How can one preach about justification without talking about grace, judgment without talking about atonement, or sin without talking about the love our Father in heaven has for all of mankind? That is an egregious form of malignancy within ourselves that we use to apply human principals to those of the divine. By providing insight into the workings of God based entirely on our current belief of the way the world is suppose to work for us, is our inadvertent need to reinvent God. I am not sinless in this, I am the worst of the worst, I spend everyday thinking about how I can rationalize circumventing my need to obey God with my humanly need to serve myself and my family. Today, I am filled with all kinds of depravity.
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us… If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in our lives.” – 1John 1:8, 10
I battle everyday with the notion of grace. Could I as a father deal with the worst of the worst if it were my son committing despicable acts? If my son were to molest a child, would I still love him? Would I give everything I have for the hope that someday he would come back to me and say, “I’m lost, please help me”? And if that call was made would I answer? I would like to think so. I pray everyday that I will never know. But, I do know of one who has the capacity to love so much, to show everlasting grace and mercy upon his children. Our father in heaven has more love and grace for us than we could ever comprehend. Our humanity is finite, His Holiness is infinite. To think any more of ourselves or less of Him is to put the nose before the face.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” – John 3:16
“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” – John 1:29
How could a father love someone so completely that he would sacrifice so much? Could I sit by while my son is tortured and murdered? I doubt it. As a saint in Christ I would break several commandments to save my son from the hands of a murderer. I would most certainly ask for forgiveness for my need for justice, revenge, and malice upon anyone who would hurt my child. He did not. The scripture is clear, without contradiction, inspired by God, and written with the hands of men. He forgives us, he forgives us all. No purchase required. He gave us a coupon in His love and no one can take it away, not ever.
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” – 1John 2:2
“Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” – Romans 5:9-10.
We all sin and we all fall short of the glory of God, so why do we feel compelled to point out the indiscretions of others without talking about the grace given to us. Our biggest enemy is ourselves, we are self serving, contemptuous people, lucky to be loved, but lacking love for others, at least those that we judge unworthy.
“The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased grace increased all the more…” – Romans 5:20
How can we see ourselves as better than the lost? Is it not true that we were once lost? To talk to someone about sin without explaining grace is not sound doctrine. They are as entwined as night and day. You can not have one without the other. To separate the two is to separate God from his children. Isn’t that what devil is trying to do?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Rules Do Not Apply
The law is simply an expression of the nature of God, His holiness and moral perfections. The best efforts of man to live according to this standard are futile.
“What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” – Gal 3:21-25
Even in OT times the Jews were always saved through faith, not adherence to the Law. They kept the Law as an expression of obedience and fellowship with God. As we hopefully realize today it is not nor has it ever been possible for the blood of animals to take away sin.
“...because it is impossible for the blood of bull and goats to take away sins.” – Heb 10:4
Christ died for our sins
“Jehovah…laid on him the iniquity of us all.” – Isa. 53:16
“Christ died for our sins” - 1Cor 15:13
“...who His own self bore our sins in His own body” – 1Peter 2:24
“...layeth down his life for the sheep.” - Mark 10:45, John 10:11
Jesus has satisfied all the demands of the law against all people, even those who reject Him. The law is no longer in effect as a moral judge to condemn us. The Bible is very clear that Christ lifted the law from us all (including the unsaved). A person is no longer condemned for breaking the law.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matt 5:17 The Greek word translated “to fulfill in the Bible is “pleroo” which mean to fulfill in the context of completing something, or to finish.
“...having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.” Col 2:14
“...by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations….” Eph 2:15
Christ did not destroy or abolish the Law; it still has its place in the world today. It is there to remind us all that we are and will always be sinners. We are forgiven though grace (nothing required from us), we are saved by faith (we are required to believe). We have never been nor will we ever be righteous or worthy of holiness (Jew or Gentile). We are as bad as and at times worse than the lost
Tolerance is an ugly word. God has not tolerated his children he has loved us all, always. Why do we as a church shy away from loving sinners as God loves us? Why do we choose not to accept things, but rather to put up with them (tolerance), when God scripturally is never tolerant, He has always shown us unconditional love and acceptance. We should not show tolerance for someone that is lost, because that just isn’t good enough. We should show love. We should not preach fear and judgment upon those who sin. We should preach about God’s acceptance for us even when we are stained by sin.
We are not commissioned to make the sinner stop sinning, after all we continue to sin ourselves and our sins are just as bad as anyone else’s. Sin ain’t gonna send nobody to hell. And loving and accepting sinful people in your life is not going to send you to hell. Jesus never spoke against the sinners in His ministry, He spoke against the church leaders who created rules and regulations that judged and condemned others for their sin. In them, faith was dead. Sounds eerily familiar to many messages you hear in church today, when pastors speak about, homosexuality, pornography, infidelity, premarital sex, masturbation, sodomy, cohabitation, and liberalism (HA HA). Although within the church, gossip, contempt, judgment, prejudice, intolerance, disobedience, lying, anger, vanity, lots and lots of vanity, and my personal favorite denominational prejudice go largely unnoticed. Scripturally, these violations are no better or worse than the previous.
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” – James 2:10
Propitiation is turning away wrath by an offering. Our offering is Christ. He didn’t just die on the cross for our sins; He gave Himself up for God’s wrath. The death of Christ satisfies the justice of God that must be poured upon sin.
So trying to live a life without sin (emphasis on trying) is noble to say the least. However it doesn’t guarantee you a closer spot in the line to see God. We are all equally undeserving of His enduring love, but we receive it anyways. We are giving ourselves too much credit if we think otherwise. No one is holy enough to deserve the grand prize. God doesn’t believe in equal pay for equal work and he doesn’t grade his love for us on our desire to impress him with our lives. Unfortunately for all the saints who want more love or need more blessing for their Christ driven lives, they must remember…
“...Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’" - Luke 15:29-30
From God’s mouth to our brains.
“What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” – Gal 3:21-25
Even in OT times the Jews were always saved through faith, not adherence to the Law. They kept the Law as an expression of obedience and fellowship with God. As we hopefully realize today it is not nor has it ever been possible for the blood of animals to take away sin.
“...because it is impossible for the blood of bull and goats to take away sins.” – Heb 10:4
Christ died for our sins
“Jehovah…laid on him the iniquity of us all.” – Isa. 53:16
“Christ died for our sins” - 1Cor 15:13
“...who His own self bore our sins in His own body” – 1Peter 2:24
“...layeth down his life for the sheep.” - Mark 10:45, John 10:11
Jesus has satisfied all the demands of the law against all people, even those who reject Him. The law is no longer in effect as a moral judge to condemn us. The Bible is very clear that Christ lifted the law from us all (including the unsaved). A person is no longer condemned for breaking the law.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matt 5:17 The Greek word translated “to fulfill in the Bible is “pleroo” which mean to fulfill in the context of completing something, or to finish.
“...having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.” Col 2:14
“...by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations….” Eph 2:15
Christ did not destroy or abolish the Law; it still has its place in the world today. It is there to remind us all that we are and will always be sinners. We are forgiven though grace (nothing required from us), we are saved by faith (we are required to believe). We have never been nor will we ever be righteous or worthy of holiness (Jew or Gentile). We are as bad as and at times worse than the lost
Tolerance is an ugly word. God has not tolerated his children he has loved us all, always. Why do we as a church shy away from loving sinners as God loves us? Why do we choose not to accept things, but rather to put up with them (tolerance), when God scripturally is never tolerant, He has always shown us unconditional love and acceptance. We should not show tolerance for someone that is lost, because that just isn’t good enough. We should show love. We should not preach fear and judgment upon those who sin. We should preach about God’s acceptance for us even when we are stained by sin.
We are not commissioned to make the sinner stop sinning, after all we continue to sin ourselves and our sins are just as bad as anyone else’s. Sin ain’t gonna send nobody to hell. And loving and accepting sinful people in your life is not going to send you to hell. Jesus never spoke against the sinners in His ministry, He spoke against the church leaders who created rules and regulations that judged and condemned others for their sin. In them, faith was dead. Sounds eerily familiar to many messages you hear in church today, when pastors speak about, homosexuality, pornography, infidelity, premarital sex, masturbation, sodomy, cohabitation, and liberalism (HA HA). Although within the church, gossip, contempt, judgment, prejudice, intolerance, disobedience, lying, anger, vanity, lots and lots of vanity, and my personal favorite denominational prejudice go largely unnoticed. Scripturally, these violations are no better or worse than the previous.
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” – James 2:10
Propitiation is turning away wrath by an offering. Our offering is Christ. He didn’t just die on the cross for our sins; He gave Himself up for God’s wrath. The death of Christ satisfies the justice of God that must be poured upon sin.
So trying to live a life without sin (emphasis on trying) is noble to say the least. However it doesn’t guarantee you a closer spot in the line to see God. We are all equally undeserving of His enduring love, but we receive it anyways. We are giving ourselves too much credit if we think otherwise. No one is holy enough to deserve the grand prize. God doesn’t believe in equal pay for equal work and he doesn’t grade his love for us on our desire to impress him with our lives. Unfortunately for all the saints who want more love or need more blessing for their Christ driven lives, they must remember…
“...Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’" - Luke 15:29-30
From God’s mouth to our brains.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Liberty Shlibetry
This letter is in response to Mr. Michael J Karaffa who wrote Always obey officers.
In his letter the author states, in response to the recent situation in Boston, that, “We live in society of law and order and our responsibility as a citizen is to submit to and obey lose laws and the people who are tasked with upholding them. That submission and obedience is not contingent on how we feel at the time or what mood we’re in. When a policeman tells us to do something, we do it, we don’t argue with him. To do so is to take the first step towards anarchy.”
There is a lot of truth in his statement. We live in a society of law and order; some would say we are a nation of laws. The one thing that sets us apart is our ability as a country to rely on the law to judge fairly and without regard to who our friends and family are, race, culture, social or financial standing. At least most of the time... Okay at least sometimes. And we should obey those laws and the people who uphold them, because they are always right. Oh yeah except for that whole American Revolution generation and those radicals in Alabama in the sixties. Submission and obedience is a must and without a doubt, necessary to keep all citizenry safe. That sounds similar to a recent speech by the Ayatolla. When the police tell us to do something don’t argue just do it. Unless they ask you to jump off of a bridge, or you are black man in Mississippi and the cop in the police car is dangling a noose from the trunk. If we don’t follow these rules anarchy will reign. There is no other possible solution than absolute obedience and conformity. Hmm, now China comes to mind.
The creators of our constitution (men of laws themselves) created 10 amendments that were put into place because, while they believed in government, they also believed in liberty. These amendments were put in place not to defend the men of authority from the people, but to protect the people from men of authority. Our founding fathers came to this determination because they believed that people had the right to speak their mind and protect their property, life and liberty. Due process is an inconvenient truth to those who are looking to protect us from ourselves. However, it is what we rely on to protect those less represented by the government from tyranny and oppression. Yes, we should listen to the authorities, but if we disagree with their actions we have an absolute right as Americans to argue that point until we can speak no more.
In his letter the author states, in response to the recent situation in Boston, that, “We live in society of law and order and our responsibility as a citizen is to submit to and obey lose laws and the people who are tasked with upholding them. That submission and obedience is not contingent on how we feel at the time or what mood we’re in. When a policeman tells us to do something, we do it, we don’t argue with him. To do so is to take the first step towards anarchy.”
There is a lot of truth in his statement. We live in a society of law and order; some would say we are a nation of laws. The one thing that sets us apart is our ability as a country to rely on the law to judge fairly and without regard to who our friends and family are, race, culture, social or financial standing. At least most of the time... Okay at least sometimes. And we should obey those laws and the people who uphold them, because they are always right. Oh yeah except for that whole American Revolution generation and those radicals in Alabama in the sixties. Submission and obedience is a must and without a doubt, necessary to keep all citizenry safe. That sounds similar to a recent speech by the Ayatolla. When the police tell us to do something don’t argue just do it. Unless they ask you to jump off of a bridge, or you are black man in Mississippi and the cop in the police car is dangling a noose from the trunk. If we don’t follow these rules anarchy will reign. There is no other possible solution than absolute obedience and conformity. Hmm, now China comes to mind.
The creators of our constitution (men of laws themselves) created 10 amendments that were put into place because, while they believed in government, they also believed in liberty. These amendments were put in place not to defend the men of authority from the people, but to protect the people from men of authority. Our founding fathers came to this determination because they believed that people had the right to speak their mind and protect their property, life and liberty. Due process is an inconvenient truth to those who are looking to protect us from ourselves. However, it is what we rely on to protect those less represented by the government from tyranny and oppression. Yes, we should listen to the authorities, but if we disagree with their actions we have an absolute right as Americans to argue that point until we can speak no more.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Liberty is Intrinsic to the Divine
“It is by God’s own will that we get to choose our own fate. He has given us the rules, now it is up to us to win the game.” - L
There are a lot of ideas within the humanist and liberal movement that I feel are intelligent in design. They lack the humbleness of the saints (at least what God had hoped for us), but can not be completely denied based solely on this one argument. The humanist view that truth and morality is sought through human investigation; as such, views on morality can change when new knowledge and information is discovered and the liberal belief of self-determination in human existence are both divine in nature.
I am not certain that morality can change. However, I think it is very apparent that our view and understanding of morality can deepen. The Old Testament laid out a set of laws and rules to follow to a very naive and ignorant society. As they progressed (for better or for worse) so did their understanding of right and wrong. In the New Testament God defined these laws in a different light. He told us if we love one another and treat each other well and hold God as the most high, then we could not disregard the law, henceforth they are one and the same (not different, just more complex). As our understanding of sin and morality increased and became more complicated in nature, so did God’s commandments to us. The church of antiquity (and America less than fifty years ago) thought it was okay to suppress and belittle women, propagate racism, and indulge in king worship (theocracy or papacy), by today’s standards that is immoral. More evidence that we as a body of believers can better define the nuances of moral questions as they become more complex and we become more mature as a people.
While the liberal and humanist reliance on self-worth is extravagant to say the least, as a religious man I do believe in self determination. Many intellectuals from the Enlightenment, including those most influential in creating our country; George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and many more, believed that individual liberty was not only humanly moral, but a God given entitlement presented to us and proven in His own actions in our history. God gave us a choice. This is never more apparent than in our freedom to worship. If the divine creator of all that exists insisted that we believe and worship faithfully, than we would. The fact that we all do not can be most apparent when believers at times exhibit extreme lapses in judgment and morals. Therefore, I can not understand why the church feels the necessity to propagate and espouse its moral authority upon the rest of the world (or at least our country). If God gave individuals the freedom to choose, how could we rationalize otherwise? Perhaps we as the body of Christ suffer from a form of narcissism or at the very least delusions of grandeur. We should not choose to destroy that which God has created and self determination is ever apparent from Adam and Eve to Revelation.
Intellectual progress is what God wanted for us. Reason, understanding and rational inspection of self evident truths can be seen from the writings of Moses to John. It is our nature and duty to progress; this is why we are not saved from birth. Liberty and free will are an essential part of life on this planet. We might not like the choices that others make but God did not intend for us to stand in between another man’s intellect and his actions. We choose and suffer the consequences of our action, God does not choose for us. He gives us the knowledge to succeed and we choose to listen or deny. It is our commission as saints to provide the information necessary to present the steps of salvation to the world, God never gave us permission to oppress those that choose otherwise.
There are a lot of ideas within the humanist and liberal movement that I feel are intelligent in design. They lack the humbleness of the saints (at least what God had hoped for us), but can not be completely denied based solely on this one argument. The humanist view that truth and morality is sought through human investigation; as such, views on morality can change when new knowledge and information is discovered and the liberal belief of self-determination in human existence are both divine in nature.
I am not certain that morality can change. However, I think it is very apparent that our view and understanding of morality can deepen. The Old Testament laid out a set of laws and rules to follow to a very naive and ignorant society. As they progressed (for better or for worse) so did their understanding of right and wrong. In the New Testament God defined these laws in a different light. He told us if we love one another and treat each other well and hold God as the most high, then we could not disregard the law, henceforth they are one and the same (not different, just more complex). As our understanding of sin and morality increased and became more complicated in nature, so did God’s commandments to us. The church of antiquity (and America less than fifty years ago) thought it was okay to suppress and belittle women, propagate racism, and indulge in king worship (theocracy or papacy), by today’s standards that is immoral. More evidence that we as a body of believers can better define the nuances of moral questions as they become more complex and we become more mature as a people.
While the liberal and humanist reliance on self-worth is extravagant to say the least, as a religious man I do believe in self determination. Many intellectuals from the Enlightenment, including those most influential in creating our country; George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and many more, believed that individual liberty was not only humanly moral, but a God given entitlement presented to us and proven in His own actions in our history. God gave us a choice. This is never more apparent than in our freedom to worship. If the divine creator of all that exists insisted that we believe and worship faithfully, than we would. The fact that we all do not can be most apparent when believers at times exhibit extreme lapses in judgment and morals. Therefore, I can not understand why the church feels the necessity to propagate and espouse its moral authority upon the rest of the world (or at least our country). If God gave individuals the freedom to choose, how could we rationalize otherwise? Perhaps we as the body of Christ suffer from a form of narcissism or at the very least delusions of grandeur. We should not choose to destroy that which God has created and self determination is ever apparent from Adam and Eve to Revelation.
Intellectual progress is what God wanted for us. Reason, understanding and rational inspection of self evident truths can be seen from the writings of Moses to John. It is our nature and duty to progress; this is why we are not saved from birth. Liberty and free will are an essential part of life on this planet. We might not like the choices that others make but God did not intend for us to stand in between another man’s intellect and his actions. We choose and suffer the consequences of our action, God does not choose for us. He gives us the knowledge to succeed and we choose to listen or deny. It is our commission as saints to provide the information necessary to present the steps of salvation to the world, God never gave us permission to oppress those that choose otherwise.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Sleep
All I see is dreary darkness; I think I know my fate.
One more time I’ve really failed in haste
Perhaps before I die I’ll finally know my place.
I continually look to God to recognize his grace
How could I be a worse person than I am today?
I don’t deserve anything; I’m consumed by my own hate
I create my own motivation; it gets in the way of my fate.
Before my life ends, I’ll be sure to make amends
To return this world to the usefulness it possessed before my life began.
I pray for serenity so that I might feel comfortable just getting by,
But I know in the end, I’m really just wasting time.
I’m inconsequential, because I’m lacking motivation
Please God just let me understand my Christ driven faith and
Why you put me hear to suffer all these nights?
Insomnia is my friend like a head of hair full of lice.
Before I die my redemption song will sing so very loud
Bob Marley and the Whalers could never be so proud
If God is by my side he’ll see me as a sheep
With Him in my pasture I’ll finally get some sleep.
Perhaps some day before I die, I’ll finally know my place
I hate being fifth in a five man race.
After I get some sleep I’ll begin my day anew
I’ll finally begin to live my life not for me, but for You.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Motives of Men
I am a religious man. My Christian faith defines who I am more than any other aspect of my character. I don’t believe that the church is inherently evil or destructive in nature; however I do believe that men are inherently evil and destructive and history proves this time and time again. I also believe that following the church blindly, with out raising questions of its power, its doctrine and its intent can in itself be damaging not only to the Church, but to the power of the Gospel in a fallen world. Without introspection of the agenda of our leadership, whether secular or religious, tyranny will always rule. There are many examples of political power grabs by the Church that in retrospect can be seen as absurd abuses of powers. These influential leaders used the Word and our faith in the sanctity of our ecclesiastical mentors and leaders, to gain power.
The nine Crusades were fought to protect the world against heretics and pagans alike, they were aimed at Islam, pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and other political enemies of the Popes’. Crusaders took vows and were granted penance for past sins, also known as indulgences. The motto of these endeavors was, “if God does not believe in our war than we will lose.” Guess what? We (the church, not us) lost. Roger Bacon, an English philosopher and Franciscan friar was an outspoken critic of these wars and he emphatically stated, “The Crusades were not effective because, those who survive, together with their children, are more and more embittered against the Christian faith," also "High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed … the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God" Do you know what happened to him? He was excommunicated, not allowed to write, removed from his teaching position at Oxford, and placed under house arrest until the day that he died.
The four Inquisitions were propagated by Church leadership to weed out divisive figures within the Church body (heretics). How was this done? Torture and execution! There objective was to cleanse the Church of those who sought to divide it, by any means necessary. By Inquisition standards, mind you, my church and most of those in my community are full of heretics. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of good came from these trials. For instance, most methods of modern torture used by Saudi Arabia, Israel, most Islamic theocratic nations, the Chinese, the Russians, oh yeah we can’t forget about the United States of America (at least for the last 4 years), were invented and perfected during different periods of the Inquisition. Unfortunately, dissenters that spoke out were put to death, largely propagating a silent yet disagreeable disobedience. For instance Galileo Galilei was put under house arrest and forbidden to ever write again due to his crazy idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun. He was a Christian.
The corruption of the Roman Catholic Church was not challenged until the rebellious, and at the time, heretical doctrines brought to light by Martin Luther. The Salem Witch Trials were seen as a service towards Gods people to protect themselves from the evil forces of the Enemy in a country founded on Christian beliefs and values. And we must never forget the worst mistake we have made in the Churches short history; the Moral Majority’s, support for Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford in the 1976 Presidential election, something that the Church may never live down (at least as long as I am alive.)
These are all very real and very telling examples of movements by the Church, largely unchallenged by its leadership or the congregations that blindly followed them without question. Was their motive power? Sometimes. Was their motive to save the world from its inherent immorality? Sometimes. They appealed to the Church body by choosing to quote scripture and historical figures that supported their ideas, and highlighted our desire to be righteous in the Lords sight, while disregarding statements by both the Word and the people they were quoting; this is both nonsensical and dishonest. In my religious training I was taught that the difference between good theology and bad theology was that good theology takes the entire context of the Bible into account and is void of contradiction. Bad theology simply takes verses and uses them to support one’s personal belief, regardless of how it conflicts with other statements in the Word.
What is our purpose on this planet? What is our purpose as a nation under God? What is our purpose as Saints? God gave us one very simple yet life consuming task (which came directly from Him) and that supersedes all others later constructed by man, “…you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Are we a Christian Nation, blessed by the power of God and chosen to not only spread the Word, but also to force the laws of Moses and the Ten Commandments on all that don’t believe? Would Jesus be proud of us as His body of believers, to sit in tyrannical judgment over those who disagree with his teachings? If indeed God gave us the freedom to choose life or death, who are we to take away from those who choose that which we have not? God gave us “free will” taking that away from someone is a clear breach of the 2nd Commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me.” And the 3rd Commandment, “You shall not make for yourself and idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below…” If you place yourself in the judgment seat of God, idolatry is your sin. If God feels that it is our holy duty to subject non-believers to his laws, than why wouldn’t He do it Himself? He is all powerful and our influence is finite.
We don’t have to protect Christ from the pagans of the world; we have to show the pagans of the world the love of Christ, through His words and through our works, just as he did for us. Sometimes a little dissent is healthy, if for only the reason that it may slow down a movement long enough to be certain that it is truly ordained by the Lord. When we rely on the ideas and motives of men, we forget that we are the reason this place called Earth is so messed up to begin with. Whether I am right or wrong one thing certain, judgment will come in the end, but not in this day.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Welcom To The Minority
Doesn't get President Obama
Published by The Reporter
Posted: 06/26/2009 01:01:01 AM PDT
As a retired U.S. Air Force member, I have a familiarity with the oath of office and defending the Constitution of the United States. The current president and commander of the U.S. Armed Forces took the same oath (once in public and once in private). I am currently at a loss as to what country I belong. It is still called the United States of America, but I now answer to czars (21, as of my last count) who are appointed by the president and answer only to the president. Where is the congressional oversight? Is this "kinda like" a dictatorship? What happened to the Republican form of a democracy? Who owns our banks, automobile industry and insurance companies, while czars control private industry more and more each day? Do we have czarinas, dukes, princes/princesses ad nauseum in our future? Is Obama now king, or is he really the "anointed one"? What happened to our "free press"?
We originated from Judeo-Christian values and our President Barack Hussein Obama, born from an African-Arab and U.S. citizen who was later married to an Indonesian Muslim, says we are not a Christian country. Was Obama adopted by his Indonesian stepfather while they lived in Indonesia and Obama attended a Muslim school? Why did Obama not use the name Hussein during the campaign? Why did he claim to be a Christian while being a member of an Afro-centric church? I have not quite figured my president out, have you?
Do I dare use my constitutional right of political dissent and desire to see my country as a democratic republic, which is sliding very fast into socialism and maybe Marxism?
Yes, I do have the guts to honor my many-times-uttered oath of allegiance to my country and sign my name to this letter.
Robert Hind
Vacaville
First off, I would like to say to the writer of “Don’t get Obama,” I have the highest admiration for your sacrifice and duty to this country. Our military men and women are a great example to be proud of and should be real heroes to us all. But, I must say with all due respect, that this article points to a common theme among many secular and Christian conservatives today, who have found themselves (democratically mind you) voted out of the executive branch and both houses of congress, in a statement by the American people to see things in a more pragmatic and with a less one way or no way world view.
I would like to address your points one by one. There is congressional oversight; the fact of the matter is that congress largely agrees with the President on a majority of his policies. They were democratically elected by the people for the people. That is very American. Because they don’t share your political ideology does not mean they don’t represent a majority of Americans. Maybe America wants something different and through democratic means they spoke. What’s more American than that? Now you know what it feels like to be in the minority, a rare life experience in this country for white, conservative men over the last forty years. But in a democracy there has always been a minority. Welcome to the minority, it sucks doesn’t it?
The idea that we are becoming a socialist nation is an overstatement of fact and mere paranoia. Less 1% of American businesses are under the direct control and leadership of the American government. And if this is one of those give’em an inch and they’ll take a mile arguments than less than one percent is not an inch it is a merely a centimeter. America has a long history of nationalizing troubled economic assets, this is nothing new. If you think so than you are simply defining America’s history by what we have largely seen over the last 30 years.
Obama is not king, he was elected in a landslide (by Presidential standards) and the press is free. It is so free that they are allowed to disagree with you all they want. The old conservative guard is not in control for the first time in a long time and they don’t know what to do, so they are reverting to the elementary tactic of name calling; socialist, Muslim, anointed one, leftist. How about Mr. President elected by the American people, like it or not.
And your last argument is just an example of good old fashioned racism or at the very least ethnocentrism (a polite way of calling someone a racist.) I am a first generation American born of a Chinese immigrant. Does that make me a communist or a Buddhist, or maybe I’m a kung fu master. My father served this country in Vietnam and my Grandfather in World War II. Am I more or less of an American than you? Do you really know? Are we really a Christian nation or a nation of Christians? I say the latter. Scripturally speaking if we call ourselves a Christian nation than we have really missed the mark, the New Testament is about sacrifice and loving those that might not deserve it. It is not about capitalism or exclusion. As a matter of fact it is about accepting people who are different. It is our job to love one another, not to decide who gets what base on our ignorant and finite world view. We love, let God judge. If you disagree with that I suggest you go back and read the New Testament, again and again, until you completely understand what Jesus meant to mankind.
Published by The Reporter
Posted: 06/26/2009 01:01:01 AM PDT
As a retired U.S. Air Force member, I have a familiarity with the oath of office and defending the Constitution of the United States. The current president and commander of the U.S. Armed Forces took the same oath (once in public and once in private). I am currently at a loss as to what country I belong. It is still called the United States of America, but I now answer to czars (21, as of my last count) who are appointed by the president and answer only to the president. Where is the congressional oversight? Is this "kinda like" a dictatorship? What happened to the Republican form of a democracy? Who owns our banks, automobile industry and insurance companies, while czars control private industry more and more each day? Do we have czarinas, dukes, princes/princesses ad nauseum in our future? Is Obama now king, or is he really the "anointed one"? What happened to our "free press"?
We originated from Judeo-Christian values and our President Barack Hussein Obama, born from an African-Arab and U.S. citizen who was later married to an Indonesian Muslim, says we are not a Christian country. Was Obama adopted by his Indonesian stepfather while they lived in Indonesia and Obama attended a Muslim school? Why did Obama not use the name Hussein during the campaign? Why did he claim to be a Christian while being a member of an Afro-centric church? I have not quite figured my president out, have you?
Do I dare use my constitutional right of political dissent and desire to see my country as a democratic republic, which is sliding very fast into socialism and maybe Marxism?
Yes, I do have the guts to honor my many-times-uttered oath of allegiance to my country and sign my name to this letter.
Robert Hind
Vacaville
First off, I would like to say to the writer of “Don’t get Obama,” I have the highest admiration for your sacrifice and duty to this country. Our military men and women are a great example to be proud of and should be real heroes to us all. But, I must say with all due respect, that this article points to a common theme among many secular and Christian conservatives today, who have found themselves (democratically mind you) voted out of the executive branch and both houses of congress, in a statement by the American people to see things in a more pragmatic and with a less one way or no way world view.
I would like to address your points one by one. There is congressional oversight; the fact of the matter is that congress largely agrees with the President on a majority of his policies. They were democratically elected by the people for the people. That is very American. Because they don’t share your political ideology does not mean they don’t represent a majority of Americans. Maybe America wants something different and through democratic means they spoke. What’s more American than that? Now you know what it feels like to be in the minority, a rare life experience in this country for white, conservative men over the last forty years. But in a democracy there has always been a minority. Welcome to the minority, it sucks doesn’t it?
The idea that we are becoming a socialist nation is an overstatement of fact and mere paranoia. Less 1% of American businesses are under the direct control and leadership of the American government. And if this is one of those give’em an inch and they’ll take a mile arguments than less than one percent is not an inch it is a merely a centimeter. America has a long history of nationalizing troubled economic assets, this is nothing new. If you think so than you are simply defining America’s history by what we have largely seen over the last 30 years.
Obama is not king, he was elected in a landslide (by Presidential standards) and the press is free. It is so free that they are allowed to disagree with you all they want. The old conservative guard is not in control for the first time in a long time and they don’t know what to do, so they are reverting to the elementary tactic of name calling; socialist, Muslim, anointed one, leftist. How about Mr. President elected by the American people, like it or not.
And your last argument is just an example of good old fashioned racism or at the very least ethnocentrism (a polite way of calling someone a racist.) I am a first generation American born of a Chinese immigrant. Does that make me a communist or a Buddhist, or maybe I’m a kung fu master. My father served this country in Vietnam and my Grandfather in World War II. Am I more or less of an American than you? Do you really know? Are we really a Christian nation or a nation of Christians? I say the latter. Scripturally speaking if we call ourselves a Christian nation than we have really missed the mark, the New Testament is about sacrifice and loving those that might not deserve it. It is not about capitalism or exclusion. As a matter of fact it is about accepting people who are different. It is our job to love one another, not to decide who gets what base on our ignorant and finite world view. We love, let God judge. If you disagree with that I suggest you go back and read the New Testament, again and again, until you completely understand what Jesus meant to mankind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)