Psalm 81:15, “Those who hate the LORD would pretend submission to Him; their doom would last forever.”
Today there seems to be a very misleading concept of Christ. We take parts of Scripture about Him and try to mold Christ into what we think He should be instead of who Christ actually demonstrates He is. What does it mean to desire all of Christ? Who is Christ in character? What did He accept and condemn? If we want all of Christ, then we have to hate what He hates and love what He loves. We need to walk so closely with Christ that we take on His identity. We do not rationalize some things away or just ignore them because they do not suit our walk.
Jesus showed compassion, “But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd” (Matt. 9:36), and at the same time condemned those who were misleading and not living the true faith of God (Matt. 23). Christ at one moment would show extreme kindness and then turn and was not afraid to tell others where they were wrong. He told the Pharisees, Peter, and the multitudes through the Gospels.
Jesus said that the law of God would not disappear or be removed (Matt. 24:35). If He says it then we should follow and portray it. Christ never lets people water down or manipulate the truth that is set in the Word of God. If He does not then we should not.
One great example is how people always say we need to “love” everyone. When they say it, they almost always talk about love in the sense of feelings, that we should treat everyone with the ‘warm and fuzzies.’ This is far from the truth. Yes there are times that we should treat them with the ‘feelings’ of love, but that is only one aspect.
As a parent you discipline your children, because you love them. You teach them the proper way, according to life. You do not let them beat up other children that do not agree with them, or stick a knife in a light socket. You teach through discipline, and yes, for the right reason and not in anger, there are times to spank. But, most of the time you discipline through time-outs, or loss of freedom or some other fashion. Even God has said He disciplines those He loves in Hebrews, and then we should follow suit.
Christ in the same way uses people in our lives for discipline. Christ was submissive to those in authority in the sense they are to rule (Luke 23:34-35). Why do many think today that they do not have to answer to anyone for their actions, in particular the church? When we join a church or work in a ministry, we submit to them and their form of discipline. That is what Christ did and that is what we are to do. Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.” This is particularly talking about the church, and if you are a member of a church then you should submit to its authority unless it goes against Scripture, but then if the church is going against Scripture then you should find a new church.
Another word that is used completely out of context many times is ‘grace.’ People are always saying we should have grace for others, but it is typically only when you are disagreeing with their belief system. The same people do not say we should have grace for rapists, murderers and thieves that steal from them. They want justice. That is the point. There is grace for our sins through Christ on the cross that has freed us from eternal punishment, but there are temporary consequences for our sin. If you steal, rape or murder then you will be punished for your actions. In the same way, if you support pro-abortion then you should not be President, as you value the killing of babies and that is sin.
Love and grace become confused with the flesh in feelings. There is an aspect where those do come into play, but it is very small in how they are played out within the context of Scripture. I was asked in another blog why I do not show Obama grace over his policy of abortion, and asked how I would feel if he were in Heaven with me.
The problem is this, and it is a tough truth and I struggle with it all the time, as they are hard verses to read. Now, in context it is talking about habitual sin, meaning sin you know is sin and yet keep doing purposely in light of the fact. It tells us that you need to check your faith, “Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God” (1 John 6:3-9).
There is no choice when it comes to the life of a child. God loves all children and to murder them is sin. Obama not only supports abortion, but also live abortion where the baby is born alive and is allowed to die. From their own feeling argument: How can love and grace in any fashion support murdering babies? With this, being known as sin, when Obama supports it in light of it then he is not following Christ and in light of this the verses seem to speak for themselves (Matt. 7:21-23).
Romans 8:7, “For the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so.”
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Who Do You Belong To?
Who or should I ask what do you belong to? We all belong to something or someone, and the goal is to figure out what that is.
Marx says, “It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life in the object but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object.” He is right, is he not? We are either bound by God, whoever that is to you, or to an object. Atheists are bound to nature and then tend to focus on materialism. Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and all other religions are bound to a God. We better make sure what we are bound to is the truth.
For the Christian, which I believe is the only true faith (religion), we belong to Christ. Galatians 2:20 says, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” Marx has it right. We are to become less and Christ more. If this is true then it should be demonstrated in all our actions in life.
If it is Christ that lives in us and we belong to Him then He is present in all that we do, whether working, sleeping, eating, teaching, or voting. If we are His then He penetrates all our thoughts, motives and in particular our soul and will. There is no dualism, where one aspect of my life is separate from my beliefs. This is a false system, but it is very apparent in many Christian circles today. We go to church on Sunday and expect that Christ remains in the church building, but if we are His then He cannot.
Christ does not call part of us. He does not just call your religious views apart from your educational, political or parental views. He wants them all and He wants you and me to give them to Him. Should Christ be involved in the education system? If you are involved in education and a Christian then He already is enmeshed in your decision making. It is up to you to listen and follow what the Bible tells us to do with the choices we have to make. If you vote or are in politics, Christ does not take a nap during this time. He is right there as you make your decision. Why? Because you belong to Him if you are a Christian.
Why have we taken Christ out of certain aspects and think He does not belong there? It is impossible to do. God is ever present. If we have turned our lives over to Him then we desire and long for Him to be in every decision and every aspect of our lives. We are told in 2 Corinthians 10:5, “and every high-minded thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” No exceptions!
Can you like many others say you are a bondservant of Christ? Are you so faithful, devoted, and inseparable that when they see you they see Christ?
James 1:1, “James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,”
2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ”
Jude 1:1, “1Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ,”
Titus 1:1, “Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ”
Col. 4:12, “Epaphras, who is one of you, a bondservant of Christ,”
Marx says, “It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life in the object but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object.” He is right, is he not? We are either bound by God, whoever that is to you, or to an object. Atheists are bound to nature and then tend to focus on materialism. Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and all other religions are bound to a God. We better make sure what we are bound to is the truth.
For the Christian, which I believe is the only true faith (religion), we belong to Christ. Galatians 2:20 says, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” Marx has it right. We are to become less and Christ more. If this is true then it should be demonstrated in all our actions in life.
If it is Christ that lives in us and we belong to Him then He is present in all that we do, whether working, sleeping, eating, teaching, or voting. If we are His then He penetrates all our thoughts, motives and in particular our soul and will. There is no dualism, where one aspect of my life is separate from my beliefs. This is a false system, but it is very apparent in many Christian circles today. We go to church on Sunday and expect that Christ remains in the church building, but if we are His then He cannot.
Christ does not call part of us. He does not just call your religious views apart from your educational, political or parental views. He wants them all and He wants you and me to give them to Him. Should Christ be involved in the education system? If you are involved in education and a Christian then He already is enmeshed in your decision making. It is up to you to listen and follow what the Bible tells us to do with the choices we have to make. If you vote or are in politics, Christ does not take a nap during this time. He is right there as you make your decision. Why? Because you belong to Him if you are a Christian.
Why have we taken Christ out of certain aspects and think He does not belong there? It is impossible to do. God is ever present. If we have turned our lives over to Him then we desire and long for Him to be in every decision and every aspect of our lives. We are told in 2 Corinthians 10:5, “and every high-minded thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” No exceptions!
Can you like many others say you are a bondservant of Christ? Are you so faithful, devoted, and inseparable that when they see you they see Christ?
James 1:1, “James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,”
2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ”
Jude 1:1, “1Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ,”
Titus 1:1, “Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ”
Col. 4:12, “Epaphras, who is one of you, a bondservant of Christ,”
Monday, August 25, 2008
My Political Beliefs
In light of recent debates, I have found it prevelant to list my beliefs through a description of why I would not vote for Ron Paul, though I think he is an outstanding man. He has held to his beliefs through out his career and that I commend. He and I agree on many aspects (Pro-life & Pro-Family for two), but differ when it comes to being a Libertarian in constitutional views. Below is an article that best describes the difference between a federalist-conservative and a libertarian. I will say that if it were between Dr. Ron Paul and Obama then I would vote for Dr. Paul hands down.
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=546
Patriot Candidate Profile: Ron Paul
Mark AlexanderFrom Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 32; Published 10 August 2007
Rep. Ron Paul — The "Dr. No" of Congress and GOP presidential candidate
"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed." --James Madison
If there is one man who elicits a strong response across the gamut of GOP constituencies, it is Texas Republican congressman and presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul. Because he is a genuine libertarian, Paul has been a gadfly to liberals and conservatives alike since his first election in Texas to the U.S. House in 1976, and his long-time presence in the GOP is an anomaly that deserves attention.
Ron Paul, a ten-term congressman, small-town doctor, retired Air Force officer and great-grandfather is, indisputably, a Patriot and a gentleman. In a legislative body where integrity seems an increasingly rare quality, Paul's is unquestioned. Not content merely to condemn unconstitutional taxes and expenditures, every year Dr. Paul returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the U.S. Treasury. In his medical practice, Paul refused to accept Medicare payments on principle. Recently dubbed "the most radical congressman in America" by a New York Times Magazine feature article, Ron Paul's "radicalism," clearly, is made of different stuff.
Contrary to Congress' dreams of ever-increasing power, Dr. Paul's congressional career is laced with legislation that seeks to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. During his first stint in the House (1976-1984), Paul served on the House Banking Committee, where he was an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve policies of the era. From that time forward he has sponsored bills and voted to reduce and eliminate federal taxes, as well as federal spending and regulation.
Paul has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted to raise congressional pay, never voted for gun-ownership restrictions, and has voted against regulating the Internet. He is consistently pro family and pro life. In his own words, Paul "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Notably, Paul was one of only four congressmen to endorse the presidential candidacy of Ronald Reagan in 1976.
Where do I, an old-school Reagan Republican, find myself on the issue of Ron Paul? How should other Reagan Republicans see this genuine maverick presidential candidate for the GOP?
The key is the difference between the meanings of "libertarian" and "conservative." As for Ron Paul's status among Reagan Republicans, this is the only question that matters.
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, conservatives and libertarians have often divergent and incompatible perspectives on the Constitution. For the libertarian, the government that governs best is the one that governs least. For the conservative (and by "conservative" I always mean "constitutional conservative"), the government that governs best is not necessarily the one that governs least, but the one that governs according to the letter of the Constitution.
Here we might also consider the differences between libertarianism and liberalism. Libertarians believe in maximal individual liberty -- the absolute maximum of individual liberty that a society can tolerate without anarchy. In this vision, government should be as small as possible, so as not to interfere with the liberty of the individual. Paul cemented himself in this camp in 1988, when he accepted the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. At the other end of the spectrum, liberals pursue the advancement of maximal corporate liberty, which is accomplished (in their thinking) by ensuring the rights of groups. A big government with expansive jurisdictions and prerogatives, then, is a necessary feature of the leftist vision for society. More often than not, though, ensuring group rights means trampling individual rights.
Ultimately, libertarians and liberals stand at opposite ends of the age-old problem of "the one and the many." Whereas libertarians champion the nearly unfettered rights of individuals (the many) at the expense of society, liberals demand rights for society (the one) to the detriment of society's individuals.
Unlike libertarianism or liberalism, conservatism seeks to reconcile the one and the many by means of a singular bedrock principle: government limited by the law. In American government, this commitment takes the form of constitutional constructionism -- the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the federal government is limited to those things explicitly set aside for it in the Constitution.
In our federal system, all other rights and responsibilities are left to the discretion of individuals and the states (the 9th and 10th Amendments). Federalism, then, is the hallmark of constitutionally limited government in our system. Under such a system, the federal government should actually be strong where it has a constitutional mandate to govern (contra libertarianism); this same strong government should be nonexistent where no constitutional mandate exists (contra liberalism).
Regrettably, there is little room for federalism among libertarians or liberals. The strange fact of the matter is that libertarians are becoming increasingly dissimilar to conservatives across a whole range of issues, and increasingly similar to liberals.
Nowhere is this truer for Ron Paul than with national-security issues -- the one area where the Constitution couldn't be more clear about the role of the federal government. One month after 9/11, Paul was one of three Republicans to vote against the Patriot Act. He was the lone member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (412-1) to inhibit the financing of terrorist groups, and he has been the most vocal of all anti-war Republicans when it comes to the Iraq war, which he repeatedly derides as an exercise in "empire building" and cavalierly dismisses as a war "sold to us with false information." While never actually embracing any of the conspiracy theories of the Iraq war, Paul's criticism repeatedly lends them credence.
This disagreement with Dr. Paul trumps all others and is why Paul will not be Commander in Chief. The only way to preserve American liberty is to defend it vigorously from hostile regimes, and the constitutional obligation of the federal government to do so is beyond dispute. To be sure, we want to defend American sovereignty without an expansion of the state, but Paul's view of Iraq as a "war of choice" conjured up by war profiteers and "a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy," is more than most conservatives can bear. We loved ye, Ron Paul, but we never knew ye.
(Publisher's Note: The Patriot's editors have provided Presidential Candidate Ratings on our Patriot Policy Papers page. These ratings are based on comprehensive analysis of many factors, including each candidate's record, experience, capability, character, leadership qualifications and, of course, demonstrated ability to grasp the plain language of our Constitution -- and promote it accordingly.)
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=546
Patriot Candidate Profile: Ron Paul
Mark AlexanderFrom Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 32; Published 10 August 2007
Rep. Ron Paul — The "Dr. No" of Congress and GOP presidential candidate
"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed." --James Madison
If there is one man who elicits a strong response across the gamut of GOP constituencies, it is Texas Republican congressman and presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul. Because he is a genuine libertarian, Paul has been a gadfly to liberals and conservatives alike since his first election in Texas to the U.S. House in 1976, and his long-time presence in the GOP is an anomaly that deserves attention.
Ron Paul, a ten-term congressman, small-town doctor, retired Air Force officer and great-grandfather is, indisputably, a Patriot and a gentleman. In a legislative body where integrity seems an increasingly rare quality, Paul's is unquestioned. Not content merely to condemn unconstitutional taxes and expenditures, every year Dr. Paul returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the U.S. Treasury. In his medical practice, Paul refused to accept Medicare payments on principle. Recently dubbed "the most radical congressman in America" by a New York Times Magazine feature article, Ron Paul's "radicalism," clearly, is made of different stuff.
Contrary to Congress' dreams of ever-increasing power, Dr. Paul's congressional career is laced with legislation that seeks to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. During his first stint in the House (1976-1984), Paul served on the House Banking Committee, where he was an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve policies of the era. From that time forward he has sponsored bills and voted to reduce and eliminate federal taxes, as well as federal spending and regulation.
Paul has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted to raise congressional pay, never voted for gun-ownership restrictions, and has voted against regulating the Internet. He is consistently pro family and pro life. In his own words, Paul "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Notably, Paul was one of only four congressmen to endorse the presidential candidacy of Ronald Reagan in 1976.
Where do I, an old-school Reagan Republican, find myself on the issue of Ron Paul? How should other Reagan Republicans see this genuine maverick presidential candidate for the GOP?
The key is the difference between the meanings of "libertarian" and "conservative." As for Ron Paul's status among Reagan Republicans, this is the only question that matters.
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, conservatives and libertarians have often divergent and incompatible perspectives on the Constitution. For the libertarian, the government that governs best is the one that governs least. For the conservative (and by "conservative" I always mean "constitutional conservative"), the government that governs best is not necessarily the one that governs least, but the one that governs according to the letter of the Constitution.
Here we might also consider the differences between libertarianism and liberalism. Libertarians believe in maximal individual liberty -- the absolute maximum of individual liberty that a society can tolerate without anarchy. In this vision, government should be as small as possible, so as not to interfere with the liberty of the individual. Paul cemented himself in this camp in 1988, when he accepted the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. At the other end of the spectrum, liberals pursue the advancement of maximal corporate liberty, which is accomplished (in their thinking) by ensuring the rights of groups. A big government with expansive jurisdictions and prerogatives, then, is a necessary feature of the leftist vision for society. More often than not, though, ensuring group rights means trampling individual rights.
Ultimately, libertarians and liberals stand at opposite ends of the age-old problem of "the one and the many." Whereas libertarians champion the nearly unfettered rights of individuals (the many) at the expense of society, liberals demand rights for society (the one) to the detriment of society's individuals.
Unlike libertarianism or liberalism, conservatism seeks to reconcile the one and the many by means of a singular bedrock principle: government limited by the law. In American government, this commitment takes the form of constitutional constructionism -- the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the federal government is limited to those things explicitly set aside for it in the Constitution.
In our federal system, all other rights and responsibilities are left to the discretion of individuals and the states (the 9th and 10th Amendments). Federalism, then, is the hallmark of constitutionally limited government in our system. Under such a system, the federal government should actually be strong where it has a constitutional mandate to govern (contra libertarianism); this same strong government should be nonexistent where no constitutional mandate exists (contra liberalism).
Regrettably, there is little room for federalism among libertarians or liberals. The strange fact of the matter is that libertarians are becoming increasingly dissimilar to conservatives across a whole range of issues, and increasingly similar to liberals.
Nowhere is this truer for Ron Paul than with national-security issues -- the one area where the Constitution couldn't be more clear about the role of the federal government. One month after 9/11, Paul was one of three Republicans to vote against the Patriot Act. He was the lone member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (412-1) to inhibit the financing of terrorist groups, and he has been the most vocal of all anti-war Republicans when it comes to the Iraq war, which he repeatedly derides as an exercise in "empire building" and cavalierly dismisses as a war "sold to us with false information." While never actually embracing any of the conspiracy theories of the Iraq war, Paul's criticism repeatedly lends them credence.
This disagreement with Dr. Paul trumps all others and is why Paul will not be Commander in Chief. The only way to preserve American liberty is to defend it vigorously from hostile regimes, and the constitutional obligation of the federal government to do so is beyond dispute. To be sure, we want to defend American sovereignty without an expansion of the state, but Paul's view of Iraq as a "war of choice" conjured up by war profiteers and "a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy," is more than most conservatives can bear. We loved ye, Ron Paul, but we never knew ye.
(Publisher's Note: The Patriot's editors have provided Presidential Candidate Ratings on our Patriot Policy Papers page. These ratings are based on comprehensive analysis of many factors, including each candidate's record, experience, capability, character, leadership qualifications and, of course, demonstrated ability to grasp the plain language of our Constitution -- and promote it accordingly.)
McCain Calls It Like It Is!
This article is taken from:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/mccain_goes_after_obama_on_abo.asp
McCain Goes After Obama on Abortion
Via Jennifer Rubin, John McCain devotes his entire weekly radio address to criticizing Barack Obama's extremism on abortion, including Obama's vote on the born-alive bill (see the section in bold):
"The week began with a debate of sorts between Senator Obama and me at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. In case you missed it, the discussion yielded the line of the week, and maybe even of the campaign, when Pastor Rick Warren asked my opponent a very serious question. He wanted to know at what point, in my opponent's view, does a baby have human rights? Senator Obama thought about it for a moment, and came back with the reply that the question was, quote, "above my pay grade."
Here was a candidate for the presidency of the United States, asked for his position on one of the central moral and legal questions of our time, and this was the best he could offer: It's above his pay grade. He went on to assure his interviewer that there is a, quote, "moral and ethical element to this issue." Americans expect more of their leaders.
There seems to be a pattern here in my opponent's approach to many hard issues. Whether it's the surge in Iraq that has brought us near to victory, or the issue of campaign reform, or the question of offshore drilling, Senator Obama's speeches can be impressive. But when it's time for straight answers, clear conviction, and decisive action, suddenly all of these responsibilities are -- well, as he puts it, "above my pay grade." As mottos of leadership go, it doesn't exactly have the ring of "the buck stops here."
Often, too, Senator Obama's carefully hedged answers obscure more than they explain, and this was the case in his conversation with Rick Warren. Listening to my opponent at Saddleback, you would never know that this is a politician who long since left behind any middle ground on the abortion issue. He is against parental notification laws, and against restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation to prevent the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. Senator Obama opposed that bill, voting against it in committee and voting "present" on the Senate floor.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for babies who survive abortions -- living, breathing babies whom Senator Obama described as, quote, "previable." This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law, and Barack Obama voted against it.
At Saddleback, he assured a reporter that he'd have voted "yes" on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, "lying" about his record. When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn't withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama's campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false.
For a man who talks so often about "hope," Senator Obama doesn't offer much of it in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. His extreme advocacy in favor of partial birth abortion and his refusal to provide medical care for babies surviving abortion should be of grave concern to reasonable people of goodwill on both sides of this issue. There is a growing consensus in America that we need to overcome narrow partisanship on this issue for both women in need and the unborn. We need more of the compassion and moral idealism that my opponent's own party, at its best, once stood for. No one is above the law, and no one is beneath its protection.
Upholding these principles, and bringing Americans together on the side of life, is the work of leadership. And I can assure you that if I am president, advancing the cause of life will not be above my pay grade. Thanks for listening."
Posted by John McCormack on August 23, 2008 02:23 PM Permalink
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/mccain_goes_after_obama_on_abo.asp
McCain Goes After Obama on Abortion
Via Jennifer Rubin, John McCain devotes his entire weekly radio address to criticizing Barack Obama's extremism on abortion, including Obama's vote on the born-alive bill (see the section in bold):
"The week began with a debate of sorts between Senator Obama and me at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. In case you missed it, the discussion yielded the line of the week, and maybe even of the campaign, when Pastor Rick Warren asked my opponent a very serious question. He wanted to know at what point, in my opponent's view, does a baby have human rights? Senator Obama thought about it for a moment, and came back with the reply that the question was, quote, "above my pay grade."
Here was a candidate for the presidency of the United States, asked for his position on one of the central moral and legal questions of our time, and this was the best he could offer: It's above his pay grade. He went on to assure his interviewer that there is a, quote, "moral and ethical element to this issue." Americans expect more of their leaders.
There seems to be a pattern here in my opponent's approach to many hard issues. Whether it's the surge in Iraq that has brought us near to victory, or the issue of campaign reform, or the question of offshore drilling, Senator Obama's speeches can be impressive. But when it's time for straight answers, clear conviction, and decisive action, suddenly all of these responsibilities are -- well, as he puts it, "above my pay grade." As mottos of leadership go, it doesn't exactly have the ring of "the buck stops here."
Often, too, Senator Obama's carefully hedged answers obscure more than they explain, and this was the case in his conversation with Rick Warren. Listening to my opponent at Saddleback, you would never know that this is a politician who long since left behind any middle ground on the abortion issue. He is against parental notification laws, and against restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation to prevent the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. Senator Obama opposed that bill, voting against it in committee and voting "present" on the Senate floor.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for babies who survive abortions -- living, breathing babies whom Senator Obama described as, quote, "previable." This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law, and Barack Obama voted against it.
At Saddleback, he assured a reporter that he'd have voted "yes" on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, "lying" about his record. When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn't withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama's campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false.
For a man who talks so often about "hope," Senator Obama doesn't offer much of it in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. His extreme advocacy in favor of partial birth abortion and his refusal to provide medical care for babies surviving abortion should be of grave concern to reasonable people of goodwill on both sides of this issue. There is a growing consensus in America that we need to overcome narrow partisanship on this issue for both women in need and the unborn. We need more of the compassion and moral idealism that my opponent's own party, at its best, once stood for. No one is above the law, and no one is beneath its protection.
Upholding these principles, and bringing Americans together on the side of life, is the work of leadership. And I can assure you that if I am president, advancing the cause of life will not be above my pay grade. Thanks for listening."
Posted by John McCormack on August 23, 2008 02:23 PM Permalink
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Facebook Debate
Below is a debate that I have been engaged on Facebook, because of my blog about Obama and his symbol. It is always interesting to me the blogs people choose to call out, but none-the-less here it is. The only area I did not reply to on his comment is his telling me that I have to call out McCain as well. Actually, I do not, as it is my personal blog and my thoughts, but as I did state below I will at some point write on him. If I choose all positive for him and negative for Obama, then that will be my choice.
I am not using his name, I will just delineate between comments by using “him” and “me(Alan).”
Please add your thoughts and comments to this debate. Maybe I am missing something or wrong somewhere. I am always willing to learn with good evidence But, do not get into name calling, as I will not post the comment then. You can attack the premise and the argument, but please do not attack the person. You can attack me, that is fine, but not the other person.
(Him) Dude...McCain's plane doesn't have the flag on the tail either...There is a picture of it on one of the links you posted. I think if you are going to call out Obama and question his motives, than you have to call out McCain too. Also, with the lapel pin thing you mentioned in the beginning, I saw an interview with a Senator who was bashing Obama for not wearing one, while he himself was not wearing one on his jacket either! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5LZI50dMbM&feature=relatedCan we please stop writing about stupid nonsense and actually focus on issues...That would be great.PS: I hope India is great
(Me) First, did you actually read the articles connected. Second, anyone is able to write stupid nonsense in a free market. One can choose not to read it though. McCain's plane does have the flag on it, http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/04/tour-of-the-mccain-campaign-plane/, watch the whole video and you will see it on the plane. It is not on the tail.The point added with all my other blogs is that Obama is not to be trusted as our President and continues to make goofy decisions.Just as the Bible demonstrates time and again, symbolism means a lot. We create symbols for everything. Whether selling things, Golden Arches, to the book of Revelation describing things. So, to say that symbols are not important in society and our lives is in plain language ignorance.As far as the lapel pin, did you listen to the whole thing, as I think the Representative made good points. It is not about the wearing, but the refusal when asked.It is iteresting that a historian would compain about looking at symbols when history and a lot of major atrociities all had symbols tied to it, as do many major humanitarian groups on the other end, but in the end symbols say something, especially when one takes the time to redesign one for himself.
(Him) Yes I read the articles...And I'm not sure what the correct term would be, but its not free market...And lastly, every news article I've read says that congressman and women started wearing the flag lapel pins on 9/12 as a sign of support for 9/11 families and American troops...Is it a trend or something? Did they wear them after the Challenger blew up? Did they wear them after the Oklahoma City bombing? Did they wear them during Somalia? Why is this such an issue now? Obama said that he doesn’t wear it because he felt it became a substitute for his patriotism. That’s fine with me, considering I think what we are doing in the Middle East and around the world is wrong...It’s just like flying the flag on the 4th of July...Everyone does it, and then it goes back in the garage until next year...Or in this case until the next domestic disaster.PS: Ron Paul doesn't wear one ever.
(Me)So because it was not important in the past makes it alright that it is not important now? Or because it was important in the past it is important now? Maybe they learned from their mistake? Maybe they did not think of the lapel wearing until that time? None of the examples you gave were an attack against us by an outside force. How is the attack on 9/11 a domestic disaster, and not an attack on the U.S.? It is much different then the other examples you gave.That is only one side of the story as to what Obama said. Again, he is running to be the leader of the United States and what says that more to those Americans that fly their flags on July 4th, who is a very large voting constituency. Then most people should not go to church either under your philosophy. Since most do nothing the rest of the week with their as commanded by the Bible then they should just stay home.Maybe, even one day is better then no days. Focusing too much on the lapel pin is like focusing on the sapling in the forest. It is just one more thing taken together with my othe blogs.I would not vote for Ron Paul, either. I do not agree with the liberterian view point on a few issues. He is not worth writing about, because he is not even going to come close to winning, nor will he get that much press. The most he will do is pull some votes, but other then that he will be a blip on the sonar. Most college kids, majority of Ron Paul people, do not vote anyway.If Ron Paul were a factor and I disagreed with him about an issue like abortion, legalizing drugs (which I am against), the war (which I think may have had mistakes, but in the end is working out very well for Iraq and will in the end). I am against legalizing gay marriage (though I agree it should be at a state level, I have no problem with it being at the federal level, as it is a sin according to God.) I may add the lapel then.Why not an issue now? All things add up against the man.
(Him) I don't support Obama, or McCain for that matter...But I think it needs to be realized that Obama is going to be the next president whether we like it or not. I don't think that there will ever be a candidate that I can ever fully support…Unless someone invents a machine that makes people younger, allowing Ron Paul to run again. And I'll go ahead and state my opinions as well: Ron Paul is pro-life; he just feels it should be a state issue. Quote: “Isn’t killing a pregnant mother considered a double homicide?”I don't know if I have a firm opinion about legalizing drugs...But I don't feel that the Federal government has a right to tell people how to take care of themselves. The framers wouldn't stand for it. Not to mention we can't even keep drugs out of maximum security prisons…And couldn’t that money be better spent on something else?As for the war, the American people were lied too and the objective turned from finding the people who actually attacked us, to overthrowing Saddam, and invading a country that had done no harm to us. So I don't know what "working out very well for Iraq and in the end" looks like...But I'm pretty sure it will look almost just like the 38th parallel, and tons of money wasted.I'm pretty much over the lapel pin debate...I understood your points, just kinda chose not to care.Will I vote for Obama? No. Will I vote for McCain? No. Will Obama be President? Yes.I will however be voting for Ron Paul because he is the only one who wouldn't be lying when he said, "I swear to defend, protect, and uphold the Constitution of the United States." He already does that, and that’s really all we can ask for in a President.
(Me) My stating the abortion issue was not saying Ron Paul was for it, just giving my points about Obama. I do know he is pro-life. The legalizing drugs is a very interesting debate and have done it during my undergrad, and had to argue the positive side, which helped me to form my opinion even stronger. Just study "Needle Park" in Holland. When people are given free rain to choose sin without cause of hindrance they quite frequently choose sin. Is the health care system a mess, yes, but socialism nor free rain of drugs is going to help in my opinion. I personally believe that is why we have issues with a lot of things already. We do not enforce the laws today we have, and if we did then we would not have a lot of the issues. Yes, drugs are a problem in prisons, but as long as criminals are dead set on attaining something they usually can with enough resources. Same thing with guns. It is not the need for more laws, but the actual enforcement of those.The government, in using a Christian apriori guide, at least in conscience, is also designed to protect people from themselves in many ways, in the sense of sin, and we saw that in many laws that may have been rough and not necessarily right in their fashion, but were thinking they were sin in the Bible so should be in law. We have lost that as well. The war debate is a whole other monster in itself as well and were there again lies and mistakes, yes. But many of the blogs and new stories I have read from people who have been over there talking to the leaders have said that Iraqi is becoming more and more free and their finance system is gaining and they are starting to function. Why would Holiday Inn and Disney buy property otherwise? They are business people and follow where they think the money will be. Saddam was a tyrant and what he did to others was horrendous and he deserved to lose his reign. Why not in other countries then? Look how people respond when we do help and when we don't? continued
We did not go into many places we should of helped under a few Presidents. And this President has made some serious errors in many areas in my opinion as well, but I still would prefer him over Kerry or Gore anyday.If we do not stay there and make sure the transition and peace for the majority part is settled then we will have more terrorism here, which again is what I have been told by soldiers that were there and reading some intelligence (i use the term lightly here) reports. It will show we are afraid and they will take advantage of it. Why do we say we should have been in Somolia and not Iraqi when Saddam was killing in just as viscious ways and from over the years just as many people, his own people? Maybe I am wrong, just a question that comes to mind.As to my voting. I will not vote for Obama. The only way I would personally vote for McCain is if the V.P. of choice lined up and I looked to him running 4 years from now, or possibly being President if McCain died of old age, which is quite the possibility. What will I do otherwise? If between McCain w/ a liberal VP, Obama & Paul then I would vote for Paul if Keyes is not on the ticket.I commend you by voting your conscience and sticking to it. I know you are one that will vote and not just sit on the sideline and make comments and then make an excuse not to get to the polls.Will I be writing on McCain and the shortcomings there, yes. I just have been hearing about too many Emergent, liberal, and other Christians thinking about Obama. I cannot fathom why as Christians they can consider him.McCain does have a 5% lead right now. Question, as I may not remember correctly, but wasn't Reagan losing badly by polls in his first campaign? Not that McCain is Reagan, just a polling thing.
(Him) "Is the health care system a mess, yes, but socialism nor free rain of drugs is going to help in my opinion."I agree that socialism will not help the health care system...But on the issue of "the free rain of drugs" people are seriously mistaking the function of government if we think its job is to regulate bad habits. That’s my point and all I really have to say about it."If we do not stay there and make sure the transition and peace for the majority part is settled then we will have more terrorism here, which again is what I have been told by soldiers that were there and reading some intelligence (i use the term lightly here) reports."I don't know what soldiers you have been talking to and if that really is their opinion than that’s fine. But to say that there will be more terrorism here if we are not "over there" is absolutely ridiculous.
"Why not in other countries then? Look how people respond when we do help and when we don't?"Here is the reason why...I can't stand it when people say stuff like this..."Lets go invade all of the other nations in the world that are run by a brutal dictator and force them to become just like us!" Are you kidding me? The only reason needed to totally dub this statement as crazy is the constitution. We can't go to war without a declaration of war! And the President has no right to sign executive orders giving him the power to do so! With how much you read you should know that it is our being "over there" in the first place that causes the terrorism. Islam has been around for a long time and America has been a country for a long time...They didn't start blowing us up until we decided that it was cool for us to park our F-15s next to their holy sites. Read the 9/11 commission report and listen to Bin Laden’s reasons for attacking us. What would we as Americans say if China said, "Hey we are going to build military bases in California” We would be outraged. Finally, why do you think we didn't go into other places around the world under other presidents? Because those places didn't have anything to offer us, aka oil. We don't give a crap about Sudan or the rest of Africa for that matter.Very neo-con of you to think this way…
(Me) What do you mean the government does not make laws against what you call bad habits and I call sin? You do not think drug addicts would affect you and your life, your fooling yourself? Look at what gambling does to communities once it moves in. Again, did you look up Needle Park in Holland. They would intrude on our freedoms, because drug addicts steal, murder, rape, and do many other atrocities. Look at what happens with legalized drinking. I have friends die b/c of alcohol. Many atrocities in America have happened b/c people are under the influence. Every law has a moral implication to it. It is just whose morals? Why would I listen to Bin Laden's reasons for attacking him? That would be like listening to Hitler why we attacked him? Should we have left Hitler alone? Maybe as well we should have just let Pear Harbor alone as well and not retaliated? Are you against Afghanistan as well?Iraqi, for the majority is happy we are there. I have my doubts that you read the entire 9/11 report to ask me if I have read it. My guess is like every other person who complains you have taken what the "neo-liberals."Again, like most people who do not know how to debate, you take the questions as my opinion and not just for thought. And then you retaliate by calling names. Very mature debating. You should go on the road with the other liberals with your debate skills. You are on your way to becoming a great machine for them. When you move to name calling in debating you have lost. It is simplistic and lacks any form of intelligence.
I hear these cries about Sudan and all these other places. What are you doing about it? How have you tried to help? What are you doing? Again, complain, complain, but no action. Another liberal tactic. I want to complain and point the finger but not do anything but call names. How about locally? Do you help the people in our community in any fashion? Do you volunteer in any way or do anything at all? I am curious. Maybe you do. It would at least give you more substance for complaining. Yes, I did in a few ways. Free counseling, sitting on boards, working with the Youth Dept.'s and giving financially to organizations.
I have also talked to people on all sides of the isle and not just who agrees with me and what I think, and that seems to be all I hear.It seems to apply to all areas of life in people I debate like this. They complain about church, community and life but sit on the sidelines and do nothing. They like to gossip, but not take much action besides voting. That is barely anything at all, very easy. I am hoping this is not you. So, I await to see what you have done and what you are doing to help the areas you complain about become better. Or what you are doing in the community.
I am not using his name, I will just delineate between comments by using “him” and “me(Alan).”
Please add your thoughts and comments to this debate. Maybe I am missing something or wrong somewhere. I am always willing to learn with good evidence But, do not get into name calling, as I will not post the comment then. You can attack the premise and the argument, but please do not attack the person. You can attack me, that is fine, but not the other person.
(Him) Dude...McCain's plane doesn't have the flag on the tail either...There is a picture of it on one of the links you posted. I think if you are going to call out Obama and question his motives, than you have to call out McCain too. Also, with the lapel pin thing you mentioned in the beginning, I saw an interview with a Senator who was bashing Obama for not wearing one, while he himself was not wearing one on his jacket either! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5LZI50dMbM&feature=relatedCan we please stop writing about stupid nonsense and actually focus on issues...That would be great.PS: I hope India is great
(Me) First, did you actually read the articles connected. Second, anyone is able to write stupid nonsense in a free market. One can choose not to read it though. McCain's plane does have the flag on it, http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/04/tour-of-the-mccain-campaign-plane/, watch the whole video and you will see it on the plane. It is not on the tail.The point added with all my other blogs is that Obama is not to be trusted as our President and continues to make goofy decisions.Just as the Bible demonstrates time and again, symbolism means a lot. We create symbols for everything. Whether selling things, Golden Arches, to the book of Revelation describing things. So, to say that symbols are not important in society and our lives is in plain language ignorance.As far as the lapel pin, did you listen to the whole thing, as I think the Representative made good points. It is not about the wearing, but the refusal when asked.It is iteresting that a historian would compain about looking at symbols when history and a lot of major atrociities all had symbols tied to it, as do many major humanitarian groups on the other end, but in the end symbols say something, especially when one takes the time to redesign one for himself.
(Him) Yes I read the articles...And I'm not sure what the correct term would be, but its not free market...And lastly, every news article I've read says that congressman and women started wearing the flag lapel pins on 9/12 as a sign of support for 9/11 families and American troops...Is it a trend or something? Did they wear them after the Challenger blew up? Did they wear them after the Oklahoma City bombing? Did they wear them during Somalia? Why is this such an issue now? Obama said that he doesn’t wear it because he felt it became a substitute for his patriotism. That’s fine with me, considering I think what we are doing in the Middle East and around the world is wrong...It’s just like flying the flag on the 4th of July...Everyone does it, and then it goes back in the garage until next year...Or in this case until the next domestic disaster.PS: Ron Paul doesn't wear one ever.
(Me)So because it was not important in the past makes it alright that it is not important now? Or because it was important in the past it is important now? Maybe they learned from their mistake? Maybe they did not think of the lapel wearing until that time? None of the examples you gave were an attack against us by an outside force. How is the attack on 9/11 a domestic disaster, and not an attack on the U.S.? It is much different then the other examples you gave.That is only one side of the story as to what Obama said. Again, he is running to be the leader of the United States and what says that more to those Americans that fly their flags on July 4th, who is a very large voting constituency. Then most people should not go to church either under your philosophy. Since most do nothing the rest of the week with their as commanded by the Bible then they should just stay home.Maybe, even one day is better then no days. Focusing too much on the lapel pin is like focusing on the sapling in the forest. It is just one more thing taken together with my othe blogs.I would not vote for Ron Paul, either. I do not agree with the liberterian view point on a few issues. He is not worth writing about, because he is not even going to come close to winning, nor will he get that much press. The most he will do is pull some votes, but other then that he will be a blip on the sonar. Most college kids, majority of Ron Paul people, do not vote anyway.If Ron Paul were a factor and I disagreed with him about an issue like abortion, legalizing drugs (which I am against), the war (which I think may have had mistakes, but in the end is working out very well for Iraq and will in the end). I am against legalizing gay marriage (though I agree it should be at a state level, I have no problem with it being at the federal level, as it is a sin according to God.) I may add the lapel then.Why not an issue now? All things add up against the man.
(Him) I don't support Obama, or McCain for that matter...But I think it needs to be realized that Obama is going to be the next president whether we like it or not. I don't think that there will ever be a candidate that I can ever fully support…Unless someone invents a machine that makes people younger, allowing Ron Paul to run again. And I'll go ahead and state my opinions as well: Ron Paul is pro-life; he just feels it should be a state issue. Quote: “Isn’t killing a pregnant mother considered a double homicide?”I don't know if I have a firm opinion about legalizing drugs...But I don't feel that the Federal government has a right to tell people how to take care of themselves. The framers wouldn't stand for it. Not to mention we can't even keep drugs out of maximum security prisons…And couldn’t that money be better spent on something else?As for the war, the American people were lied too and the objective turned from finding the people who actually attacked us, to overthrowing Saddam, and invading a country that had done no harm to us. So I don't know what "working out very well for Iraq and in the end" looks like...But I'm pretty sure it will look almost just like the 38th parallel, and tons of money wasted.I'm pretty much over the lapel pin debate...I understood your points, just kinda chose not to care.Will I vote for Obama? No. Will I vote for McCain? No. Will Obama be President? Yes.I will however be voting for Ron Paul because he is the only one who wouldn't be lying when he said, "I swear to defend, protect, and uphold the Constitution of the United States." He already does that, and that’s really all we can ask for in a President.
(Me) My stating the abortion issue was not saying Ron Paul was for it, just giving my points about Obama. I do know he is pro-life. The legalizing drugs is a very interesting debate and have done it during my undergrad, and had to argue the positive side, which helped me to form my opinion even stronger. Just study "Needle Park" in Holland. When people are given free rain to choose sin without cause of hindrance they quite frequently choose sin. Is the health care system a mess, yes, but socialism nor free rain of drugs is going to help in my opinion. I personally believe that is why we have issues with a lot of things already. We do not enforce the laws today we have, and if we did then we would not have a lot of the issues. Yes, drugs are a problem in prisons, but as long as criminals are dead set on attaining something they usually can with enough resources. Same thing with guns. It is not the need for more laws, but the actual enforcement of those.The government, in using a Christian apriori guide, at least in conscience, is also designed to protect people from themselves in many ways, in the sense of sin, and we saw that in many laws that may have been rough and not necessarily right in their fashion, but were thinking they were sin in the Bible so should be in law. We have lost that as well. The war debate is a whole other monster in itself as well and were there again lies and mistakes, yes. But many of the blogs and new stories I have read from people who have been over there talking to the leaders have said that Iraqi is becoming more and more free and their finance system is gaining and they are starting to function. Why would Holiday Inn and Disney buy property otherwise? They are business people and follow where they think the money will be. Saddam was a tyrant and what he did to others was horrendous and he deserved to lose his reign. Why not in other countries then? Look how people respond when we do help and when we don't? continued
We did not go into many places we should of helped under a few Presidents. And this President has made some serious errors in many areas in my opinion as well, but I still would prefer him over Kerry or Gore anyday.If we do not stay there and make sure the transition and peace for the majority part is settled then we will have more terrorism here, which again is what I have been told by soldiers that were there and reading some intelligence (i use the term lightly here) reports. It will show we are afraid and they will take advantage of it. Why do we say we should have been in Somolia and not Iraqi when Saddam was killing in just as viscious ways and from over the years just as many people, his own people? Maybe I am wrong, just a question that comes to mind.As to my voting. I will not vote for Obama. The only way I would personally vote for McCain is if the V.P. of choice lined up and I looked to him running 4 years from now, or possibly being President if McCain died of old age, which is quite the possibility. What will I do otherwise? If between McCain w/ a liberal VP, Obama & Paul then I would vote for Paul if Keyes is not on the ticket.I commend you by voting your conscience and sticking to it. I know you are one that will vote and not just sit on the sideline and make comments and then make an excuse not to get to the polls.Will I be writing on McCain and the shortcomings there, yes. I just have been hearing about too many Emergent, liberal, and other Christians thinking about Obama. I cannot fathom why as Christians they can consider him.McCain does have a 5% lead right now. Question, as I may not remember correctly, but wasn't Reagan losing badly by polls in his first campaign? Not that McCain is Reagan, just a polling thing.
(Him) "Is the health care system a mess, yes, but socialism nor free rain of drugs is going to help in my opinion."I agree that socialism will not help the health care system...But on the issue of "the free rain of drugs" people are seriously mistaking the function of government if we think its job is to regulate bad habits. That’s my point and all I really have to say about it."If we do not stay there and make sure the transition and peace for the majority part is settled then we will have more terrorism here, which again is what I have been told by soldiers that were there and reading some intelligence (i use the term lightly here) reports."I don't know what soldiers you have been talking to and if that really is their opinion than that’s fine. But to say that there will be more terrorism here if we are not "over there" is absolutely ridiculous.
"Why not in other countries then? Look how people respond when we do help and when we don't?"Here is the reason why...I can't stand it when people say stuff like this..."Lets go invade all of the other nations in the world that are run by a brutal dictator and force them to become just like us!" Are you kidding me? The only reason needed to totally dub this statement as crazy is the constitution. We can't go to war without a declaration of war! And the President has no right to sign executive orders giving him the power to do so! With how much you read you should know that it is our being "over there" in the first place that causes the terrorism. Islam has been around for a long time and America has been a country for a long time...They didn't start blowing us up until we decided that it was cool for us to park our F-15s next to their holy sites. Read the 9/11 commission report and listen to Bin Laden’s reasons for attacking us. What would we as Americans say if China said, "Hey we are going to build military bases in California” We would be outraged. Finally, why do you think we didn't go into other places around the world under other presidents? Because those places didn't have anything to offer us, aka oil. We don't give a crap about Sudan or the rest of Africa for that matter.Very neo-con of you to think this way…
(Me) What do you mean the government does not make laws against what you call bad habits and I call sin? You do not think drug addicts would affect you and your life, your fooling yourself? Look at what gambling does to communities once it moves in. Again, did you look up Needle Park in Holland. They would intrude on our freedoms, because drug addicts steal, murder, rape, and do many other atrocities. Look at what happens with legalized drinking. I have friends die b/c of alcohol. Many atrocities in America have happened b/c people are under the influence. Every law has a moral implication to it. It is just whose morals? Why would I listen to Bin Laden's reasons for attacking him? That would be like listening to Hitler why we attacked him? Should we have left Hitler alone? Maybe as well we should have just let Pear Harbor alone as well and not retaliated? Are you against Afghanistan as well?Iraqi, for the majority is happy we are there. I have my doubts that you read the entire 9/11 report to ask me if I have read it. My guess is like every other person who complains you have taken what the "neo-liberals."Again, like most people who do not know how to debate, you take the questions as my opinion and not just for thought. And then you retaliate by calling names. Very mature debating. You should go on the road with the other liberals with your debate skills. You are on your way to becoming a great machine for them. When you move to name calling in debating you have lost. It is simplistic and lacks any form of intelligence.
I hear these cries about Sudan and all these other places. What are you doing about it? How have you tried to help? What are you doing? Again, complain, complain, but no action. Another liberal tactic. I want to complain and point the finger but not do anything but call names. How about locally? Do you help the people in our community in any fashion? Do you volunteer in any way or do anything at all? I am curious. Maybe you do. It would at least give you more substance for complaining. Yes, I did in a few ways. Free counseling, sitting on boards, working with the Youth Dept.'s and giving financially to organizations.
I have also talked to people on all sides of the isle and not just who agrees with me and what I think, and that seems to be all I hear.It seems to apply to all areas of life in people I debate like this. They complain about church, community and life but sit on the sidelines and do nothing. They like to gossip, but not take much action besides voting. That is barely anything at all, very easy. I am hoping this is not you. So, I await to see what you have done and what you are doing to help the areas you complain about become better. Or what you are doing in the community.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Unites States of 'O'
Please read these three links prior to my blog, as it will help with understanding and give credibility to my thoughts, at least a little.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70236
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/airplane.asp
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/american_flag_disappears_from.html
If you have not seen this report yet, I would not be surprised, as most media outlets are not paying much attention. Some will say, big deal, they guy takes the flag off the plane and puts “his” own symbol on the plane that he uses to run for President of the United States. To me this is much bigger then him throwing a hissy fit because people wanted him to where a flag lapel pin, which still says a lot about him. He is making the Presidency about him and not the country. It is becoming a self-propagating system, and not about what is best for the country.
The man is saying that he loves himself and what we should stand for as a nation should be him. Now that is change! By taking the flag off the plane and making his own personal symbol with the exact same colors of the flag demonstrates arrogance in his personality and someone that loves to promote himself above anything else. Is he going to change the flags to his ‘O’ symbol around his offices in the White House, were he to win? Then we will be a double ‘O’ nation, Oprah and Obama. Fitting!
Symbols are an important part of our society, no matter whether you are liberal or conservative. Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus all have symbols that surround the worship and religious beliefs. Republicans have the elephant and Democrats have the donkey. We use symbols in everyday life all over the world. The flag is the symbol of our country and says who we are as a nation. It is not to be an idol, but it can serve as symbolic of our principles and beliefs. I start to wonder what his true motives to becoming President are. Why does he really want to be President? To serve or to be served? His new symbol promoting himself says a lot to me and just adds to the many reasons why this man should not be our President.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70236
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/airplane.asp
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/american_flag_disappears_from.html
If you have not seen this report yet, I would not be surprised, as most media outlets are not paying much attention. Some will say, big deal, they guy takes the flag off the plane and puts “his” own symbol on the plane that he uses to run for President of the United States. To me this is much bigger then him throwing a hissy fit because people wanted him to where a flag lapel pin, which still says a lot about him. He is making the Presidency about him and not the country. It is becoming a self-propagating system, and not about what is best for the country.
The man is saying that he loves himself and what we should stand for as a nation should be him. Now that is change! By taking the flag off the plane and making his own personal symbol with the exact same colors of the flag demonstrates arrogance in his personality and someone that loves to promote himself above anything else. Is he going to change the flags to his ‘O’ symbol around his offices in the White House, were he to win? Then we will be a double ‘O’ nation, Oprah and Obama. Fitting!
Symbols are an important part of our society, no matter whether you are liberal or conservative. Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus all have symbols that surround the worship and religious beliefs. Republicans have the elephant and Democrats have the donkey. We use symbols in everyday life all over the world. The flag is the symbol of our country and says who we are as a nation. It is not to be an idol, but it can serve as symbolic of our principles and beliefs. I start to wonder what his true motives to becoming President are. Why does he really want to be President? To serve or to be served? His new symbol promoting himself says a lot to me and just adds to the many reasons why this man should not be our President.
Obama & Warren
Yet, again, Obama demonstrates why he should not be elected President. He also demonstrates why no Christian should be voting for him. From his own quotes he demonstrates his lack of Biblical Christian understanding, lack of Christian values and his lack of care for human life.
Warren is just as guilty, as he should never give any person who supports abortion a platform in the house of God. Instead of giving a platform, Rick Warren should have been correcting Obama, as he is a professing believer, over his statements about abortion and same-sex marriage. But nothing was said, as we do not want to offend these days.
I am only going to focus on one of Obama’s statements, as it should disqualify him as our President who when asked the tough questions says, “I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.” What? He is the President and he is to lead the nation. Why does he think turning the question over to the people is not above their pay grade? It is a cop-out answer. Will he use this when dealing with foreign affairs, “I am not a historian or a national of their country, so I cannot comment on their suicide bombings, because that is above my pay grade.” Seems to me that answer will fit everything while he is doing nothing as a President. But I digress.
At his first statement, Obama makes it sound like he wants a Christian culture and values when he says, “We still don’t abide by that basic precept of Matthew — whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me,” but then he goes on and contradicts himself no more then a few statements later.
Obama says on abortion, “On this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception ... and you are consistent, then I can’t argue with you on that,” he said. “What I can do is say are there ways we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?” He supports Roe v. Wade, therefore does not believe in life at conception. Even says that he cannot argue with the consistent view of life at conception, but then goes on to say that he still wants Roe v. Wade, but will be willing to work on ways to slow the killing of babies down. Of course, he tries to flower it by saying that he wants to help slow down some unwanted pregnancies. How about adoption? How about telling them to stop having sex? I know, they are going to anyway. Well, then there is something called responsibility. Obama wants the continuation of legalized murder.
How does abortion even line up with the first quote above that he says we are not treating the least of my brothers and sisters? I think killing them is not the greatest way to treat them. If unborn babies are not the least of our family, in the sense of unable to help themselves, then I am not sure who is. They did not choose to be here, the two people having sex made that decision. Obama’s way of helping is to kill them. That sounds exactly like how Hitler was going to help his country by killing off the Jews. As is said in the movie Horton Hears a Who, “A person is a person no matter how small.” Murdering innocent people to further your agenda, whether a tyrant or running for office, is never acceptable in any circumstance.
To vote for Obama is to vote for murder of the innocent, no matter how great you think the rest of his plans are. Obama is not for change, as we already have acceptable murder. Change would be someone who will fight for our unborn children. There is plenty of room for the unborn on this planet, and yes there are plenty of parents that will adopt new born babies. There are waiting lists. Murder is neither change nor the answer!
Luke 17:2 says, “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”
What worse offense is there then killing them?
Warren is just as guilty, as he should never give any person who supports abortion a platform in the house of God. Instead of giving a platform, Rick Warren should have been correcting Obama, as he is a professing believer, over his statements about abortion and same-sex marriage. But nothing was said, as we do not want to offend these days.
I am only going to focus on one of Obama’s statements, as it should disqualify him as our President who when asked the tough questions says, “I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.” What? He is the President and he is to lead the nation. Why does he think turning the question over to the people is not above their pay grade? It is a cop-out answer. Will he use this when dealing with foreign affairs, “I am not a historian or a national of their country, so I cannot comment on their suicide bombings, because that is above my pay grade.” Seems to me that answer will fit everything while he is doing nothing as a President. But I digress.
At his first statement, Obama makes it sound like he wants a Christian culture and values when he says, “We still don’t abide by that basic precept of Matthew — whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me,” but then he goes on and contradicts himself no more then a few statements later.
Obama says on abortion, “On this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception ... and you are consistent, then I can’t argue with you on that,” he said. “What I can do is say are there ways we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?” He supports Roe v. Wade, therefore does not believe in life at conception. Even says that he cannot argue with the consistent view of life at conception, but then goes on to say that he still wants Roe v. Wade, but will be willing to work on ways to slow the killing of babies down. Of course, he tries to flower it by saying that he wants to help slow down some unwanted pregnancies. How about adoption? How about telling them to stop having sex? I know, they are going to anyway. Well, then there is something called responsibility. Obama wants the continuation of legalized murder.
How does abortion even line up with the first quote above that he says we are not treating the least of my brothers and sisters? I think killing them is not the greatest way to treat them. If unborn babies are not the least of our family, in the sense of unable to help themselves, then I am not sure who is. They did not choose to be here, the two people having sex made that decision. Obama’s way of helping is to kill them. That sounds exactly like how Hitler was going to help his country by killing off the Jews. As is said in the movie Horton Hears a Who, “A person is a person no matter how small.” Murdering innocent people to further your agenda, whether a tyrant or running for office, is never acceptable in any circumstance.
To vote for Obama is to vote for murder of the innocent, no matter how great you think the rest of his plans are. Obama is not for change, as we already have acceptable murder. Change would be someone who will fight for our unborn children. There is plenty of room for the unborn on this planet, and yes there are plenty of parents that will adopt new born babies. There are waiting lists. Murder is neither change nor the answer!
Luke 17:2 says, “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”
What worse offense is there then killing them?
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Slums & Cemeteries
Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”
It is a nice day out. The breeze is warm, the sun is shining and it is just the picture perfect day for a walk. As you are walking and enjoying the beautiful day, you walk past a cemetery. It is manicured half-decently, but can tell it is not a priority of the green keepers. You look over and see a group of people sitting on the ground. One is standing and looks to be telling the group something, and by his expression it appears to be very important.
You wonder why in the world is that group of people sitting in a cemetery, and what is so important? Are they some weird cult trying to bring back the spirit of some long lost relative, or some quasi-important person of the past? Maybe they are one of those weird Gothic Poetry clubs, but they are not all dressed in black. They are though dressed in very tattered clothes and now that you are closer, you can see that they do not appear to be washed either.
Now you are in ear shot and realize that this is a church service going on. Why would anyone hold a church service in a graveyard? It seems a little morbid, doesn’t it? This is exactly where Pastor Philip of Mysore, India has started his second church that reaches out to the slum people (their words not mine). Still, why a graveyard? It is because they already have a church in their home and then there is still much persecution in Mysore, so there is no way to attain a building and the people that come do not have homes, and it is too far to travel to their home. This is the best place they have to hold a service and not be bothered by superstitious Hindus. Like we would think, most passing by would not think it was a Church Service.
When he told me this I did not know how to respond. I thought he was joking with me at first, but there was no punch line. This man of God takes the Bible to the people, wherever they allow him to preach it, even with the threat of real persecution. Amazing! If the poor in your community asked you to come to your local graveyard to teach a Bible Study or preach the Word, would you? Or would you make some excuse that you are not qualified or not enough time? If not you, then who?
If you do not think you are qualified to lead at least a Bible study then you better go and learn how, as you are required by 1 Peter 3:15 to be ready with answers. The great commandment also tells us to go forth and make disciples. How can you do that if you can not teach someone about the Inerrant Word of God?
Psalm 126:5-6, “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.”
It is a nice day out. The breeze is warm, the sun is shining and it is just the picture perfect day for a walk. As you are walking and enjoying the beautiful day, you walk past a cemetery. It is manicured half-decently, but can tell it is not a priority of the green keepers. You look over and see a group of people sitting on the ground. One is standing and looks to be telling the group something, and by his expression it appears to be very important.
You wonder why in the world is that group of people sitting in a cemetery, and what is so important? Are they some weird cult trying to bring back the spirit of some long lost relative, or some quasi-important person of the past? Maybe they are one of those weird Gothic Poetry clubs, but they are not all dressed in black. They are though dressed in very tattered clothes and now that you are closer, you can see that they do not appear to be washed either.
Now you are in ear shot and realize that this is a church service going on. Why would anyone hold a church service in a graveyard? It seems a little morbid, doesn’t it? This is exactly where Pastor Philip of Mysore, India has started his second church that reaches out to the slum people (their words not mine). Still, why a graveyard? It is because they already have a church in their home and then there is still much persecution in Mysore, so there is no way to attain a building and the people that come do not have homes, and it is too far to travel to their home. This is the best place they have to hold a service and not be bothered by superstitious Hindus. Like we would think, most passing by would not think it was a Church Service.
When he told me this I did not know how to respond. I thought he was joking with me at first, but there was no punch line. This man of God takes the Bible to the people, wherever they allow him to preach it, even with the threat of real persecution. Amazing! If the poor in your community asked you to come to your local graveyard to teach a Bible Study or preach the Word, would you? Or would you make some excuse that you are not qualified or not enough time? If not you, then who?
If you do not think you are qualified to lead at least a Bible study then you better go and learn how, as you are required by 1 Peter 3:15 to be ready with answers. The great commandment also tells us to go forth and make disciples. How can you do that if you can not teach someone about the Inerrant Word of God?
Psalm 126:5-6, “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.”
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Love Humanity?
Song of Solomon 5:10, “My beloved is all radiant and ruddy, distinguished among ten thousand.”
Have you ever thought about the statement that we should love humanity? Where does this come from? This blog is a process of figuring it out; a rambling of my thoughts about the statement. If anyone has answers or suggestions to add or take away then please comment.
Isn’t our love for an individual? Do we not love the individual and not “humans” in general? We can give our love to our family, to our friends, and to our neighbors through actions and words. How do you do this for humanity? True love is individualistic, just as Christ has a personal relationship with each of us.
When we get jealous, is it because of humanity or an individual? I know for me it is an individual and I want attention from an individual, and not from humanity. If we started to teach people about the great commandment it would change the world. It tells us to love our neighbors, and not “humanity.” If we took care of our neighbors, there would be no need to love “humanity.” No where in Scripture do I find a commandment telling us to love humanity, but you can search and find many that tell us to love one another as neighbors.
Dr. Peter Kreeft puts it this way, “How comfortable “humanity” is! “Humanity” never shows up at your door at the most inconvenient time. “Humanity” is not quarrelsome, alcoholic, or fanatical. “Humanity” never has the wrong political, religious, and sexual opinions. “Humanity” is never slimy, swarmy, smarmy, smelly, or smutty. “Humanity” is so ideal that one could easily die for it. But to die for your neighbor, to die for Sam Slug or Mehetibel Crotchit—unthinkable. Except for love.”
Take this concept and apply it to the political race or current Christian fads. They both focus on humanity, race or a large group of people and not true personal compassion that comes from loving your neighbor with all their flaws, personality defects, and eccentricities. One is easy to fake or send a dollar to support and feel good about, thinking you are helping the human race. The other takes real personal sacrifice, because you know that you may not receive the appreciation one expects, or some fancy recognition in a plaque for all your donations.
Christ demonstrated this by dying on the cross for each of us. He desires a personal relationship with you and me, individually. He does not treat us as some informal group of people, “humanity,” but as an individual sinner in need of salvation that is offered to each of us as a person and not as a group. When you accept Christ it is for you and not a group of people.
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34).
Have you ever thought about the statement that we should love humanity? Where does this come from? This blog is a process of figuring it out; a rambling of my thoughts about the statement. If anyone has answers or suggestions to add or take away then please comment.
Isn’t our love for an individual? Do we not love the individual and not “humans” in general? We can give our love to our family, to our friends, and to our neighbors through actions and words. How do you do this for humanity? True love is individualistic, just as Christ has a personal relationship with each of us.
When we get jealous, is it because of humanity or an individual? I know for me it is an individual and I want attention from an individual, and not from humanity. If we started to teach people about the great commandment it would change the world. It tells us to love our neighbors, and not “humanity.” If we took care of our neighbors, there would be no need to love “humanity.” No where in Scripture do I find a commandment telling us to love humanity, but you can search and find many that tell us to love one another as neighbors.
Dr. Peter Kreeft puts it this way, “How comfortable “humanity” is! “Humanity” never shows up at your door at the most inconvenient time. “Humanity” is not quarrelsome, alcoholic, or fanatical. “Humanity” never has the wrong political, religious, and sexual opinions. “Humanity” is never slimy, swarmy, smarmy, smelly, or smutty. “Humanity” is so ideal that one could easily die for it. But to die for your neighbor, to die for Sam Slug or Mehetibel Crotchit—unthinkable. Except for love.”
Take this concept and apply it to the political race or current Christian fads. They both focus on humanity, race or a large group of people and not true personal compassion that comes from loving your neighbor with all their flaws, personality defects, and eccentricities. One is easy to fake or send a dollar to support and feel good about, thinking you are helping the human race. The other takes real personal sacrifice, because you know that you may not receive the appreciation one expects, or some fancy recognition in a plaque for all your donations.
Christ demonstrated this by dying on the cross for each of us. He desires a personal relationship with you and me, individually. He does not treat us as some informal group of people, “humanity,” but as an individual sinner in need of salvation that is offered to each of us as a person and not as a group. When you accept Christ it is for you and not a group of people.
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34).
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Very Interesting Article
The Prophet at Harvard
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/08/05/the-prophet-at-harvard/
Posted Aug 5th 2008 11:39AM by Dinesh D'SouzaFiled under: Breaking News, Cultural Left, Controversy
Imagine the scene at Harvard in the spring of 1978 when Alexander Solzhenitsyn gave his now-famous address. Solzhenitsyn had already won the Nobel Prize for The Gulag Archipelago and other great works exposing the murderous nature of atheist Communism. But at Harvard Solzhenitsyn touched on a topic much closer to home.
Even though he was second to none in his denunciation of totalitarian socialism, Solzhenitsyn said, "should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively." The whole address is worth reading, but here are some highlights.
On the lack of courage in facing a totalitarian enemy: "The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country...and of course in the United Nations....Such a decline is especially notable among ruling groups and the intellectual elite....They get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists."
On how materialism makes a nation soft: "Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the pursuit of happiness...So why and for what should one risk one's precious life in defense of common values and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one's nation must be defended in a distant country?"
On what has happened to the rule of law: "People in the West has acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law....If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody might mention that one could still not be entirely right and urge a willingness to show restraint or sacrifice. Everybody operates at the extreme limits of those legal frames....A society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed, but a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either."
On the rights of criminals: "Legal frames especially in the United States are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of legions of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases."
On the abuses of freedom: "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Soceity appears to have litle defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror...Such a tilt of freedom in the directionof evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born out of a humanistic concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature."
On freedom of the press: "The press, too, enjoys the widest freedom. But what use does it make of this freedom? The press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, and without any verification? Thus we see terrorists made into heroes, or secret matters pertaining to the national defense publicly revealed, or shameful intrusion into the privacy of people under the false slogan: everyone has the right to know everything."
On the atrophy of the spiritual life: "Mere freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds some new ones....We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life."
Thirty years ago, the very chattering classes mentioned in Solzhenitsyn's address ridiculed the man as a reactionary and a crank. The literary critic Susan Sontag describes Manhattan cocktail parties at which the cultural left would laugh at Solzhenitsyn. No one--certainly not liberals and libertarians--wanted to hear what the New York Times called Solzhenitsyn's "hectoring jeremiads."
But today when you go to Asia you hear everywhere the slogan, "Modernization, yes; Westernization, no." Throughout the Muslim world there is a reaction--exploited of course by the Islamic radicals--against what is perceived as the shamelessness and decadence of Western values and culture. Even in the West there is deep ambivalence about what has happened to cherished notions of liberty, the rule of law, freedom of the press, and the pursuit of happiness.
We don't have to agree with Solzhenitsyn on everything to say that, far from being a reactionary, here was a man who was ahead of his time in diagnosing some of the serious ailments of the modern era. Not only was he right about the Gulag; in many respects this forlorn Russian hermit was also right about us.
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/08/05/the-prophet-at-harvard/
Posted Aug 5th 2008 11:39AM by Dinesh D'SouzaFiled under: Breaking News, Cultural Left, Controversy
Imagine the scene at Harvard in the spring of 1978 when Alexander Solzhenitsyn gave his now-famous address. Solzhenitsyn had already won the Nobel Prize for The Gulag Archipelago and other great works exposing the murderous nature of atheist Communism. But at Harvard Solzhenitsyn touched on a topic much closer to home.
Even though he was second to none in his denunciation of totalitarian socialism, Solzhenitsyn said, "should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively." The whole address is worth reading, but here are some highlights.
On the lack of courage in facing a totalitarian enemy: "The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country...and of course in the United Nations....Such a decline is especially notable among ruling groups and the intellectual elite....They get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists."
On how materialism makes a nation soft: "Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the pursuit of happiness...So why and for what should one risk one's precious life in defense of common values and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one's nation must be defended in a distant country?"
On what has happened to the rule of law: "People in the West has acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law....If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody might mention that one could still not be entirely right and urge a willingness to show restraint or sacrifice. Everybody operates at the extreme limits of those legal frames....A society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed, but a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either."
On the rights of criminals: "Legal frames especially in the United States are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of legions of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases."
On the abuses of freedom: "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Soceity appears to have litle defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror...Such a tilt of freedom in the directionof evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born out of a humanistic concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature."
On freedom of the press: "The press, too, enjoys the widest freedom. But what use does it make of this freedom? The press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, and without any verification? Thus we see terrorists made into heroes, or secret matters pertaining to the national defense publicly revealed, or shameful intrusion into the privacy of people under the false slogan: everyone has the right to know everything."
On the atrophy of the spiritual life: "Mere freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds some new ones....We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life."
Thirty years ago, the very chattering classes mentioned in Solzhenitsyn's address ridiculed the man as a reactionary and a crank. The literary critic Susan Sontag describes Manhattan cocktail parties at which the cultural left would laugh at Solzhenitsyn. No one--certainly not liberals and libertarians--wanted to hear what the New York Times called Solzhenitsyn's "hectoring jeremiads."
But today when you go to Asia you hear everywhere the slogan, "Modernization, yes; Westernization, no." Throughout the Muslim world there is a reaction--exploited of course by the Islamic radicals--against what is perceived as the shamelessness and decadence of Western values and culture. Even in the West there is deep ambivalence about what has happened to cherished notions of liberty, the rule of law, freedom of the press, and the pursuit of happiness.
We don't have to agree with Solzhenitsyn on everything to say that, far from being a reactionary, here was a man who was ahead of his time in diagnosing some of the serious ailments of the modern era. Not only was he right about the Gulag; in many respects this forlorn Russian hermit was also right about us.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Pressing on after Christ
Phil. 3:12-13, “Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead,”
We hear today too much of the health and wealth gospel. Many are falling into this belief that if you become a Christian that your life will become easier and more comfortable. We do not like to hear that there could be trials, persecution, sickness and struggles as a believer. We have created this Jeanie in a Lamp instead of following after the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Paul actually had it easier as a Pharisee then he ever had it as a Christian. Paul was beaten, imprisoned (at times naked in prison), shipwrecked and finally killed; all after accepting Christ as his Savior. This does not sound like the wishy-washy health and wealth faith that is out there today, and in my personal opinion borders on heresy because it is teaching a different gospel in many, many respects.
As we press on to be sanctified in Christ there are going to be temptations to take short cuts, or to take the easy road, but this will only cheat you out of the rewards in Heaven. Where do you want your riches? Here or in Heaven? Temporal or Eternal? Paul followed and considered it joy to be persecuted for his faith in Christ. He was excited to go through the same things as Christ. He went from being able to arrest and have Christians murdered to being on the most wanted list. His life did not get easier. Why should ours?
Christians are the true heroes of today. Think about any heroes in your life and then look at their lives and I will bet they are where they are today because they went through tough training, trials, and usually persecution of some kind. Watch any movie and the protagonist is always going through tough issues and struggles, but in the end they wind up with the rewards, but not in the beginning.
As a Christian you are a hero, as you have the answer to life’s big questions. With your faith in Christ the struggles and trials of continuing to grow as a believer follows. We should consider our trials and persecutions as a blessing since that is God’s way of chinking away at our sin and making us stronger and more sanctified. No one attains peek physical perfection by sitting on the couch watching TV and eating junk food all day. Neither can the Christian think that they will be at their peek spiritual shape without training (persecution and discipline). Name it and claim it is false teaching and dangerous.
The easy road may seem like the road to take, but most times it is a trap to make you less effective then you could be in Christ. Like a parent or husband, Christ is out for our best and not usually what we think is best. He knows exactly what we need in our lives to help us to attain that next phase in our walks. To shirk from the tough times will short change yourself and you will ultimately regret it. If do not regret it here, then when you stand before God, who will judge you as a believer, you will.
Are you worshipping a Jeanie in the Lamp or Christ? Are you just looking for the health and wealth, or walking closer with God? One will get you temporal “happiness” and the other will give you eternal “contentment and bliss.” The choice is yours. Are you are hero or couch potato? As the old saying goes, “If you want to run with the big dogs, you have to get off the couch.”
Hebrews 12:10-11, “He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. 11All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.”
We hear today too much of the health and wealth gospel. Many are falling into this belief that if you become a Christian that your life will become easier and more comfortable. We do not like to hear that there could be trials, persecution, sickness and struggles as a believer. We have created this Jeanie in a Lamp instead of following after the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Paul actually had it easier as a Pharisee then he ever had it as a Christian. Paul was beaten, imprisoned (at times naked in prison), shipwrecked and finally killed; all after accepting Christ as his Savior. This does not sound like the wishy-washy health and wealth faith that is out there today, and in my personal opinion borders on heresy because it is teaching a different gospel in many, many respects.
As we press on to be sanctified in Christ there are going to be temptations to take short cuts, or to take the easy road, but this will only cheat you out of the rewards in Heaven. Where do you want your riches? Here or in Heaven? Temporal or Eternal? Paul followed and considered it joy to be persecuted for his faith in Christ. He was excited to go through the same things as Christ. He went from being able to arrest and have Christians murdered to being on the most wanted list. His life did not get easier. Why should ours?
Christians are the true heroes of today. Think about any heroes in your life and then look at their lives and I will bet they are where they are today because they went through tough training, trials, and usually persecution of some kind. Watch any movie and the protagonist is always going through tough issues and struggles, but in the end they wind up with the rewards, but not in the beginning.
As a Christian you are a hero, as you have the answer to life’s big questions. With your faith in Christ the struggles and trials of continuing to grow as a believer follows. We should consider our trials and persecutions as a blessing since that is God’s way of chinking away at our sin and making us stronger and more sanctified. No one attains peek physical perfection by sitting on the couch watching TV and eating junk food all day. Neither can the Christian think that they will be at their peek spiritual shape without training (persecution and discipline). Name it and claim it is false teaching and dangerous.
The easy road may seem like the road to take, but most times it is a trap to make you less effective then you could be in Christ. Like a parent or husband, Christ is out for our best and not usually what we think is best. He knows exactly what we need in our lives to help us to attain that next phase in our walks. To shirk from the tough times will short change yourself and you will ultimately regret it. If do not regret it here, then when you stand before God, who will judge you as a believer, you will.
Are you worshipping a Jeanie in the Lamp or Christ? Are you just looking for the health and wealth, or walking closer with God? One will get you temporal “happiness” and the other will give you eternal “contentment and bliss.” The choice is yours. Are you are hero or couch potato? As the old saying goes, “If you want to run with the big dogs, you have to get off the couch.”
Hebrews 12:10-11, “He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. 11All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)