Tag Archives: Politics

•

via Hot Air...

In the New Testament, suffering and death are more often evidence of obedience than disobedience to God. When the Lord told Ananias to go to Straight Street and place his hands on Saul (later Paul) to restore Saul’s sight, the Lord said to Ananias, “This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.” The two most important figures in Christianity – Jesus and St. Paul – died violent deaths (according to Christian tradition, Paul was beheaded by the Romans). So the effort to create a cause-and-effect – in this case, turning your back on God leads to mass shootings and violent death – is itself theologically misguided.

Here's the problem (although I should not be that surprised, since the political slant of the writer show up later one)

anyway...

the writer of the original article (Peter Wehner) fails to understand (or maybe admit) the difference between a violent society being judged by God...and a holy individual being persecuted by that violent society.

I may disagree with Dobson's thrust...but I believe the reality is that when a society turns its (collective) back on God, it will become more violent as God grants their wish.

From the article:

So the effort to create a cause-and-effect – in this case, turning your back on God leads to mass shootings and violent death – is itself theologically misguided

No...no it isn't. Romans 1:28-31 says

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Wehner references Peter and Jesus - both killed by violent societies for being righteous.

He doesn't get that the violent societies got violent because they turned their backs on God.

So, sorry Mr. Wehner...it **IS** cause and effect and the Bible says so.

•

I've had a few days to stew and the flavors of the soup have blended.

I heard one commentator say that the problem is not the weapon - it's the culture.

WISDOM SPEAKS: (Proverbs 8:36)

but he who fails to find me injures himself;
all who hate me love death

On one hand, the man who killed all those people clearly failed to find wisdom. Perhaps he was incapable of finding it. Did he "hate" it? Maybe not, but he was the bringer of death.

But extend that out.

We have a president (Mr. Obama) who is saying that we must prevent this tragedy from happening again.

1) all who hate wisdom love death.
2) leftists have cultivated a culture of death.

The collective agreement to stand against ANY law that could restrict ANY abortion is evidence.

But beyond that (and not only leftists are guilty)

movies, video games, RPG's, music...all of these have become increasingly violent.

I remember "pacman" where a mento with a mouth gobbled dots.

Now, a "first person shooter" kills realistic looking enemies, with realistic looking weapons.

Do we really think this doesn't have some sort of effect?

It's not the weapon. It's the culture.

Ruminate on that.

•

Yeah, "right to work" and "abortion" have a parallel.

Having a conversation with a liberal about "right to work" - I said it would be good to be able to choose whether to join a labor union. He said, "You do have a choice - you can choose not to work at a company that has a union."

?

Let's pop abortion in there.

😉

Liberal: "It would be good, even necessary, to have a choice."
Conservative: "You do have a choice. You can choose to not have sex, you can choose to use birth control and if you find yourself pregnant you can choose to raise the child or put him or her up for adoption.

See how they would reject that?

Liberal: choice for me...but not for thee....

•

Put on your best "Mr Bill" voice:  OHHHH NOOOO!

MSNBC has their collective panties in a bunch.

Women add to the list of voters who are potential casualties of disenfranchisement from restrictive voting laws, as reports show that women have an increasingly difficult path to obtaining proper photo ID.

Evidently, when a woman gets married, divorced, or moves...she's not smart enough to make sure her voter registration gets changed.  Oh?  That happens automatically?  oh....

So, if a woman changes her name or address, her voter registration is changed also?

So, the problem is that the name on her state-issued ID no longer matches her voter registration?  Yeah, that could be a problem.  (In Michigan, the state puts a sticker noting the change right on the back of the ID...problem solved)

But... MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry points out, in an asterisk section at the bottom of the Pennsylvania Department of State Voter ID rules, the requirements reads:

 *In this example a voter who recently changed her name by reason of marriage presents a valid Pennsylvania driver's license or Pennsylvania ID card accompanied by a PennDOT update card, which is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Voter ID law regarding proof of identification.

OH!  MY! GOODNESS!

You mean to say that when you go to get your name or address changed, you get a card that verifies it?  WHEN YOU GET YOUR ID CHANGED, YOU GET THE CARD!!!

Even more amazing, the state seems to think that women are smart enough to hang onto that card.

MSNBC, however, doesn't give women that much credit.

•

I think that if liberals want to go the way of Europe, on one thing, Fox should go.  But then, so should the rest of the media in the United States.  The idea that the MSM (Main Stream Media) is unbiased is becoming increasing absurd.

I say, let FOX embrace their conservatism.  Let it be known.

Europe has "Advocacy Journalism" - let it be known that the company has a bias.  Be accurate, but don't be afraid of conservatism.

If every news outlet was honest about their bias, the public could make an informed decision to read both sides of an issue, see how each side treats it, and choose for themselves which side is "right"

Just do it.

 

•

Will there be a backlash from the more conservative parts of the African-American community, since President Obama came out in support of gay "marriage" - and since the DNC officially added gay "marriage" to its platform?

It's nice to think so, but I think, in the end, African-Americans will rally around the skin color.

The issue is heating up, and heating up quickly.

The "tolerant left" simply cannot tolerate that Christians have a moral code that differs from theirs and that Christians may dare to want to live by that code.

Chick-fil-a. Nuff said.

Now, there's Lakewood, CO

Threats of boycotts, death threats, petitions...etc.

Death threats. Really? because of a cake? Grow up.

From another paper:

All we wanted was a cake. We didn't want him to put on a rainbow shirt and march in the gay pride parade. This is me standing up for my community's rights

This is them, standing up for their "right" to force Christians to violate their conscience.

This wasn't a plain old wedding cake...oh, no.

the couple was "hoping to get a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting"

rainbow - hmmm...stand for something? Like being gay? And then getting all pissy when the Christians don't roll over and play dead?

We'll be seeing mre.

• 1 Comment

•

Tim Keller on Evangelism Best Practices...

~~~

R.C.Sproul - What is the Rapture?

~~~

On the "crime" of circumcision:

This is a bearing on another conversation I'm listening in on about infant baptism...this paragraph:

Along with many other religious people, they regard children as members of a community that precedes individual decisions and outlasts them — a community created by a covenant, not a choice. Circumcision is the outward sign of this spiritual reality.

Denny Burk adds:

Modern liberalism is upside down. On the one hand, it supports the right of a woman to kill her unborn child in utero for whatever reason or no reason at all. On the other hand, it opposes a parent’s prerogative to have their baby undergo a safe procedure that incorporates them into a community of faith. Does that make sense to you? Me either.

~~~

Women as "Kingdom Warriors, Too..."

If Adam must think, decide, protect, and provide for the woman, she actually becomes a burden on him – not much help when you think about it. The kind of help the man needs demands full deployment of her strength, her gifts, and the best she has to offer. His life will change for the better because of what she contributes to his life. Together they will daily prove in countless and surprising ways that two are better than one. (pg 114-115).

~~~

What Does Your Church’s Statement of Faith Protect?

 As we discussed the statement Saturday, the conversation turned to the importance of the statement of faith in protecting various aspects of the church and its ministry.  As I’ve noodled on that conversation, it seems to me that a local church’s statement of faith should protect five important things...

~~~

"We Are at a Turning Point" by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Hence, we have laws that force us to be charitable to those whom the government designates as worthy of our charity, that limit the amount of salt that restaurants can put into our food, that permit the government to watch us on street corners and subways and in the lobbies of buildings, that let the president fight wars of opportunity, that permit the Federal Reserve to print money with no value and inflate prices and destroy savings, that allow the government to listen to us on our cellphones and use those phones to follow us wherever we go, and, according to CIA Director David Petraeus, that let the government anticipate our movements inside our homes.

•

This is a bit from "God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology" (I have a few comment underneath)

The Center of the Theology of the New Testament Letters:  The authors of these twenty-one letters are radically united in the proclamation of bizarre ideas.

To see this, let us engage in a bit of contrastive analysis, contemplating what these authors did not do and what their letters do not advocate.

Rome was not their kingdom, and they were not trying to make it home. They sought the city that is to come. Not one of these authors gave his life to address the systemic injustice of the Roman Empire by means of political reform. Not one of these authors went the way of Josephus and sought to cozy up to the emperor, though Paul seems to have had opportunities to seek such “influence” with some high-ranking officials. Not one of these authors did or said anything about trying to stop Rome from fighting its wars. Not one of them championed the idea that the government should take money from the rich and redistribute it equally to the poor, nor did they leave the ministry to advocate a government of greater fiscal responsibility, lowered taxes, and increased national security. Not one of these authors taught that the way to change the world is by initiating a universal, government-funded education program. Not one of these authors was out to make as much money as he possibly could. Not one of these authors embraced one of the popular philosophies of the day, nor did they seek to synthesize the message of Jesus with the spirit of their age. None of them advocated higher moral standards in society at large (outside the church), nor did they lobby for universal health care or a revised definition of marriage that would legitimate same-sex unions.  None of them seem to have cared whether anyone reading their letters would be perceived by the broader culture as hip, savvy, chic, or cool. They had a different program.

These authors believed that the decisive event in the story of the world had taken place. God loved the world by sending his Son, condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus, poured out all his wrath on Jesus at the cross, and accomplished salvation through that ultimate display of justice. God raised Jesus from the dead, and Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples by proclaiming the good news.

How did they go about carrying out this commission? They all basically did the same thing. None appears to have sought to carry out the commission through political or educational institutions. According to the book of Acts, they simply told people, whether groups or individuals, who God is, what he had accomplished in Jesus, and what this implied for them. God accomplished salvation through judgment in Jesus, and the implication for every auditor of the message is that they would either believe and be saved or disobey (be unpersuaded by) the gospel and be judged. Through the announcement of judgment, the saved rejoiced in and glorified God. The converts, those who believed the message, were gathered into congregations, churches. Paul, Peter, and James all refer to elders who led these churches.

The authors of the letters studied in this chapter wrote what they did to form, instruct, and protect the churches. Their message is that God has glorified himself by working salvation through judgment in fulfillment of the Old Testament in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Their message is that there is a way of life that evidences belief in that message, and a way of life that does not. Their message is that God has sent the Spirit, who has given new life to those who believe; and the Spirit will keep them to the end, so that on the last day, when Christ comes to save through judgment, they will be those who glorify God for his mercy. The center of the theology of the letters of the New Testament is the glory of God in salvation through judgment.

I think where this goes sideways is the apparent false dichotomy between political activism and spreading the gospel.  Does spreading the gospel rule out being politically active?

If one of the messages of Scripture is that Christians should pursue justice, one way to do that is through the political system.

Other than that...the authors of Scripture wrote exactly what the Spirit wanted them to write.  No more, no less.

•

UK: Creator of children's character "Fireman Sam" detained at airport for noting that a veiled Muslim woman passed through security without showing her face

Nuff said.

~~~

Ultrasounds Already Part of VA Planned Parenthood Abortion Procedure

Excuse me.  If a woman already has her feet in the stirrups, waiting for all the instruments that are used doing an abortion - is she really (REALLY????) going to equate an ultrasound with "rape"?  What a slap in the face to all of the women who have truly gone through the trauma of rape.

~~~
Ouroboros: "Hate Speech" Worse Than Infanticide?

my favorite line?

[Cough] If I knew at the beginning it was this easy to take his family jewels and put them in a thimble, I wouldn’t have bothered reading his defense.

~~~
Trashing Tricare - because our military doesn't sacrifice enough already.

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

~~~

The ‘Taxpayer Subsidized Clean Energy Company Losing Money and Laying Off Workers While Execs Get Raises’ Story of the Day.

~~~
The $4 Billion Obamacare Slush Fund for Progressives

To appease liberal Democrats pushing for the so-called “public option” (the full frontal government takeover of our health care system), the White House settled for the creation of a $6 billion network of nonprofit “CO-OPs” that will “compete” with private insurers. It’s socialized medicine through the side door. House Republicans sliced about $2 billion from the slush fund in last spring’s budget deal and proclaimed the program dead. Hardly.

•

While anti-religious rights folks scream that "the mandate" hearings did not include women, or pro-mandate witnesses, the back story reveals a lot.

  1. there were women, just not at the first sitting
  2. The committee at the hearing involved advocating for religious rights.  Why do they consider women more (or less) capable of advocating for rights that affect us all?
  3. what goes around comes around.

If the hearings included no women (even "forgetting the claim is false) - the committee that wrote the thing...

According to the research from Human Life International (HLI), the panel behind Barack Obama's contraception, sterilization, and "morning-after" pill mandate was dominated by pro-abortion organizations.

According to HLA, the members of the panel leading to the Obama mandate included (among other):

Claire Brindis is a member of the Board of Directors of the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, as well as a member of NARAL’s Pro-Choice California “1969 Society,” which has been called by NARAL “a group of our most steadfast and generous donors.”

Angela Diaz is a former board member of “Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health,” an advocacy group that “work[s] to improve access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion.”

Paula A. Johnson is the Chairwoman of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts...

Magda G. Peck is associated with a host of organizations that advocate for abortion and free access to contraception, and was on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs and served as both vice chair and chair of the board.

Linda Rosenstock, committee chairwoman, has since October 2004 donated over $40,000 to pro-choice political candidates including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and the Democratic National Committee.

Alina Salganicoff is the Vice President and Director of Women’s Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a major proponent of abortion and contraception on demand.