2008 October archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for October, 2008

Links: Focus on the Family’s America Under Obama, more

Published by Colin October 31, 2008 in Current Events. 7 Comments

Focus on the Family Action’s Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America. This hilarious letter basically takes every major problem that could happen short of the apocalypse and blames all of it on Barack Obama. Here are some of the more interesting nuggets:

The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and television broadcasts. As a result, television programs at all hours of the day contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts.

I didn’t know that the only thing holding back hard-core pornography on the television was the FCC. I guess we all really want to watch porn all day - as this is what these people think the market would ask for, if left to it’s own devices. Thank goodness for the wise, powerful and all-moral FCC.

A Taliban-like oppression has taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of “American sympathizers” have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. The number put to death may soon reach the millions.

Leaving Iraq of course will lead to a new holocaust in the country.

President Obama directed U.S. intelligence services to cease all wiretapping of alleged terrorist phone calls unless they first obtained a warrant for each case… Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe.

Oh no! Now government has to get a warrant for wiretaps! Because of this four bombs have gone off - if only we had given the government more of our civil liberties!

In mid-2010, Iran launched a nuclear bomb that exploded in the middle of Tel Aviv, destroying much of that city

Which of these countries will have nukes in 2012: Iran or Israel? Hint: one of them already has them, and has made multiple threats to use them against ther other? Hint: it’s not Iran.

As a result, those evangelical publishers could no longer distribute any of their books through any of these bookstore chains. Any Christian publisher that dares to print works critical of homosexual behavior faces the same fate. As a result, several Christian publishers have gone out of business.

Ahh! Christian publishers, many of which publish heresy anyway, are out of business? How is the church going to make money? Next we’ll find out that president Obama was stealing from the collection plate too?

A coming scandal?

Red Sex, Blue Sex - Why do so many evangelical teen-agers become pregnant?

The George Wallace We Forgot

Socialism, Sarah Palin style:

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself.

She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269.

A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

LA TImes will not release Video that may show Obama supporting terrorists

The Behavioral Revolution

An Obama speechwriter says she’s voting for McCain…

Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.

But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again… Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor…

I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that…

Marriage and the Law

Published by Atanamis October 27, 2008 in General. 39 Comments

I’m going to start by explaining my bias, so you can read the rest of my article through that filter.

My beliefs regarding “proper” marriage are that:
1) People ought to refrain from sex until marriage.
2) Marriage should be only between one man and one woman.
3) Marriage should be a nearly* unbreakable commitment.
4) Parents should have a wide latitude of authority and responsibility in rearing their children, with some basic criteria for sufficient care and reasonable discipline.
5) It will make a far better home for their children if the parents are highly committed to one another.
“nearly” meaning only broken in case of clear abuse or unfaithfulness.

Separating the civil and religious concepts of “marriage”:
Despite this “conservative” view on marriage, it is my belief that government ought to get out of the marriage business. “Marriage” as a term has long held religious connotations, and in my opinion it is undesirable and even dangerous for government to be responsible for forming or recognizing religious distinctions. Personally, I feel that the concept of marriage has been massively cheapened in our culture. By allowing government to define marriage, we have also allowed government to define divorce and for it to heavily influence how a marriage should look. When I got married, I made an unbreakable commitment to my wife. No matter what happens in our lives, I will sacrificially make decisions for her best interest. This is the commitment I think “Biblical marriage” calls for from a man. Biblically, I don’t think gay marriage is appropriate (another discussion), and definitely don’t think things like a marriage of convenience for the sake of citizenship or tax benefits makes sense. The problem is that as soon as we equate “religious marriage” with legal rights, protections, or perks people will “fake it” to get those benefits.

The concept of “separation of church and state” is a political theory, and not the law in the US. That said, I do think separation is a good idea for the protection of religion. Allowing government to define religion has only weakened that definition. Far better if government did NOT define marriage, but allowed religious organization to produce their own definitions. A religious group can then base its definition on its holy books, and not have to worry about a civil government infringing on their definition. Properly, religious organizations should already be doing this, rather than allowing the government to define what ought to be a highly sacred agreement between two parties. What would be far better would be to split marriage into legal “civil union” system and a religious “marriage” system. Such a system would allow a single man to form a “civil union” with his elderly mother, making her his “partner” as considered by insurance companies, medical decisions, and for property ownership. Two brothers would be able to for a “civil union” if they wanted to merge their finances. If I wanted to sponser my buddy in Mexico becoming a US citizen, I could form a “civil union” to help him get citizenship (though likely with a “pre-nup” protecting my financial assets). This system would be preferable for both the religious and the non-religious citizen.

As a result, I support a civil union that:
1) Allows any two non-minors citizens to form a legal bond with pre-determined exit clauses.
2) Allows those entering into the bond to establish rules for mutual property ownership / death benefits.
3) Allows those entering the contract to file taxes jointly.

I also support laws that ensure that biological parents have the right to raise their children (with possible court supervision if the parents disagree or are determined to be unfit) and a responsibility to support their children (again with court enforcement in case of disagreement or improper conduct).

Opposing gay marriage:
Given the above, one might suppose that I support gay marriage. In fact, these positions do not make limiting the legal expectations of “marriage” to people of opposite genders legally or logically unsupportable. The above claim of making “civil unions” as a not a morally based institution really only makes sense if no limits are applied (as described above) or when restricted to people with biological children. Any other position is not “ignoring morality”, but rather imposing a new set of moral imperatives. If we allow “gay marriage”, but do not also allow the marriage of close relations and complete strangers seeking a tax or immigration benefit, we are implying that “legal marriage” is more than just a contractual state. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to file taxes jointly with any random person I choose to file with? Why should I not be allowed to change my “next of kin” list at will, or choose to add my elderly mother to my insurance policy as my partner? Sure, this is the way things HAVE been done, and is an entirely legal way to do them, but does it make sense from a non-moral position? I fully support “special” legal protections for the biological parents of a child, and the expectation that they will financially support their child. I support allowing churches to refuse to marry couples that are same sex, or couples that have pre-marital sex, or even couples that have tattoos if they choose. That’s freedom of religion. I see no reason though to restrict tax filing methods or “next of kin” modifications at will though.

Any “just add gays” kind of approach that does not make “civil unions” an unrestricted contract between ANY two adults is STILL making moral judgments (against cousins or siblings). If we are basing the legal definition of marriage on our personal morality, I am in opposition of gay marriage. A legal contract shouldn’t carry any expectation of a “sexual relationship” anyway. Prohibiting a “civil union” made entirely for tax purposes or to gain citizenship is again imposing one’s morality on others. The fact that others believe that sibling marriages are wrong, disgusting, or even harmful to society doesn’t change my opinion, because I believe the same things are true about gay marriage. Either we agree not to enforce personal morality by law (civil unions for any pair of people), or we wait until they have a majority that agrees with their personal morality before we change the laws. We either agree that the legal contract does NOT impose morality, or we all fight for OUR definition of “proper” marriage. Nobody is likely to change what I think marriage ought to be here, and I’m not going to try to change what others think it should be. Either we agree not to impose morality (and therefore allow close family members to form “civil unions” to protect property or for tax purposes), or we agree to impose “majority morality” (in which case I continue to vote against gay marriage until I’m in the minority).

Note regarding terms:
I do think it would be valuable to use a separate term for the government contract to clarify that we aren’t telling religions what to do, but words aren’t what I’m arguing about. What I am saying is that we need to make it clear that the legal arrangement is separate from the religious arrangement. There are two main reasons why religious groups strongly oppose “gay marriage”. The first is that they believe (as I do) that gay partnerships are undesirable for society. That said, most religious people I have spoken with do not wish to forcibly prevent such partnerships. The second reason they oppose “gay marriage” is that they are concerned about the increasing dilution of the term “marriage”. 50 years ago, it was expected that a marriage would be more or less permanent, and that it would only be broken as a result of good cause (abuse or unfaithfulness). Today, we have a high divorce rate which I (and others) believe it hurting children and society. By splitting the terms, we can allow religious groups to define “marriage” as they see fit while not restricting legal relationships between consenting adults.

My intent is to make VERY clear the distinction between the religious ritual and the legal contract. Look through this thread for the people who support “marriage” for gays but not for siblings. There is no legitimate reason for this aside from the moral judgment of the poster. The term “marriage” implies a relationship that should not be needed for a purely contractual arrangement. If you agree that any two consenting adults should be allowed to “marry(1)” and that a religious body should be fully allowed to define its own terms for who it will “marry(2)”, we are probably fundamentally in agreement. I still think that separate terms for marry(1) and marry(2) though would help others understand the distinction better though, and am unwilling to support marry(1) for same sex couples so long as ANY other restrictions are placed on it.

Links: This is the libertarians fault!!!!

Published by Colin October 24, 2008 in Current Events. 4 Comments

A Slate.com article blames US “libertarian” policies for the current failing market, arguing for more intervention and stating that the current crisis proves libertarians are wrong. This Reason.com article is offered as a rebuttal.

Iraq Inches Closer to Security Pact With U.S.

The draft also includes provisions on another knotty issue — whether American soldiers would have immunity from Iraqi law. Senior Iraqi officials said the draft language would give Americans immunity from Iraqi law when they were on military operations but would not apply if they were off duty….

Many Iraqi members of Parliament say that the proposed immunity provisions, which the United States supports, are too broad, and that they want American troops to be subject to Iraqi law for all their actions. The Americans say that their troops must have immunity when on military missions….

“The heart of the matter is the jurisdiction over the searching of all cargos that are shipped to Iraq or from Iraq,” said Ali Adeeb, a close ally of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. “There is the possibility that the cargo contains weapons that may hurt Iraq, although the American side committed that no weapons of mass destruction would be sent to Iraq.”….

Adding to the volatility, attacks against Christians have increased in the past two weeks and nearly 1,900 Christian families have fled their homes in fear, said Abdul Qadir al-Obaidi, the Iraqi minister of defense.

Palin is the mom in Bobby’s World?

A few weeks ago, the truth was revealed that artificial inflation of certain stocks would eventually hurt the market….and the conspiracy to hide this on Wikipedia.

Bloomberg gets the rule changes to stay in power, voters aren’t happy.

Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

Gap narrows between rich and poor, but the UK is still bad. And, oddly enough, if you look at the Gini coefficient scores, the US is worse.

Vote al Qaeda, Vote McCain

San Fran May Decriminalize Prostitution

Published by Colin October 23, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 17 Comments

In case you didn’t see it on CNN - the citizens of San Francisco have an opportunity to decriminalize prostitution on Novemeber 4th. From the AP:

San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution if voters next month approve Proposition K — a measure that forbids local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.

The ballot question technically would not legalize prostitution since state law still prohibits it, but the measure would eliminate the power of local law enforcement officials to go after prostitutes.

First of all, I think it is sad to see the reason why that proponents of this measure hope it will be passed:

…proponents of Proposition K say their proposal has a better shot in San Francisco, which they believe is more sexually liberal than the city across the bay.

Sexual liberation is the worst reason to support decriminalisation of prostitution, in the same way that the desire to actually do drugs is a terrible excuse to push for drug legalisation.

The main concern here is freedom. The fact that adults should have the right to buy, sell and consume whatever they want so long as there is no aggression. Governments have no legitimate authority, not from God or from natural law, to use aggression to prevent people from making decisions that are contained within their own sphere of ownership - namely their body and their property.

There is no question that desires to prevent prostitution are correct and good - but not by law, not by aggression. We may educate them about both the natural and spiritual consequences of their actions, and we may do it with as much passion and conviction as possible, but we have no authority, not even from God, to act as “little gods” and police people’s non-criminal (that is non-aggressive) sin.

If every Christian, instead of ticking of a box authorizing criminal use of government force, instead went out and shared the gospel with one person, just one person, this world would be a lot closer to radical change for the better.

Overcoming Faith, Part IV

Published by Chris A October 22, 2008 in Religion. 0 Comments

The Immutability of God’s Word
As believers in God and his son Jesus Christ, we know that nothing was made without God’s spoken word (John 1:3). All things thus having been created by God through his spoken word are upheld by the same word of his power, and are of necessity in subjection to the omnipotent authority from which they originate. Jesus, being the exact representation of his Father, is the Truth (Hebrews 1:3; John 14:6). He is the substance of actual reality, and is not subject to fluctuations in the temporal world. He is Lord of all and master over creation.

Those of us who have been given the right to become children of God should recognize the implications of contradicting our Creator. Above all else, God’s word should be given pre-eminence in every situation of life. God and his word are inseparable (John 1:1). We know God is faithful only because of his prior credibility demonstrated in his bringing to pass that which he said would happen. Prophets of old, upon whom rested the mighty hand of God, spoke forth the words of God concerning the coming of Emmanuel - the Christ. And just as God predicted through his prophets, he has come. Similarly, all creation is a testimony to the immutable integrity of God’s word, having been spoken into existence by him. We therefore are able to rest securely on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, whether or not our natural senses bear witness to it. God cannot lie. People, on the other hand, not only have the ability to lie, but also lack the capacity for absolute truth. Even those of us who perceive the knowledge of God “see through a glass, darkly” – meaning that our apprehension of the truth is limited by our present state of being (1 Corinthians 13:12).

The absolute futility of disagreement with God’s word cannot be underestimated. We are under no obligation to believe what any man says – because the nature of his credibility is suspect - but where God has spoken only fools dare say anything to the contrary, after having been made aware of the revealed will of God. Such acts are rebellion against God, and in his eyes are tantamount to witchcraft (1 Samuel 15:23). Even the ignorant, as innocent as their motives may seem to be, should be cautious not to speaking words of unbelief pertaining to matters for which they lack sufficient knowledge to formulate an intelligent response. Only a fool expresses an opinion about something for which he is unequipped to answer (Proverbs 18:13).

The Disinherited Ones
Agreement with God’s word involves personal and actual profession. Time and time again in the Old Testament and the New, we see how important words are in connection with the expression of faith. Conversely, words were often shown to demonstrate faith. What a person says about a matter fixes the landmarks of his inheritance. Though God has promised us many things – both in the life that now is and that which is to come – to a great extent we will only receive what we personally affirm to be true. Numbers 13 gives us a picture of people who were eventually disinherited because of their negative attitude and confession.

1Then the LORD spoke to Moses saying, 2″Send out for yourself men so that they may spy out the land of Canaan, which I am going to give to the sons of Israel; you shall send a man from each of their fathers’ tribes, every one a leader among them.”25When they returned from spying out the land, at the end of forty days, 26they proceeded to come to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the sons of Israel in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh; and they brought back word to them and to all the congregation and showed them the fruit of the land. 27Thus they told him, and said, “We went in to the land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. 28″Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large; and moreover, we saw the descendants of Anak there. 29″Amalek is living in the land of the Negev and the Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites are living in the hill country, and the Canaanites are living by the sea and by the side of the Jordan.”31But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” 32So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. 33″There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

We can see plainly that the spies were not in agreement with God when they brought back an evil report. In essence, God said, “Go investigate the land that I am going to give you.” He did not ask them to investigate the land to see whether they would be able to possess it or not. By their words they revealed that they did not believe God was going to give them the land. Instead of viewing themselves as overcomers, they saw themselves as “grasshoppers.” They magnified the size of the giants over the size of their God. Not only were the spies full of unbelief, but they infected most of the other people with their rebellious attitude. The children of Israel grumbled about their being in the wilderness and desired to return to Egypt. (Grumbling, of course, is a verbal expression of unbelief rather than faith.) And what was God’s response?

11The LORD said to Moses, “How long will this people spurn Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, despite all the signs which I have performed in their midst? 12″I will smite them with pestilence and dispossess them, and I will make you into a nation greater and mightier than they.”22″Surely all the men who have seen My glory and My signs which I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have put Me to the test these ten times and have not listened to My voice,23shall by no means see the land which I swore to their fathers, nor shall any of those who spurned Me see it (Numbers 14:11, 12, 22, 23).

The Possessors of the Land
There is a stark contrast between the speech of those who were disinherited and the speech of those who eventually possessed the land. Rather than disagreeing with God about their ability to overtake the land, their confession was an affirmation of what God had promised. When the rest of the spies (the majority, as it is in most cases) gave their evil report about the condition of the land and its inhabitants, notice how Caleb responded.

“Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, ‘We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it’” (Numbers 13:30).

This confession of faith was an actual attestation to the knowledge of God, rather than a natural reaction based on sense knowledge. This confession won favor with God.

“But My servant Caleb, because he has had a different spirit and has followed Me fully, I will bring into the land which he entered, and his descendants shall take possession of it” (Numbers 14:24).

Caleb demonstrated the kind of faith Jesus spoke about in Mark 11. He said what he believed would happen without doubting in his heart, and he got exactly what he said (Mark 11:23). He had a different spirit in him – the spirit of faith.

John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Published by Colin October 20, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 1 Comment

Despite being across the pond - I gladly seized an opportunity to watch John Stossel’s latest 20/20 special: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics.

Part one is spent dispelling the general idea that politicians can’t do anything they promise and that people are foolish for trusting them. Stossel quickly moves away from the ticky-tacky Obama/McCain “debate” and demonstrates that both candidates are making promises that they can’t/won’t keep and that it is government itself, despite the good intentions of politicians and their supporters, that is the problem.

Stossel uses a skating rink to demonstrate that order is best achieved “spontaneously” with the mutual self-interest of people slipping into harmony as people desire a) to be free and b) to be safe. He then tries to “plan” the skating rink by making rules and giving orders to the skaters, who subsequently fall, crash and otherwise fail. They no longer have fun either. People acting based on their own decisions and priorities are also the most cooperative and move society forward.

Part two moves into practical applications of this basic premise, starting with the credit crunch. He challenges the idea that many on the left make - that “deregulation” has led to this problem. He brilliantly shows how the past two presidents intervened in the economy to encourage home ownership by people who could never afford to own one - in other words, it was government meddling that blew up the housing market.

But not only did the government create the problem - they now want to solve it by more intervention. The economists he interviews argue that bailouts only encourage and reinforce bad behaviour. It is best that those companies that made poor decisions be allowed to fail.

In the third part, Stossel shows how incompetent government has been at disaster relief. The ninth ward of New Orleans is still in ruins. Many home-owners and others physically cannot rebuild because they are being held back by multiple approval processes. The decrepit ninth ward is highlighted against a nearby neighbourhood which was rebuilt by private charity, from Habitat for Humanity to drivers passing by to Brad Pitt.

Mayor Ray Nagin argued that government was making it easier to build a home. Stossel tests this out by going in to the permit office to get the right authorisation. It took more then ten minutes for the secretary just to list the forms to him. Nagin was unapologetic about the red-tape, arguing that it was necessary to protect historical districts.

In part four, Stossel shows the unintended consequences of McCain-Fiengold and campaign finance laws. He shows how these laws have basically destroyed the possibility for new candidates to run and even for non-candidates to participate in politics - even to just support a ballot measure. He cites a couple women in Colorado who made a couple signs against a local annexation measure and were sued for not establishing the right committee or reporting their expenses.

And for dramatic effect - he shows how both McCain and Obama have circumvented the laws anyway. The money, instead of going directly to politicians, still floods into politics through affiliated groups.

Farm subsidies are attacked by Stossel in part five. The idea that these are going to small family farms is dispelled and it is shown that these subsidies are just being collected by wealthy farmers.

Stossel’s special, like many he has done, is brazenly libertarian and equally attacks the fallacies present in both conservative and left-wing thinking.

Links: Back on Track

Published by Colin October 17, 2008 in General. 0 Comments

Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed

Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks

Politicians want special protection from the DMCA law they created

Alaska Inquiry Rules on Palin

Public School Children taken on “field trip” to see teacher’s lesbian wedding

Postcard From England: Thank God for Capitalism (somewhere)

Published by Colin October 15, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 23 Comments

Just months ago back in the US, I was so used to capitalism-hate coming from many people who were benefiting tremendously from it. Wal-Mart was the biggest target in my part of the country - with many cities in my state issuing bans on “big-box” stores and trying to prevent the evil of low-prices and jobs from taking hold of their budding leftopias.

In the UK, however, I have not heard a single bad word about Wal-Mart (represented here by their UK counterpart ASDA). In fact, many people are tremendously grateful for ASDA - which has come into cities and towns across the country and offered prices, especially on food, at around 1/5 of major brands.

But ASDA (and other large retailer TESCO) have been allowed here to do much more than food. While the US has rejected the system of free commerce which made it great,the UK has allowed these companies to offer about everything: internet, finance, car insurance, phone, credit cards, fast-food - you name it. I remember how angry people were in the US when Wal-Mart just contemplated doing some basic finance.

We are dirt poor in the UK - poorer than we have ever been. We have rent coming up and I have no idea how we are going to make it. For the first time in my life, I have had to go into debt. But it would be much worse without these major corporations which have been allowed to be built either here or abroad.

We’ve got our car insurance through TESCO, for example, which has given us a quote about $200 lower than we paid in the US, and about $1000 under the nearest competitor. We (will) have our internet and phone through Virgin Media, which is an amazing company, at half the price as the US with twice the speed. I have multiple options for internet and phone here, as opposed to one local monopoly given by local government. Virgin is literally going to come to my house, build a line to my house as well as a jack whereever I want - and this included in my monthly cost.

Lately, I have been entertaining the though of what this country would look like without these major companies. Because Britian’s socialism is very unfavourable to a middle class and small businesses, these large companies are all this country has, quite frankly. The government here is pretty worthless - taxing everything, multiple times (no protections from double taxation here) and is generally a huge obstacle to anyone becoming anything other than working class. The government has created a fairly permanent-feeling class system - with a ceiling just above working class and a very high threshold to finally emerge in an upper-middle/wealthy class. Safety nets for the poor in education, healthcare and pension have developed into walls that keep people dependent on a hand out - honing their skills for begging and victimhood rather than for adding productive value to the economy (which would be sucked up fairly quickly by the high taxes anyway).

Links: Monday Catchup

Published by Colin October 13, 2008 in Current Events. 17 Comments

I blame socialism for last Friday’s lack of links. Here is the make-up version.

Politics
President of NOW’s Los Angeles Chapter endorses Palin

WFB’s son endorses Obama.

Beliefnet presents the Twelve Tribes of American Politics. I don’t fit neatly into any tribe, but if you cornered me I might cop to being a White Bread Protestant.

How it all began (article from 1999)

Where is Joe Six-Pack? Sharon Theimer takes on political stereotyping.

The Buck Stopped Then:

CRITICS of the administration’s Wall Street bailout condemn the waste of taxpayer dollars. But the taxpayers aren’t the weightiest American financial constituency, even in this election year. The dollar is the world’s currency. And it is on the world’s opinion of the dollar that the Treasury’s plan ultimately hangs.

It hangs by a thread, if Monday’s steep drop of the greenback against the euro is any indication. We Americans, constitutionally inattentive to developments in the foreign exchange markets, should be grateful for what we have. That a piece of paper of no intrinsic value should pass for good money the world over is nothing less than a secular miracle. We pay our bills with it. And our creditors not only accept it, they also obligingly invest it in American securities, including our slightly shop-soiled mortgage-backed securities. Every year but one since 1982, this country has consumed much more than it has produced, and it has managed to discharge its debts with the money that it alone can lawfully print.

What the Candidates Believe: A PBS report.

Christianity
Pittsburgh Diocese Joins Anglican Province

The rival to the Bible:

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What’s left out?
…
Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas.
…
The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be “angry” as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with “compassion”.

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”.

Overcoming Faith, Part III

Published by Chris A October 8, 2008 in General. 0 Comments

As previously discussed in this series, the spirit of faith is demonstrated by the use of words. It is verbal agreement with God. As a result of what we believe, we speak. Fortunately for us, the Bible is replete with examples of how people believed God in the face of adverse circumstances. Though their trials were very real, they were no match for faith in God. One of the most complete narratives in the Old Testament about faith is the story of Abraham. Abraham was promised he would be a father when he was an old man and his wife was an old woman (Genesis 17:2-5). There are a number of faith lessons we can learn from this biblical example of how all things are possible with God, and all things are possible to him that believes in God.

Lessons from Romans 4

17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did.

There is a lot in this verse. First, notice that God says that has made Abraham (past tense) the father of many nations. When did this occur? It occurred the moment the promise was given, before Sarah was pregnant. How do we know this? The verse says plainly that God “calls into being that which does not exist.” This illustrates the creative power of God’s word, which has the ability to alter history – whether spoken through the mouth of a prophet by inspiration of the Spirit or the mouth of anyone who dares to believe and apply what is written.

In some peoples’ minds, it is foolish to believe something that cannot be seen. Even among those who profess to believe that Christ rose from the dead, scarcely will one speak as though something has changed before the evidence materializes. Yet this is exactly what Abraham did, when he received his new name from God. What would people think if an old childless man began to call himself Father of a Multitude? They would think he was nuts, of course, because he is childless. Just as God called that into being which did not exist, Abraham essentially did the same by agreeing with God and saying the same thing about himself that God said.

18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb.

Contrary to the natural expectation, which would have been to die without ever having a son, Abraham believed what God said and expected to become the father of a multitude. Verse 19 holds one of the most unrecognized mysteries about faith. It says that Abraham did not consider his aged body, nor did he consider the “deadness of Sarah’s womb.” Therefore Abraham was not in denial about his natural circumstance, he just did not give it any consideration. This is difficult for most people to grasp because, whether they say so or not, their human limitations dictate the extent to which they believe. To them, physical evidence and the ability to understand are paramount. They have failed to realize that faith is the evidence of things not seen – it is incomprehensible both to the human eye and human reason.

20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform.

What does it mean to waver? It means to be unstable or inconsistent in one’s faith or in the expression thereof. The person who prays for something, and loses hope before he physically possesses the thing he once believed for, should not expect to receive anything from the Lord (James 1:6-8). How can one guard himself against an attitude of doubt or unbelief? I believe the answer is found here in verse 20 where it reads, “He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.” Abraham gave glory to God. I’m sure he was tempted to doubt just like we all are, but he refused to be overcome by the influence of the temporal world, and rather glorified God. When a thing has been requested in prayer and the person praying has believed he has received when he prayed as Jesus taught in Mark 11:24, the only thing left to do is glorify God for the answer. This too is an expression of faith.

Identifying the Promises of God
We have already established that faith is based on the knowledge of God. When knowledge is revealed, there is an opportunity to believe. This is a personal acknowledgement of the truth and worth of the knowledge of God as revealed in his holy word. In examining the story of Abraham, we see that his faith was specific to the promise he was given. By the narrative account and the passage in Romans 4, we can see exactly what he believed and why.

The New Covenant, although superior to the old one, is established on promises. Christians, like our father Abraham, have received promises from God – promises that he will no doubt bring to pass if we believe and take possession of them. But if we are content neither to learn the promises nor apply them in our lives, they are just as ineffective as if they had never been promised. The promises of God must be obtained by the faith of those to whom the promises apply (Hebrews 11:33). If we lack knowledge of the promises, we of necessity lack faith concerning them, because faith is the result of knowledge. Therefore anyone intent on living by faith, as the Bible commands, must take an active role in learning the promises, personally applying them to their lives, and acting in accordance with the beliefs established by the promises.

Lessons from 2 Peter 1

1Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

2Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;

Grace contains the capacity of faith. Grace is multiplied to us when the knowledge of God is revealed, thus making a way for faith, by which grace is accessed. Therefore, the more knowledge of God the greater opportunity for faith.

3Seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.

4For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

The vast reservoir of grace made evident by the promises of God toward New Covenant believers is revealed in this statement: “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness.” Just as in the case with Abraham, when God promises a thing he has granted it. So as far as God is concerned his provision for his children has already been made, secured for us through the grace of Jesus Christ. It is now up to us to inherit the promise through faith and patience (Hebrews 6:12).

When Peter said “having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust” he was contrasting that to the divine nature. These are two contrary forces: the earthly nature of the flesh and the divine nature of the spirit. Many Christians struggle with the concept of faith because their consciousness is filled with earthly concerns. They have yet to realize the means by which they may take flight from the mental imprisonment that arises from base human imaginations. The remedy is a steadfast magnification of the knowledge of God above everything that exalts itself above it, and a subsequent escape from the limitations of sense knowledge to the limitlessness of God and faith.

20My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings.
21Do not let them depart from your sight;
Keep them in the midst of your heart.

Proverbs 4:20, 21

Yea and Amen

19For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us–by me and Silvanus and Timothy–was not yes and no, but is yes in Him.

20For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.

2 Corinthians 1:19, 20

There are no promises which God has made to his people at any time throughout history that do not apply to his present-day believers, insomuch as they have to do with “all things that pertain to life and godliness.” In other words, the essence of any promise God has made that reveals his will for his people is unchanged in those who are in Christ. There can be no loss of privilege to those who are in Christ in comparison to those who lived out the shadow of things to come (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1). If we believe that our covenant is a better covenant established on better promises, we must also believe that it has progressed beyond its predecessor – not to exclude the promises of the past, but to see them fulfilled in Abraham’s seed, who is Christ.

16Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

Galatians 3:16; 26-29

Zeal For Truth