Davidic Publishing

The Official Winds eNewsletter

www.WindsoftheSoul.com

 Copyright © February 2007

Understanding the Basics...Part 5

Things no longer taught in our Churches and Synagogues....

~written from the common sense perspective of The Winds of the Soul~

by Dr. Gregory C.D. Young, Ph.D.(Oxon.)

 
to the book

 

Warning! We are about to proceed upon an analysis that is generally forbidden in the Judeo-Christian world, in the intent of knocking off the alter one of its most cherished idolized beliefs.

Knowing now that the pandering anti-faith Liberal-Socialistic metastasizing infection within the Judeo-Christian Church is systemic, and that instruction from most our leaders has diminished to become an unattractive diatribe..., being inaccurate and not in the least edifying of the Lord's original intentions ---- indeed they distort the Gospel's fair proportions..., we are faced with the inevitable conclusion that we are on our own....

But are we really?....  And indeed, even if our supposed spiritual leaders were "on the up and up," should we not find ourselves in the same position of being ultimately responsible for ourselves...., of what we believe and what we don't?  Surely our responsibilities to discern what is good for us and what is not has always laid at our own door.  This has never been the purview of another, nor should be.  It rests solely with ourselves.  For The Lord has given us all the capacity to discern the difference.  And in His Spirit and Name, we are never alone.

It's only our collective laziness that has spawned the allowance of a more liberal pretentious understanding (or slander) that "some of us" are responsible for each other more than others, to the degree "we" have a better and more correct idea as to how things should be governed than others. 

Sound familiar?  It should.  Just as has proliferated and scorched our Nation's governing factions, this very same liberal corruption----which decrees some are superior over others, and thus it falls to them to dictate what is right and wrong for the rest of us----has become clearly evidenced within the Judeo-Christian Church, usurping all responsibilities and their respective rights away from us poor souls that make up the congregation.

According to this delusion, we're just not smart enough to figure it out on our own, and must willingly subordinate to the all-seeing, even omniscient, liberal swill of the few "chosen" amongst us!  Please note that from this pretentious and presumptuous bilge comes the notion that it takes a village to raise a child.

As we will see, this confabulation has Satan's finger prints all over it.

And this brings us to yet another example of how twisted we've become in our understanding of the Lord's Gospel....

Warning! We are about to proceed upon an analysis that is generally forbidden in the Judeo-Christian world, in the intent of knocking off the alter one of its most cherished idolized beliefs.

Most simply, the notion that each of us are our brother's keeper comes from yet again another wrongly accepted liberalized view which has insidiously infiltrated Judeo-Christian theology, one that is purely of Satan himself.  We will remember that these misconceptions unwittingly stem from faulty Old Testament interpretations, wherein the Lord asks Cain about his brother's whereabouts (knowing all the while what happened of course), and Cain responds in a way that is most defensive and sarcastic, stating, "Why are you asking me..., Am I my brother's keeper?" 

Copyright © 2006 Dr. Gregory C.D. Young, Ph.D.(Oxon.).  All Rights Reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, including but not limited to all forms of media print, audio, electronic and video reproduction, without the prior express and specific written content of the author, except in cases of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. 

Page 1


To be sure, in my way of thinking, becoming someone's Keeper seems to cross the line, where on the pretence of feigning concern for the welfare of another, and through such subterfuge, we're falsely empowered to take the reigns of another's life, literally taking the power of free agency away from them.  Surely, everyone should be able to see this as wrong.  And, in point of fact, do we not have solid evidence from the Gospel itself that we cannot assume such a misguided responsibility without thwarting God's Will entirely.

Most of us have unwittingly traveled the slippery slope that says, yes, Cain, you were supposed to be your "brother's keeper," and that makes you all the more guilty of killing your brother who was preferred over you by the Lord.  We thus pass it by our minds and hearts, choosing to think no more about it, unwittingly believing that such an interpretation is correct and sound.

For after all, on the surface, being your brother's keeper has a nice round sound to it..., feeling that somehow brotherly love surely must be at the root of it.  After all, looking out after your brother is surely "Gospel," isn't it?  Who can deny it?  We should all be concerned about our brother's welfare.  In fact we are specifically commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves, so surely, it all means the same thing. 

But does it really? 

Not denying that the question of our brother's or neighbor's welfare should always be before us, is our brother's welfare strong enough reason to begin to take upon the role of becoming his "Keeper?"  If we care to think about this for a moment, are these not in reality very different, even oppugnant and irreconcilable things?  Verily, have we not been sold a repulsively deceptive bill of goods by believing otherwise.  

To be sure, in my way of thinking, becoming someone's Keeper seems to cross the line, where on the pretence of feigning concern for the welfare of another, and through such subterfuge, we're falsely empowered to take the reigns of another's life, literally taking the power of free agency away from them.  Surely, everyone should be able to see this as wrong.  And, in point of fact, do we not have solid evidence from the Gospel itself that we cannot assume such a misguided responsibility without thwarting God's Will entirely.

Indeed, look again....  No where in the Scriptures can the admonishment of becoming our "brother's keeper" be found.  It has never been spoken of in any manner, and is only found within Cain's sly and sardonic reply to the Lord.  Search the Word yourselves and see if this isn't so.  The Lord never gave us the commandment to be our "brother's keeper."  It's a pure fabrication by those who say differently, apparently stemming from the deceptions of Cain alone, which deceptions have never truly been elucidated.  So let's revisit the conversation between Cain and God and see what's amiss here: 

Genesis 4:1-12 KJV Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Page 2

 


Again, the severing of action and consequence was what Cain demanded, for the reality before him made him think that all this was very unfair.  He reasoned, Why should he be blamed for his actions, or why should his actions be found lacking when Abel's were acceptable?  He demanded that his wickedness bring forth happiness.... but that could never be so in the Lord's Creation.  Things just weren't made to work like that. 

8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. 9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; 12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

I propose that Cain was not simply stumbling for words out of guilt over murdering his younger brother Abel, but was indeed throwing back into the face of the Lord a previously unwritten admonition given to Adam's family, namely that we all must be responsible for our own actions.  As given above: "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" 

It is not written that we can be accepted when we "do" bad things.  In other words, we will not be accepted if we do not do well.  The actions of our hands will decide our own fate.  The fact of "Cause and Effect" will not be pardoned or changed, diluted or diminished in any way.  Goodness brings forth more Goodness.  Evil brings forth more Evil.  We can't change the consequences mid-stream.  We can't plant noxious weeds and expect the sweetness of peach orchids from our labor.  But that's what Cain did....

Thus, if we read the Bible story carefully, we may deduce that Cain's major difficulty was in accepting responsibility for his own conduct.  He did not wish for the consequences of his actions to be laid upon his life.  He reckoned, as many do amongst us today, that he should be able to do what he wants, but get what he wishes for, no matter the fact that the two may not be logically or rationally connected.

This is most clear when considering how angry Cain became when his sacrifice was not accepted by the Lord.  The dynamics are not hard to figure out.... 

Cain thought that his actions should be acceptable, and not matter that they did not fulfill the prerequisites of the Lord.  Pridefully, he thought that his own improprieties should be overlooked and that he should not be held responsible for not fulfilling the Lord's Commandments.  He wanted his chosen actions to bear different fruit.  He thought he complied sufficiently with the Lord's admonitions, and should receive the same reward as did Abel. 

Again, the severing of action and consequence was what Cain demanded, for the reality before him made him think that all this was very unfair.  He reasoned, Why should he be blamed for his actions, or why should his actions be found lacking when Abel's were acceptable?  He demanded that his wickedness bring forth happiness.... but that could never be so in the Lord's Creation.  Things just weren't made to work like that.

So, Cain, as do many today, sought to change the rules of the game, making others (whose actions were productive and acceptable to the Lord) tow his line..., making others responsible to cover for their lack of dutiful, descent and productive activity.  

This is another way of saying that someone else should be held responsible for Cain's actions, for he could not survive on the disappointments of his productivity alone----resenting the fact that his way was not respected, blessed, nor regarded by the Lord, demanding that his brother Abel, who followed the Lord's Commandments, be his Keeper instead----so that he could obtain the same reward though his actions merited it not. 

Page 3

 


Most simply then, the Lord knew that we cannot ever be each others keepers simply because we are not given those powers to enable that to be.  Moreover, even if those responsibilities were commanded, in knowing of the carnality in man, those more inclined to do evil could and would take advantage of others, demanding equity in all things from others, though thereafter secretly planning to never reciprocate.

But the Lord has always taught that each of us is responsible for our actions alone.  Love our brother as much as we can, and are commanded to do just that, but we still cannot be responsible for our brother...., which means we cannot be our brother's keeper.  Therefore, Cain was told that he too must be responsible for his own actions, and that his own actions would be judged singularly upon their own merit.  He could not rely upon others to fulfill the commandments for him.  And this angered Cain, because he knew that his actions fell short of what the Lord required, and did not wish to be so exposed, nor tellingly, did he wish to change his actions. 

Most simply then, the Lord knew that we cannot ever be each others keepers simply because we are not given those powers to enable that to be so.  Moreover, even if those responsibilities were commanded, in knowing of the fallen nature of in man, those more inclined to do evil could and would take advantage of others, demanding equity in all things from others, though thereafter secretly planning to never reciprocate.

Cain resented this limitation of "brotherly love," not because he had any love for Abel, but because it meant that he could not deceptively advantage himself by claiming any unrighteous need that he would then demand his brother to fulfill..., and get away with it. 

In an unsuccessful attempt to cover his own tracks, so it was that when the Lord asked Cain of his brother whereabouts, Cain threw back into the Lord's face his rage against the fairness of Heaven's Rules earlier imposed, saying, "Why are you asking me about Abel..., I have no responsibility to him, nor him to me....  You said yourself we are not each others keeper (thus taking away my narcissistic license to take advantage of others) so why ask me?"  He thought he pulled a "fast one," and turned the Lord's Word and Intention against Him. 

 Cain felt the role of personal responsibility was an imposition against his own dark tendencies, an assertion of embarrassment to his pride.  He so resented this limitation because he saw it as a direct thwarting and further confinement of his lusts and unrighteous desires.  He may have added, "Since I am not my brother's keeper, I don't have to love him either," which is of course as twisted and erroneous as was his first intention.

Abel was not Cain's Keeper, and accordingly, let Cain's actions speak for themselves.  Outraged, Cain likely demanded otherwise, probably believing (as some similarly do so today) that Abel was unkind and unjust for allowing himself to falter so, or for showing him up so because his actions were acceptable to the Lord, although there was no indication that Cain would indeed change his ways. 

It was clear that he indeed abandoned the ways of repentance and the painful but responsible soul-searching that it necessarily entails, thus fulfilling the Lord's Word: "...and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his (Satan's) desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

Turning to the dark side, angered and jealously enraged, Cain thus sought Abel's life, murdering him for what pretence Cain projected upon Abel.... for not protecting him and keeping him from the disappointment of the Lord..., for being a better example of faithfulness than himself, perhaps even blaming Abel for making him look so bad. 

In other words, according to Cain, it was all Abel's fault, not his own.  He probably figured that he wouldn't look so bad if Abel weren't around.  If Abel weren't around, things would surely be different. 

Sound familiar? 

Furthermore, he was stubbornly convinced that he deserved the rewards of Abel, and surely was now justified in taking them for himself, as the comparisons between himself and Abel were unjust.  He habitually rationalized that it just wasn't fair that his actions did not reap Abel's results.   

Page 4


And what lesson is that, we may ask?  Namely, that we are indeed not made to be our brother's keeper, nor could we be under the Lord's Plan of Salvation, and thus we are not responsible for the sins of another..., and accordingly, and most importantly, another is not responsible for our own sins.  There remains no one to blame for our follies but ourselves.

In still other words, instead of being able to accept responsibilities for himself, he pointed the finger of blame at Abel----blamed Abel for acting differently and more faithfully, blamed Abel for securing other results than his own, blamed Abel for not fulfilling Cain's delusional expectations of being excused and pardoned, blamed Abel for not being his personal keeper----and thus Abel suffered Cain's wrath.  Cain, like Satan, became a law unto himself, because he thus adopted the means of the father of lies, and now would rule over the kingdom of his darkness.

So common are these dynamics among us today, is it any wonder that it was one of the first lessons given to us in the Bible?  And being of such importance to recognize all the ramifications, is it any wonder that so many for so long have tried to obscure the lesson's message by turning it's interpretation completely upside down and backwards?  

And what lesson is that, we may ask?  Namely, that we are indeed not made to be our brother's keeper, nor could we be under the Lord's Plan of Salvation, and thus we are not responsible for the sins of another..., and accordingly, and most importantly, another is not responsible for our own sins.  There remains no one to blame for our follies but ourselves.

This latter point is what the modern Liberal-Socialistic mindset so vehemently wishes to denounce, as the right and the need to blame others for their own sins is critically essential when attempting to justify their own lives, while also attempting to usurp the rewards of others.  See how similar if not identical these streams of delusion are for Satan, his first convert Cain, and today's Socialist mindset?  They all stem from the same source. 

As we've seen, the right to blame another for our sins is becomes circuitously derived from falsely believing that we are our brother's keeper, because that then allows its reciprocal, i.e., that our brother then is our keeper, and if you accept this stretch, the case can thereafter be morally made that others should be compelled to take care of us.  Thus, that we need to "Keep" our brother, and our brother needs to "Keep" us, is a contractual lie from hell. 

The ramifications of this are clear...

Get others to believe that we are our brother's keepers, and we give them license to steal from all of us directly, for we will soon hear that we have not fulfilled the our rightful duty of caring "for our brother" and therefore, their deprived condition is all our fault, not theirs..., which in turn then gives license to others to now take from us that which will then be unrighteously redefined as now belonging to someone else."  AKA: the redistribution of wealth.

Do you see how insidious this had become?

It's this latter point that enables the scam and inequity of the Liberal-Socialist mindset.  First of all, it's obviously economically imbalanced because according to this measure, whosoever is in the most "need," therefore "wins."   

Second of all, any reciprocation, or any sense of fairness in my mind, has never been their intention.  Thereafter, the recipients of this scam can always deceptively claim that:  "Oh yea, we'll get around to taking care of you when we're up and able, and when we prove as capable as the rest of you.  But in the mean time, until we're able, it's your duty for you to keep us and care for us...." 

To be sure, the roles were never designed to become reversed.  It's always been a one-way sort of thing....  This all about compelling others to be constrained to one set of rules..., which the rule-makers never intended to follow themselves.  Abel was meant to always fend for Cain, as per Cain's take on fairness.  But Cain never had the slightest indication to reciprocate.  Expose this lie..., and the whole misbegotten Liberal-Socialist house of cards falls apart.

Thus, the Liberal mindset depends upon the idea that we are our brother's keeper, so as to rationalize the faults found in his and her life, and indeed, so that they can turn us all into their economic "keepers," as well as to justify their eventual grab for power to enforce their scam, because they believe they know better than we do as to how to run our lives, and can make us all better keepers of our brother (and by extension, themselves) through their clear intentions of wealth redistribution.

This fallacious doctrine has become wrongly embedded within the Judeo-Christian world, slyly becoming the means and justification for the implementation of many unjust cultural practices.

Page 5


And if Christ Himself, denies Himself such responsibility, why are there those amongst us that insist that we can do more than Christ by becoming our brother's keeper?  To be sure, why do others demand such absurdities except for the fact that have been infected with Satan's own wish to eradicate the free agency of man and thereafter compel everyone's salvation, so that all Glory could be his own.... and unshared with others..., as if the Father and Son's Plan of Salvation were not good nor perfect enough....   

For instance, it has been the basis for the Liberal mindset to claim justification in succoring the welfare mentality, pandering to minorities, justifying the voting for certain politicians for a personal subsidy in return, and blame everyone that has ever been productive for the ails of those that have not been. 

It too was the fundamental reason to embark on Lyndon Johnson's the Great Society scam, wherein a fruitless war on poverty bilked us of assets and time, only making the problem worse, not better.

So it is, that if we are not our brother's keeper, then we all must be responsible for our own sins, and we can't blame anyone else but ourselves.  And that mark will not wash off... except it be through His Atonement.  We alone remain responsible for ourselves, and cannot ease the guilt by framing others, or mark others with the responsibility of our own faults. 

Of course, having others to blame for our own sins is exactly what Cain wanted.  He did not wish the responsibilities of his Life, but he did want all of its intended glory.... just as did his spiritual father before him..., even Satan, the father of all lies. 

Looking at this in another way, if we assume the presumption that we are our brother's keeper, we would be responsible for the sins and mistakes of others, bearing the guilt of the world, just like the Liberal-Socialistic mindset says so. 

But the last I heard, only Jesus Christ was able to take upon Himself the sins of the world.  And, even Jesus Christ set some limitations, honoring those set by the Father Himself.  He Himself has never practiced this broad-brush notion of being His brother's keeper, wherein the free agency of man is transgressed.  Indeed, His way is much more discriminating and righteous. 

Though He takes upon Himself the sins of the world, He only forgives those that come unto Him according to specified way, by faithfully taking His Name upon themselves and thereafter choosing to accept their responsibilities by repenting of their sins, while becoming as little children that believe in Him. 

Forgiveness is only for those accepting of the Fullness of His Gospel, not just part of it.  He can only help those that choose to accept His help.  Those that do not accept Him with their whole heart, mind and soul, and do not repent from their sins, will need to pay for their sins and their eternal consequences themselves. 

Though His Atoning Sacrifice has secured the resurrection for everybody, further differentiation and discrimination will continue on into the Final Judgement.  Those that have accepted His Name faithfully and have endured to the end will be restored to a state of perfect Goodness.  Whereas those that have rejected His Goodness, will be restored to a perfect state of evil, the same evil they courted and embraced in this life. 

Accordingly, He does not accept responsibility for those that willfully turn away from the Truth and seek evil over Good.  To these latter, He will condemn to a place that is without His Light, a place far removed from Himself and those who believe in Him.  If He were His brother's keeper (as some demand to imagine), His responsibilities would not be so otherwise clearly differentiated.   

And if Christ Himself, denies Himself such responsibility, why are there those amongst us that insist that we can do more than Christ by becoming our brother's keeper?  To be sure, why do others demand such absurdities except for the fact that have been infected with Satan's own wish to eradicate the free agency of man and thereafter compel everyone's salvation, so that all Glory could be his own.... and unshared with others..., as if the Father and Son's Plan of Salvation were not good nor perfect enough....   

Unfortunately, few of us have ever been taught anything other than the misinterpretations and misrepresentations given above.  And few of us have even dared thing about the matter in the face of the subsequent misbegotten and shameless accusation of being un-Christian that surely comes if we refuse to be our brother's keeper.  Indeed, most of us have been taught (by Judeo-Christian teachers even) that to be our brother's keeper is what the Gospel plan is all about.

But that's all poppycock!  Indeed, it is absolute nonsense.

Page 6

 


And note this again:  Juxtaposed to the fact that we are not to be our brother's keeper is the commandment that we are held responsible to love our neighbor and brother as ourselves, filled with love of Charity for all men, eager to help..., to clothe the naked, feed the poor, house the homeless, treat the sick, provide for the widow and children..., indeed, liberally sharing and giving of our substance with all that ask. 

 

And this is the proper way to exercise our free agency, we are admonished.  We are to give freely of ourselves, not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing, uplifting those that sorrow, that grief, that are in legitimate need.  Indeed, to serve God, we must be in the service of our fellow man.  

 

But though we are to abound in good works, we are never, never to become enslaved as our brother's keeper, nor twistingly contemplate the reciprocal of us enslaving another to be "our" keeper.

There are recognized and suitable limits imposed on everything around us.  As we have already explored within past newsletters, the Second Commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves.  And it's quite clear that there are obvious limitations as to how we are to practice that. 

For instance, it does not mean that we, in the act of exercising that "love," are then allowed to abridge our neighbor's free agency.  As for example, after building the Ark, Noah did not go about at "gun point" in order to force his unwilling neighbors into the vessel before the rains began to fall.  Yet, if he was truly his brother's keeper, that's exactly what he should have done..., because he knew better than they.... 

According to this senseless diatribe, one could then imagine that if Jesus Christ were His brother's keeper, then He should have spoken more openly and aggressively about the Kingdom of God, speaking clearly and distinctly about the mysteries of His Father, instead of speaking in abstract and alluding to some hidden truth by the conveyance of annoying Parables that clearly few could understand.  But he didn't....

And rather than simply "invite" others to come unto Him, He should have forced them into His compliance, because after all, if He were as well His brother's keeper, He should have constrained everyone to accept His Word on the merits that He truly knew better than they.  But He didn't.... 

In like accord, this nonsense would similarly demand that He should have healed everyone even if they did not have the faith, rightly toppled the Priestcraft of the Temple in one fell swoop, and follow through by ridding Israel of Rome, and simply usurped any authority that didn't agree with His Own thereafter...., because He did know better than any on earth.  But he didn't....

And accordingly to this very selective view, if you presume and pretentiously know "better" than everyone else, then it is your responsibility to force your understanding upon others... as the Liberal mindset has forever thereafter believed and justified themselves.  But He didn't....

The Lord didn't do any of those things....

Of course, He wanted the best for everybody, but I think it's reasonable to believe that Jesus knew such direction and conduct on His behalf would have interfered with man's free agency and the embracing of man's own responsibilities.... The Lord knew that it was better to allow the mind and heart of man to choose its own course in this probationary period of life so as to prove themselves worthy of greater glories in the life hereafter, though never asking one to run before they could walk. 

Thus, as the Gospels consistently testify, the Lord wisely limited Himself as to what He said and did according to the preparation of man's readiness to hear His Word.  Without the manifestation of the necessary faith of those around him, He would even withhold His Power to heal or teach more plainly, a limitation that He gladly surrendered to because He understood the Higher Purposes of Heaven, knew the reasons for them and loved His Father's Commandments ever more because of them..., because it wonderfully preserved the free agency of man, and thus would and could afford the right of man to choose his own destiny.... one of glory or damnation.  Though He would always encourage, He would never force the human mind. 

No..., even though He knew better and knew more than anybody in the world, fundamental to this "knowing better" was to understand that only a willing mind, broken heart, and contrite spirit could be readied to share in what He knew and stood ready to give.  He would never impose His agenda on another....  Never assume to enter a house without invitation....  Never give an answer that is not asked....  Never open a present addressed for another unwillingly nor prematurely.  His Gifts could only be received by those who proved willing to freely receive them, through non-compulsory means.

And note this again:  Juxtaposed to the fact that we are not to be our brother's keeper is the commandment that we are in fact held responsible to love our neighbor and brother as ourselves, filled with love of Charity for all men, eager to help..., to clothe the naked, feed the poor, house the homeless, treat the sick, provide for the widow and children..., indeed, liberally sharing and giving of our substance to all that ask. 

And this is the proper way to exercise our free agency, we are admonished.  We are to give freely of ourselves, not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing..., uplifting those that sorrow, that grief, that are in legitimate need.  Indeed, to serve God, we must be in the service of our fellow man.   

But though we are to abound in good works, we are never, never to become enslaved as our brother's keeper, nor twistingly contemplate the reciprocal of us enslaving another to be "our" keeper.

Page 7


About the Author:  Dr. Gregory C.D. Young, Ph.D.(Oxon.) is a Clinical Psychologist, Neuroscientist and Physicist, having been educated abroad where he completed his postgraduate studies at King’s College, the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and then graduated and received his Doctorate from the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He has been in private clinical practice and medical research for over 25 years, being active as an author, popular radio and TV personality, public speaker, and biomedical researcher. He is the author of The Winds of the Soul~Heaven’s First Voice To Us books  &  The Winds of Forgiveness~Heaven's Healing Promises, as well as numerous other scholarly papers and works.

 

 

 

 

Warning and Disclaimer: Although the author and publisher have made every effort in the preparation to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the information given in this eNewsletter and the books, The Winds of the Soul & The Winds of Forgiveness, the publisher and author assume no responsibility for errors or omissions of any kind. The information provided is offered entirely on an “as is“ basis and is simply the point of view of its author. Moreover, the information in this eNewsletter as well as the book is offered without warranty, claim of fitness, or therapeutic effectiveness and appropriateness, either express or implied, nor does it claim or seek to offer any form of diagnosis or treatment for any form of disease or dysfunction. Any individual requiring psychological intervention, diagnosis and/or treatment should always seek the professional services of a responsible and licensed Psychologist or Psychiatrist. Neither the author or Davidic Publishing will be liable or responsible for any damages whatsoever or however defined, caused or alleged to be caused directly, indirectly, incidentally, or consequentially by the information contained in the eNewsletter and the books, The Winds of the Soul & The Winds of Forgiveness.

The free agency that He gave man, left our choosing all wonderfully up to each of us.  No glory, no power, no kingdom could be shared.... without first accepting one's own true personal responsibility, as was previously exemplified in "For Thine (Thy Way or Means) is the Power, the Glory and the Kingdom, for ever and ever, Amen."

For some amongst us, this is just too scary, too unsure,  and too unsafe to practice.  Accordingly, they withdraw from the presence of God----first slowly, then altogether.  The freedom of personal responsibility is just too much for them.

Similarly, these would likely outlaw toddlers' attempts to take their first step in walking, as they may often fall and hurt themselves in the process.  And they find the prospect of hurting themselves untenable.  For them, the story ends there.  No more attempts of walking are allowed.  It's just too costly, too dangerous and the pain isn't worth it.  Indeed, if they could have their naive way, they would outlaw walking altogether thereafter. 

Point aside, I'm grateful today that we can still go "outside" without having to be legally compelled to wear safety gear (i.e., helmets) before I go on a walk, because others fear that I may just fall over in the process.... but as I look around, I fear that even these freedoms are quickly disappearing. 

What superstitious people refuse to acknowledge is that God knows more than we do, knows better than we do, knowing that we must learn to walk on our own..., often stumbling and falling just so that we can learn to balance ourselves in time, so as to then learn to eventually walk and run with the pure joy of abandonment.  

The prospect of pain and sorrow, or making mistakes when falling down while learning to brush oneself off and get up and try again, is a quintessential part of the "overcoming the world" that we must all experience.  Without those experiences, we could not be entrusted with the glories to come, for we would never understand the role of responsibilities that come with exaltation. 

God knows all this, and accordingly, has set this course before us.  He never meant this to be "mean," as Cain no doubt wrongly perceived and concluded----and as do others today who resent the notion of personal responsibility and wish us all to be their "keepers," and in reality, thus remain as their "subjects" who enable them to reign supreme in their own personal fiefdoms. 

As long as the Judeo-Christian notion of being our brother's keeper remains wrongly entrenched in our respective belief systems, then its malicious renderings in our society will continue relentlessly.

Don't be fooled into believing that Satan's own desire to abscond with the Glory of God for himself alone, is not being played out amongst us in our society today.  The cultural wars and modern Liberal-Socialistic mindset reflects the same pattern as scripted earlier by Satan.

Similarly, Satan's plan of being our brother's keeper would have "saved" only drones and worker bees fit only for his kingdom.  His idea of salvation is enslavement of others for his own selfish purposes.  For his own selfish glory, he would deny the right of free agency so as to compel and force others to serve him alone..., first feigning that the alternative of freedom too costly and unsafe for our own welfare. 

He deceptively argued that an enslaved population of compelled souls was better than allowing for the possibility that some may be lost when given the freedom to choose.  But all that was a clever dodge.  A pretty package of pseudo-caring wrapped up to hide the contents of his selfishness.  In reality, he cared nothing about those that may be lost, because in fact his plan would have abandoned the welfare and rights of others entirely, as he sought glorification only for himself.  Indeed, Satan's way would have "lost" everyone of us! 

The core intentions of Satan's ramblings sound oddly familiar don't they?   To be sure, this screed is fundamental to the very ideas of Marx when contorting virtue upon Communism and Socialism, now played out today as the West becomes more inundated with Liberal-Socialism.

Within his plan, there would be no possibility of glory for anybody else but himself----no sharing of his throne, no preparation of our mansions within the Father's House, no peace and joy of mind, as Christ has promised.

We would have remained un-glorified under His purview forever, meaning, that there would be no progression of our souls in the hereafter, no further understanding given, no fullness of joy, no Eternal Life, the promise of Eternal Happiness forever thwarted.

Thus, under the direction of Satan's plan, the justice, mercy and treasures of God's Glorious Kingdom made possible by the Christ, would never be given to us and would forever thereafter be impossible for us to attain. 

Under the pretension that all of us would be "saved," Satan's proposal would result in only he himself being glorified, forcing us to serve a being for his own selfish reasons alone.  Not one of us is really included nor loved in that part of his bargain-basement plan.  We were treated only as sacrificial pawns serving his twisted idea of the greater good, i.e., himself.  Indeed if allowed to proceed, Satan's renderings would have given "salvation" a really bad name....  So who is carrying his flag amongst us today?  Open your eyes people.  It's not hard to see....

 

  

The Winds of the Soul~Heaven's First Voice To Us or Dr. Young's brand new book and the long awaited sequel: The Winds of Forgiveness~Heaven's Healing Promises can be purchased online for yourself or for a friend, each for just $39.95 (normally 79.95: you save $40.00!) just click on the button below,

                

       or call 1-800-247-6553  24hrs/day.

 

Both Books are also available at Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com (BN.com), Barnes & Noble Bookstores, Books-A-Million, and other fine Bookstores; distributed through Barnes & Noble Distribution, and Ingram.

 

To subscribe yourself, a family member, or a friend who you think would enjoy the commentary provided in this free eNewsletter, click here.  Please note, we deeply respect the internet and the rights to privacy. You have been sent this free eNewsletter because you have previously subscribed to it, or a friend/family member of yours has for you. If you wish to “unsubscribed” and be removed from our mailing-list, please e-mail us at: Unsubscribe@WindsoftheSoul.com and in the space labeled “Subject” simply type “remove” and then click on “send.” We will promptly delete your address from our data base.

Page 8