Archive by terms
Articles about current events and how the Christian world view affects society.
Murderous crackpots have used religion to foment their followers to kill. Granted, the Bible has accounts of God instructing people to kill or go to war in specific instances but that is missing from Christianity. No where in Christianity do you see Jesus or the apostles advocating killing anyone; either for their beliefs or even actions. Of course Jesus was no pacifist. He instructed in Luke 22:35-36 that while He once sent the apostles out without defense, He was now instructing them to sell their clothes to buy a sword. But no where in Christianity is there this thought that at some future date, Christians following their pastors will rise up and slaughter those who don't "obey".
This is an unpleasant topic to have to discuss so close to the holiday that even non-religious people celebrate as a time for family and friends, but the reality is people are going to be duped if they continue to get their news from the mainstream media on this topic.
To be clear, I'm NOT claiming any special insight into this except that the sheer FACTS just don't support the spin the media is putting on it.
In this generation where people are easily labeled haters and bigots simply for expressing support for traditional values, the true Hate are those who would, through loud social conformance attempt to shut down opposition to their agenda. Whether we're talking about politics, religion or something more personal, everyone benefits when all the issues are laid out before us and true logic is applied; logic that takes into consideration demonstrative reality and not merely rhetoric.
The "green" movement, or environmentalism often talks about "sustainability" as in sustaining our supposed limited resources. Although there is evidence that some so-called fossil fuels such as crude oil actually are being mysteriously replenished (ref); we are being told that if we don't conserve and even look to other yet unproven sources of fuel, that we can't sustain our current lifestyles.
But what I find interesting is that many of these same liberals seem to be oblivious to the FACT that a society cannot sustain itself on other peoples' money. The welfare mentality of the United States and many other nations cannot be sustained. You cannot have more consumers than you do producers. Eventually, the supply will run out.
After reading where a person I know will be getting a divorce for the second time, I thought about why people continue to follow the counsel of people who fail to succeed in their own lives. I mean, if you claim to be giver of wise counsel; especially on biblical matters, shouldn't your life reflect that? I understand that we all fail, but it is what we do with those failures that matters. And it should matter if the person continues to make the same mistake over and over; such as multiple divorces.
What is more disturbing is when people who so often fail at basic life events, act like it is no big deal or that it just happened outside of their control. They want people to just give them a pass and move on. Of course we should all pray, "But by the grace of God, there go I" whenever we see people tempted, drawn away, or falling into corruption. For we are a Fallen people, a sinful people that needs the grace and mercy of God.
A "tar-baby" is any issue that is difficult to extract one's self from after engaging. Tar-baby specifically comes from the 1881 book, Br'er Rabbit (source) where the character Br'er Rabbit fights with a Tar-baby and becomes increasingly stuck to the tar on the baby.
Sometimes people, especially politicians like to act like an issue is a tar-baby; an issue not worth addressing because it would only bog them down in needless and endless dispute, and indeed there are issues like this. But sometimes there are fake tar-babies where the person acts like the issue isn't worth their time but in reality is often the very thing that needs to be addressed. Using another phrase, it is the "white elephant" in the room -- something obvious but that almost everyone wants to avoid.
The following will interact with recent events including the shocking movie theater massacre purportedly perpetrated by James Holmes where 12 people were murdered and 58 or more injured when Holmes systematically shot people at a midnight showing of the Batman movie.
We have heard the various explanations, including that the attack was "evil", but what do these people mean by the word evil? I mean, I've seen people using this word who normally are amoral -- meaning they really have no position on what is and isn't moral. These same people are often "godless", atheistic people. How can something be "evil" unless there is an opposite concept of "righteousness". Then the question becomes, what is righteous and what is evil?
I do not want to belittle what happened by talking about the issue of evil and righteousness, but undoubtedly this case will involve asking for the death sentence and some questioning Holmes' sanity. Is an "evil" person sane? Is an insane person evil? My desire is that Holmes gets the full extent of Colorado law, which includes the death penalty.
GAFFE OR GOAL
First off, this wasn't a gaffe by Obama, this is how he thinks. He actually believes that successful people aren't successful because they are smart or assertive but because somebody else cleared the way for them. Obama doesn't understand that whether he and his socialistic friends like it or not, some people do things that make them more money than other people. All people are NOT the same. It doesn't necessarily mean one person is better than the other. We all have different goals and aspirations. Apparently Obama's goal is to destroy America.
Back in May 2010 I suggested a graduation speech where the reality is that most of the graduates will not go on to do monumental things. I said that despite that most commencement speeches talk about how the graduates should go out and "change" the world. Rather, we need more people who are trying to simply maintain those good and noble things; especially against those who are always trying to "change" those good and noble things to bad things and ignoble things.
With all the talk about the president of the United States coming out in favor of same-sex or "gay" marriage I thought I'd address this topic from a few perspectives.
THE LOVE AND PRIVACY ARGUMENT
As a guy, a man married to the same woman for 22 years, and the father of an 18 year old daughter whom has dated a few guys -- I want to offer this "guide to guys".
Girls seem to think guys are difficult to understand, but really, most guys are fairly simple. Most guys are driven by a few things but not necessarily in this order:
First, by "Post-Christian" I simply mean that much of Western civilization is becoming increasingly secularized, moving away from daily expression and adherence to Christian principles. So, in understanding that meaning, when I address the topic of women in a post-Christian world I want to contrast that with the roles, attitudes, and behavior of women in this post-Christian world. I will address both Christian and non-Christian women.
Let's establish the roles, attitudes and behavior of women when most of Western civilization was still Christianized. We'll consider this the period from roughly the 4th century to the early 1800s. This encompasses both the decline of the pagan empire of Rome and the conversion to Christianity of the last of Europe; England itself.
Um, before I go any further; let me say I have been happily married for 22 years to the same woman. She is a confident woman. She has worked outside the home during our entire marriage. We have also raised an intelligent and assertive daughter. My point is, no one should attempt to claim I'm chauvinistic or misogynistic. My wife and I have been partners in life. I am not her dictator.
Well here is my obligatory New Year's message. Typically, such a message is supposed to be full of platitudes and overly optimistic ideas. We're supposed to talk about the blessings of the previous year and the hope for the dawning.
But are we naive to think the new year will be any different than the previous if we do nothing different? This is where we are usually urged to make a resolution; a resolution to do or not do something in the new year.
Every year around Christmas time, some Christians grapple with how or if to celebrate Christmas. Typically the initial argument against Christmas by Christians is that it is not a Christian holiday but rather is a pagan holiday. Further, Protestant Christians may oppose the Roman Catholic connection to "Mass" as in "Christ's mass".
However, whatever Christmas was originally, many people; including non-Christians see the holiday as a specifically Christian holiday. So much so, that there is often a hesitancy for public institutions to overtly connect to the holiday, often using the phrase "Happy Holiday" rather than "Merry Christmas". Interestingly enough, etymologically; these institutions don't really get away from the religious overtone by using the phrase Happy Holiday because the word "Holiday" comes from the phrase Holy Day (ref).
After all the last bites, those left in tupperware tombs and tinfoil firkins. Passes passed and touchdowns danced. Aunt Sandy sighs and waves and hugged. Rug rolled up, door last shut. Another years gathering gone.
The couch calls the listless lingerer. Final sip of watered-down tea. Eyes heavy shades falling fast.
Comfy corner pillows piled high. Palms wrap the waning light. Sleep quickly comes. Dreaming of teaming doors and well wax floors.
Waiting in another line as signs mural. Another register opens by the girl in white. I'm next! I'm next! Cutters creatures and all. Brown hats and baseball bats, all things new.
Forty-five percent off. Scarves and knives for haves and have-nots. Get a receipt for things bought to return on Monday. Black Friday! Black Friday!
Alarm goes off. Wives and kiddies jiggle. Wake up! Wake! it is 12AM. Time to go. This place and that. Baseball bats and brown hats. Fifty percent off shoes.
Tryptophanic Dream. Extra piece of pie, whip cream. Rub your eyes. Time to go. Stretch and yawn to the approaching dawn. Black Friday! Black Friday!
During the days of American slavery, a tactic often used to keep the slaves from organizing was to keep them resentful of each other. To do this, the slave owners would often perpetuate a type of class warfare -- the so-called "house slave" versus the "field slave". The "house slave" was depicted as uppity as if they were better than the "field slave".
This tactic has not ended. It is demonstrated every day in the Liberal policies of the Democrat Party when it convinces most black Americans that it is uppity to be a conservative AND black. Somehow, the Democrats have convinced the majority of black Americans that black Republicans are merely "house slaves". The Democrats have been successful in getting a majority of black Americans to stay unorganized and oppressed. The Democrats have been successful in keeping a majority of black Americans on a new kind of plantation -- a plantation of the mind.
Unfortunately, some so-called "black leaders", like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have spent years helping the Democrat Party keep black Americans on the plantation of the mind.
Since the 2011-2012 Republican presidential campaign is high-lighting America's Social Security system, I thought it fitting to address the issue from a Christian perspective. In the debate, Texas governor Rick Perry has called Social Security "a ponzi scheme".
Contender, Governor Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates have taken Perry to task saying among other things; "Our nominee has to be someone who is not committed to abolishing Social Security but who is committed to saving Social Security".
Here's the problem before we get into the biblical issues; the candidates are telling us we need to stop "Obamacare" before it becomes a fixture and cannot be undone, yet at the same time, we're being told that we can't touch Social Security because it has been around for over 70 years. See the inconsistency with their arguments?
So, I was looking at an "About Us" page of a church where already the presiding pastor has a reputation as an authoritarian elitist. Typically on these "About Us" pages, you will find something about the people who attend the congregation, even if they keep it private enough to not reveal the identities of the people. I understand that. However, this church's "About Us" page only listed the leadership of the church. So, the church is only "about" the leadership?
A female, non-Christian reader was upset with an article addressing the biblical concept of wives submitting to their husbands. She classified it as a form of slavery, probably thinking that I would recoil and try to water down the submission factor. But instead I accepted the premise and even expanded upon it by saying, I have often thought how people in America are born into a slave system even today. I mean look at it, we can't simply find a plot of land and build a shelter and live our lives. Instead, most Americans must find work doing the bidding of another person. We are locked into paying rent, mortgages, utilities, not to mention taxes. What if I didn't want to be part of that rat race anymore? Where could I go to be truly "free"? If I went to the mountains, eventually some government official would find me and throw me off "public land" and perhaps fine me for squating.
This question seems easy enough to answer. Perhaps a person would say a vice is clearly "sinful" whereas a bad habit is something you ought not do but you do it without thinking. Or further, that a vice is something you willfully do with full knowledge of its negative (and possibly sinful) ramifications, whereas a bad habit is something you do without realizing it, that also is negative and possibly sinful.
Could it be that a vice is controlling and addicting; something you cannot simply stop such as smoking or drugs? Maybe a vice is always negative whereas a habit can be positive or negative?
I've asked one of my daughter's friends this question but purposely requested they do not answer me until more time passes. Please ask yourself the same question...especially next time you or someone else names some action and says, "This is my only vice". What is meant by that?
As my family returned from church today, there were many questions. You see, the sermon was on homosexuality and how it is no worse a sin than any other sin. I mean, the Bible does say sin is sin right (Rom 3:23)? This confuses many people because then who are we to say anything about anyone's sins; specifically homosexuals if we are equally sinful? I mean, what about the Bible verse of removing the board out of your own eye before trying to help another person remove a speck (Mt 7:2-5)?
It irks me when supposed "experts" blather on and they are given a status that doesn't represent the typical. For instance, the entire Harold Camping issue or like an article I read today where a man named Ian Morgan Cron wrote on FoxNews.com, an article titled: Five Words That Could Save the Church (source). Save it from what? The author answers the question with this phrase: "Five words could prevent the public brawls between Christians who differ in their opinions on social and theological issues." Who says we Christians AREN'T supposed to "brawl" to some degree over doctrine? Actually, the Bible says just the opposite as the author of this piece concludes.
Okay by now many of you have heard the world is going to end today or that there will be a "rapture" (a taking away of all the Christians) to heaven. As a devout Christian, whom I hope many of you know as a consistent example of a Christian, I want to ASSURE YOU that there will be no rapture or end of the world today.
The man who has been going around claiming there will be a rapture is Harold Capmping, an 89 year guy who predicted the same thing in 1994...and yet here we are. What was his explanation why the 1994 rapture didn't happen?
Something piqued my curiosity after helping my high-school aged daughter with an essay. The essay was about the human propensity to oppress others and why. My daughter's task was to pull from 3 former reports to determine the answer. The 3 former reports were on the book Of Mice and Men, the events of the Holocaust, and the rule of Saddam Hussein. What is the commonality within these 3 that might explain the human propensity for oppression?
In all 3 cases, the oppressors had a sense of inferiority and the feeling of threat.
Athanasius was the 4th-century Christian theologian known for his epic and unwavering stance against anti-Trinitarians called Arians (source). But even more, Athanasius was often alone in his defense of the historic Christian Faith. I don't mean that Athanasius was a rebel who had a doctrine different than the rest of Christianity, rather that while Athanasius was consistently in line with the teachings of historic Christianity, there were times in his life that the "leaders" of the segment of the Church of which he was part abandoned the historic Christian doctrine.
On the other side of this is the TRUE rebel who reads the Bible and claims they alone have come to a conclusion different than every other Christian in history. Such a person often comes up with a doctrine never taught in historic Christianity and when people reject this doctrine and the person advocating it, the person may go into "Martyr Complex" mode -- woe is me, I'm being persecuted for Christ's sake -- when in reality they are being opposed for their OWN sake.
The next video is Todd Friel from The Way of the Master, comparing different "doctors".
Cumulus Tag Cloud
Don't Worry, Be Happy
TKC Optimal Search