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.