The War On Christmas - NOT

There is alot of talk these days about the War On Christmas; various media personalities have made pronouncements about this growing assault on any public display or acknowledgement of a "religious celebration" which elevates one religion over all others. Well, if you are one of those who is concerned about this "War," I want to set your minds at ease by telling you that there is NO War on Christmas.

There IS a war which we need to be aware of and focus our attention on; it is a WAR ON CHRISTIANITY which is in reality a WAR on Christ. This conflict has been going on for quite some time, a couple of thousand years to be exact.

This war is being waged by unbelievers and ersatz (I always wanted to use that word) believers who deny that Christ is only Lord and authority of mankind. There ostensible goal is to have Christ and any expression of Christianity in the public square to to be excluded. They claim that the 1st Amendment not only grants "freedom of religion," but "freedom FROM religion." One of the primary proponents of this view is a purported Presbyterian pastor who is head of The Freedom of Religion Foundation.

The underlying presupposition of these opponents is, unfortunately, shared by many avowed Christians, is that we are bound by a "higher" standard than the Bible. We are bound by a standard of FAIRNESS which controls how we may express our beliefs and, ultimately, what we can believe.

Opponents object to any expression of Christian belief as diminishing the standing of other belief systems on the assertion that Christianity alone is true and that Christ alone is true. As an aside, we should observe that if it were not for the celebration of Christmas, there would be no holiday season. Do they really contend that we would all be saying Happy Holidays based on Chanukah, or Kwanzaa or other comic book celebration.

It is only the teachings of Christ and the application by Christians in society of His teaching that we have Freedom of religion. No other religion teaches of establishes tolerance of other religions.

So, settle down and stop worrying about the demise of Christmas. Where we need to concentrate our efforts is in the defense of Christ against all enemies foreign and domestic. We must arm ourselves with the weapons of spiritual warfare, which are not carnal but might to the pulling down of strongholds.

Making America Great Again

" For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Eph. 6:12 KJV

In the final analysis, America (and the rest of the world) consists of two types of people, i.e. regenerate and unregenerate. All other divisions are superficial and but a reflection of the persons membership in the one of the two fundamental classes.

As Christians, we have a hard time remembering this. As a result, we too often find ourselves aligning with individuals or groups with which we have no real connection, because they appear to endorse a position with which we are in agreement. We align with "pro-life" groups because they oppose abortion. But our opposition to infanticide is exclusively biblical. Infant killing is wrong only because God commanded us not to murder. All other reasons, the long term effect on the mother's health, etc. can be no part in our opposition.

This goes for all of our advocacy for or against a particular social or political issue, whether marriage equality, immigration, education, health-care, etc. We may oppose government funded/controlled  health care because of practical reasons, but if there were no practical problems, we must still oppose it because it, like most government social programs, is based on theft, and theft is forbidden by God and we MUST declare this to be our reason.

While we may seek to influence public policy, our fundamental task is making disciples of all nations. This means we must primarily be engaged in the proclamation of the gospel and subsequent disciplining of believers. This begins with a declaration of God's absolute law and a call for repentance. Primarily, this is the work of the church. This role of the church cannot be fulfilled by a man or political affiliation. Neither Franklin Graham nor the Tea Party will do.

Our participation in public discourse must be biblical. That means that the church must teach its members to think biblicaly in public as well as private issues. Our founders were able to accomplish the great achievement of establishing a constitutional republic because the people had been taught to think "govern-mentally" by the colonial clergy. Until our pulpits are once again occupied by pastors capable of providing such instruction, the church will not have a profound effect on society. As long as the world views the gospel through the prism of the self-centered message delivered by television preachers, they will never look to the church for leadership.

De Tocqueville declared that America is great because America is good. Chesterton declared the America was a Nation with the soul of a church. Whatever success Donald Trump may have in reforming certain policies, America will never be great again until America is good again. Let us pray that is may be so and let us labor to see it so.

Barry, We Hardly Knew Ye, or What Will A Man Give In Exchange for His Soul?

After enduring eight long years of the inexplicable behavior of the artist formerly known as Barack Hussein Obama, I have developed an hypothesis; what we have been observing is a man without a soul. Note,  I don't mean a soul in the biblical sense (although they are related); rather I mean a man who does not know himself. Obama has spent his whole life trying to discover who he is.

His identity crisis began in childhood. He was the product of man with whom he would have very little contact while was growing up, and a woman who had other things on her mind and without the equipment to raise a son who's identity was confusing from the cradle.

Contrary to popular myth, Barack Obama is not the first African American president - for the simple reason that he is not African American. In a less PC time, he would have been called a mulatto. His identification with his father's African roots was a political choice, not a racial necessity. He could as easily have claimed his mother's white heritage. His attempt to identify with the suffering and alienation of the descendants of American slavery was, and is, a sham based on hear-say.

After being abandoned by his father before he had an opportunity to form any meaningful connection, he was whisked away to Indonesia where he be was assigned the identity of Barry Soetoro, adopted son of Lolo Soetoro. The significant similarity between the two "fathers," was that they were both Muslim - an identify that Barack accepted until it became politically inconvenient.

At some point in his childhood, he was shipped off to live with his maternal grandparents in Kansas. Like most "white folks," they knew little or nothing about the African identity of his father which would occupy much of his later search for an identity. They also knew nothing of the "African American" experience and could not transmit any knowledge of such to their grandson.

After a privileged education at two exclusive American universities, about which little is known because his academic records are sealed, he emerged as an erstwhile, radicalized Black activist. He adopted Chicago as his territory and assumed the occupation of "community organizer" as a way to establish standing in the area (Barry, what do you want to be when you grow up? I want to be a community organizer, Mommy)  How a young man with a middle-class, privileged upbringing wound up in this situation can only be understood as the actions of a man trying to create a persona.

Somewhere in his Chicago adventure, he identified with a radical, Liberation Theology oriented church and "became" a Christian. His claim that he never heard his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, engaging in his frequent anti-American diatribes, is feasible only if he wasn't listening; a very real possibility for a man who wasn't there to learn but to be seen.

It was also during this time that he met and married Michele Robinson, a university educated young woman raised in a prosperous, suburban family who, in spite of the advantages she experienced, was never proud of her country.

His organizing experience paid off when he was elected to the Illinois state Senate, partially by having other candidates eliminated from the ballot. His tenure in the state legislature was uneventful, characterized by frequent votes of "present," a tactic designed to avoid identification with any position which might require an explanation. This lackluster beginning was followed by his election to the US Senate, a position for which he was neither qualified nor temperamentally suited.

What he was suited for was talking, not listening. During testimony at a hearing of one of the Senate committees to which he had been assigned, he turned to one of his staff seated behind and handed him a note reading "just shoot me now." Clearly not an auspicious beginning for participation in the nations highest deliberative legislative chamber. His slide into political oblivion was halted when he was plucked from the realm of obscurity by John Kerry to deliver a keynote speech at the 2004 Democrat Convention. This appearance launched him into a realm of notoriety that might otherwise have been impossible.

Oprah pronounced him "Brilliant," and four years later, this unknown, untested young man with the strange (and troubling) name not only defeated Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat nominee, but longtime American hero, Senator John McCain for the white house; and the rest, as they say is history. Or is it?

With the exception of a failed attempt to establish national health-care, Obama's roster of White House achievements is sparse. This is what one might expect from a man who doesn't know who he is and is dependent on others for ideas with which to identify. Given his persona non-existia, it is not surprising that issues like producing a birth-certificate and other records of education and experience emerged during his career.

During and subsequent to the recent election cycle, Obama made frequent reference to his legacy. He urged the election of Mrs. Clinton as a way of validating his term of office. The problem was that there was no legacy with which the American people could identify. Mature, self-assured people do not talk about their legacy; that is for historians. People who are self-aware speak about what they believe and why people should support them.

Ultimately, Barack Obama cannot be understood from a political or social perspective. He can only be understood when he is examined by the authority of scripture. He is a man unique in contemporary experience. He was and remains unknown to the people among whom he lives and to the people who elected him.

He is a man without a soul.

Say, Who Was That Masked Woman Anyway?

Few Jeopardy contestants would recognize the names Norma Jeane Mortensen , Leonard Slye or Clayton Moore, but even Cliff Claven knows the names Marilyn Monroe, Roy Rogers, and The Lone Ranger. In fact, both sets of names are the same people.

The first three are the real names while the last three are the characters they became. They did not start out as these characters, but they adopted them and played the part for the rest of their lives. We could also cite Samuel Clemens who became Mark Twain and Marion Mitchell Morrison who became known the world over as John Wayne

I am concerned here with a more current example of role playing; one that has immediate significance for all of us. I refer, of course to the character Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary Rodham is as much a character as any of those named above.

Something happened to Hillary Rodham that transformed her from a Goldwater Girl into a campus radical. I am not astute enough to identify the time or the event that accomplished this change, but it became apparent not only in her views but in her deportment (there was a book written several years ago entitled "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham;" I’d never read it; perhaps the author has a b3ette3r explanation for the change) It is only important for us to understand that Hillary Rodham abandoned her middle-class life and became Hillary Radical. Whatever force accomplished this change, everything that Hillary did or said afterward was in pursuit of fulfilling her new role as Hillary Radical.

It is likely, as with many of her generation that Hillary did not understand the experience herself. For many of us, it was identification with an individual (I spent years trying to get my hair to behave like Bobby Kennedy's), or opposition to a particular issue such as the Viet Nam War, or just a general estrangement from middle-class America as the result of university experience and exposure the radical professors.

Hillary Radical does not believe in anything except a vision of herself as rescuer. She does not believe in liberty or justice or human rights or any of the other "causes" she espouses in her persona. That is why she can lie and cheat and steal and never be bothered by a conscience, because Hillary Radical has no conscience; characters have no conscience unless the author creates one. Hillary Radical does not know what she belies, until the author puts the words in her mouth.

The point is nobody knows who Hillary is, including Hillary. To elect her or any other person with such an indeterminate character would be to betray all that America represents

Perhaps someday a future Shakespeare will write a play called "Hillary Millhouse," for this American story is surely as much a tragedy as any of the histories the Bard ever penned. It will become an even greater tragedy if she becomes president.

Obama's Muslim, er ah, Christian Faith

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then candidate Barrack Obama remarked during an interview that his opponent John McCain had not commented on his (Obama’s) Muslim faith.

Obama did not realize his misstatement until the interviewer Chris Wallace said “you mean your Christian faith. Obama agreed with Wallace’s correction. The flub was observed by some commentators, but like his other misstatements there was no enduring fallout.

The question remains, why would anyone make such a mistake? One can understand, for instance, Obama’s error in stating that he had been to 57 states. But it’s different when it comes to one’s religious beliefs. After all, he had been a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church for some 20 years and was a self-styled Christian. This was certainly more than a slip of the tongue.

Almost immediately after his inauguration, Obama embarked on his “apologize to Islam tour.” He “announced” that America was not a Christian nation. He did not clarify what he meant by this announcement. Of course, America was not and never had been a Christian nation in any formal legal sense. It certainly had been a Christian nation in terms of its philosophy and political orientation.

The president apparently thought he had sufficiently circumcised the nations Christian heritage and turned his attention from apologizing to Muslims for the barbaric treatment they had received at the hand of their American oppressors, to apologizing for, i.e., defending Islam.

In the face of continuing violence by Muslim terrorists, he declared that their actions were not the result of Islamic beliefs but were the actions of those who perverted the true teachings of Islam. In a recent statement, he even declared that Islam had always played an important role in the life of America, even from the founding. What this role was he did not say.

There was a “made-for tv” movie sometime in the 80s concerning the Roman army’s assault on a band of renegade Jews at the mountain-top fortress at Masada. After engaging in every atrocity imaginable, including launching Jewish prisoners from catapults, the Roman general, portrayed by Peter O’Toole declared to the leader of the Jewish renegades, Peter Strauss, during a clandestine meeting down the mountain, that “this is not Rome.” After repeating this phrase for the second time, Strauss stated how absurd this was in light of the fact that it was the Romans who were committing the outrages.

Well, it seems to me that the president is engaging in a similar case of verbal legerdemain. In the face of continued violence against Christian culture by confessed Muslim terrorists, Obama continually denies that they are acts of terror or, at least they are not motivated by a genuine understanding of the Prophet’s teachings. What the president hopes to gain by this denial in the face of indisputable fact is difficult to understand. Difficult perhaps, but not impossible.

Some time ago, I wrote a piece entitled "Our First Post-Modern President or Why Obama Can't Lie" Without re-posting the entire essay (please read), my point was to explain how Obama’s frequent misrepresentations could not be understood in the traditional sense of lying (ala Bill and Hillary), but in the context of the Post-modern paradigm that controls most of popular intellectual discourse, viz truth is not a fixed set of propositions but is determined by the context in which claims are asserted. In this case, Obama is not lying; he is simply declaring the truth from a different perspective. He is not trying to deny or hide the facts; rather he is creating truth by his statements. Thus, the terrorists are not Islamic, regardless of how often they declare their allegiance to Allah and the Prophet, because they cannot be. In short, he is engaging in the rebellion against God’s authority that has characterized human behavior since Eve overthrew God’s judgment for her own.

Most Christians are not interested in such matters and so continue to misinterpret the conflict in which they are engaged. Obama is not speaking the truth and must be challenged’ of his words. The problem is not Obama’s errant world-view, a world-view that is clearly anti-Christian, but the failure of Christians to think and act as followers of Christ. As Christians, we can only declare Islam to be what it is, an anti-Christian, pagan religion.

We should hope and pray for a Christian of sufficient courage and standing to challenge Obama’s defense of this false religion in the face of “his Christian faith.”

Saving America - A Prescription For Reclaiming Christian Culture

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." 2 Cor 6:17

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."

 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matt. 5:13 & 16

America is in trouble; that is not in question. The question is, what can/should we as Christians do to solve the problem. That question can be answered in one word - Separation. Separation is the essence of holiness. It should be the measure by which we live and the foundation of our involvement in society.

God's plan for Israel was Separation from the world in which they lived: they were to be a peculiar people, totally different from the nations around them. It was their constant failure to be separated that was the cause of His judgement.

America was founded by separatists. The Pilgrims had separated themselves from the corrupt church/state system under which they lived in England. Their reason for relocating to America was not, as the state schools teach, for religious freedom - they had that in Holland. Their purpose was to establish a social and political system based on distinctly Christian/biblical principles. Without this commitment, they would never have been able to endure the hardships they faced in their new home.

True holiness/separation begins in the heart. Our unwillingness to be truly separate is an indication that our hearts are not as they should be - "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." The following are offered as a beginning.

Separate from the world's indoctrination system - get your kids out of the state schools. If Christians would withdraw their children en masse, it would have an incalculable impact on the culture. Not only would it remove a huge number of students who would, hopefully, receive a truly Christian education, but it would be a tremendous witness to the world. 

This question should settle the matter for all true Christians: Would the Jews have allowed the Philistines to educate their children? 

If we are unwilling to do such a small thing, do we really imagine that we will be willing to do great things when they are required of us. If we say we are unable to do this, we are saying that God is unable to provide what is necessary to carry out his will. The primary option should be parent directed home education, but every church that has a building could operate a day school. Tuition could be free or minimal to cover expenses. 

Separate from the world's amusements. If one phrase can be used to describe American culture, it is "entertainment obsessed." This obsession is present in virtually every area of our daily experience - even pastors make references to sports in their sermons; Billy Graham features athletes at his crusades. It is characterized by the amount of time and money that are spent on motion pictures, television, sports and the manner in which we assign celebrity status to entertainers and athletes. Most Christians know all about the current movies; they know which teams are in the playoffs; they even know the latest doings of the Kardasian family.

Separate from the world's economic system - consumerism. Get out of debt; do not incur additional debt. Be content with what we have. Lay up treasures in heaven, not on earth.

Separate from the world's political expectations - stop looking for a savior. Christians display the same expectation as the pagan element in our society, i.e. we must find the right person to lead us into the right way (preferably without requiring any work on our part). We argue over which candidate can solve our problems. This mindset dishonors the Lord we claim to serve.

Separate from the world's military mentality. The founders were afraid of a standing army; they knew the damage that such a force could pose to liberty and the tendency toward "meddling" that it encouraged. Our nation has been in almost a constant state of conflict since the second world war - none of it has been for national defense. 

Citizens should only engage in armed conflict when the life of the nation is at state. No concern for "national interest" justifies a Christian engaging in war. It is proper to honor those who serve to protect their country, but it is improper to glorify and celebrate war, and to teach our children that military service is to be pursued.

Separate from the world's support system. Christ never intended for his people to live in isolation; the church was to be a physical community, not merely a gathering place for infrequent worship. The book of Acts describes a people who were united around a common purpose; the sharing characterized by the church at Jerusalem following Pentecost was only possible because of the fellowship and community they shared.

There are, no doubt, additional areas where Christians could be separate; these are offered as a beginning. 

Ultimately, the saving of America is in God's hands. The question is whether we have the will to try.

Hillary is not the only one.

"If we say we have not sinned, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" 1 John 1:8

Hillary Clinton's recent assertion that she "has not lied," and doesn't believe that she "would lie," reveals one or both of two things:

1          If she really believes what she is saying, she is a self-deceived fool.

2.         If she does not believe what she is saying, she is lying and the truth is not in her.

In either case, it should be clear that she cannot be trusted and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House (or your house).

My point, however, is not to expose Hillary's duplicity; she is doing an adequate job of that. My point is that Christians need to start evaluating political issues in biblical categories, not as Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, Socialist or Capitalist, etc. Until we start doing that, we are not qualified to choose a president or a dog catcher.

How can we hope to solve our government spending problems without understanding the nature of the problem. Government debt is a form of theft, in violation of the 8th commandment. No amount of political discussion or debate will alter this fact. Socialism - government "redistribution of wealth" is motivated by a violation ofr the 10th commandment.

There is a lot of talk about Christians being "salt and light," be we have not spoken clearly, biblically on these and other issues and contribute to the confusion and darkness. We have no other authority for objecting to bad policies. If we look for other grounds for objection, we are denying the authority of God's word over every area of life.

During the Revolution period, the Americans had a phrase they used to oppose the unlawful British policies; "No King but Jesus." It's time for Christians to renew this declaration, but first, they must understand it.

Christian or Conservative?

The following is an excerpt from a brief autobiography by Miss Katherine Dang which was published in "A Guide to American Christian Education," American Christian History Institute:

"It was not enough to work hard and be sincere when one's philosophy of government was a mixture of Christian and socialistic doctrines. To be politically conservative was only to be issue centered and to reason from one's emotions." "I would only prepare generations to be suited for Christian socialism, at best, and these generations would, by degrees, exchange America's Christian form of government for pagan centralization and the tyranny of the State."

At Arms With Roget

A Thesaurus Chorus

"Propel, propel, propel your vessel

"Tenderly athwart the watercourse

"Blithely, blithely, blithely, blithely

"Existence be but a reverie."

An elucidation:

In a previous occupational incarnation, I received a letter of complaint from a woman who had attended a workshop at the convention with which I was associated. The ostensible focus of the session was Teaching Creative Writing, or some such.

Her complaint was that the workshop presenter had not taken sufficient time (in her opinion) to answer her specific questions regarding problems related to her son  She was not appeased by the presenters explanation that he could not answer such detailed questions in the context of a workshop.

Her letter revealed that it was she, and not her son, who was the real object of her angst. It was apparent, from the beginning, that the true object of her missive was not to communicate a grievance, but to demonstrate her own compositional prowess.

She subscribed to the doctrine that it is always preferable to use many obscure words when one will serve. It was obvious that she had resorted to the thesaurus at nearly every point in her composition with the result that her complaint was lost in a fog of vocabulary.

In honor of this hapless scribe, I have penned the ditty above.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

One of the reasons I do not write more (besides general lethargy) is that so much of value has already been written that I hate to distract from or dilute the value of such work.

In light of this reluctance, I refer you to an excellent article entitled "You can't fix the economy, Mr. Obama," by Anthony Flood. Although it was written in 2009, it is still relevant.
You'll find it here. http://www.anthonyflood.com/obama.htm


What makes this piece valuable is that Mr. Flood does not quibble about specifics of proposed "fixes," but challenges the very premises involved in such attempts; premises, by the way, which are endorsed by politicians across the political spectrum - with the exception of true Libertarians.

So, read and enjoy.

WWHD?

I doubt this will get much traction here, since my friends are too intelligent to fit in the category, but what, exactly, is it that Hillary supports expect her to accomplish if she is elected President.

Let's set aside, for the moment, that her supporters can't cite any significant accomplishments during her tenure in office (assuming that managing the "bimbo" scandals doesn't qualify (although this sill might come in handy since Bill is likely to misbehave if he regains access to the Oval Office)), what do you think she'll do in the White House.

What’s in a name?

I can tolerate a certain amount of idiocy, but my brain reaches a point where it simply rebels. Considering all the nonsense taking place in our society, one is faced with a pot luck of inane ideas and actions, but the point of my immediate outrage is the so-called “Mark Twain Prize for American Humor” presented annually by the Kennedy Center.

Now I think its fine to have such an award. Mark Twain, ne Samuel Clemmens, was not only a great American author (Hemmingway said that American literature began with Twain), but was a genuine wit, both in his written work and public addresses.

So, what’s my problem? Just this; none of those awarded the prize in its sixteen years of existence have been humorists. Humor is an intellectual undertaking, requiring insight, subtlety, and a taste for the absurd. None of the winners satisfy these requirements.

Of course, anyone can establish a “Prize” and award it to whomsoever one pleases. We could have the Bill Clinton Prize for Marital Fidelity, or the Joe Biden Award for Extemporaneous Speaking (the trophy would be shaped like a foot), and lest we forget, there is the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in these latter years to such luminaries as Al “I invented the internet” Gore and Barack Obama. The award to Obama was given in antecessum of what he would accomplish after he was elected. His abject failure in this regard only serves to heighten our awareness of the Nobel committee’s lack of prophetic chops. Perhaps the Nobel nominating committee should be considered for the Twain prize.

Take this year’s winner, Carol Burnett. Carol is certainly a talented, funny lady who has enriched American entertainment for years, but she is not a humorist. She, like most of the other winners, is a comedian. To be more specific, she is a clown. Slap-stick and pratfalls are not humor.

In case you think I’m exaggerating, consider other equally inappropriate prize winners, including the initial recipient Richard Pryor; Ellen DeGeneres, Will Farrell, George Carlin, Steve Martin, Lorne Michaels (really, Lorne Michaels – most people couldn't pick him out of a one man line-up) and, my favorite, Whoopi Goldberg. I should also mention Jonathan Winters and Carl Reiner who, while possessing true comedic genius, are not humorists.

The residue of the winners hardly deserve to be included as comedians. Their comedy, when not making fun of conservatives or Christians, consists largely of crude, profanity laced sexual innuendo. Anyone who has watched Whoopi on The View television show realize that she is not a humorist and meets only half the requirement to be a wit.

Although I never saw him in person, I’m pretty certain Mark Twain never uttered such bon mots as “how the f*** are you doing?” of “have you heard what that b**** Sarah Palin said,” or “how about those m***** f****** Christians?.”

So, you’re probably thinking, who would I nominate? Glad you asked. I’d start with Garrison Keillor of Prairie Home Companion, Fanny Flagg, Roy Blount, Jr., Russell Baker, Dave Barry, Stan Freberg, and myself. (last of course, but not least). This is only a fraction of the list of contemporary humorists; if we start looking at posthumous awards, the roster becomes unwieldy.

The selection of the clowns who have received the misnamed prize reveals that deep down, the board of governors of the Kennedy Center (or whoever makes the selection) are, contrary to their pretensions to elevated cultural sensitivity, a bunch of low-brow, bottom-feeding, tuxedo wearing cretins who would be more comfortable at a circus than at a literary reading.

America has a rich history of truly great humorists who deserve to be honored. Why muddy that up with the lowest common denominator of crude profanity spewing fools?

Mark Twain would not recognize himself among these prize winners and would, if I know him at all,  demand the immediate dissociation of his name from this travesty.

50 Questions Christians Should Not Answer

I try to live by a few simple rules: never smoke more than one cigar at a time; never argue theology with an unbeliever; there are others.

I got the first from Mark Twain; I got the second from the Bible.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:4 & 5.

If you engage in apologetic, as I do, you may have come across websites with titles such as "Top 50 Questions Christians Can't Answer" 

The poster invariably declares that he was a Christian until he really started "thinking" about God, the Bible, etc, after which he just couldn't believe anymore. He wants to help others see that their faith is rationally unsustainable, so he poses a series of questions which, he believes, demonstrate the irrationality of Christianity and will, therefore, lead any "thinking" Christian to abandon the faith.

Many well meaning Christians have tried to respond to such "questionnaires.". In doing so, they violate scripture in a number of regards and dishonor the Lord they intend to defend. Unfortunately, this is the approach of most apologetic "ministries."

When the unbeliever proposes such questions, he is not sincere; there are no "honest seekers." The Bible declares that all men are, by nature, in a state of rebellion against their creator. They do not want to know God. They suppress the truth of God that is in them and around them; cf Romans 1:18.

Further, by trying to give thoughtful answers to such questionnaires, the Christian legitimizes the questions and the questioner, in violation of the scripture cited above. By answering such questions as if they are legitimate, the Christian becomes "like unto" the unbeliever in that he accepts the unbelievers right to challenge God's word. 

The would-be apologist also makes the unbeliever "wise in his own conceit," by the fact that he does not challenge the believer's basic premise, i.e. God's word is not ultimate; there is something "higher" than God by which his word and actions can be tested. Ultimately that is man's autonomous intellect.

The motivation for such questions is really a desire by the unbeliever to justify himself ito himself. He is not sincerely seeking answers. What he is really saying is "If I were God, I wouldn't do this, therefore the Christian God does not exist (I once caught myself singing the son "If I Ruled the World" and realized that the lyrics were blasphemous).

The only Biblical response to such questioning is to challenge the unbeliever at the very beginning of his thinking. By what standard does he presume to question God's word, i.e. what is his epistemological position, and how has he validated, 'tested" this position. In spite of his pretended objectivity, the unbeliever will be shown to be without a foundation and inexcusable in his unbelief.

Thus, and only thus, can the Christian be a faithful and consistent witness to the Lordship of Christ.

Houston, We Have a Pope!

In case it is unclear from what follows, let me state at the outset that I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be an abomination, based on a collection of corrupt doctrines, pagan superstitions and political intrigues.

It has enslaved the minds and souls of millions of ignorant backward people. In witness of its corruption, it has given us the Inquisition, the Crusades, Indulgences, Papal idolatry, Mary worship, veneration of saints and widespread child abuse by the clergy (I’m sure some Stupid Evangelical will feel compelled to point out that such abuse has occurred within Protestant churches. The difference is, of course, that such cases are neither occasioned nor concealed by the institution).

In light of these realities, it was nothing less than astounding to see the slavish, fatuous, reverential manner in which the recent papal selection was covered by the mainstream media. This was only exceeded by the universal adulation with which the new Pope was greeted.

Pope Francis was pronounced to be a “humble man” who is committed to the poor and disadvantaged ( just how any of these reporters  could know that he is a humble man is not known – perhaps they were told by the same people who denied rampant child abuse and organized cover-up)

It is predicted that he will emphasize Roman “social doctrine” (a blend between socialism and communism) and work for world peace and reconciliation. Since he is from Argentina, it is expected that he will focus on elevating the condition of the poor and ignorant of that region.

How is it possible for anyone with the least knowledge of the conquest and exploitation of Latin America to miss the fact that the largest single determining factor in that area has been the Roman Church? It was the Roman church that enslaved the people of South America through the propagation of religious superstition  enforcing submission to the church and corrupt political leaders and continuing war against literacy. If they're so concerned about the poor Latinos, what in hell have they been doing for the last four hundred years.

Oh, I forgot to mention that this new Pope is a Jesuit? The history of  the Jesuits is littered with the bodies of “heretics,” the propagation of lies and political machinations around the world.

Even our self-described “Christian” President has hailed the selection of the new pontiff as a wonderful event and looks forward to working with him to accomplish the salvation of humankind. He refers to the Pope as “His Holiness” and pontificates that "As a champion of the poor and the most vulnerable among us, he carries forth the message of love and compassion that has inspired the world for more than two thousand years—that in each other we see the face of God."  Lest anyone think that these were just his personal sentiments, Obama began his comments “On behalf of the American people,” he offers Francis our "warmest wishes and prayers" - three Hail Marys and one Our Father, no doubt?

Perhaps not, since he declares "We join with people around the world in offering our prayers for the Holy Father as he begins the sacred work of leading the Catholic Church in our modern world." Does this mean that Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Pantheists, and Atheists will be joining together to support the Pope? 

Is it the official position of the US Government that leading the Catholic Church is a "sacred work" that transcends religious truth?

NB: One cannot help being struck by the Audacity with which the President declares the content of the gospel. Any other politician declaring a more faithful characterization of the gospel would be vilified for violating the separation of church and state.

Never mind that Christ specifically forbids such adulation of men, the President is above such narrow interpretation of scripture. Certainly, he will likely differ from “His Holiness” on such matters as abortion and gay marriage.

How have we come to such a state? It is because Stupid Evangelicals, who are either ignorant of or indifferent to the abuses that led to the Protestant Reformation, have adopted a sentimental view of Christian doctrine which leads to a “charitable” toleration of the “minor” differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Has not His Holiness Billy Graham declared that God loves you whether you’re Baptist, Methodist or Catholic? Protestant pulpits no longer thunder forth the proclamation of Roman abominations as they did in the past. No doubt our pastors are more enlightened now. Certainly, Luther and Calvin were intemperate when they referred to the Papal system as the anti-Christ. Surely, the Puritans could have been less judgmental in referring to the Roman Church as “the whore of Babylon.”

The Roman Church is viewed as just another denomination. Sure, they have weird practices; sure they pray to saints; sure they don’t value personal bible study; sure they carry a string of beads (a practice taken over from eastern religions); sure they talk about helping the poor while their priests live sumptuously; sure they believe in transubstantiation (whatever that is); sure they worship Mary; sure they believe that personal salvation is granted or withheld by the church; Sure they’re different, but hey, we’re all a little peculiar. After all, Protestants don’t agree on everything.

No need to get all worked up. I’m sure Francis is a wonderful guy. After all, he isn’t personally responsible for all the past abuses of the Roman system, even if he won’t disavow them. All that matters is that he is a “humble man” who wants to help the poor with someone else’s money.

So, let’s all hug and sing Kumbaya.

It's The Constitution, Stupid!

It was reported that during his first presidential campaign, Bill Clinton had a sign made to remind himself of the issue on which he needed to focus if he was going to win. The sign said, "It's the economy, stupid!" The term "stupid" was directed at himself and was a reminder to not get distracted by other issues.

As much as it pains me to suggest that we should emulate Slick Willie in anything, it might be wise for defenders of the 2nd Amendment to remind themselves that the contest is ultimately and exclusively about the integrity of the Constitution.


As usual, "conservatives" have allowed the advocates of government oppression to define the issue and then fecklessly respond to that. Gun control advocates have declared that the recent series of mass shootings is the result of too many guns. Gun advocates counter that guns are necessary for self-defense, including defense against government tyranny.


Gun control proponents declare that nobody needs a 30 round magazine and an AR-15 to hunt deer. This claim is appropriately, though weakly, rejoined that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.


And, so the game of see-saw continues; the anti-gun forces seizing the initiative and the other side trying to counter the miss-characterizations and, in the process, arguing about technicalities like background checks at gun shows. The outcome of this process is predictable: there will be some "common sense" compromise between the two "sides" which further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


The problem is that, as constituted, there are not two sides to the argument. There is only one side - the side that accepts the notion that government may impose restrictions on liberty as long as they make "sense." 

Everyone wants to prevent gun violence, don't they? Everyone is disturbed to see children killed at school, aren't they? We have to do something to insure that these things don't happen, don't we? Of course we do, but that's nothing to do with liberty.


The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution  It is a Right. It needs to be defended, not justified. It is a right, not a conditional privilege  Freemen do not have to be pre-approved in the exercise of rights. They don't have to register their intention to exercise their rights. They don't have to use their rights according to government regulations. 


It is irrelevant how many people use guns for self-defense; it wouldn't matter if no-one did. It is a Right. Gun violence is a tragedy; it is especially troubling when it involves "innocent" people like children, but that doesn't change the facts about gun possession. It's a Right.


But doesn't the government have a responsibility to act to protect citizens against violence? The simple answer is No. Government has neither the authority or ability to protect citizens by pre-emptive violation of liberty. People can and will misuse their liberties. The role of government in such cases to to punish such violations.


Some people misuse their right to free speech by slandering others. No one would suggest that government can or should attempt to identify these people in advance and prevent them from owning a computer or having access to the internet. The law provides for penalties for such inappropriate use of liberty.


But this is exactly the premise upon which pro-gun advocates are acting; government must identify in advance people who may "misuse" their right to keep and bear arms and limit or deny them access to weapons And, because everyone is "potentially" a mass murderer, the government ought to limit the types of weapons available to everyone.


Conservatives always want to appear to be reasonable and open to compromise. This "compromise" becomes the starting point for future incursions by the foes of liberty. Liberty is never secured by compromise; it is secured and defended by force. The only argument that can prevail and insure the liberty of citizens to keep and bear arms is "it's in the Constitution."

Let the forces of liberty stake their hope securely on this declaration and let the agents of oppression openly deny it. Make the gun control folks acknowledge that they don't care what the Constitution says. Then the issues will be plain and the lines of battle clearly drawn for those who value liberty.

The True Meaning of XMas

Never mind that Jesus was not born in December (probably October) - as long as we remember the true meaning of Christmas.

Never mind that angels don't sing (at least, the Bible doesn't say so) - as long as we remember the true meaning of Christmas.

Never mind that the wise men didn't show up until the baby was a couple of years old - as long as etc.

Never mind that the whole "mother and child" symbology was taken over from paganism to make the pagan "converts" feel wellcome - as long as; well, you get the idea.

Never mind that Christmas was not observed by our Pilgrim/Puritan forbears (in fact, it was illegal) - as long as ..

Never mind that the Christmas Tree was invented by Martin Luther and imported to America by German immigrants  - as long as, blah, blah, blah.

So, what is the True meaning of Christmas?

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD.

"But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' sope:

"And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

"For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves of the stall.

"And, ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of our feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

"And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" Malachi, 3:1-3; 4:1-4, 5 & 6.

Merry Christmas

It's all Gene's fault

So, all we need to do is develop a genetic “blueprint” for potential mass murders, test everyone purchasing a weapon, and lock them up if they fit the profile.

What the heck; let's test everyone.

Think worldview doesn’t matter in addressing/solving these problems?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive_n_2332641.html

Solutions to Mass shootings

A review of the data from this website reveals three startling facts:

            Most mass shootings are the result of semi-automatic pistols, not “assault rifles – 68% vs 35%

            Most mass shootings are carried out by children – 20 years or younger.

            All mass shootings occur at places where large numbers of unprotected people gather.

These data suggest several solutions:

            Outlaw gatherings of unprotected people: Close all public schools; have machine gun emplacements at the entrances to all malls (shoot first, ask questions later); outlaw manufacturing facilities with 5 or more employees and require all employees to work naked.

            Outlaw children, 20 years or younger.

            In light of the above, there is no need to address the semi-automatic pistol issue.

I realize that, at first glance, these suggestions might appear as cynical and even insensitive, but they are no more so than the knee-jerk demands to "control" the infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. After all, one politician has said that "everything must be on the table" in discussions for curbing violence.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

The Real Tragedy of the Newtown shooting.

What happened in Newton, CT last Friday was a tragedy, but it was not a national tragedy. Calling it such diminishes the true significance of the event.

It was a personal tragedy - the parents of the murdered children will never forget. The memory will fade for everyone else; the other children; the teachers; the townspeople; but the parents of the children killed will never forget. There will never be a day that they do not remember.

There was nothing "national" about this event. It was not a political act; it was not an act against the city government, or the state government, or the federal government. It was not an act against the people of the city, state, or nation.

It was a tragedy. It would have been a tragedy if only one child had been killed. The tragedy was magnified because so many were killed. But, children are killed everyday in cities all over the country; some of them have not even been born.

This is the world we live in. Such tragedies seem like a violation of the natural order, but they are the natural order. It is only through the mercy of God that life has not descended into the absolute chaos which the entrance of sin brought into creation. Occasionally, God lifts his hand of mercy to reveal the true nature of our world. This does not, and should not diminish the heartbreak that such tragedies engender. In fact, it should increase our hatred of the sin that lies behind every tragedy.

It is sickening that the usual suspects intruded into the sadness of this event to advance their misdirected agenda. Not just the gun control maniacs, but the misguided Christians like Mike Huckabee who try to find a linkage to removing God from public schools. Have these people no compassion? Have they no shame? The children are not yet buried; the parents have not yet had time to mourn and grieve.

The ceaseless, mind-numbing media coverage and analysis betrays a kind of voyeurism; a kind of national obsession. If there is a national aspect to this tragedy, it is the attempts by politicians to declare the cause and cure. The loving thing to do in such circumstances is to look away; to let the real victims heal and to be silent.

The End has Come

I have nothing more to say.