Why MLK Would Have Opposed ‘Gay Marriage’

Ever notice how the secular left conveniently omits the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a devout Christian minister?

While, historically, there have certainly been apostate “Christians” who, in the name of Christ, have abused and taken out of context certain biblical passages to support slavery, segregation, racism and other evils, it has been, without fail, true Christians–that is, Bible-believing Christians of every race, color and creed–who have led the charge in defense of all legitimate human (and civil) rights.

The Rev. King was one such Christian; and though he and other Christian leaders have, no doubt, welcomed aid and support from honorable and like-minded secularists over the centuries, it was and remains Christians – Bible-believing brothers and sisters like MLK, William Wilberforce, Harriet Tubman, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, et. al. – who have, indisputably, embodied the most effective and well-known of all humanitarian and civil rights activists.

Even so, in recent decades, sadly, and in what amounts to a sort of soft racism, a mostly white, hard-left movement of secular extremists has managed to hijack MLK’s Christian legacy and invoke his character-based “dream” to advance their own anti-Christian agenda and behavior-based nightmare. I am referring, of course, to homosexual activism (i.e., the push for so-called “gay marriage” and “gay rights”), which, by its very nature, and unlike MLK’s “dream,” is a wholly counter-biblical endeavor.

On all issues, particularly issues relating to morality and human rights, God’s word is the plumb line by which all truth is measured. “The moral law or the law of God,” as MLK called it, was, in fact, his exclusive guidepost and primary motivation. From a biblical standpoint, racism is objectively immoral; and Rev. King understood this – so he spent his entire life, gave his life in fact, working to secure civil and human rights for racial minorities.

Similarly, from a biblical standpoint, homosexual behavior, or “the sin of Sodom” as it’s oft referred, is likewise objectively immoral (along with its oxymoronic offshoot: counterfeit “same-sex marriage”). Jesus defined marriage for us. His definition is reflected in the spiritual, biological, and in-every-other-way-self-evident order of His divinely defined design. “‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate’” (Matthew 19:4-6).

Moreover, the very thing that defines “gay marriage,” the biologically and spiritually disordered act of same-sex sodomy, is, likewise, a counterfeit. It mocks God’s design for natural sexual intercourse.

Indeed, the Bible, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, unambiguously condemns as “vile affections,” as sin rising to the level of “an abomination,” all same-sex sexual conduct, be it “loving, monogamous and committed,” or otherwise.

Homosexuality is mock sexuality.

And “gay marriage” is mock marriage.

So-called “gay rights” represent nothing more than moral wrongs. Homosexual sin has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights; and, based upon what we know of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., he would have wholeheartedly agreed. While he said little in public on the issue, what he did say made his viewpoint abundantly clear.

But don’t take my word for it. Unlike the “LGBT” lobby, I’ll let Dr. King speak for himself. In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Rev. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here’s the exchange in its entirety:

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

No amount of leftist spin can muddy Dr. King’s lucid position on the homosexual lifestyle. He recognized it as a “culturally acquired” “problem” in need of a “solution” – a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”

Although homosexual activists desperately cling to the fact that, after his death, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, did voice some level of support for the homosexualist political agenda, the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism.

Neither would he have supported same-sex “marriage.”

To be sure, in 2005, Rev. King’s daughter, Bernice King, led a march to her father’s graveside in support of a constitutional amendment to defend natural marriage. Sharing his position on the issue, she later said that her famous father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”

Indeed, it strains credulity to suggest that MLK, a man of the Bible, would have thrown his weight behind a political movement hellbent on justifying unbiblical sexual appetites and behaviors that he properly identified as “a problem” demanding “a solution” – a “type of feeling” that requires “careful attention,” up to and including “see[ing] a good psychiatrist.”

No, MLK was a Christian minister who both embraced and articulated the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” model on homosexuality. Every Christian should follow his lead. After all, it is the lead set by Christ Himself.

And so, how would MLK have responded to the Supreme Court’s recent opinion presuming to invent a “constitutional right” to sodomy-based “marriage”?

It’s clear how he would have responded.

In his “letter from the Birmingham jail,” Rev. King famously declared: “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” he explained. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

As it was with the national sin of systemic racism, there can be few things more “out of harmony with the moral law” than the inherently immoral notion of sodomy-based “marriage.”

And so the good reverend would have opposed it.

Quite likely, he would have led the charge against it.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Time For Civil Disobedience, Christians

“Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.”– John 15:20

The push back has begun. Christian business owners, lawyers, parents, judges, county clerks, organizations, universities, hospitals, adoption agencies, and other individuals and groups have been given an ultimatum by five unelected, unaccountable liberals in Washington, D.C.: “You must now obey us and disobey God. You must pretend, with us, that sin-based same-sex ‘marriage’ is an actual thing.”

To which we say: “Not on your life.”

“Or our own.”

Absolute truth is a stubborn thing. Attempts at marital alchemy notwithstanding, the highly contentious, wholly contemptible 5-4 “gay marriage” opinion (and that’s all it is, an opinion) released last week by five pagan extremists in black robes is altogether illegitimate and should be treated as such.

From a moral, biological, and legal standpoint, the court’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges is a complete farce. It’s an absurd missive, a bohemian word salad that was roundly, and rightly, condemned by the court’s four dissenting justices. “The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie,” mocked Justice Scalia.

These “five lawyers,” as Chief Justice John Roberts called them, can no more suspend the laws of natural marriage than can they suspend the laws of gravity. “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution,” wrote Roberts. “It had nothing to do with it.”

This opinion, which has been branded “the Dred Scott of marriage,” has not changed, one iota, the fixed and immovable reality that the institution of marriage, an institution as old as mankind itself, is, and shall forever remain, centrally defined by its binary male-female requirement.

Indeed, as the four dissenting justices noted, the majority failed, at every level, from a precedential, historical, moral, and, perhaps most importantly, a constitutional standpoint, to make the case for redefining marriage – something no man can do.

So how should we Christians react to this haughtiness – to this rebellion against God?

God’s word tells us how to react: “But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’” (Acts 5:29)

Many of us have long warned that this day would come, and it has arrived. In the Spirit of Daniel the prophet and MLK the reverend, we Christians must now engage, as relates our peaceful response to the imposition of counterfeit same-sex “marriage,” in widespread civil disobedience. It’s the right thing to do. In fact, it’s a sin if we don’t. “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” (James 4:17)

There are those who will prefer the path of least resistance and will cite, out of context, various Scriptures in order to avoid the possible persecution that may come as a result of obedience to God. For example: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1)

To be clear, under our constitutional republican form of government, “We the People” are “the governing authorities”; and our elected officials in Congress and the White House are the hired help. They are subject to us; and we are all subject to God, Who is the Final Authority.

These nine unelected, unaccountable justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are appointed and confirmed by the elected officials we hire to represent us. Five of the nine have now presumed to defy both the sovereign will of tens of millions of “We the People” who engaged the constitutional process and voted to defend the immutable definition of marriage, as well as, and more importantly, the sovereign will of God Almighty, the very Author of marriage itself.

Central to Christianity, and clearly delineated throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is the unambiguous and timeless proposition that any sexual practice outside the bonds of true man-woman marriage constitutes sexual immorality and results in separation from God. This, of course, includes sexual acting out between members of the same sex, whether or not such acting out is tied to the novel notion of so-called “same-sex marriage.”

So let’s see if we can make this abundantly clear. Christians, true Christians – regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands – will not, indeed cannot, participate in, approve of, facilitate, or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful. This is both our constitutionally affirmed human right and our Christian duty.

It is not so much that Christians wish, willy-nilly, to call homosexual behavior, polyamory, fornication, adultery, bestiality, incest, or any other disordered sexual proclivity “sinful.” It is, rather, that we must. For the true Christian, God’s objective truths will always trump man’s subjective desires.

And so this opinion–let’s call it “Kennedy’s folly”–will result in, must necessarily result in, widespread civil disobedience – disobedience of the sort we haven’t seen since the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and ’60s.

For 2,000 years, whenever such conflicts have arisen, Christians have placed the laws of God above the laws of man.

What makes you think we’re about to change now?

As many in the early church refused to bow a knee to Caesar in worship, so, too, will many modern Christians refuse, under any circumstances, to obey any court opinion or man-made law that presumes to make sin obligatory.

If the ancient church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, was able to face the lions in hopeful anticipation of joining Jesus, then we, too, under the same Spirit, will face anything today’s pagan left can threaten.

In the ongoing culture war, it seems there are no rules of engagement. The secular left will accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. That is to say, the pagans demand that we Christians abandon the biblical worldview altogether, and adopt their own.

This will never happen.

In his “letter from the Birmingham jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. famously declared: “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” he explained. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

An unjust law is, in point of fact, lawlessness.

One can imagine nothing more “out of harmony with the moral law” than the twisted and oxymoronic notion of so-called “same-sex marriage.”

And so, Mr. Kennedy, our answer is no.

Come what may, we will not obey your unjust lawlessness.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling: Evil With A Silver Lining

Well, that was predictable. On Friday, with its majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, five judicial imperialists perched high atop the U.S. Supreme Court bench called the Supreme Being a liar. They presumed to invent, out of thin air and through judicial fiat, a “constitutional right” to sin-based “gay marriage.” (Father God, as you exact Your perfect justice on America, please have mercy upon Your faithful.)

The horrific nature of this illegitimate decision cannot be overstated. It makes a mockery of the institution of marriage, something of which God alone has the authority to design and define. It represents a level of judicial activism unmatched since Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell or Roe v. Wade.

Man-woman marriage, as He designed it, is the metaphor God uses for the relationship between Christ and His Church. In addition to mocking marriage, this decision mocks God.

Which is by spiritual design.

Satan is laughing himself silly right now. His demonic minions, both above and below, are popping the bubbly and clinking the champagne flutes.

Evil has triumphed.

For now, at least.

But not in the end.

Because God will not be mocked.

And victory is His.

Still, on top of being an arrogant affront to Almighty God, this opinion of five unelected and unaccountable justices is also a constitutional disaster. “The Court’s decision fundamentally rewrites the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to radically redefine the cornerstone institution of marriage, which is older than the Court itself,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

The decision also drew sharp criticism from the Court’s four dissenting justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, rightly observed that the activist majority opinion hijacks the democratic process and is not based on the rule of law: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” wrote Roberts.

Justice Scalia similarly called the ruling a “threat to American democracy.” The “pretentious” and “egotistic” decision, he railed, “robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

But I promised a silver lining, and there is one. One that is sure to infuriate the anti-Christian left. The majority opinion emphasized that this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage” should not be construed to trump religious liberty:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

I’m not naïve. We’ll have to see what this actually means in coming years; but when filtered through any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause, what it means is that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.”

Ever.

Of course, there’s nothing honest about the five liberals on this court; and Chief Justice Roberts makes that point in his dissent. He expresses skepticism as to the majority’s sincerity: “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage,” he writes. “The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise‘ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage,” he continues. “[W]hen, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court.”

Little doubt indeed.

As many of us have long warned, all this “gay marriage” nonsense was never about “marriage equality.” It was, and remains, a spiritual battle camouflaged in the formal attire of judicial and public policy wrangling. It was always about forcing Christ’s faithful followers, under penalty of law, to abandon biblical truth and embrace sexual sin. The goal of “LGBT” activists and secular progressives has long been to pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion – Christianity in particular – and to silence all dissent.

Let me be clear. You will never silence us, and we Christians don’t need liberty crumbs tossed down from some temporal bench on high. Christians, faithful Christians (as opposed to the apostate variety) will not, indeed cannot, have anything whatsoever to do with the wickedness that is “gay marriage”; and we will disobey any man-made law or ruling that presumes to make us do otherwise.

That said, it does provide some consolation to have, in the spirit of Hobby Lobby, this court at least pay lip service, inelegant though it may be, to every American’s God-given constitutional right to freedom of conscience. The one positive thing that came from this ruling is the reaffirmation of First Amendment protections guaranteeing, for instance, that the Christian baker, florist, photographer, et al., cannot be penalized by the government for refusing to participate in sin – for declining to provide goods or services for “gay weddings,” or for otherwise refusing to recognize “gay marriage” for anything other than the evil it represents.

Even so, let us not don our rose-colored glasses. Friday’s ruling comes straight from the pit of Hell. Even with its religious liberty “silver lining,” it has not ended the debate; it has only just launched it. It has opened the floodgates to anti-Christian persecution. Leftist lawsuit abuse against Christian individuals and organizations will now flow hot like the River Styx.

But don’t despair, my brothers and sisters in Christ. For we who are God’s children have already overcome.

Because greater is He Who is in us, than he who is in the world.

And greater is He who created marriage, than he who perverts it.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

TransWhatever

Hold on.

Courage, Matt, courage.

Breathe.

OK, I’m ready.

This is it. I’m coming out. I want the world to know. I’m a black, lesbian platypus trapped in a white, straight guy’s body. This is my truth. It’s my experience. It’s how I identify. It’s my reality (actual reality notwithstanding). Transracial, transgender, and transpecies lives matter (#TransLivesMatter); and I’m declaring myself an out and proud member of the LGBTTT community.

Crazy, you say? Don’t judge me, hater. This is my race-species-gender identity and expression, whether real or perceived; and if you refuse to play along, then you’re violating my civil rights.

This is my struggle. I demand admission to the wrong bathrooms and showers, the right to play for the other sports teams, and unfettered access to your children so I can indoctrinate them till they can’t see straight–or I’ll ruin you.

Identify me by whichever stupid pronoun I invent, you cisgender, cisracial, cisspecies bigot–or I’ll glitter bomb you so bad that you’ll be slightly inconvenienced.

Move over, ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner.

You’re yesterday’s news, Rachel Dolezal.

I’m here! I’m, er, whatever! Get used to it!

It’s my turn. I want my reality show. I want my heavily-Photoshopped, little duckbilled mug on the cover of National Geographic posthaste.

Call me Mrs. Wiggles.

Oh, and transwealthy. I’m that, too. I really need to get my mortgage transpaidoff, so, yeah, I’m transwealthy.

Well? Don’t just sit there. Get busy. Suspend disbelief. Bend the space-time continuum and otherwise adjust your life to accommodate my moonbat pathologies, you microagressive transphobe–or I’ll have your job.

Black, lesbian platypi of the world, unite!

Merriam Webster defines “reductio ad absurdum” as “disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion.”

You’ve just experienced reductio ad absurdum. “Species identity,” “racial identity,” and, to no lesser extent, “gender identity” each represent comically absurd contrivances.

Yet here we are.

Seriously, thank you Bruce and Rachel for making this rant possible. Thank you, secular “progressives” and mainstream media for overplaying your hand on the whole “transwhatever” twaddle to the extent that Americans at large are beginning to sit up and, with a bold, unified voice, declare: “Um, say what?”

These past three weeks have served to set your extremist agenda back years, and that’s fantastic. People get it. Putting the “trans” prefix ahead of some objective truth that you oh-so-very-much-wish weren’t so does not reverse that truth and make your personal fantasy become everyone’s reality.

Ever heard of a “transabled” person? “Transgender” activists have long distanced themselves from the “transabled” community because the two clinical psychoses are effectively different manifestations of the same disorder. The “transabled” person has a sincere, deep-seated belief that he or she is a disabled person trapped in a perfectly healthy and able body. In an effort to align their false identity with objective reality, “transabled” people have amputated healthy limbs, intentionally blinded themselves, had their legs crushed, and worse.

Ironically, the transabled person who saws off a perfectly healthy arm, pokes out an eye, or deliberately cripples healthy legs can actually achieve success. If he does one or more of these things, he will, in fact, become disabled.

The “transgender” person, on the other hand, can never enjoy this same success. If one who tragically believes that he or she is trapped in the wrong-sexed body goes through with cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgery and maims his or her body by mutilating perfectly healthy reproductive organs (or by having healthy breasts cut off if female), then that person remains as that person began – male or female. “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).”

The pitiful paradox here is that, rather than being transformed to the opposite sex (or “gender” as “progressives” prefer), the “transgendered” will, like his or her similarly situated “transabled” counterpart, simply become physically disabled (and sterilized).

Or consider the anorexic. This is the emaciated person who, misperceiving herself to be grossly overweight, will starve herself to death. You don’t help the anorexic by affirming her delusion, calling her “transfat” and giving her liposuction. You feed her. And then you get her therapy.

Leftists love to say that race and “gender” are social constructs. Clever little buggers, aren’t they? This is a classic example of George Orwell’s doublethink. It’s a deliberate tactic by which relativists are able, with a straight face, to call up down, white black, and male female. They muddy fixed, objective truths by labeling them “social constructs,” while, at the same time, socially constructing the rhetorical tools needed for fascism. Pretendoids like “gender identity,” “transphobia,” “sexual orientation,” and “homophobia” are just a few examples of such social constructs (yes, I made up “pretendoids.” If they can do it, then so can I).

For relativism to work – and that’s what we’re talking about here – reality must be undone, adherents to objective truth pilloried, and all dissent stifled.

This is classic cultural Marxism. It’s a bizarre and despotic world in which the left’s upside-down version of “inclusivity” trumps authenticity – a society wherein any recognition of objective truths that “progressives” cannot (more properly, will not) abide are labeled offensive “microagressions” that, when uttered even offhandedly, demand swift punitive measures.

While penning the infamous majority decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a decision that upheld the phantom “constitutional right” for a mother to have her own child dismembered alive, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

This, of course, is abject nonsense. Still, it is illuminating. It’s the rationale that undergirds, to the extent that anything devoid of substance can undergird anything else, the moral relativist worldview responsible for the postmodern “trans” phenomenon.

But it’s much more than all that.

Justice Kennedy is widely expected to be the swing vote in the Supreme Court’s imminent “gay marriage” decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, which will come down within the next couple of weeks. He will presume to dictate whether black is white, up is down, and whether we must all pretend, under penalty of law, that a man can somehow “marry” another man.

Kennedy thinks people have the “right” to redefine the universe.

This is “transsane.”

Which does not bode well for marriage.

Or reality.

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Surprise! Scientists ‘Crack Code’ To Happiness

I love this quote by illustrious NASA scientist Dr. Robert Jastrow (1925-2008): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

I would just add to Dr. Jastrow’s keen insight that it’s not merely theologians at large who have long lounged atop Mount Understanding. It is, more precisely, Judeo-Christian theologians. Indeed, with time and chance, even science can eventually catch up to God’s Word.

Case in point: Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic is one of the world’s most prestigious health institutions. With much fanfare, researchers there announced last week that they have “cracked the code to being happy.” “Imagine scientists coming up with an actual formula for happiness – a specific recipe for lifelong contentment and joy,” they tease.

Well, my forlorn little friends, imagine no more. These scientists boast of having “created just such a formula based on neuroscience and psychology.” For a mere $15.95 – less than your daily dose of Zoloft and vodka – they’ll rush off to you “The Mayo Clinic Handbook for Happiness,” a “four-step self-help process” to finding “a lifetime of joy and contentment.”

“Happiness is a habit,” says the study’s chief researcher, Dr. Amit Sood, in the Daily Mail. “Some of us are born with it; others have to choose it.”

“Previous research has shown that our minds are hard-wired to focus on negative experiences. For our ancestors,” continues the report, being perpetually PO’ed, “helped them stay alive, providing an evolutionary advantage in the face of danger.” (Some of us attribute this to mankind’s fallen, selfish, sinful nature; but we can go with that whole evolution thingy if it makes them feel better.)

Concludes the Daily Mail: “The book makes readers focus on a different positive emotion each day, such as gratitude, forgiveness and kindness.”

Wait. Hold the Mayo. This is déjà vu all over again. What “book” are we talking about here? Where have we heard all this before – talk of gratitude, forgiveness, kindness and whatnot, leading to joy, contentment, happiness and so forth?

Anyway, click over to Mayo’s related “How to be happy” page–and you’re given a little more detail.

“People who are happy seem to intuitively know that their happiness is the sum of their life choices, and their lives are built on the following pillars:

  • Devoting time to family and friends
  • Appreciating what they have
  • Maintaining an optimistic outlook
  • Feeling a sense of purpose
  • Living in the moment

Look, I’m glad you’re getting the message out, guys; but, c’mon, plagiarize much? This isn’t a revolutionary “formula” “created” by “scientists” and “based on neuroscience and psychology.” While it’s all true, you’re a bit late to the game. Dr. Jastrow’s theologians have been well acclimated to this lofty altitude for, oh, about 2,000 years. You guys have more degrees than a thermometer. You should know to cite your original source.

So, let’s break it down. Though there are many to choose from, and while the following is in no way comprehensive, let’s contrast Mayo’s “breakthrough” happiness pillars to but a few of their long-established counterparts in the original “handbook for happiness”:

Devoting time to family and friends

“Not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near (Hebrews 10:24-25).”

“A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:24).”

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12-13).”

“A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity (Proverbs 17:17).”

“Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor (Romans 12:10).”

Appreciating what they have

“Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you’ (Hebrews 13:5).”

“Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world (1 Timothy 6:6-8).”

“Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content (Philippians 4:11).”

Maintaining an optimistic outlook

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Philippians 4:13).”

“Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go (Joshua 1:9).”

“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28).”

“Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds (James 1:2).”

“A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones (Proverbs 17:22).”

Feeling a sense of purpose

I cry out to God Most High, to God who fulfills his purpose for me (Psalm 57:2).”

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might (Ecclesiastes 9:10).”

“The Lord will fulfill his purpose for me; your steadfast love, O Lord, endures forever. Do not forsake the work of your hands (Psalm 138:8).”

“For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end – it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay (Habakkuk 2:3).”

“Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men (Colossians 3:23).”

Living in the moment

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own (Matthew 6:34).”

“So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them (Matthew 6:31, 32).”

“As it is said, ‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion’ (Hebrews 3:15).”

Still, ultimately, Jesus Himself sums it all accordingly: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me (John 14:1).”

The Mayo Clinic’s pilfered wisdom notwithstanding, that, my friends, is “the actual formula for happiness.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth