I read this article today that really ruffled my feathers. For those of you not willing to read it, the article informs us that eHarmony, an online dating service for anyone to use, though created by those who claim Christianity (whether they are or not is not the issue to be dealt with here; I'm just trying to share what I do know, and not pretending to know what I don't), is settling a lawsuit that a New Jersey man filed against them because they didn't offer a choice for him, that choice being 'men seeking men.' There are two big problems that I want to address here, and if they're not obvious to you, let me make them clear. I'm not suggesting there aren't other problems, but just two that I want to address.
The first is more political in nature. eHarmony is a business. It seeks to help people find others that they could potentially date and maybe even marry that they may never have met otherwise through the wonders of the internet. They provide this service to its customers at a price, in hopes to turn a profit. Now, I know there are a lot of things that I may not understand about this case in particular, but if I'm wrong here, I wish those presenting us with the news would give more detail, because the lawsuit itself seems utterly ridiculous.
I work for a music store. It's a business, of course, and we provide products and services related to music at a price in hopes to profit, as any business does. But what would you say if I told you that a person walked into our store one day and said, "Do you carry karyoke machines?" Our reply would be "No, sorry, we don't." This sounds like a conversation that would happen fairly often. Maybe not over the exact item, but it happens on a regular basis that we must tell people that we don't carry certain products. But what if the conversation continued with the customer saying, "Well, I guess I'm going to have to sue you for discriminating against karyoke singers. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves...see you in court!" The customer can't do that. Why? Because as a business, we have every right to sell whatever we want. You can't tell us that we have to sell karyoke machines if we don't want to sell karyoke machines. But this is exactly what has happened to eHarmony. There are plenty of other places I'm sure this New Jersey man could have gone to seek men. But instead, he thought he'd sue, and now gets $50,000 and is looking forward to utilizing the new service that will be offered by eHarmony for men seeking men and women seeking women.
This brings me to my second point. In the face of such a ridiculous claim, why is eHarmony the one that is folding (not closing up shop, folding, but compromising, folding)? Again, I don't know any more than this article stated, but not only do they have a right as a business to sell whatever services they want, but as Christians, should they not be standing up for the truth of the Word of God inspite of whatever "punishment" may come their way? I also know it's easy for me to sit here behind my computer and say this, but I pray that I won't compromise the truth of God's Word in the face of persecution.
I'm sitting here with my friend Jarrod watching the presidential election results come in, and it looks like America is leaning towards Mr. Obama. The democratic candidate (and quite probably, president-elect, when you read this) has run on the platform of "change."
Unfortunately, I don't believe he will bring "change we need." All we've heard about is change, change, change, but none of it will make a lasting difference. However, I know of change that does make a lasting difference. In fact, it makes an eternal difference. The only one who can make real, lasting "change we need" is Jesus Christ. Let's continue to pray that the Lord will change hearts and lives in our country, as that's far more important than who the president of this country is.
Unfortunately, I don't believe he will bring "change we need." All we've heard about is change, change, change, but none of it will make a lasting difference. However, I know of change that does make a lasting difference. In fact, it makes an eternal difference. The only one who can make real, lasting "change we need" is Jesus Christ. Let's continue to pray that the Lord will change hearts and lives in our country, as that's far more important than who the president of this country is.
Tonight was the first beggar's night my wife and I had in our new neighborhood. We passed out all sorts of candy and saw all sorts of interesting costumes as the night progressed, but I must say, tonight I saw the scariest costume I've ever seen.
Not only did it scare me, but it made the hair on the back of my neck crawl, sent shivers down my back and almost brought me to tears. It wasn't the witch or the ghost; the goblin or the spider. It was the kid dressed up as...
Barak Obama.
I cringe just thinking about it...come to think of it, I wonder if he made the other kids share their candy with the kid who got the least...you know, spreading the wealth. *shrug* Happy Halloween.
Not only did it scare me, but it made the hair on the back of my neck crawl, sent shivers down my back and almost brought me to tears. It wasn't the witch or the ghost; the goblin or the spider. It was the kid dressed up as...
Barak Obama.
I cringe just thinking about it...come to think of it, I wonder if he made the other kids share their candy with the kid who got the least...you know, spreading the wealth. *shrug* Happy Halloween.
Well, I thought it was time for a change on here. The problem is, things didn't quite work out the way I hoped. I like the design and all, but it didn't turn out like the preview suggested. The title is supposed to be to the right of the design in the header so it can be read clearly, and so is the header subtext.
Also, the change that took place to the right in the Archive section is a little messy, and so I had to change things up.
Lastly, I can't get the date to show up. I think this template is an adaptation of a wordpress template.
If anyone knows if it's possible to fix these things within the .html, please let me know!
In the mean time, I may keep looking for something that works better...oh well.
*******************UPDATE******************
It didn't take me long to find something new, and I like it far better. So, no need for anyone to try and help with any of the above issues. They seem to be taken care of! Let me know what you think of the new look!
Also, the change that took place to the right in the Archive section is a little messy, and so I had to change things up.
Lastly, I can't get the date to show up. I think this template is an adaptation of a wordpress template.
If anyone knows if it's possible to fix these things within the .html, please let me know!
In the mean time, I may keep looking for something that works better...oh well.
*******************UPDATE******************
It didn't take me long to find something new, and I like it far better. So, no need for anyone to try and help with any of the above issues. They seem to be taken care of! Let me know what you think of the new look!
I read this today in the Wall Street Journal, and it was so well written and thought out, I just had to post it. I hope everyone will take a moment to read this. If you can read this, and this is what you want from our government, then go ahead and vote for it by voting for the people who wish to implement these things. If you read this and are the least bit concerned, don't vote for these folks. If you read this and can't say that you understand the implications of these issues/policies, please don't take the easy way out and 1.) stop reading and/or 2.) ignore this. Putting your head in the sand about these issues will not make our country better. No matter what happens in the next few weeks, I'm thankful that God is completely in control.
A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.
The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.
- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.
It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
I'm not normally this charged about politics, but I just can't get past what has gone on during this campaign. A friend of mine wrote a nice little piece on how Barak Obama plans to create jobs and help our economy, and it fired me up enough to write some stuff I've been agitated about for a while now.
He wrote about how poor Obama's plan was, but I had heard Obama tell the American people just the other day that he is going to lower capital gains taxes for small business. How exciting! There's just one small problem: small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes. He doesn't even know what they are...exactly the kind of man I want leading our country.
My friend also mentioned that Obama is "eloquently convincing you to accept the initial stages of socialism." May I go so far as to say Marxism? He uses words and phrases like, "brother's keeper," "fairness," and "everyone should have health insurance," among other platitudes that sound so good, but in reality, it's Marxism with make-up on. He wants to make wealthier people, most who have worked hard and earned every penny, do what Joe Biden said the other day was the "patriotic" thing to do, pay more in taxes so they can reallocate it to poor people, many of whom have chosen their lifestyle (school dropouts, don't try to work more than they have to in order to still qualify for government handouts, etc.) and would simply continue to live off of their expectation that the government is obligated to provide for them instead of getting off their butts and earning an income.
And I'm so tired of watching the media drool over the man. I have lost all respect for our media. The media sent droves of people to Wasilla, AK to drudge up any dirt they could find on Sarah Palin. All they can come up with is the media-created "Troopergate." They air people who just a few months ago stood up with fellow feminists who fight for working women, who now bash Palin because she is everything they wanted to be a couldn't become (which ultimately backfired, thankfully, as it exposed the hypocrisy within the feminist movement). She's bashed as 'unqualified,' when in fact, she alone has far more experience than Obama. No one in the media cares to mention that he has only spent 140-some days working in the Senate, and most of the time he voted "present" so that people couldn't bash his voting record.
How many people have investigated Obama? How many people know who Saul Alinsky is? Or how about William Ayers? Father Flager? Franklin Raines? Why is no one investigating Obama and his relationship with all of these people? What about his relationship to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meltdown? The only reason anyone knows about Jeremiah Wright is because he opened his big mouth, and the media did everything they could to put that fire out. Or what about his support of infanticide while an Illinois Senator? And you don't hear much mention of his plan to reduce the number of abortions in this county (which also sounds like a noble goal, until you realize he wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners and help fund Planned Parenthood.) Shame on the media for spending more time and asking harder questions about a pregnant 17-year-old than Barak Obama, who only happens to be running for President of the United States. Oh yeah, they do know all that...they just don't want us to.
And I just have to say that he dug himself a real hole, in my eyes, with the mocking of McCain in the commercial where he makes fun of the fact that McCain doesn't know how to use e-mail. Is he so out of touch that he doesn't even know that McCain's arms and hands don't function correctly because he served our country in the most honorable of ways, or does he know and just has the audacity to mock him, anyway? I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, that was just wrong.
The man does tug at the heartstrings of believers because he talks of helping the poor and looking out for each other. The problem is that as Christians, we too often want the government to do those things for us. But it's not the responsibility of the government...it's the responsibility of the church. It's our responsibility. It's also our responsibility to love our Lord with our minds, but far too often we disengage and believe whatever is told to us instead of investigating for ourselves and knowing what's at stake.
He wrote about how poor Obama's plan was, but I had heard Obama tell the American people just the other day that he is going to lower capital gains taxes for small business. How exciting! There's just one small problem: small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes. He doesn't even know what they are...exactly the kind of man I want leading our country.
My friend also mentioned that Obama is "eloquently convincing you to accept the initial stages of socialism." May I go so far as to say Marxism? He uses words and phrases like, "brother's keeper," "fairness," and "everyone should have health insurance," among other platitudes that sound so good, but in reality, it's Marxism with make-up on. He wants to make wealthier people, most who have worked hard and earned every penny, do what Joe Biden said the other day was the "patriotic" thing to do, pay more in taxes so they can reallocate it to poor people, many of whom have chosen their lifestyle (school dropouts, don't try to work more than they have to in order to still qualify for government handouts, etc.) and would simply continue to live off of their expectation that the government is obligated to provide for them instead of getting off their butts and earning an income.
And I'm so tired of watching the media drool over the man. I have lost all respect for our media. The media sent droves of people to Wasilla, AK to drudge up any dirt they could find on Sarah Palin. All they can come up with is the media-created "Troopergate." They air people who just a few months ago stood up with fellow feminists who fight for working women, who now bash Palin because she is everything they wanted to be a couldn't become (which ultimately backfired, thankfully, as it exposed the hypocrisy within the feminist movement). She's bashed as 'unqualified,' when in fact, she alone has far more experience than Obama. No one in the media cares to mention that he has only spent 140-some days working in the Senate, and most of the time he voted "present" so that people couldn't bash his voting record.
How many people have investigated Obama? How many people know who Saul Alinsky is? Or how about William Ayers? Father Flager? Franklin Raines? Why is no one investigating Obama and his relationship with all of these people? What about his relationship to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meltdown? The only reason anyone knows about Jeremiah Wright is because he opened his big mouth, and the media did everything they could to put that fire out. Or what about his support of infanticide while an Illinois Senator? And you don't hear much mention of his plan to reduce the number of abortions in this county (which also sounds like a noble goal, until you realize he wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners and help fund Planned Parenthood.) Shame on the media for spending more time and asking harder questions about a pregnant 17-year-old than Barak Obama, who only happens to be running for President of the United States. Oh yeah, they do know all that...they just don't want us to.
And I just have to say that he dug himself a real hole, in my eyes, with the mocking of McCain in the commercial where he makes fun of the fact that McCain doesn't know how to use e-mail. Is he so out of touch that he doesn't even know that McCain's arms and hands don't function correctly because he served our country in the most honorable of ways, or does he know and just has the audacity to mock him, anyway? I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, that was just wrong.
The man does tug at the heartstrings of believers because he talks of helping the poor and looking out for each other. The problem is that as Christians, we too often want the government to do those things for us. But it's not the responsibility of the government...it's the responsibility of the church. It's our responsibility. It's also our responsibility to love our Lord with our minds, but far too often we disengage and believe whatever is told to us instead of investigating for ourselves and knowing what's at stake.
One of the objections leveled most often at those who hold to the doctrines of grace is that if God has chosen who He's going to save, then why do we bother evangelizing? On the surface, this seems to make some sense, but not only does it not make sense, it's as if they haven't really taken the time to think through the consequences of their own position, and this is where I want to place my attention.
As for the objection itself, God tells us to preach the gospel to every creature, so that should be good enough for us (simply doing it because He told us to). In addition, to paraphrase Spurgeon, if the elect were marked with a yellow stripe on their backs, we'd quit the ministry and go around pulling up shirt tails. Since we don't know who they are, we have to tell everyone. Forgive me for not going into further reasoning or expounding on these, as there is plenty more that can be said. I just want to spend more of my time turning the tables, so to speak.
If I believe that each person has libertarian free will to choose or not choose God (notice, I'm not suggestion people don't make a choice, just not a libertarian one), then isn't my role to convince people who haven't chosen Christ why they need to? And in order to convince others, it means I have to be smarter than they are, so I'll need to have lots of biblical education. If I can't quote the Romans Road by heart, then I shouldn't be evangelizing until I can (and even then I may not know enough, especially if I'm talking to educated scientists or New Atheists, or the like).
And you know, it's really hard to get people to not only acknowledge God exists, but for them to acknowledge Christ died for them. Beyond that, it's harder to get them to understand their need for Christ to die in their place, which means admitting wrong-doing. And even if I get them this far, getting them to repent is nearly impossible! It's just so hard, even for the well-education Christian to do all this, so maybe we will just leave some of that out. In fact, I'll dress it all up so that it looks really good and won't be so hard. It says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." That's all there is to it. It's that easy. We don't need to mention wrath or judgment, just Love.
Does anyone see the slippery slope? There are some real problems that can creep in with this kind of mindset. There are also some biblical issues of evangelism that one would have to work through. How would this person react to reading that Christ would have his true disciples (not just His apostles, but the 70) shake the dust of their feet in protest against a town that didn't return peace to them (Luke 10) or shortly before that where Jesus doesn't get all that excited when a man tells Him that he wants to follow Him. In fact, Jesus let's the man know that's it's not going to be easy, as He doesn't even have a place to lay His head. That doesn't sound like great recruitment technique.
And you realize this plays itself out in real life, don't you? What about that guy who's been asking about spiritual things, and instead of answering him, you don't because you feel inadequate, so you invite him to church with you (that sounds good, right?). But then he asks, "do you sing those boring old songs?" and since you know you do but you're afraid he won't come if you tell him the truth, you're at a loss for words and actually considering lying to the guy just so he won't turn your invitation down. Or what about when you have taken the time to share the gospel with someone and they still reject Him, but you go home and beat yourself up because you think you must have said something wrong or forgot to mention something as if, by having said things better, you would have convinced them. Now they may be on their way to an eternity separated from Him because you screwed up.
This is unbiblical. The doctrines of grace allow us to freely share with whomever without fear or reservation. We need to realize that God is in complete control. We don't have to water down the gospel, or spice it up, or take out the 'offensive' stuff, or worry about being inadequate or having said anything wrong. We can't scare someone off by telling them that it's going to cost them everything, unless of course what they would have professed wasn't really a saving faith anyway. We simply need to go and make disciples, trusting that God will do what He has said He will do, and that is use us (what a privilege!) to bring His chosen to Himself.
As for the objection itself, God tells us to preach the gospel to every creature, so that should be good enough for us (simply doing it because He told us to). In addition, to paraphrase Spurgeon, if the elect were marked with a yellow stripe on their backs, we'd quit the ministry and go around pulling up shirt tails. Since we don't know who they are, we have to tell everyone. Forgive me for not going into further reasoning or expounding on these, as there is plenty more that can be said. I just want to spend more of my time turning the tables, so to speak.
If I believe that each person has libertarian free will to choose or not choose God (notice, I'm not suggestion people don't make a choice, just not a libertarian one), then isn't my role to convince people who haven't chosen Christ why they need to? And in order to convince others, it means I have to be smarter than they are, so I'll need to have lots of biblical education. If I can't quote the Romans Road by heart, then I shouldn't be evangelizing until I can (and even then I may not know enough, especially if I'm talking to educated scientists or New Atheists, or the like).
And you know, it's really hard to get people to not only acknowledge God exists, but for them to acknowledge Christ died for them. Beyond that, it's harder to get them to understand their need for Christ to die in their place, which means admitting wrong-doing. And even if I get them this far, getting them to repent is nearly impossible! It's just so hard, even for the well-education Christian to do all this, so maybe we will just leave some of that out. In fact, I'll dress it all up so that it looks really good and won't be so hard. It says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." That's all there is to it. It's that easy. We don't need to mention wrath or judgment, just Love.
Does anyone see the slippery slope? There are some real problems that can creep in with this kind of mindset. There are also some biblical issues of evangelism that one would have to work through. How would this person react to reading that Christ would have his true disciples (not just His apostles, but the 70) shake the dust of their feet in protest against a town that didn't return peace to them (Luke 10) or shortly before that where Jesus doesn't get all that excited when a man tells Him that he wants to follow Him. In fact, Jesus let's the man know that's it's not going to be easy, as He doesn't even have a place to lay His head. That doesn't sound like great recruitment technique.
And you realize this plays itself out in real life, don't you? What about that guy who's been asking about spiritual things, and instead of answering him, you don't because you feel inadequate, so you invite him to church with you (that sounds good, right?). But then he asks, "do you sing those boring old songs?" and since you know you do but you're afraid he won't come if you tell him the truth, you're at a loss for words and actually considering lying to the guy just so he won't turn your invitation down. Or what about when you have taken the time to share the gospel with someone and they still reject Him, but you go home and beat yourself up because you think you must have said something wrong or forgot to mention something as if, by having said things better, you would have convinced them. Now they may be on their way to an eternity separated from Him because you screwed up.
This is unbiblical. The doctrines of grace allow us to freely share with whomever without fear or reservation. We need to realize that God is in complete control. We don't have to water down the gospel, or spice it up, or take out the 'offensive' stuff, or worry about being inadequate or having said anything wrong. We can't scare someone off by telling them that it's going to cost them everything, unless of course what they would have professed wasn't really a saving faith anyway. We simply need to go and make disciples, trusting that God will do what He has said He will do, and that is use us (what a privilege!) to bring His chosen to Himself.
I don't get it. I see it time and time again, and I fail to understand the logic every time. I'm really tired of hearing, "The Bible is supposed to be easy enough for a child to understand," or, "You're doing mental gymnastics that aren't neccessary and are thinking way too hard about it," or, "The plain reading of the text proves you wrong," or, "If you need bullet points and a system of theology than you're going wrong somewhere."
Apparently, their "plain reading of the Bible" doesn't help them to understand that they need to love their God with their mind, as well as their heart, soul and strength. And last I checked, I'm not so sure a five year-old...ok, ok...a twelve year-old...alright already, or even I can claim that Revelation is an easy read.
The Bible was written thousands of years ago, so we have to understand the perspective of such audiences. God used about 40 different men to write 66 different books/letters, many in different genres that all need special understanding. Our English version has been translated from Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and we have how many English versions? But somehow people have come to think that understanding and interpreting Scripture is easy...so easy a child could do it.
Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting that Scripture is impossible to understand or interpret correctly, and certainly not that children are stupid, but there is a distinct difference between milk and meat (and you can even catch that in a "plain reading" of Scripture!). So why is it that when we are under the teaching of Scripture, we simply find someone we like and hand them our brain and tell them to "fill 'er up!" Why do we get the attitude when we sit in front of Scripture thinking that if we bust superficially through x chapters a day that somehow I'm a super-Christian. And after all of this, some still have the gall to say something like, "this (clearly unbiblical teaching) is what the Holy Spirit led me to understand."
To me, it sounds more like an excuse for laziness than anything. Somehow we feel fully justified believing certain things because it seems like that's what the Text is saying upon first glance. But really, we just don't want to take the time to know God deeper. We like comfortable. And if it's going to take me out of my comfort zone, than it must not be of God.
Where do we come up with this stuff?
Apparently, their "plain reading of the Bible" doesn't help them to understand that they need to love their God with their mind, as well as their heart, soul and strength. And last I checked, I'm not so sure a five year-old...ok, ok...a twelve year-old...alright already, or even I can claim that Revelation is an easy read.
The Bible was written thousands of years ago, so we have to understand the perspective of such audiences. God used about 40 different men to write 66 different books/letters, many in different genres that all need special understanding. Our English version has been translated from Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and we have how many English versions? But somehow people have come to think that understanding and interpreting Scripture is easy...so easy a child could do it.
Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting that Scripture is impossible to understand or interpret correctly, and certainly not that children are stupid, but there is a distinct difference between milk and meat (and you can even catch that in a "plain reading" of Scripture!). So why is it that when we are under the teaching of Scripture, we simply find someone we like and hand them our brain and tell them to "fill 'er up!" Why do we get the attitude when we sit in front of Scripture thinking that if we bust superficially through x chapters a day that somehow I'm a super-Christian. And after all of this, some still have the gall to say something like, "this (clearly unbiblical teaching) is what the Holy Spirit led me to understand."
To me, it sounds more like an excuse for laziness than anything. Somehow we feel fully justified believing certain things because it seems like that's what the Text is saying upon first glance. But really, we just don't want to take the time to know God deeper. We like comfortable. And if it's going to take me out of my comfort zone, than it must not be of God.
Where do we come up with this stuff?
I'm sorry to all of my avid readers out there (Stan) that it's been so long since I last wrote. My wife and I just purchased our first house and I've been going nuts with very little free time since, so needless to say, things have been hectic. But I've found a little time, so I'll just apologize and move on...
I've been thinking lately about the issue of homosexuality, especially in light of what's happened in California in recent days. Why is this debate so polarizing? Why is it likened to the civil rights movement? What makes this different than so many other issues?
I think it has to do with a case of mistaken identity. Let me role play for a moment...
Does anyone else see a major problem here? In this scenario, the person has taken their sin and made it their identity...they've made it who they are. This, to me, is what makes this issue of homosexuality so polarizing. When one speaks against homosexuality, it becomes nearly impossible to separate it from the person. Speaking against it is speaking against the person themself. It's easy to say that lying is wrong because there aren't people, on a large scale, who've made it their identity. It's the same for a myriad of other vices. But not so with homosexuality. This is the challenge we are faced with...
I've been thinking lately about the issue of homosexuality, especially in light of what's happened in California in recent days. Why is this debate so polarizing? Why is it likened to the civil rights movement? What makes this different than so many other issues?
I think it has to do with a case of mistaken identity. Let me role play for a moment...
I'm nervous, so bear with me. There's something I want to tell you. In fact, I need to tell you. It's something I've known for a while now, but just been too scared to admit. I've been afraid of what people would think of me if they knew, so I've just kept it to myself. But after lots of thought, I've realized that I shouldn't really be worried about that. Who cares what other people think of me?! That doesn't change who I am! So, I've decided that I need to tell someone, I've got to come out of the closet and just let it out. So here I go...
I am...............................I'm a liar.
I know you're thinking, "No, not my son!" But, you don't have to worry. In fact, you're just going to have to get over it. You should be proud of me for discovering this about myself. It's who I am!
You're probably also wondering how long I've known. Well, I started realizing it when I realized that I could get away with things that I didn't want others to know I did, like the one time I broke your antique vase when I was six...yeah, that was me...and I grew to understand this more fully when I realized it would also help other people think better of me than I really am, and it just grew from there.
The frustrating thing about it is the complete injustice I've endured because of this. It's not my choice, it's who I am, but people just don't seem to get it. They look at me funny when they find out who I am. The judicial system doesn't tolerate me or others like me. Neither does the church...I can be a good Christian and still be a liar! There are plenty of lying clergy! Yeah, yeah...the Bible does say, "Thou shalt not lie." But that's not really what it means. Those ten commandments are all outdated anyway. They were for people a few thousand years ago. They obviously aren't meant for today. I get churched folk coming up to me all the time telling me I'm going to hell, but they just don't get the fact that God made me this way.
There are some good things happening though. I've started a group for liars...all different kinds, from little white liars to people who tell the most amazing kinds! It's great...we're all really supportive of each other and have been able to organize rallies and get publicity to help further our cause! We're even working hard to pass legislation to legalize lying. Just the other day, I was contacted by a scientist who heard about us, and he told us he was working on getting a grant so that he could begin looking for a lying gene that would prove this is just a part of who we are, and he's pretty sure it exists based on past studies! Isn't that exciting?!?!
Does anyone else see a major problem here? In this scenario, the person has taken their sin and made it their identity...they've made it who they are. This, to me, is what makes this issue of homosexuality so polarizing. When one speaks against homosexuality, it becomes nearly impossible to separate it from the person. Speaking against it is speaking against the person themself. It's easy to say that lying is wrong because there aren't people, on a large scale, who've made it their identity. It's the same for a myriad of other vices. But not so with homosexuality. This is the challenge we are faced with...
A story was recently printed in the Beaver County (PA) Times about a young man who chose not to play in the state championship game his high school basketball team was playing in so that he could attend a weekend church retreat. Many are saying that it is about time "church/religion comes before sports." I'm not sure I'm quite as quick to agree.
First, lets take a look at the pro's of his decision. He probably was able to gain encouragement from the Word and from other men that weekend. He probably grew in his knowledge of God by going to the camp. These are very important things; very good things. But, do they outweigh the cons?
If I'm his teammate, I'm upset. First of all, though he's not a starter, his team was without three key players, which means the bench players could play a crucial role in the championship game, especially if an injury to another player occurs during the course of the game. He made a commitment to this team, and now he's broken that commitment, and not only broken it, but broken it when his team needs him most. In addition, someone was probably cut from the team to make a spot for him. They could have been vying for the championship trophy while he was at his retreat. And now, if this young man tries to introduce his teammates to Jesus, what will their reaction to him be? "You want me to commit my life to Jesus? Who are you to tell me about commitment?" "I used to respect you, but you let us down, so now I don't know what to think about you or your Jesus."
Why are we so concerned with what we culturally deem to be "church?" We applaud people for going to church or doing church programs, instead of being the church. Those teammates probably need Jesus far more than He needed that weekend at the church retreat, and if playing in a basketball game helped his teammates see Jesus that much better, or at least didn't tarnish His name, then I choose the game over the retreat any day of the week.
Let it be understood that I appreciate this young man's desire to make God first in his life and the willingness to sacrifice personal accolades in order to make it so. That much is admirable and praiseworthy. I just hope he, along with the rest of us, comes to realize that 'going to church' doesn't necessarily equal godliness, but that 'being the church' does.
First, lets take a look at the pro's of his decision. He probably was able to gain encouragement from the Word and from other men that weekend. He probably grew in his knowledge of God by going to the camp. These are very important things; very good things. But, do they outweigh the cons?
If I'm his teammate, I'm upset. First of all, though he's not a starter, his team was without three key players, which means the bench players could play a crucial role in the championship game, especially if an injury to another player occurs during the course of the game. He made a commitment to this team, and now he's broken that commitment, and not only broken it, but broken it when his team needs him most. In addition, someone was probably cut from the team to make a spot for him. They could have been vying for the championship trophy while he was at his retreat. And now, if this young man tries to introduce his teammates to Jesus, what will their reaction to him be? "You want me to commit my life to Jesus? Who are you to tell me about commitment?" "I used to respect you, but you let us down, so now I don't know what to think about you or your Jesus."
Why are we so concerned with what we culturally deem to be "church?" We applaud people for going to church or doing church programs, instead of being the church. Those teammates probably need Jesus far more than He needed that weekend at the church retreat, and if playing in a basketball game helped his teammates see Jesus that much better, or at least didn't tarnish His name, then I choose the game over the retreat any day of the week.
Let it be understood that I appreciate this young man's desire to make God first in his life and the willingness to sacrifice personal accolades in order to make it so. That much is admirable and praiseworthy. I just hope he, along with the rest of us, comes to realize that 'going to church' doesn't necessarily equal godliness, but that 'being the church' does.
...I just don't understand! I continued to hear things as we approached today, the Florida primary election day. I mentioned in a previous post that some of the concepts being thrown around by the average 'Joe' politically are unbelievable. They hear stuff on TV and buy it hook, line and sinker. The problem is, people stop thinking for themselves, as if they have handed their brain to someone they think they like and said, "Here you go. Stuff anything in there you'd like!" The more I've heard as we approached today, the more I've scratched my head...
Talk was being thrown out by a television show (sorry, I can't recall the station or the show...I know, that's bad) that argued that it was perfectly legitimate to compare President Bush to Adolph Hitler! Their reasoning? Well, Guantanamo Bay, of course! Just like Hitler had concentration camps for the Jews, Guantanamo Bay is like a concentration camp for Arabs...don't you see how precise the comparison is? Is it just me, or does anybody else realize that, even if it is conceded that inappropriate treatment of inmates is occurring at Guantanamo (which I'm not so sure I believe either), isn't there something to the fact that they are people who would destroy us if we didn't try to stop them first? And not only that, but they've already taken steps to do so, or they wouldn't be in Guantanamo in the first place. The Jews were innocent, folks...
Oh and of course, "the health care system is going down the wrong path! Who better to fix it than the government??!!" Really?!?! You really want to be giving more money to the same government so many of you already complain don't spend it wisely? You really want some bureaucrat you don't know telling you who your doctor will be? You really want the government to decide if your surgery, which your life depends on, is covered or not?
Thankfully, we know a God who is bigger than all of this. It's just too bad that so many people are determined to leave him out of the affairs of our country.
Talk was being thrown out by a television show (sorry, I can't recall the station or the show...I know, that's bad) that argued that it was perfectly legitimate to compare President Bush to Adolph Hitler! Their reasoning? Well, Guantanamo Bay, of course! Just like Hitler had concentration camps for the Jews, Guantanamo Bay is like a concentration camp for Arabs...don't you see how precise the comparison is? Is it just me, or does anybody else realize that, even if it is conceded that inappropriate treatment of inmates is occurring at Guantanamo (which I'm not so sure I believe either), isn't there something to the fact that they are people who would destroy us if we didn't try to stop them first? And not only that, but they've already taken steps to do so, or they wouldn't be in Guantanamo in the first place. The Jews were innocent, folks...
Oh and of course, "the health care system is going down the wrong path! Who better to fix it than the government??!!" Really?!?! You really want to be giving more money to the same government so many of you already complain don't spend it wisely? You really want some bureaucrat you don't know telling you who your doctor will be? You really want the government to decide if your surgery, which your life depends on, is covered or not?
Thankfully, we know a God who is bigger than all of this. It's just too bad that so many people are determined to leave him out of the affairs of our country.
I'm in the midst of reading today, and I come across this article. I just had to stop and read it. Apparently, Dr. Gilbert Omenn, professor of Internal Medicine, Human Genetics, and Public Health at the University of Michigan thinks that if America elects a president that doesn't believe in evolution, America will be led to ruin. Um...what?
First of all, evolution teaches that man came from lower life forms, most recently, apes. This is taught as fact in schools. Is it any wonder that kids in those schools seem to act more and more like animals all the time? Evolution teaches us that we are here by chance. "You are a cosmic accident!" But of course it's those that believe we are created and thus are accountable to God that will lead the country to ruin, not the people who believe there is no meaning in life outside of self.
My apologies for the sarcasm, but doesn't his statement seem ironic to anyone else? If I believe in creation, then I believe there is a Creator. If there's a Creator, then as His creation, I'm accountable to Him. I was made for Him, so I must do as He wishes. The only reason I would be scared that creationists would ruin the country is if I thought that the Creator wanted to destroy it. However, it's generally recognized that people who believe in a Creator also believe that Creator said things like, don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, etc. I'm not seeing how following that creator will lead any people to ruin.
If I'm an evolutionist, I am my own god. I answer to no one. Yes, in many instances, keeping the peace with those around me is good for me, but many times it isn't. What if someone angers me? Can't I kill them? Survival of the fittest, folks...who are you to tell me that's wrong? I'm not accountable to you...you're not special; you're a fellow cosmic accident like I am.
Maybe that example is too extreme. But what about people in the business world who scratch and claw to get to the top, cheating, lying and slandering their way there. They tick off a lot of people in the process. Or people that steal? "I know it's yours, but I needed it more than you did, so I have every right to take it." Survival of the fittest. So which worldview with its logical end would lead a country to ruin?
The article quotes him also as saying that, "The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming." All those who sent your kids to Michigan to study science with this guy ought to seriously reconsider. Last I checked, there were two types of science: operational and origin science. Evolutionary science is an origin science, which typically relies on eyewitness accounts (which obviously isn't the case with evolution) and circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it is not the same logic used to say smoking is bad for you, because that's operational science, which uses observable, repeatable experiments to discover truth. Has anyone been able to reproduce macro-evolution in a lab experiment? Has anyone been able to take random chemicals and create a big bang using the scientific method? Of course not! Therefore, assumptions have to be applied to circumstantial evidence. This is obviously not the same logic!
Our Creator has told us these things would happen as...well, read Romans 1 for yourself.
First of all, evolution teaches that man came from lower life forms, most recently, apes. This is taught as fact in schools. Is it any wonder that kids in those schools seem to act more and more like animals all the time? Evolution teaches us that we are here by chance. "You are a cosmic accident!" But of course it's those that believe we are created and thus are accountable to God that will lead the country to ruin, not the people who believe there is no meaning in life outside of self.
My apologies for the sarcasm, but doesn't his statement seem ironic to anyone else? If I believe in creation, then I believe there is a Creator. If there's a Creator, then as His creation, I'm accountable to Him. I was made for Him, so I must do as He wishes. The only reason I would be scared that creationists would ruin the country is if I thought that the Creator wanted to destroy it. However, it's generally recognized that people who believe in a Creator also believe that Creator said things like, don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, etc. I'm not seeing how following that creator will lead any people to ruin.
If I'm an evolutionist, I am my own god. I answer to no one. Yes, in many instances, keeping the peace with those around me is good for me, but many times it isn't. What if someone angers me? Can't I kill them? Survival of the fittest, folks...who are you to tell me that's wrong? I'm not accountable to you...you're not special; you're a fellow cosmic accident like I am.
Maybe that example is too extreme. But what about people in the business world who scratch and claw to get to the top, cheating, lying and slandering their way there. They tick off a lot of people in the process. Or people that steal? "I know it's yours, but I needed it more than you did, so I have every right to take it." Survival of the fittest. So which worldview with its logical end would lead a country to ruin?
The article quotes him also as saying that, "The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming." All those who sent your kids to Michigan to study science with this guy ought to seriously reconsider. Last I checked, there were two types of science: operational and origin science. Evolutionary science is an origin science, which typically relies on eyewitness accounts (which obviously isn't the case with evolution) and circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it is not the same logic used to say smoking is bad for you, because that's operational science, which uses observable, repeatable experiments to discover truth. Has anyone been able to reproduce macro-evolution in a lab experiment? Has anyone been able to take random chemicals and create a big bang using the scientific method? Of course not! Therefore, assumptions have to be applied to circumstantial evidence. This is obviously not the same logic!
Our Creator has told us these things would happen as...well, read Romans 1 for yourself.
In spite of my own team's inability to reach the national championship game, I just thought I'd mention how nice it was to watch the Buckeyes get run over by LSU tonight. Few things warm my heart more than watching OSU go home with their tail between their legs. If only that would happen after they play the Wolverines...
2008 has only just begun, but I'm already growing tired of the political banter leading up to an election that is still 11 months away. But I suppose it isn't the actual banter I'm tired of. I'm tired of the fact that so many people have uninformed opinions but spout off as if they have CIA-level intelligence of the issue. Here are just a few of those things:
- Embryonic Stem Cell Research - People like Michael J. Fox get in front of a camera and say that if you don't support embryonic stem cell research then you're against finding a cure. How can you be against finding a cure?! But so many have failed to notice that there are other types of stem cell research, like studying adult stem cells. This doesn't harm an embryo and has proven to cure diseases, while no one has ever been cured through the use of embryonic stem cells. Few have failed to notice, also, that the reason embryonic stem cell research is still being pushed hard isn't because it works, but it is largely because of - you guessed it - money!
- S-CHIP - This stands for State Children's Health Insurance Program and it was/is trumpeted as the only answer for those who can't speak out for themselves - children - who need health insurance. If you aren't for S-CHIP, you aren't for children! How can you be against children!?!? What many don't understand is that it's a program that's already been in place and was in need of being renewed. But under the program, many adults were getting free health care (approximately 10% of SCHIP health care recipients...I thought it was for children), children in a family whose income was less than $72,000/year were eligible for the program (are you telling me that someone who makes that much a year can't afford to have their own children, who are their responsibility, on their own health plan?), and that's not everything. No, were not against children...we're against a poor system in favor of a better one!
- Evolutionism/Creationism in school - If evolutionists are so sure that evolution is hard, scientific fact, then shouldn't they welcome dialog about the issue? What are they trying to hide?
Happy New Year, everyone! Sorry it's been so long since I've posted, but I find so much enjoyment reading other blogs, it's hard for me to stop long enough to post on my own!
I saw something today that caught me off guard, and I decided to scratch the surface to see if what it was that startled me had validity or not. In 2007, a Gallup Poll was conducted here in the United States. The results of that poll were released in an article (not written by the AP or Reuters, but by the Christian Post itself) entitled, "American Christianity Remains Strong in 2007." It was this headline that startled me a little, and wanting to dig deeper, I decided to read on, only to find some disturbing numbers coming from an article who's title is spun so positively.
A quick recap of the survey of religiosity in the United States -
51% Protestant
23% Roman Catholic
11% did not identify with a religion
5% "other Christian"
3% "another Christian faith" (apparently 2/3 of the 3% are Mormon)
2% did not answer
(The article fails to identify the remaining 5%)
First of all, let me start by pointing out that the poll does not define Christianity; it simply allows the polled public determine what they consider themselves. This provides for interesting numbers, as we're about to find out.
The number of Protestants in the country has dropped by 18% over the last 60 years, but that number seems to be the least of our concerns based on what else we find. The article states that 82% of Americans claim to identify themselves in some way with Christianity, but only 62% of that 82% consider themselves to be members of a Church! Not even two-thirds! Now, I'm sure a portion of them probably said that because they're between churches (they just moved, just went through a split, etc.) But at the least, it still means that about a third of Americans who claim to be followers of Christ lack a basic understanding of the necessity of the church.
Approximately 44% of Americans claim to go to church at least "almost every week." That's barely more than half of the people who claim any sort of Christianity at all. Now don't get me wrong...attending church isn't an end in and of it self. But how are we to be the church if we don't even spend much time with it? And if barely half of people only attend "almost every week," what does that say about the percentage of people who actually are the church every week?
56% of Americans claim religion is very important in their lives, the article says. What, then, are we to think of the 25% of Americans (at least) who claim some sort of Christianity, but don't claim that religion is very important?
I don't know about you, but this study tells me a couple things. First, there's a severe lack of understanding in our country about what Christianity truly is. Second, there's a severe lack of understanding in our country about what (or should I say, 'who') the church really is. And we're saying that American Christianity remains strong based on these statistics? It makes me want to hit my knees...
I saw something today that caught me off guard, and I decided to scratch the surface to see if what it was that startled me had validity or not. In 2007, a Gallup Poll was conducted here in the United States. The results of that poll were released in an article (not written by the AP or Reuters, but by the Christian Post itself) entitled, "American Christianity Remains Strong in 2007." It was this headline that startled me a little, and wanting to dig deeper, I decided to read on, only to find some disturbing numbers coming from an article who's title is spun so positively.
A quick recap of the survey of religiosity in the United States -
51% Protestant
23% Roman Catholic
11% did not identify with a religion
5% "other Christian"
3% "another Christian faith" (apparently 2/3 of the 3% are Mormon)
2% did not answer
(The article fails to identify the remaining 5%)
First of all, let me start by pointing out that the poll does not define Christianity; it simply allows the polled public determine what they consider themselves. This provides for interesting numbers, as we're about to find out.
The number of Protestants in the country has dropped by 18% over the last 60 years, but that number seems to be the least of our concerns based on what else we find. The article states that 82% of Americans claim to identify themselves in some way with Christianity, but only 62% of that 82% consider themselves to be members of a Church! Not even two-thirds! Now, I'm sure a portion of them probably said that because they're between churches (they just moved, just went through a split, etc.) But at the least, it still means that about a third of Americans who claim to be followers of Christ lack a basic understanding of the necessity of the church.
Approximately 44% of Americans claim to go to church at least "almost every week." That's barely more than half of the people who claim any sort of Christianity at all. Now don't get me wrong...attending church isn't an end in and of it self. But how are we to be the church if we don't even spend much time with it? And if barely half of people only attend "almost every week," what does that say about the percentage of people who actually are the church every week?
56% of Americans claim religion is very important in their lives, the article says. What, then, are we to think of the 25% of Americans (at least) who claim some sort of Christianity, but don't claim that religion is very important?
I don't know about you, but this study tells me a couple things. First, there's a severe lack of understanding in our country about what Christianity truly is. Second, there's a severe lack of understanding in our country about what (or should I say, 'who') the church really is. And we're saying that American Christianity remains strong based on these statistics? It makes me want to hit my knees...
