Disclaimer: This is another religious post. This time I'll be writing about doctrine and theology. The views expressed in this blog post are my own. I do intend offense or disrespect toward anyone. I will be writing about a rather popular theological system that I find to be quite disgusting and wrong, given the scriptures. I hope you enjoy.
Calvinism. Some call it Reformed Christianity, or Reformed Theology. I call it something else. See, I disagree with it. But what is it?
The overly generalized form of John Calvin's theological system is contained within the acronym TULIP, which breaks down as follows:
T - Total Depravity / Total Inability
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints
Believing each of these points renders one a "5-Point Calvinist." Some people only hold to a few of the points. Some hold to even stricter definitions. John Piper, a Baptist minister from Minneapolis, Minnesota, is sometimes jokingly referred to as a 19-Point Calvinist looking for 6 more points. In honesty, Piper's notion of the 5 points is different from historic Calvinism, but depending on your outlook, his idea could be much worse than historic Calvinism.
We're only focused on the main five, though. Let's go over each one.
Total Depravity / Total Inability -
This first point of Calvinism states that mankind is utterly depraved and is utterly unable to come to God of his own free will. In some definitions of Total Depravity/Inability, it is defined as man lacking the ability to come to God and trust in Him, unless God has foreordained him to salvation.
But this is not true according to scripture. The Calvinist relies on Irresistible Grace (point #4) for man to be saved. They say that for a man to be saved, God must have already ordained him to salvation, and God must draw him irresistibly into salvation. Yet every invitation in the scripture reveals a different nature of God. The final invitation written in the Bible, Revelation 22:17, reads "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." It's not difficult to read that scripture and see that any who seeks God can come to Him. It says "him that is athirst," not "him that God has irresistibly made thirsty."
John 5:40 reads "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
Total Depravity insists that all men are born into the sin of Adam. I agree. All men are born in sin. But the Calvinist position is that, since babies are born in sin, if they die in infancy, unless God had already chosen them as one of the Elect, that baby burns in Hell, having committed no worse sin than being born, and having no knowledge of sin. Romans 5:13 says sin is not imputed where there is no law. Therefore a baby, who has no knowledge of the law and its effectiveness as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, cannot be held accountable for sin. I believe God reveals His own stance on this, by speaking of babies as having no knowledge of good or evil, and calling the children of non-Jews "innocent." That's a strong stance against the idea that babies go to Hell if they aren't Elect.
Unconditional Election -
Before the dawn of time, before God even created the world, He had already decided who would be saved and who would not. He "elected" those who would be saved in a manner in which they cannot help but be saved.
This interminable doctrine establishes as a foundation of Calvinism the belief that God "elected" some to salvation and He "elected" the remainder to damnation. Seeing as the Elect cannot possibly lose their election, this point of Calvinism completely negates the need for evangelism. Why Calvinists bother preaching is beyond me. Paul wrote in Romans 10:9-15 saying "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" According to the doctrine of Election, the Elect cannot possibly lose their Election, and the damned cannot possibly gain Election, so Paul's expressed necessity that the gospel be preached is obviously in error. What else misses the boat? Oh yeah, the Great Commission.
The Great Commission, found in Matthew 28:16-20... "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."...is rendered pointless, as God has already selected the saved and the damned. Man does not have the free will to accept God, and therefore cannot possibly respond to the gospel, and God has already determined the saved and the damned and no act of man will change that determination. Therefore, no gospel is required under Calvinism. We can all just sit back and relax.
I know this sounds flippant, and I hope no one takes offense, but it is true that Calvinism's doctrine of Unconditional Election, when coupled with Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace, renders the necessity of gospel preaching moot.
In fact, we see in some places in the Bible where God implores man to repent. He calls on all men to repent (Acts 17:30). Why would God call on all men to repent if He never intended to honor the repentance of all men in the first place?
This is, along with the next point of the acronym, the most disgusting and disturbing of Calvinism's points. It completely flies in the face of the many invitations listed in the scripture. It takes scripture that is plain and clear, and spits in its face. The idea that God has already decided the fate of everyone, choosing to save only a few and to utterly damn the rest for eternity, is so unscriptural as to be sickening. This does not mean that God does not know who will and who won't accept Him. No Christian would argue that, as it would mean God is not omniscient, which we hold that He is. No, God knows who will accept Him, but we do not believe, and scripture does not back up, that God has forced each person into their fate.
Instead, this point of doctrine demands that we accept the fact that God does not love everyone. In fact, by "electing" so many to utter damnation, we can only accept that God must indeed hate many, many people. By electing so many to Hell, we are taught that God never intended to save them. But that flies in the face of clear scripture. 2 Peter 3:9 is quite clear, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that anyshould perish, but that all should come to repentance."
1 Timothy 2:3-4 also clearly states God's desire, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." It is the desire of God to see everyone saved, yet He does not force salvation upon anyone...unless you believe in Calvinist doctrine.
Limited Atonement -
When Christ came to Earth, went through His earthly ministry, and was falsely condemned by the Sanhedrin, taken before Pilate, and eventually crucified, He provided atonement for sins. According to Limited Atonement, Christ only died for those God elected. He did not die for all mankind. Those who are not the Elect were not included in the number that Christ atoned for.
As I stated earlier, this point of the acronym is one I find utterly reprehensible. What boggles the mind is how many people believe this point, while seemingly ignoring the amount of clear scripture that negates it.
Here are just a few verses that cut the foundation out from under Limited Atonement...
Isaiah 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." This Old Testament verse quite clearly sums up the actions of Jesus Christ related to the entirety of humanity. All of us, the whole of mankind, had gone astray from God, and while we could atone through sacrifices that were not permanent, God in His Grace, offered up Himself, Christ the Son, to take our place, taking on Himself the iniquity of everyone.
Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Again, we are clearly shown that Jesus Christ died for all mankind. The Calvinist will argue that these scriptures apply only to the Elect. That is the sad state of their doctrine, that they must take clear and understandable scripture and twist it into a complicated doctrine.
1 John 2:1-2 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." John is writing this epistle to fellow believers, but he explicitly states that Christ died not only for them, but for the whole world.
2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." Peter is writing to believers, but he clearly writes that even those opposed to God, and who have denied God, are doing nothing more than denying the God that had bought them through the sacrifice.
The atonement cannot possibly be limited. If it is, then the atonement of God is no greater than sin, seeing as scripture tells us more are going into destruction and damnation than into righteousness and glory (Matthew 7:13-14). Yet scripture also tells us that "...where sin abounded, grace did much more abound (Romans 5:20)." If grace abounded much more than sin, then the atonement must be universal, as sin is already universal.
Irresistible Grace -
When God calls one of His Elect unto salvation, they have no option but to be saved. According to this point, mankind has absolutely no control over anything. This point of Calvinism is the one they use to deny the free will of mankind. They'll throw around terms like "man is bound by his sin nature, so man has a free will, but it is only to sin." Some go so far as to say everything man does prior to salvation is sin. You know that old lady you helped across the street? Yep, you were sinning the whole time.
No scripture talks about God irresistibly compelling anyone to do anything, much less be saved. No, scripture is clear. God calls, and man must answer. Man can answer by either accepting God on the terms of the gospel, or he can deny and reject God, turning unto his own sin.
Jesus, looking over Jerusalem, stated in Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" If God truly desired these people to come to Him, and He possesses irresistible grace to force them to do so, then why did Jesus lament the rejection He felt from Jerusalem? Why not just force them to turn to Him?
Because God does not work that way. We're told not to quench the Spirit, which is a clear indicator to us that God can be resisted. God said in Genesis that His Spirit will not always strive with man. A person can spurn God enough times that God, even with His great love, will withdraw from them, turning them over to a reprobate mind.
Titus 2:11 states "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men." We already know that God desires everyone to be saved. However, God created us as free moral agents, able to act in a way that, when He calls us, we can either answer Him, or reject Him. Consider the woman caught in adultery. When brought before Christ, He drove away her accusers and turned to her, telling her to "Go, and sin no more." The impetus was on her to no longer sin. Christ didn't force her to not sin. He instructed her not to.
Perseverance of the Saints -
What this means is that a child of God, once saved, can never stray from the path of righteousness. I disagree.
Now, I do not doubt the eternal security of the believer. I hold to "once saved, always saved," even though some discredit that phrase and cast doubt on those who hold to it. I believe that I am saved to the uttermost, and sealed unto the day of redemption. I believe that, as it is written in John 10:28, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." If Christ granted me "eternal life" and I can somehow lose it, then that doesn't make it very eternal, does it?
I don't believe I am sealed because I persevere, although there is much to the positive to be said about a Christian persevering. No, I am sealed and granted eternal life because Christ has "preserved" me. I believe in the way in which Jude opened his letter, "them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ."
Conclusion -
In short, I cannot stand the doctrine of Calvinism. The only doctrine I despise even more is the prosperity gospel. But do not take this writing to mean that I am an Arminian. One of the worst things to happen in modern society is the desire to set up a dichotomy on every issue. If you aren't a Democrat then you must be a Republican. If you aren't pro-life then you must be pro-choice. If you aren't Calvinist then you must be Arminian.
No. The Arminian doctrine is equally horrific. Neither Arminianism or Calvinism holds true to scripture.
Truth be told, from my perspective, Calvinism assigns a nearly-monstrous nature to God that, in order for Scripture to be held true, must invariably reveal a God willing to conceal His motivations and actions through duplicitous statements and outright lies to certain people. Yet the Bible clearly tells us that God cannot lie.
I'll take scripture, divinely inspired and protected by God for thousands of years, over the doctrines of a theologian who lived 1400 years after the last piece of scripture was written.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Friday, July 24, 2015
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Leading Them Astray
I'll preface this blog post by saying that several of my readers will probably not like this. Understand that this is how I feel about this subject. I believe that scriptural evidence backs up my belief. If you take a different position than mine, that's your prerogative. I'll gladly talk about this with anyone.
That said, Joel Osteen is defrauding millions of people and leading them astray.
Just watch the video. (Please note, I do not necessarily support Wretched.tv. I'm using the video mostly for the interaction of Osteen and Oprah. In fact, you can pause the video after their segment, if you like. Though the host does go on to reveal what Romans 5:17 actually says.)
They quote Romans 5:17 as a statement that God sees us as kings and queens who are supposed to reign. They use the term reign in the sense of us having power over the things around us. That's all well and good (even though it's not) until you realize that it is not necessarily the will of God that everyone be rich and famous. In fact, Jesus more often than not told those with wealth to give away all that they had, to deny their connections to this Earth, and follow after Him.
But according to Osteen, and the preachers of the prosperity gospel, we're supposed to be wallowing in worldly goods and materialism as part of God's blessing. They twist the words of the Bible to fit their theology. They claim that Jesus was rich on this Earth, as that was the only way He could travel about and carry out His ministry. You know who else is free to just wander about? Homeless people. If Jesus was rich, why did He say "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head."(Luke 9:58)
Here's the problem with the idea of prosperity gospel teaching...what if you don't get rich? Does that mean that God didn't bless you? No. In fact, the Bible is pretty clear that a Christian life is not an easy one. It's clear that we won't always have great wealth. It makes it abundantly clear to followers of God's word that, if we lay up our treasures in Heaven, then that's where our heart will be. If we lay up our treasure on Earth, as the prosperity gospel teaches, then our hope lies in Earth. And through Peter's writing we're taught that the Earth is set aside to an eventual destruction with a "fervent heat," to make way for a new Heaven and a new Earth.
But Osteen and the other prosperity preachers have brought a message about declaring their desires, a "name it, claim it" faith, which is ridiculous when propped up against the gospel as presented in the Bible. They uphold the prayer of Jabez as a symbol to Christians that we should all have great wealth, but they seem to avoid the precursor scripture that claims Jabez to be a righteous man. If those with wealth, as Jesus so plainly put it, will hardly enter into Heaven (a point of calling out desire to hang on to worldly gain, which will separate us from God), then how can that person be righteous. Wealth and righteousness are often, not always, but often, at enmity with each other.
These preachers claim that they're telling us what God's will in our lives is, but the scriptures tell us that it is God's will that "none should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)." How do you teach someone about the necessity of repentance when you're so busy telling them that all God wants to do is shower them with worldly gain?
But that's the Osteen style, I guess. One of his most popular books is titled "Your Best Life Now." If you have any understanding of scripture, then you know that there is no way at all that our life on this Earth can be considered our "best life," seeing as better things are awaiting us in Heaven. If this is your "best life now," then you must be bound for Hell.
According to a 60 Minutes interview, the idea that God is seeking to bless believers with Health, Wealth, and Happiness is the "centerpiece" to every Osteen sermon. He claims that his is a "message of hope." Yet Paul, in delivering instructions to Timothy, stated that he should "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:2). Of the three key points Paul lists, two of them are "reprove" and "rebuke." Why? Because even as saved Christians we are still living in a world of sin that we have to constantly be aware of. Even after salvation we can be turned away by the lusts of the world. Just look at the list of all those who abandoned Paul. Most striking in that list is Demas, who turned away "having loved this present world (2 Timothy 4:10).
Osteen has been on Oprah's television show multiple times. He even once found himself in a discussion in which Oprah questioned him on how to get to God. Osteen stated that Jesus was the "way to the one God" but that there were many ways to Jesus. Jesus stated "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44). That sounds a lot like only one way.
He claims that people already know what they're doing wrong, so he doesn't have to preach the message of repentance. I guess he missed that part about "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Romans 10:14-15) And that pesky verse in Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Now, some Christians have a hard time standing up against false ministries. They seem to have been convinced, mainly by the world, that a Christian is supposed to be meek, and quiet, and just let the world run over them. But we're told rather explicitly by scripture to stand up against teachings like these.
Romans 16:17 states "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
2 John 10-11 states "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." We're not supposed to take part with those that abandon the true gospel. We're not even supposed to wish them well, or bid God to bless them, because the word they bring is false.
Paul warns on many occasions that we should look out for people bringing another gospel, or another Christ. Osteen approves of people of claim other ways to God than the one laid out in the Bible. We're supposed to love these people, and desire to see them come to repentance. That does not mean we have to love their doctrines or ideas on theology. The world has tried to convince people that just because you disagree with someone's philosophy means you hate that person. That's not the case.
The gospel is the good news of God. That good news isn't that God is going to fatten your bank account. It isn't that God is going to bless you with a million dollars if you give your favorite TV preacher a thousand dollars. No, the good news of God is that Jesus Christ, God in the form of a man, came to this Earth and walked a more than perfect life in order to fulfill the Law. He gave His life on a cross in order to make atonement for us. He arose from the grave and ascended to Heaven, where He now sits on the right hand of God, making intercession for a lost people seeking salvation.
If you have more money than your neighbor then thank God for it, but also understand that if God blesses you with more, then He expects more out of you. Each person born again into the family of God has a work to do. It's hard to tell people about the job God has for them when you're so busy begging them for money and tricking them by standing in a fountain and pouring "holy water" over your wallet to make them think God will bless that.
Again, if you don't like this, I'm glad to talk to you. These are my beliefs based on my interpretation of the scripture, brought about through praying and meditating on the word of God.
That said, Joel Osteen is defrauding millions of people and leading them astray.
Just watch the video. (Please note, I do not necessarily support Wretched.tv. I'm using the video mostly for the interaction of Osteen and Oprah. In fact, you can pause the video after their segment, if you like. Though the host does go on to reveal what Romans 5:17 actually says.)
They quote Romans 5:17 as a statement that God sees us as kings and queens who are supposed to reign. They use the term reign in the sense of us having power over the things around us. That's all well and good (even though it's not) until you realize that it is not necessarily the will of God that everyone be rich and famous. In fact, Jesus more often than not told those with wealth to give away all that they had, to deny their connections to this Earth, and follow after Him.
But according to Osteen, and the preachers of the prosperity gospel, we're supposed to be wallowing in worldly goods and materialism as part of God's blessing. They twist the words of the Bible to fit their theology. They claim that Jesus was rich on this Earth, as that was the only way He could travel about and carry out His ministry. You know who else is free to just wander about? Homeless people. If Jesus was rich, why did He say "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head."(Luke 9:58)
Here's the problem with the idea of prosperity gospel teaching...what if you don't get rich? Does that mean that God didn't bless you? No. In fact, the Bible is pretty clear that a Christian life is not an easy one. It's clear that we won't always have great wealth. It makes it abundantly clear to followers of God's word that, if we lay up our treasures in Heaven, then that's where our heart will be. If we lay up our treasure on Earth, as the prosperity gospel teaches, then our hope lies in Earth. And through Peter's writing we're taught that the Earth is set aside to an eventual destruction with a "fervent heat," to make way for a new Heaven and a new Earth.
But Osteen and the other prosperity preachers have brought a message about declaring their desires, a "name it, claim it" faith, which is ridiculous when propped up against the gospel as presented in the Bible. They uphold the prayer of Jabez as a symbol to Christians that we should all have great wealth, but they seem to avoid the precursor scripture that claims Jabez to be a righteous man. If those with wealth, as Jesus so plainly put it, will hardly enter into Heaven (a point of calling out desire to hang on to worldly gain, which will separate us from God), then how can that person be righteous. Wealth and righteousness are often, not always, but often, at enmity with each other.
These preachers claim that they're telling us what God's will in our lives is, but the scriptures tell us that it is God's will that "none should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)." How do you teach someone about the necessity of repentance when you're so busy telling them that all God wants to do is shower them with worldly gain?
But that's the Osteen style, I guess. One of his most popular books is titled "Your Best Life Now." If you have any understanding of scripture, then you know that there is no way at all that our life on this Earth can be considered our "best life," seeing as better things are awaiting us in Heaven. If this is your "best life now," then you must be bound for Hell.
According to a 60 Minutes interview, the idea that God is seeking to bless believers with Health, Wealth, and Happiness is the "centerpiece" to every Osteen sermon. He claims that his is a "message of hope." Yet Paul, in delivering instructions to Timothy, stated that he should "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:2). Of the three key points Paul lists, two of them are "reprove" and "rebuke." Why? Because even as saved Christians we are still living in a world of sin that we have to constantly be aware of. Even after salvation we can be turned away by the lusts of the world. Just look at the list of all those who abandoned Paul. Most striking in that list is Demas, who turned away "having loved this present world (2 Timothy 4:10).
Osteen has been on Oprah's television show multiple times. He even once found himself in a discussion in which Oprah questioned him on how to get to God. Osteen stated that Jesus was the "way to the one God" but that there were many ways to Jesus. Jesus stated "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44). That sounds a lot like only one way.
He claims that people already know what they're doing wrong, so he doesn't have to preach the message of repentance. I guess he missed that part about "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Romans 10:14-15) And that pesky verse in Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Now, some Christians have a hard time standing up against false ministries. They seem to have been convinced, mainly by the world, that a Christian is supposed to be meek, and quiet, and just let the world run over them. But we're told rather explicitly by scripture to stand up against teachings like these.
Romans 16:17 states "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
2 John 10-11 states "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." We're not supposed to take part with those that abandon the true gospel. We're not even supposed to wish them well, or bid God to bless them, because the word they bring is false.
Paul warns on many occasions that we should look out for people bringing another gospel, or another Christ. Osteen approves of people of claim other ways to God than the one laid out in the Bible. We're supposed to love these people, and desire to see them come to repentance. That does not mean we have to love their doctrines or ideas on theology. The world has tried to convince people that just because you disagree with someone's philosophy means you hate that person. That's not the case.
The gospel is the good news of God. That good news isn't that God is going to fatten your bank account. It isn't that God is going to bless you with a million dollars if you give your favorite TV preacher a thousand dollars. No, the good news of God is that Jesus Christ, God in the form of a man, came to this Earth and walked a more than perfect life in order to fulfill the Law. He gave His life on a cross in order to make atonement for us. He arose from the grave and ascended to Heaven, where He now sits on the right hand of God, making intercession for a lost people seeking salvation.
If you have more money than your neighbor then thank God for it, but also understand that if God blesses you with more, then He expects more out of you. Each person born again into the family of God has a work to do. It's hard to tell people about the job God has for them when you're so busy begging them for money and tricking them by standing in a fountain and pouring "holy water" over your wallet to make them think God will bless that.
Again, if you don't like this, I'm glad to talk to you. These are my beliefs based on my interpretation of the scripture, brought about through praying and meditating on the word of God.
Friday, July 25, 2014
A Tickling of the Ears
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" -2 Timothy 4:3
The Prosperity Gospel, as held up by so many mega-churches, is an awful thing. Hate me for saying it if you want to, but the Prosperity Gospel is not good for Christians. It's especially not good for people young in the faith. The mega-church has latched firmly on to the Prosperity Gospel, which is a falsehood of gospel teaching. It teaches that material gain is a desire that God has for his people. If that were true, why would God, in the form of Jesus, the Son of God, say "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:23)
Our culture, our world, as settled upon material gain as the signs of blessing from God, so this Gospel has been created to justify that exercise. But the Bible tells us that, where our treasure is, there will our heart be. If our treasure is laid up on Earth, in material wealth and in the size of our bank accounts, then our heart is here as well, and we've wandered from God. The god (note the lowercase "g") of this world has blinded the eyes of people. Material wealth has been touted as the measure of God's blessing; as something worthy to be desired. One of the commandments relates that man should not covet his neighbor's wife, his neighbor's possessions...but a New Testament writer said we should "covet earnestly" the best gifts of God, meaning spiritual blessing. These worldly things...you're not taking them with you. Ever seen a body laying in a coffin in a funeral home, and someone puts a box of golf balls in the casket, since the guy loved golf? Those golf balls aren't going to Heaven or Hell. Our material possessions will be left here, and, as Peter wrote in his second epistle, those possessions will burn and melt with a fervent heat.
So people are led to believe that material riches, these things shunned by the prophets, denied by the apostles, and preached against by the Lord himself, are nothing but the greatest blessings God desires to pour out on us. Guess what? Satan himself is capable of looking desirable. 2 Corinthians 11:14 says Satan is transformed into an angel of light. He can make himself, and the things of the world, look so tempting and desirable. And he'll twist the scripture within the mind of man to justify whatever means man wants.
The Gospel of Prosperity is, simply put, an invention of the world to twist the doctrine of God to justify their worldly desires. It is the embodiment of Philippians 3:18-19, saying: "(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)" These followers of the Prosperity Gospel have found their God in their belly, lusting after worldly things, heaping unto themselves teachers who will spout off the doctrines that tickle their ears instead of telling them the truths of the Gospel.
So why do I say that it is bad for those young in the faith? Because it absolutely leads people away from God. It is a theology that allows people to seek the carnal desires of the flesh, to hold up their hand as a member of a prestigious church, and to never once have to deal with God. They can avoid the hardships of being a Christian. The Bible pretty explicitly tells us that a Christian life will not be easy. We're going to be beset by fiery trials, by tribulations. They're taught these things by people who are not really Christian in anything other than name.
Sadly, many of them have been led astray by pastors who embrace Prosperity teachings while shunning the necessity of true gospel teaching and preaching, which involves reproving, rebuking, and exhorting with all long-suffering to bring people into the righteous will of God. They sit unknowingly in spiritually dry places, where the "gospel" is artificially sweetened with nothing more than spiritual milk. They never move beyond the simplest issues of doctrine. They never move to the place of taking in spiritual meat, or heavier things, and seeking the deeper mysteries of God. Why should they? Their church teaches them that so long as they give their weekly tithe and offer their first fruits offering then God will bless them however many fold.
They are tricked into tithing by instigators of the Prosperity Gospel who purposefully twist the scripture of Malachi 3. This chapter reveals how God told the Israelites to bring FOOD unto the storehouses of the house of God. This was a time when the Levites still maintained the House of God. When the tribes of Israel entered the promised land, only one tribe was not granted land: Levi. The Levites were set aside, ordained to watch the House of God. So the remaining tribes paid a tithe to the Levities in order to keep them up. Whenever those overseers broke the rules of God, such as the sons of Eli (Hophni and Phinehas) taking more than they should have taken, bad things happened to Israel (see the beginning of I Samuel). Why do these so-called preachers think that taking more from the people will not result in bad things now? After all, God is the same today, yesterday, and forever more. He even said in the scripture, in the same chapter that these tithe-teachers willfully twist, that "I am the Lord, I change not. Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."
Well, today there are no Levites overseeing the churches. Frankly, I don't see a necessity in tithing. God has given me all I have, and he can take it back at any moment. Or he could give me more. Or he could teach me that I really don't need all that I have. I could latch on to the Prosperity Gospel, but the truth is, that would drag me away from God and plant me fully in the service of Mammon, and set me on a course of desiring nothing more than worldly gain.
The outflow of the Prosperity Gospel is a change in church function that is rippling across all denominations. Since we've decided within ourselves that worldly gain is more important, then we no longer need the Holy Spirit in our worship services. If the spirit is not required, then man dictates how the service within the church should be carried out.
The early church, those meetings that took place in the first century, were small. Basically, they were a couple of families and some friends meeting in the home-place of one of the elder members and having worship. Now, though, in this era of mega-churches and what has lovingly been called "McWorship," the sincerity is gone out of the church for the sake of timed meetings. We have an 9:00am service and an 11:00am service. Boy, I sure hope God doesn't start moving in the 9am service, otherwise we won't have time to clean up and get everything in order for the 11am service.
Man has begun placing restrictions on God like during no other time in our history. But wait, God is God, he cannot be restricted by man...he'd bigger than us. Yes, God is much bigger than us. His thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are so much higher than our ways. That said, the Bible explicitly tells us not to "quench the Spirit." What does that mean? It means we can stop the movement of God within the church. God uses the members of a church to exercise his will in the church, and if a member moves against the will of God, then the movement of the Spirit can be stopped dead in its tracks.
To create a false limitation on the possible dealings of the Spirit of God by placing arbitrary stop-times on your services is an absolute disservice to not only God, but to the people who come into your church, and may need to hear the unadulterated word of God.
And at every step this false practice of so-called Christianity is doing nothing but harming the young believer by leading them away from God and it is a false front to the lost, those still seeking the Lord. It teaches the lost that God's blessing is carnal, and not spiritual. Because one thing you rarely, if ever, hear from teachers of the Prosperity Gospel is the necessity of the blood of Christ to cover the sin of fallen man. The preaching of Christ crucified, resurrected, and ascended to the right hand of the throne of God is shifted to the wayside in order to teach that God will show his mercy by expanding your wallet. The Prosperity Gospel is leading people down the wide way that leads unto destruction, and these "teachers" and "preachers" will boast about how much they preach love, to the point of not performing the necessities of the Gospel, reproving, rebuking, and frankly calling out sin for what it is and teaching people that the only way to find forgiveness and salvation is through Christ Jesus.
There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end of that way is death. The Spirit is what gives life. There is no promise in the Bible of great earthly wealth coming from following Christ. In fact, a follower of the Lord should constantly be looking unto Heaven, where your treasure should be laid up. If you have set up your treasure in Heaven, then you are already rich beyond imagination. Earthly wealth can be gone before tomorrow. Consider the wealthy man building up his barns. Then consider the story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus. When death visited both men, the rich man lifted his eyes in Hell. Lazarus, though, was borne of the angels into Abraham's bosom, Paradise.
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6) and "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44). Christ told a young rich man that he had to sell his possession and give unto the poor. The rich man went away sorrowful, because he did not want to part with his wealth. The Prosperity Gospel is nothing more than a means of promoting a lavish lifestyle that God's word tells us to avoid, while masquerading as the very word of God that it so willfully distorts.
The Prosperity Gospel, as held up by so many mega-churches, is an awful thing. Hate me for saying it if you want to, but the Prosperity Gospel is not good for Christians. It's especially not good for people young in the faith. The mega-church has latched firmly on to the Prosperity Gospel, which is a falsehood of gospel teaching. It teaches that material gain is a desire that God has for his people. If that were true, why would God, in the form of Jesus, the Son of God, say "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:23)
The fact is, the Prosperity Gospel does not offer the wealth that God would have us seek, which is spiritual. Instead, it offers the very outcome that fallen man seeks, which is material gain. The biblical account of the wealthy man that owned a vineyard details how that man did well, gaining more and more material wealth, to the point that he said he would pull down the barns and storehouses he had and build greater ones and he would tell himself that he had done well. And according to the secular point of view, things couldn't have been better. God has obviously blessed the man by giving him so much wealth, right? Well, that story ends with the line "But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee." (Luke 12:16-20)
Our culture, our world, as settled upon material gain as the signs of blessing from God, so this Gospel has been created to justify that exercise. But the Bible tells us that, where our treasure is, there will our heart be. If our treasure is laid up on Earth, in material wealth and in the size of our bank accounts, then our heart is here as well, and we've wandered from God. The god (note the lowercase "g") of this world has blinded the eyes of people. Material wealth has been touted as the measure of God's blessing; as something worthy to be desired. One of the commandments relates that man should not covet his neighbor's wife, his neighbor's possessions...but a New Testament writer said we should "covet earnestly" the best gifts of God, meaning spiritual blessing. These worldly things...you're not taking them with you. Ever seen a body laying in a coffin in a funeral home, and someone puts a box of golf balls in the casket, since the guy loved golf? Those golf balls aren't going to Heaven or Hell. Our material possessions will be left here, and, as Peter wrote in his second epistle, those possessions will burn and melt with a fervent heat.
So people are led to believe that material riches, these things shunned by the prophets, denied by the apostles, and preached against by the Lord himself, are nothing but the greatest blessings God desires to pour out on us. Guess what? Satan himself is capable of looking desirable. 2 Corinthians 11:14 says Satan is transformed into an angel of light. He can make himself, and the things of the world, look so tempting and desirable. And he'll twist the scripture within the mind of man to justify whatever means man wants.
The Gospel of Prosperity is, simply put, an invention of the world to twist the doctrine of God to justify their worldly desires. It is the embodiment of Philippians 3:18-19, saying: "(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)" These followers of the Prosperity Gospel have found their God in their belly, lusting after worldly things, heaping unto themselves teachers who will spout off the doctrines that tickle their ears instead of telling them the truths of the Gospel.
So why do I say that it is bad for those young in the faith? Because it absolutely leads people away from God. It is a theology that allows people to seek the carnal desires of the flesh, to hold up their hand as a member of a prestigious church, and to never once have to deal with God. They can avoid the hardships of being a Christian. The Bible pretty explicitly tells us that a Christian life will not be easy. We're going to be beset by fiery trials, by tribulations. They're taught these things by people who are not really Christian in anything other than name.
Sadly, many of them have been led astray by pastors who embrace Prosperity teachings while shunning the necessity of true gospel teaching and preaching, which involves reproving, rebuking, and exhorting with all long-suffering to bring people into the righteous will of God. They sit unknowingly in spiritually dry places, where the "gospel" is artificially sweetened with nothing more than spiritual milk. They never move beyond the simplest issues of doctrine. They never move to the place of taking in spiritual meat, or heavier things, and seeking the deeper mysteries of God. Why should they? Their church teaches them that so long as they give their weekly tithe and offer their first fruits offering then God will bless them however many fold.
 |
| I can't even begin to describe how horrifying this image is... |
They are tricked into tithing by instigators of the Prosperity Gospel who purposefully twist the scripture of Malachi 3. This chapter reveals how God told the Israelites to bring FOOD unto the storehouses of the house of God. This was a time when the Levites still maintained the House of God. When the tribes of Israel entered the promised land, only one tribe was not granted land: Levi. The Levites were set aside, ordained to watch the House of God. So the remaining tribes paid a tithe to the Levities in order to keep them up. Whenever those overseers broke the rules of God, such as the sons of Eli (Hophni and Phinehas) taking more than they should have taken, bad things happened to Israel (see the beginning of I Samuel). Why do these so-called preachers think that taking more from the people will not result in bad things now? After all, God is the same today, yesterday, and forever more. He even said in the scripture, in the same chapter that these tithe-teachers willfully twist, that "I am the Lord, I change not. Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."
Well, today there are no Levites overseeing the churches. Frankly, I don't see a necessity in tithing. God has given me all I have, and he can take it back at any moment. Or he could give me more. Or he could teach me that I really don't need all that I have. I could latch on to the Prosperity Gospel, but the truth is, that would drag me away from God and plant me fully in the service of Mammon, and set me on a course of desiring nothing more than worldly gain.
The outflow of the Prosperity Gospel is a change in church function that is rippling across all denominations. Since we've decided within ourselves that worldly gain is more important, then we no longer need the Holy Spirit in our worship services. If the spirit is not required, then man dictates how the service within the church should be carried out.
The early church, those meetings that took place in the first century, were small. Basically, they were a couple of families and some friends meeting in the home-place of one of the elder members and having worship. Now, though, in this era of mega-churches and what has lovingly been called "McWorship," the sincerity is gone out of the church for the sake of timed meetings. We have an 9:00am service and an 11:00am service. Boy, I sure hope God doesn't start moving in the 9am service, otherwise we won't have time to clean up and get everything in order for the 11am service.
Man has begun placing restrictions on God like during no other time in our history. But wait, God is God, he cannot be restricted by man...he'd bigger than us. Yes, God is much bigger than us. His thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are so much higher than our ways. That said, the Bible explicitly tells us not to "quench the Spirit." What does that mean? It means we can stop the movement of God within the church. God uses the members of a church to exercise his will in the church, and if a member moves against the will of God, then the movement of the Spirit can be stopped dead in its tracks.
To create a false limitation on the possible dealings of the Spirit of God by placing arbitrary stop-times on your services is an absolute disservice to not only God, but to the people who come into your church, and may need to hear the unadulterated word of God.
And at every step this false practice of so-called Christianity is doing nothing but harming the young believer by leading them away from God and it is a false front to the lost, those still seeking the Lord. It teaches the lost that God's blessing is carnal, and not spiritual. Because one thing you rarely, if ever, hear from teachers of the Prosperity Gospel is the necessity of the blood of Christ to cover the sin of fallen man. The preaching of Christ crucified, resurrected, and ascended to the right hand of the throne of God is shifted to the wayside in order to teach that God will show his mercy by expanding your wallet. The Prosperity Gospel is leading people down the wide way that leads unto destruction, and these "teachers" and "preachers" will boast about how much they preach love, to the point of not performing the necessities of the Gospel, reproving, rebuking, and frankly calling out sin for what it is and teaching people that the only way to find forgiveness and salvation is through Christ Jesus.
There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end of that way is death. The Spirit is what gives life. There is no promise in the Bible of great earthly wealth coming from following Christ. In fact, a follower of the Lord should constantly be looking unto Heaven, where your treasure should be laid up. If you have set up your treasure in Heaven, then you are already rich beyond imagination. Earthly wealth can be gone before tomorrow. Consider the wealthy man building up his barns. Then consider the story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus. When death visited both men, the rich man lifted his eyes in Hell. Lazarus, though, was borne of the angels into Abraham's bosom, Paradise.
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6) and "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44). Christ told a young rich man that he had to sell his possession and give unto the poor. The rich man went away sorrowful, because he did not want to part with his wealth. The Prosperity Gospel is nothing more than a means of promoting a lavish lifestyle that God's word tells us to avoid, while masquerading as the very word of God that it so willfully distorts.
Monday, July 21, 2014
The Mystery Box: It Could Be a Boat!
All right, people, strap yourselves in, this is going to be an outrageously random mixed bag of blogging. I've got a lot of thoughts on my mind at the moment and very few of them are sports related. I'm going to dive off the deep end of my Libertarian philosophy for a bit and show you just how screwed up a mind can be when it's tired.
Airplanes, Russia, and Separatist Rebels
As you should all know by now, Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine recently, killing nearly 300 people. Conspiracy theory abounds as to what actually happened to this plane. The best I can gather, it appears as if Russian-backed separatist rebels had possession of a missile launcher and used it to bring down the plane. It's possible they thought they were bringing down a Ukrainian military plane. Reportedly, intelligence agencies intercepted telephone communications from a Russian separatist claiming that they shot down a plane, though they later backtracked on that statement.
However, Russian troops were relatively close to the area, and it looks like they, along with some of the separatist rebels were able to gain control of the crash site before the Ukraine could. Per international law, the Ukraine has priority rights to the site, and should lead the investigation. If Russia took control first, knowing that rebels backed by their government were the ones who brought the plane down, then the site is fully compromised, and likely the black boxes have been confiscated and destroyed.
Meanwhile, the Russian government is basically thumbing its nose at the rest of the world. As a friend of mine wrote on Facebook the other day: Vladimir Putin is the best James Bond villain since Dr. No.
Elizabeth Warren: Progressive Beacon
Please note, for my liberal readers, what you are about to read contains satire, cynicism, sarcasm, and blatant attempts at humor. It is also a serious opinion about Elizabeth Warren's socio-political positions.
It looks as though Elizabeth Warren is positioning herself for a presidential run in 2016. This is the same woman whose claim to a mixed racial heritage including Native American came down to stories her grandmother told and her own high cheekbones. But I digress...
Warren recently published her "11 Commandments of Progressivism." Eleven. Just like a dyed-in-the-wool progressive to have to try and upstage the Lord. More on that in a moment. I thought it would be nice to copy Ms. Warren's 'commandments' here, and offer a conservative-libertarian rebuttal. These are basically my thoughts from initially reading the list.
Look at this poster! Look at it! It's the Clintons photoshopped as the Lannisters from Game of Thrones.
Ha!
Airplanes, Russia, and Separatist Rebels
As you should all know by now, Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine recently, killing nearly 300 people. Conspiracy theory abounds as to what actually happened to this plane. The best I can gather, it appears as if Russian-backed separatist rebels had possession of a missile launcher and used it to bring down the plane. It's possible they thought they were bringing down a Ukrainian military plane. Reportedly, intelligence agencies intercepted telephone communications from a Russian separatist claiming that they shot down a plane, though they later backtracked on that statement.
However, Russian troops were relatively close to the area, and it looks like they, along with some of the separatist rebels were able to gain control of the crash site before the Ukraine could. Per international law, the Ukraine has priority rights to the site, and should lead the investigation. If Russia took control first, knowing that rebels backed by their government were the ones who brought the plane down, then the site is fully compromised, and likely the black boxes have been confiscated and destroyed.
Meanwhile, the Russian government is basically thumbing its nose at the rest of the world. As a friend of mine wrote on Facebook the other day: Vladimir Putin is the best James Bond villain since Dr. No.
Elizabeth Warren: Progressive Beacon
Please note, for my liberal readers, what you are about to read contains satire, cynicism, sarcasm, and blatant attempts at humor. It is also a serious opinion about Elizabeth Warren's socio-political positions.
It looks as though Elizabeth Warren is positioning herself for a presidential run in 2016. This is the same woman whose claim to a mixed racial heritage including Native American came down to stories her grandmother told and her own high cheekbones. But I digress...
Warren recently published her "11 Commandments of Progressivism." Eleven. Just like a dyed-in-the-wool progressive to have to try and upstage the Lord. More on that in a moment. I thought it would be nice to copy Ms. Warren's 'commandments' here, and offer a conservative-libertarian rebuttal. These are basically my thoughts from initially reading the list.
1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it.
It is a well known ideology of those who believe statism to be effective that, in order to either disprove or deconstruct capitalism, it is necessary to tie the hands of an industry through regulation to the point that the marketplace of the industry cannot effectively solve its own problems, and then claim that freedom of the marketplace has failed, and thus stronger regulations and stronger means of enforcement are needed. Wrapping more and more regulations on the economy will not help. If anything, you stifle the opportunities for future growth. Is a type of regulation required? Yes, I don't doubt that. But when Reagan inherited a poor economy from Carter, he deregulated and the economy began growing. Find a happy balance between Reagan and this liberal desire to hyper-regulate, and we can probably start improving the economy. The federal government is not the only entity strong enough to stimulate the economy. The American people are stronger, so long as that same government leaves them alone.
2. We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.
Of course we have a responsibility to protect the Earth. Even those who "don't believe in science" [read: those crazy, backwards theists, especially the Christians] know that, from our own holy scriptures, God set up man to be a steward of the Earth. And, just as man feel from grace, we also failed at taking care of our planet. But we have a chance to work toward making things better, unless you buy the hysteria that says the ice caps are mere minutes from total collapse, the earth will be flooded to the top of Mt. Everest and we'll all have to live on boats and drink our own urine from a Mr. Coffee.
The answers to environmental issues tend to trip up the conservative side of the aisle because, more often than not, they involve some means of tearing down developed economies at the expense of their people. There is no overnight solution to oil usage. Ethanol is, at best, a stop-gap measure. The future of energy production is obviously in renewable source. But right now the methods of renewable production are still a bit cost-prohibitive to the average person. And it scares us when our own president is on record saying his policies would necessarily make energy rates skyrocket, and his own Energy Secretary (at the time) stated that the US had to get gasoline prices to European levels.
We'll work with you to make energy production better and to conserve the planet. But we don't have to destroy countries to do it.
3. We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.
I struggle with internet issues, mainly because I'm not sure that the internet is a right. By that logic, television is a right. Having a set of encyclopedias is a right. Is it? I wasn't handed those books when I was born. According to the United Nations (and we all know how effective and important the UN is), having access to the internet is a basic human right.
That said, if the internet is a human right, then I completely agree that it should not be controlled by massive corporations. Nor should it be controlled by governments (the world is looking at you North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Libya!). It might just be me, but I trust the government less than I trust corporations.
4. We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.
My biggest issue with this philosophy is the threat of escalation. Where does it stop? The whole point of a minimum wage job was for low-skilled workers and teenagers just entering the workforce. No one is meant to try to raise a family on a minimum wage job. Now, if you absolutely want to get the government involved in this one, then try instituting some entitlement programs that will actually get people off the government dole and into a level of personal responsibility. Create some government sponsored classes to train workers for new skills.
This is also where churches, synagogues, and mosques should be stepping up and helping those in need instead of the government doing it. Try all you want to justify it, but using the police power of government to take wealth from one person in order to supply it to another is not charity.
5. We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.
See the response above. Regardless what some of these companies think, you really shouldn't be making a career with McDonald's. I know what it's like. I was looking for a part time job a few years back and went to a local restaurant. I won't say the name, but let's just say there were lots of crackers in a barrel. I asked for an application and actually met the manager right then and had an impromptu interview. I told her that I was needing a part time job for some extra cash to make ends meet. She told me that they were only hiring career-oriented individuals.
I am career-oriented, just not with a restaurant. And that's the deal. People no longer seem to have the drive or the desire to better themselves, but rather seem to fall into this trap of waiting for someone in a position of authority to come by and save their day. Jacking up the minimum wage won't help them. Better training and getting a generation of young people to give two craps about their education might actually make a difference.
6. We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.
Okay, that's fair. But that begs a question: is an education beyond high school a right, or a privilege? If it were a right, then everyone would go, but college deny students all the time. I've yet to be denied my right to free speech, because it is a right. I was privileged to go to college. I can understand the argument against collegiate debt, but at the same time, how do you solve this issue?
7. We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.
I have a right to retirement!? Really? So I don't really have to work for it. Yay, government will help me.
Sorry, this is dumb. You have a right to retire so long as you properly plan for it. If you think retiring from McDonald's is going to last you through your golden years then go own a gobble down the Big Macs so you head out early and get to enjoy that money for the six months that it lasts.
(See, kids, angry sarcasm!)
8. We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.
Sure. Define "equal." Is "equal" working the same number of hours? Is "equal" accomplishing the same tasks? Look, I'm all for equality in the workplace, sure. But if we want equality then let's look at what this blog is best at: sports. If men and women should have equality in the workplace then why do female tennis players only have to play three sets while male tennis players have to play five? Why are the tees for female golfers so much closer to the hole than the tees for male golfers?
I'm not saying this to be a jerk. Just pointing out a stark inconsistency in the drive for equality. If two people of opposite sexes can perform the same task, then yes, they should be equally paid...assuming you remove all caveats for seniority, levels of prior training, and field experience. And assuming the tasks can be accomplished within a reasonably-same amount of time.
I would love to discuss this one...
9. We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America.
I'll just cut to the core here, this is a statement about gay marriage. And here's the thing: from a theological perspective, I don't agree with gay marriage. But theology is not politics. If we were a Christian nation, meaning if the Christian religion ran the government, then that would give the right to Muslim governments, Hindu governments, and Jewish governments could be formed in this nation. And truthfully, I know a lot of Christians that I would not want to see running the government.
From a political point of view, I don't understand what the government has to do with marriage. I don't understand why your marital status should have any bearing on your tax status. I can see it for benefits when it comes to insurance, which used to be an issue between you and your employer. If the government is overseeing insurance, then the government has, by default, made this a political issue.
10. We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.
...and that means amnesty...and it just so happens that those being amnestied tend to vote Democrat. Convenient. I don't understand this mentality that wants to amnesty people who broke our laws by sneaking into the country, and continue to break our laws by being here and not being productive members of the government's war chest, I mean, tax base. It would be like me moving onto my neighbor's property, and instead of being charged with trespassing or breaking & entering, I was given a free pass, and basically allowed to stay on his land.
Yes, immigration built this country. And yes, immigration can be a boon for this nation. But if there is anything that needs close monitoring and regulation, it's immigration. Instead, the current administration is basically turning a blind eye to the issue and forcing border patrol to cease enforcing the laws of the country because they're too busy issuing humanitarian aid. All the while, a criminal element is encroaching. The immigration issue is couched as this overflow of children into the nation. Children should be helped, no doubt. But children make up only about 15-20% of the influx of immigrants at the moment.
This is where government should be stepping up, instead of trying to cater to criminals. Sorry, but that's just how I feel about it. What good are our laws if they are not enforced?
11. And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!
Ahh, abortion. Yes, that's what this is about. "Women have a right to their bodies" is progressive codespeak for "abortion" and typically for "abortion on demand." I'll be honest with you; I don't like abortion. I think it's wrong. It definitely should not be used as a means of birth control simply because someone is inconvenienced by a pregnancy. I read a liberal blogger opine that he was glad his girlfriend got an abortion because a child would've been a huge inconvenience in his life. That made me sick.
But I also understand that outlawing abortion will do nothing but push the practice underground and lead to unsafe conditions in non-sterile environments. I suppose, then, that something would have to be done to stem the tide of abortions.
Invoking the name Hobby Lobby is just a means of enraging a base. The fact is, of 20 forms of contraceptive offered under the ObamaCare legislation, Hobby Lobby provides 16 of them. Only four forms of contraceptive are not covered by Hobby Lobby. To hear liberal pundits talk, you would think Hobby Lobby has placed an executive in every female employee's bedroom to monitor their...ummm..."activities." You would think a Hobby Lobby executive follows each female employee to the doctor to make sure they don't get these contraceptives.
No, female employee's of Hobby Lobby can still get these contraceptives, they just can't count on their boss to pay for it.
The American LannistersLook at this poster! Look at it! It's the Clintons photoshopped as the Lannisters from Game of Thrones.
Ha!
Thursday, April 17, 2014
A Wall of Separation Between Church and College Football (A Way Too Early Thought)
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a complaint against Clemson University and head football coach Dabo Swinney and his staff, claiming "unconstitutional behavior." According to the complaint, Swinney organized a means for players and coaches to go to "church days." He also scheduled team devotionals and invited former Clemson player James Trapp to be team chaplain and gave him access to the entire team for Bible studies.
According to the Wisconsin foundation, all of these items are horrifying violations of the Constitution. According to the university, who has not allowed coach Swinney to comment, each item is purely voluntary. No player is forced into taking part in any religious activities. There is obviously more to come from this story, as we're just in the early stages of the complaint.
Now, I'm a pretty religious guy...but these Freedom From Religion people have some ideals that strike me odd. According to their website, they are based in "Freethought Hall." They call themselves "Free Thinkers." I guess they believe anyone who believes in God or any god is a barely-functional simpleton. Only by shirking the shackles of the Lord can someone truly freely think.
Their website has the tag line "Protecting the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state." That's fantastic, except that "separation of church and state" is not a "Constitutional principle." The Constitution's First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I don't see separating church and state in there.
Actually, the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" does not appear in any founding documents. Not the Declaration of Independence. Not the Constitution. No, it appears in a series of letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association (Danbury, CT). The letter was sent in October 1801. Going back to the dark days of religion and government in England, the Baptists had long supported separating Church and State. They wanted the separation of church and state to keep the state out of the church as much as to keep the church out of the state. (Does that make sense?)
For years ever since people have tried to make the "separation of church and state" a Constitutional statement. Even as religious as I am, I know it's a bad idea for any religion to run the government. Just look at any theocracy to see how damaging that can be. That said, I just cannot go along with the atheistic idea that any and all government officials must check their religion at the door and never mention or think or rely on their faith during the execution of their duties. If Clemson's counter-claim is correct, and the religious activities were voluntary, then I would say I support Swinney in this. If he forced anyone to attend these events, then my opinion would be different.
The fact that the Freedom From Religion Foundation got involved just shows that they have nothing better to do but sit around and try to find some religious activity to attack. Just check out their website. You'll find out very quickly that they're not really the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They really should be the "Freedom From Christianity" Foundation.
According to the Wisconsin foundation, all of these items are horrifying violations of the Constitution. According to the university, who has not allowed coach Swinney to comment, each item is purely voluntary. No player is forced into taking part in any religious activities. There is obviously more to come from this story, as we're just in the early stages of the complaint.
Now, I'm a pretty religious guy...but these Freedom From Religion people have some ideals that strike me odd. According to their website, they are based in "Freethought Hall." They call themselves "Free Thinkers." I guess they believe anyone who believes in God or any god is a barely-functional simpleton. Only by shirking the shackles of the Lord can someone truly freely think.
Their website has the tag line "Protecting the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state." That's fantastic, except that "separation of church and state" is not a "Constitutional principle." The Constitution's First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I don't see separating church and state in there.
Actually, the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" does not appear in any founding documents. Not the Declaration of Independence. Not the Constitution. No, it appears in a series of letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association (Danbury, CT). The letter was sent in October 1801. Going back to the dark days of religion and government in England, the Baptists had long supported separating Church and State. They wanted the separation of church and state to keep the state out of the church as much as to keep the church out of the state. (Does that make sense?)
For years ever since people have tried to make the "separation of church and state" a Constitutional statement. Even as religious as I am, I know it's a bad idea for any religion to run the government. Just look at any theocracy to see how damaging that can be. That said, I just cannot go along with the atheistic idea that any and all government officials must check their religion at the door and never mention or think or rely on their faith during the execution of their duties. If Clemson's counter-claim is correct, and the religious activities were voluntary, then I would say I support Swinney in this. If he forced anyone to attend these events, then my opinion would be different.
The fact that the Freedom From Religion Foundation got involved just shows that they have nothing better to do but sit around and try to find some religious activity to attack. Just check out their website. You'll find out very quickly that they're not really the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They really should be the "Freedom From Christianity" Foundation.
Friday, October 04, 2013
Registration, Writing Essays, and Being Baptized
“See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?”
I don’t sugarcoat things of religious or spiritual nature. If you’re offended by my stance, then I’m sorry I offended you. But I’m not going to change my beliefs because you are offended. My latest issue comes from a “mega-church.” As an act of disclosure, I’m not a fan or a supporter of mega-churches. I grew up in, and still attend, small churches. The church family is tighter-knit. The worship is more intimate.
I’ve spoken with people who attend mega-churches. Two good friends of mine, who were not mutual acquaintances, discovered they attended the same mega-church, and had for at least three years. They did not know each other. I like to know everyone at my church. But, I look at church as more of a spiritual event while many of the mega-churches have taken on an air of McWorship, fast-food-type spirituality. This lack of personal acquaintance leads me to the topic of the day: baptism. In the Baptist denomination, baptism is also the threshold over which men and women must pass to become members of the church.
My cousin attended a church that, while not quite a mega-church, surely had aspirations of one day becoming one. The night came that she found herself in need of salvation (I’ll not go into the spiritual mechanics of salvation here, but I’ll gladly talk about it to anyone who does). Her family could not get in touch with anyone from the church, so she came to my grandfather’s house, as he was a minister. He spoke with her for a bit, they prayed, and she got up satisfied that the Lord had saved her. She invited me grandfather to her baptism at the would-be-mega-church. My grandfather found his way into a conversation with the pastor, at which time he rehearsed the story of her salvation. The would-be-mega-pastor said “I was wondering why she wanted to be baptized.”
Just down the street from me is another mega-church that currently has nearly 10,000 members. On their website, they detail the requirements for baptism. You have to go online and register to be baptized. You select the “campus” at which you wish to be baptized, and then fill out a form that requests your phone number and email address. The form then asks what you were like “before you decided to follow Christ,” what change occurred in “how did you meet and decide to follow Christ,” and what affect this change has had in what “life [has] been like as a follower of Christ.” This feels like an academic assignment. Do they deny you baptism if they don’t like your answers?
By the way, this is for adults. If a child in 5th Grade or younger desires to be baptized, a parent/guardian must attend a class about leading children to Christ, then they must accompany the child to a class on living a Christian life and the order of the baptism service, and then they may register their child for baptism. I don’t know what translation of the Bible these people have, but this is wrong.
Consider one of the purest requests for baptism found in the New Testament. In Acts, chapter 8, the Holy Spirit guides Philip to the desert, where he comes across an Ethiopian eunuch reading from the old scriptures. Philip “joins himself” to the chariot the man is in, and begins to expound to him the meaning of the words, describing Christ and his work.
And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
-Acts 8:26-39
The Ethiopian accepts Christ, and, in the middle of the desert, they come across a body of water. The eunuch says to Philip, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip didn’t tell the Ethiopian that he needed to register and write a detailed account of his “faith journey.” He didn’t have to take a class before being baptized. The requirement was the same as it was from the beginning: accept Christ as your lord and savior.
Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. It imparts no saving grace. It is a symbol only. It represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. How can you partake in a symbol of something you’ve not accepted?
I was saved at the age of ten. I believe this to be the result of being in church all my life, hearing the gospel preached, and having a family that talked about what to do when God moved in your life. Just as for my cousin, when the time came for me to be saved, I moved. I went to the same grandfather, and basically went through the same thing that she would later go through.
Then, instead of having to take a class with my parents, or having to write out a detailed account of my “decision to follow Christ,” I stood before the whole church, at ten years old, and requested to be baptized. In my mind, and a belief I hold to this day, I didn’t choose to follow Christ. Instead, Christ chose me, just as he chooses everyone. He offers the opportunity to accept his sacrifice. This acceptance does not come from signing a card or being baptized. The acceptance of Christ comes with “fear and trembling,” with a broken and contrite heart.
Imagine if, when the Ethiopian had said “what doth hinder me to be baptized,” Philip had responded “Well, you need to go to this website and fill out the forms. Once you’ve registered, you need to come to our class Sunday morning. After that, we’ll schedule your baptism. You should be baptized sometime within the next few months.” Requiring those things are conditions of man. In God’s way, baptism is as simple as “See, here is water.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)