestly, religion and politics should never mix. Government is there to provide services for the people not to convert people to Christianity. I hope politicians will never be voted into office based on their faith rather than their morals or goals.

    1. Hello Austin, welcome to The Thirst for Freedom!

      You made a pretty strong, dogmatic, and absolute statement (or series of statements) without providing any reasoning. I would like to hear your reasons for your assertions.

      Your currently undefended statements (with my responses/questions):

      1) "Religion and Politics should never mix." Why do you say that? What do you mean by "religion" and what do you mean by "politics?"

      2) "Government is there to provide services for people." What do you base that assertion on?

      3) "Government is there … not to convert people to Christianity." Well, I agree with that one. I don't know anyone and haven't heard of anyone in contemporary times who believes that "government" is for the purpose of converting people to anything.

      4) [By Implication] "politicians [should not be] voted into office based on their faith rather than their morals or goals." How is it possible to have morals outside of a religious worldview? Where do the morals come from? Is it possible to NOT have a religious worldview of some kind? Even atheists choose a religious worldview. They sometimes choose a system of beliefs based on naturalism that is in every way "religious" and then don't allow their worldview to be analyzed "religiously" by insisting that their religious belief system is not "religious" because they do not believe in God.

      Some thoughts: When you say "religion and politics should never mix" you imply that any ideas about God/Truth/Worldview/Etc. should not be included in our reasonings about how to implement a civil government. This is IMPOSSIBLE. I think if you say "government does not exist to force people to believe in a certain religious system" we can agree, but it is impossible for a religious worldview to not influence what principles of civil government we live out.

      One reason that we do NOT want your view of government but instead would prefer a Christian system of government is this: In a Biblical Christian Worldview civil government exists to defend life, liberty and property by punishing those who would violate these things. The result is a system where men are free to pursue there own destinies. Ironically, an Atheist or a Muslim or a Jew, or any other kind of belief would be more free under a Christian system of government!

      Now just to clarify, by "Christian system of government" I do NOT mean a system of government run by a church organization or by "religious authorities." I mean a system of government based on Christian principles as revealed in the Bible.

      Finally, your attempt to separate "faith" from "morals and goals" is futile. Everyone derives their morals and goals based on their core worldview beliefs. Everyone's core worldview beliefs are derived from "religion" or whatever it is they choose to believe about God. While I would agree with the idea that it is an over simplification to decide who to vote for based on what faith they profess or what religion they identify with, to deny those things as real factors in "what makes the man" would be unwise.

      So, hopefully Austin, you will come back and offer some reasons for your bold and dogmatic assertions. They are very empty without some explanation.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Share via
Copy link