RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘politics’

White House Soteriology: Praying daily makes one a Christian

19 Aug
“]

"The president is obviously a Christian. He prays everyday."

In an attempt to redirect attention from recent polls about up to 25% of Americans believing President Obama is a Muslim and less than 40% believing he’s a Christian, the White House declared:

“The president is obviously a Christian. He prays everyday.”

If the statement was just “The president is obviously a Christian,” that would have been the error of mere assertion: Merely because you assert something is true, that doesn’t make it so. Luckily, they offered a proof: “He prays everyday.”

There’s a few problems of course:

  • Not everyone who prays everyday is a Christian. Muslims pray every day, for example.
  • One isn’t a Christian on the basis of how much one prays.

While prayer is part of being a Christian, you’re not a Christian because you pray. By “Christian” I mean someone who is following the biblical model of following Jesus.

Becoming a follower of Jesus has to do with living out one’s belief that Jesus is master (Lord) of your life. It is evidenced by what grows out of your life, what actions you exhibit. It has nothing to do with being perfect except that a Christian will, over time, change on issues as (s)he lives more as Jesus as their master.

While Obama’s family is Muslim, and while he has Muslim names, anyone who believed he was a Muslim for those reasons already thought so during the election, and that doesn’t explain the dramatic increase in those numbers. That has to do with Obama’s actions:

This isn’t necessarily new to Obama – there have been questions about previous presidents faiths. Whether or not Obama is a Muslim isn’t the point of my writing. The point here is the flaw in reasoning and the glaring misconception of faith.

Praying daily does not make it obvious that someone is a Christian. Saying so makes it obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Clearly White House overall has no idea of what it means to be a Christian. No wonder they misunderstand Christians so much!

How do you feel about the White House defining Christianity this way?

Another issue here is that the media are declaring the state of a person’s soul – the article linked to above states:

The number of Americans who believe — wrongly — that President Obama is a Muslim has increased significantly since his inauguration and now accounts for nearly 20 percent of the nation’s population.

Can you imagine an article beginning: “The number of Americans who believe –wrongly — that the Tea Party movement contains extremists…”?

Why is it necessary for reporters to be inserting this commentary? Even the punctuation around “wrongly” makes it the word that stands out most. This isn’t reporting. This is commentary.

“The president is obviously a Christian. He prays everyday.”

 
4 Comments

Posted in How to Fail at Arguing, Politics, Spirituality

 

The Democrat’s Phony Diversity, Part 1

17 Aug

DNC DonkeyThis is in response to the article “The Jesus Litmus Test” by Peter Beinart. Peter Beinart is a senior political writer for a website, author of a recently published book, contributor to Time magazine, and an associate professor of journalism and political science. I’m sure he is more well-read, a better writer and must have more time on his hands to write up articles about politics… as it’s his job.

The DNC has the same old rallying cry: Diversity!

Yet the democrats were pro-choice for slavery until the Republican Party was established to fight the Democrats and overthrow slavery when they got Lincoln into office. They were the party of Senator Byrd, recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Yet the DNC claims to be the party of diversity.

The party of Reid, Pelosi and Obama has relied on gender, racial and religious profiling, such as giving special aid on the basis of skin color instead of need and support from and for organizations like the National Organization of Women and the NAACP.

The right judges people on the basis of their character, the left judges people on the basis of their race, gender, religion, etc.

That’s why Harry Reid could say last week, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK. Do I need to say more?” Reid was saying that they shouldn’t be treated differently because of their heritage, but then he treats them differently because of their heritage. This doublethink (believing two contradictory ideas at the same time) is what makes up the left’s view of diversity.

Most on the Left assume everyone thinks and acts the way they do. It’s more difficult to think in this closed-minded way on the Right, because the media, public schools, and state universities tend to veer strongly Left, so the Leftist worldview is unavoidable. Thus, when a conservative criticizes someone on the basis of character, it is incomprehensible to most on the Left. The Leftist assumes that the  Conservative must judge the same way she does, on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc. The Conservative is called racist if the person is of an ethnic minority, sexist if the person is female, homophobic if the person practices homosexuality, and bigoted if nothing else sticks.

That’s why anyone who didn’t vote for Obama is a racist. Anyone who doesn’t want a redefinition of the millennials-old term “marriage” is homophobic. The ethics investigations of two Democrats is racist.

The Democratic Party has been in the business of labeling and profiling people on the basis of a variety of demographics. They divide people by category and they have told everyone in every category that they must belong in the Democrat party or they are a Judas to their own kind.

We are all welcome, of course, as long as we do not bring our own distinctives with us. You’re welcome as a minority American, as long as you don’t bring your cultural family values with you. What they want is your skin color, not your heritage. You’re welcome as a Catholic as long as you reject the Catholic worldview. They want your label – leave your beliefs at the door.

You are welcome as long as you behave. Do what you are told to do. Believe what you are told to believe. Democrat politics trumps all religious belief. The party this takes over the place of your God. You lose the right to practice your own religion or to hold your own worldview.

There cannot be any real diversity because the worldview of the DNC conflicts with every religious system and traditional value system. The DNC must take priority over your faith, your worldview and your traditions. The only diversity allowed in the DNC is a facade without substance. It is as genuine as a fake city backdrop on a movie set. The appearance exists without substance.

Fake City Backdrop on Movielot

 
3 Comments

Posted in Politics, Spirituality

 

Ayn Rand Part 1: Ayn Rand, John Piper and Christian Objectivist Love

23 Jul

This is Part 1 of a 1956 Ayn Rand interview with Mike Wallace. This was, according to the Youtube video description, her first television interview.

I watched it for the first time today, and would be interested in your thoughts.

Below are some excerpts from the end of this video and related thoughts.

YouTube Preview Image

Wallace: What’s wrong with loving your fellow man? Christ, every important moral leader in human history has taught us that we should love one another. Why then is this kind of love in your mind immoral?

Rand: It is immoral if it is a love placed above one’s self. It is more than immoral, it’s impossible.  Because when you are asked to love people indiscriminately, that is to love people without any standard, to love them regardless of the fact of whether they have any value or virtue, you are asked to love nobody.

Wallace: … isn’t the essence of love that it’s above self-interest?

Rand: Well, let me make it complete for you. What would it mean to have love above self-interest? It would mean, for instance, for a husband to tell his wife if he were moral, according to conventional morality that “I am marrying you just for your own sake. I have no personal interest in it, but I am so unselfish that I’m marrying you only for your own good.” Would a woman like that? … In love, the currency is virtue. You love people not ofr what you do for them or what they do for you. We love them for their values, their virtues which they have achieved in their own character. You don’t love causes. you don’t love everybody indiscriminately. You love only those who deserve it…

Wallace: … There are very few of us then, in this world, by your standards, who are worthy of love.

Rand: Unfortunately, yes. Very few. But it is open for everybody to make themselves worthy of it, and that is all that my morality offers them: A way to make themselves worthy of love, although that is not the primary motive.

But Rand’s illustration of a husband and wife does make sense. At minimum, many types – perhaps the strongest types of love are not devoid of self-interest. You’d be dead inside if you got nothing out of your love for a spouse, or a child. Per Rand, love isn’t love if you get nothing out of it.

This objectivist view of love stands in total opposition to the current political moves that declare love means each of us should make sacrifices of ourselves for “the common good,” even when we get nothing out of it. We are to be completely devoid of self-interest.

Is this love? Can love ever be devoid of self-interest?

My initial reaction is opposed to the objectivist idea – what about the good Samaritan? What about loving your neighbor as you love yourself? If people have to make themselves worthy of love, how can we love children? What about a child born with Down’s Syndrome? What about an elderly person with Alzheimer disease? This has always left me wondering if any form of objectivism can be merged with a Christian worldview*. Perhaps the answer is in the order of Jesus’ commands: Love God, and love your neighbor. Perhaps loving our neighbors is not the purpose in itself, but we love them because we love God. Loving strangers is, then, be part of loving  God.

But what about loving God? Is our love for God devoid of self-interest, or do you get something out of our love for God as we do from loving your spouse?

Question 1 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

This basic statement of the purpose of humankind declares we are purposed to get something from God – our own enjoyment.

John Piper builds off this in what he calls “Christian hedonism,” in his book Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, and through his ministry.

Piper seems to agree with Ayn Rand! About Love for God, Piper writes:

Hebrews 11:6 teaches, “Without faith it is impossible to please [God]. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” You cannot please God if you do not come to him looking for reward. Therefore, faith that pleases God is the hedonistic pursuit of God.

Ok, what about loving our enemies? While we are to expect nothing earthly in return, Piper writes that “we are given strength to suffer loss by the promise of a future reward.”

Throughout the Bible we are in fact commanded to store up for ourselves treasures in heaven. To seek God who will give us the desires of our heart – who rewards those who seek him.

Ayn Rand’s view actually aligns with the biblical idea of following God, loving our neighbors and even loving our enemies. The politics of socialism do not.

* Ayn Rand does state in this interview that she is opposed to the Judeo-Christian traditions and opposed to churches, but that doesn’t mean that everything she thinks is wrong or that everything she thinks is incompatible with Christianity. While I haven’t studied Rand at lengths, she believes that reality is objective, and our moral guide is to use reason. If objective reality is Christianity – if biblical Christianity has the most reliable truth-claims and is the most reasonable view of reality, then Christianity and objectivism could work together.

 
4 Comments

Posted in Culture, Politics, Reason, Spirituality

 

Obama Inherited This: From Democrats

10 Jul

Obama’s mantra changed when he took office. He used to say “Hope and Change!” Now he says

“It’s not my fault!”

That’s leadership! 2 years into his term Obama still spends his time pointing fingers, and still talks about how he inherited this economy. He inherited the rising unemployment rate. He inherited…

But who did he inherit these things from?

This chart is from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, over-layed with the House Majorities

Democrats lead the way to unemployment

The unemployment rate was low and was dropping until the Democrats took over the House. As we all learned from Schoolhouse Rock (video embedded below), the House has to vote and pass any bill before the senate can even consider it.  Everything starts in the House.

YouTube Preview Image

Next time you hear Obama say he inherited the problems, just remember – he inherited them from Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat friends in the House, who were doing what he thinks they should have been doing.

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics

 
Newer Entries »