A Must Read

This is an incredibly comprehensive summary of the Biblical teaching on marriage for all Christians who might be tempted to believe there are Biblical justifications for supporting alternative definitions.  How nice it would be if such people could provide Scriptural references to support their position as Stan has done here.  Don't hold your breath.  Well done, Stan.

We've Won! Now What?

Not really a huge surprise, as it is not uncommon that the opposition party picks up seats in the midterm election of a president's second term in office.  Nonetheless, it is great news to know that both idiots, Reid and Pelosi, are not sitting in the big chairs.  But what happens now?

Hopefully, we'll see some real changes of meaning and worth.  At the least, compromises that push a more sound agenda forward.  The Weekly Standard has a good article entitled, "A Constitutional Congress?  How the legislative branch can resume its rightful role."  It outlines a five-step plan for this goal:

1.  Relieve the recently relinquished borrowing, taxing and spending authorities
2.  Re-institute the spending power
3.  Regulate the regulators
4.  Censure unconstitutional executive acts
5.  Acknowledge executive strengths

In short, do your job and don't give up authority to the other branches.  There's three for a reason and returning each to its own duties re-establishes the proper checks and balance dynamics our government is supposed to have.

I'd like to see the new Senate majority leader dispense with the blocking of proposals and let the body debate the issues like it should.  I'd like to see the Speaker of the House insist that all bills be studied and debated before passage.  No more of this "we'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it" crap.

I'd also like to see the rejection of the notion that social issues are of less concern than any other.  They are not and are inextricably linked.

I'd really like to see the notion of "Comprehensive 'whatever' reform" rejected once and for all and the particulars of a general issue resolved one at a time.  Like immigration, for example.  Sealing the borders is a separate issue from the matter of how and how many enter the country.  And of course, look at that massive and massively idiotic Obamacare bill.  Thousands of pages its supporters still have not read.  It entails many separate issues that would have been better resolved if each had separate focus.  For example, allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines would have gone a long way toward decreasing costs to the consumer due to increased competition and this did not require an huge "comprehensive" bill to make a tangible impact.

In general, I most definitely want to see the Republican majority act like conservatives they insist they are, but in doing so, make the case in a way that more people understand the clear benefits of supporting more conservative agendas.  This is the best way to maintain control of both Houses.  I believe that this great victory is not a mandate for conservative philosophy as much as a rejection of the current administration.  Again, this is a common thing this deep into a two-term president's time in office.  We can't just be Democrat lite, but must act like conservatives until the positive effects that conservative policies will indeed bring are clearly felt by the nation.  Let's all be vigilant in holding the new majority party accountable.

Ask Me Anything

Based on recent discussions at other blogs, I am offering the opportunity for anyone to pick a topic on which they'd like to focus for the purpose of determining why I believe as I do.  In responding, I will not ask any question of my own toward the questioner intending to determine his position, but only to have a question clarified in order to more clearly articulate my position.  Here are some qualifications:

1.  Should anyone take up the challenge, I reserve the right to pick from amongst multiple topics, which topic I will address.

2.  If there appears to be multiple "votes" for any particular topic, I might use that as the determining factor, while still reserving the right to choose.

3.  I reserve the right to determine any topic suggested to be inane and idiotic, simply because it strikes me thus.  I will allow for brief arguments in response to my rejection, should I post a reason for rejecting it.

4.  I WILL delete or mock any attempted abuse of this opportunity.  I am sticking my neck out here and would like to believe that risk will be respected.

5.  In responding to questions, I may call for relevance.  It would save time if the relevance for a question is provided at the same time a question is asked, though it doesn't mean that relevance will be perceived in such a manner that I feel compelled to respond.  Likely, I'll simply ask for more explanation.

This is all pretty much how I would like all discussions to run as pertains the seeking of understanding.  But as recent discussions have shown, going back and forth often results in tangents, diversions, equivocating and outright dodging of questions. If I restrain my own desire to question my interrogator, it is my hope that I can exhaust any line of questioning on any given topic to the extent that I have a complete and firm position on it.

Anybody up for this?

Can't Support The Pallies.

This appeared on Yahoo this morning.  In my last post, I made the suggestion that the Palestinian people are largely supportive of the hate group that rules them in Gaza, Hamas.  The linked piece seems to support that notion.  The poll shows a 60+% favoring of the Hamas leader for president over Abbas.  This demonstrates a choice for the greater of two evils.  In what parallel universe does one say to one's self, "I choose the guy who insists on using me as a human shield as he constantly lobs missiles at those he insists is my enemy.  I LIKE that idea!!  I'm voting for HIM?"  It's happening in the parallel universe we call "Gaza".

Take off the kid gloves.  Such a people is not worth risking the lives of Israeli soldiers as they seek to end the TOTALLY UNPROVOKED ATTACKS on their fellow Israelis.

This poll should be held up for the world to see (especially given that it was taken by a Palestinian) as Israel tables their surgical military tactics intended to lessen collateral damage, so that they can more effectively kill as many Hamas leaders and subordinates it takes to make them stop attacking Israel once and for all.  Nothing Israel has ever done to the sad and innocent Palestinians was not preceded by heinous and hateful actions against them by the Palestinians.

Right now, we are seeing another example of the intention of the worst elements of islam, as ISIS and their cowardly cohorts just hacked off the head of another innocent victim.  Their "message" is that it is the result of Obama's actions in the Middle East.  It is the same kind of crap Hamas says about why they continue to attack Israel.  It is amongst their favorite propaganda.  When will the world be fed up with this crap?

I have seen videos and articles highlighting muslims who speak out against the insane members of their culture/religion.  Unfortunately, the percentage of such stand up people amongst the savages is less then the percentage of homosexuals.  This means that we can't wait for "good" muslims to successfully alter the culture there.  As far as I'm concerned, they are free to align themselves with us or Israel as we bring the pain.  That is, if we, as a nation, ever grow a spine.

I Support Israel. The Palestinians? Not So Much.

So we see the usual nonsense arising from the strife in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Foolish pundits and other idiots, like the president, calling for restraint from the country that is in greatest danger of attack.  I cannot help but wonder at how this has happened, other than outright, albeit unreasonable disdain for Israel.

As I understand it, this began with the kidnapping and murder of three Jewish teens, though I believe one was an American (I could be wrong here).  It was followed by the murder of a Palestinian teen.  In the latter case, the perpetrator(s) was/were found and arrested.  The perp(s) in the first case is/are still at large, if not lauded as wonderful for killing Jews.  With the commission of the second act, that was all the provocation the Palestinians, led by Hamas, that was needed for the launching of missiles into Israel.  (According to Caroline Glick, 80% of the Israeli population is now within range of Pallie missiles)

I'm not sure of the exactness of the above, but what follows is the routine.  The Pallie/Hamas attacks are launched from amongst the Palestinian population.  They use homes, schools, hospitals and even their own houses of worship to house their arms and launch their missiles.  This, they believe, allows them to protect themselves as they feel relatively confident that the Israelis will balk at attacking these sites for fear of harm to civilians.  In the meantime, they launch literally hundreds of rockets at Israeli targets, with the express purpose of killing as many Israelis, civilian or otherwise, as possible.

What is the response of the world?  The Israelis are the aggressors who need to show restraint.  Consider this taken from Allen West's website:

"If you want to know just how demented Bill Clinton and his ilk are, take in this quote: “In the short to medium term, Hamas can inflict terrible public relations damage on Israel by forcing it to kill Palestinian civilians to counter Hamas.” So now Hamas is winning because it’s “forcing” Israel to kill civilians?"

(Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/bill-clinton-hamas-winning-forcing-israel-kill-palestinians/#vaoElYsIgoLOoXHo.99)

Can you believe it?  If you've been paying attention, you really have no choice.  

I say, "Damn the public relations consequences!"  The Pallies are complicit in their own deaths by allowing Hamas, or whomever is running that evil show, to purposely put them in harm's way.  I believe the Israelis should disregard the consequences and lay waste to as much of Hamas controlled territory as possible.  

But wait, Art!  That's fighting evil with evil!  No.  That's doing what is necessary to protect one's people.  What's more, aggressors do not respond to diplomacy, as we've seen since the institution of Israel back in the 1940's.  What does provoke the proper response is pain, and lots of it.  When the Palestinians are tired of burying their dead, when there are seemingly more dead than are those left alive to bury them, then perhaps they will also tire of bringing about their own destruction through seeking the destruction of others.  

It's a sad reality that this is the way wars are won.  Some wish to believe there are "Just War" theories that work in the real world.  That peaceful solutions are possible when dealing with true evil.  Others are too timid to admit who the truly evil are.  We did not win WWII with this attitude.  

Some insist that those like me are proponents of  "war as solution" or "war as the only solution" or "war as the first choice of solutions".  None of this is true.   None of this reflects reality.  The sad truth is that there are times when war is the only solution and against the radical islamists who seek to dominate and subjugate the world, there is no evidence in history that suggests they are likely to be talked into any peace with those who do not want to serve allah as they demand.  

There is also little evidence that there exists enough civilian Pallies who are not down with the islamist cause and determination to eliminate Israel.  These are people who believe it is a good thing to have their children kill themselves killing others.  They are not of any concern to me.  Not against the lives of those who would like nothing more than to lay down their arms once and for all, but cannot and expect to survive surrounded by those who hate them.  

I reiterate that I do not care about a "two state" solution to this crisis.  The Pallies don't deserve a state of their own and have not given any evidence that they ever will.  They never had one in the first place.  They aren't even a real nation.  They were formed for the purpose of attacking Jews.  There are only two options as I see it:  They can change their ways and befriend Israel (and the world) or die.  Period.

Bubba/Dan-I'LL Answer The Question

I've been monitoring the back and forth between Bubba and Dan, and it's going pretty much as expected.  I can't say that I don't understand what the big deal is.  This is how I see it:

Let's assume two sides, since there really actually are.  Since they generally run along political lines that are fairly well understood, I'll use "right side" and "left side" (of course I'm on the right side---the right side morally is just coincidentally the right side politically).

Anyway, Bubba argues for the right side, and Dan argues for the left.  They are each, to one extent or another typical of all who are on each side, at least generally.  And they each engage in a manner that is also, to one extent or another, at least generally, typical of each side.  The right goes to the heart of the matter, dealing in reality, willing to face the truth on truth's terms.  The left, goes to the heart of what they want reality to be, and takes great pains to avoid facing the truth on truth's terms in deference to that altered "reality" they would prefer.

When the right answers a question, the answer is as direct as the question.  The left alters the question to reflect the preferred altered reality, and then answers a question that wasn't asked.

When the right balks at a question, it is because the question is leading, irrelevant, or takes the discussion down a preferred tangent believed by the left to be more amenable to the altered reality the left prefers.  When the left balks at a question, it is because the question exposes the gaping holes in the altered reality the leftist hoped wasn't so glaringly obvious.

Maybe I shouldn't paint the entirety of the left with such a broad brush.  But the above is descriptive of what's going on at Dan's blog and is typical of all debates with him.  So I can show Dan how it's done and take the initial questions Bubba put to him and demonstrate how one answers the questions honorably.  I won't answer as if I'm Dan, but answer as if the questions were put to me.  I begin with the two set up questions to which I believe Bubba put forth with an assumption of a positive response from Dan:

Do you believe in orthodoxy and heresy as real categories and not just traditional understandings?

Yes.

Do you really believe that there are essential Christian doctrines?

Yes.

See how that works?  I answered two "yes or no" questions with either a "yes" or a "no", in this case, a "yes".  That's my honest response.  But keep in mind that these were set up questions, as in setting the stage for the real questions of interest to Bubba.  A "no" response would make what follows unnecessary and moot.  There would be no point in asking what follows if a "no" response followed these questions, so the asking was rhetorical.  So here are the actual questions:

NAME ONE ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

Jesus is God in flesh.

NAME ONE CLEAR TEACHING OF THE BIBLE.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Note that I didn't ask "essential to whom", as if the question wasn't seeking my opinion only.  Note that I didn't take off on irrelevant asides regarding how some things in Scripture are clear to some and not to others.  I answered as one who is convicted in my beliefs, confident that what I believe is true and honest enough to allow my beliefs to be scrutinized and tested openly in a manner that might lead to a better understanding of what is true, or greater confidence that what I already know is true.  If I'm wrong, show me.  I don't want to be wrong, but I do indeed want to know the truth.

Dan doesn't want to be wrong.  He likes what he wants to believe is true.  I think that's for the most part true for leftists in general, but for Dan I have little doubt of it based on our years of engagement.  It makes perfect sense given his evasive and convoluted style of debate.  It is being played out before our eyes at Dan's blog, though I wouldn't expect it to last much longer.

Just Answer The Question!!

I have overloaded myself with blog and internet discussions and must back off a bit in order to re-organize both priorities regarding which discussions to continue as well as how much personal time I spend doing so.  Two in  particular require the study of articles and opinions in order to properly familiarize myself with the details.  Then, I can plan how best to re-engage so as to stay on track in dealing with the most important points related to them.  Sounds like work.  But then, I did publicly commit and it would be bad form to bail out now.

Yet, I still try to keep up with the newer discussions, and a quick comment here and there is no different than any quick face-to-face chit-chat in which one might engage in the course of one's busy day.  This here post is being composed while enjoying a late breakfast before chores.  I often sit before the computer while eating, as dinner is the only meal the family regularly shares together.

Anyway, I've been keeping an eye on the new discussion at Dan's blog, between he had Bubba.  It began elsewhere and as it was off topic there, Dan invited Bubba to carry on with him there.  It is reserved for just the two of them as they both expressed the desire that it remain so.

There is still, for me, some level of interest and entertainment in witnessing the discussion.  I should have started a pool, or established some over/under wager on the amount of time before Dan two-stepped away from answering a simple and direct question.  It came in the very first response to Bubba's initial comment.  Getting direct answers to simple and direct questions has always been the challenge for people dealing with Dan.  Ambiguity is essential to his belief system.  The more ambiguity, the easier it is to believe as one finds personally favorable.

Conversely, few of Dan's questions are direct and simple.  They often are leading questions that cannot be answered with a yes or no lest a wrong understanding results, which is pretty much guaranteed.  When I've been faced with such questions by him, I've always endeavored to answer directly and then immediately supply the details with the qualifications that must be presented in order to prevent misunderstanding, but too often (if not always) only the initial "yes" or "no" from me is heard or recorded to then be used against me.

This is what Bubba will have to deal with throughout the exercise for as long as it might last, which is always uncertain.

As to the two-stepping, there are a few initial questions Bubba poses.  He allows Dan to pick one to answer if that is preferable to Dan.  Here are some of them:

--Do you believe in orthodoxy and heresy as real categories and not just traditional understandings?

--Do you really believe that there are essential Christian doctrines?

These two are really just set-ups for the even more direct questions that follow,  but they are quite direct in themselves insofar as one person is directing the questions specifically to one specific person alone in order to draw out that specific person's own personal opinion.  Get that?  It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, because I'm asking YOU!

Next comes the two requests, with clarifying explanations afterwards that don't seem to sink in.  Again, they are quite direct and really require nothing more than a direct answer:

-- NAME ONE ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

-- NAME ONE CLEAR TEACHING OF THE BIBLE.

Bubba then offers two that Dan can use as answers of his own:  The existence of God, and, the historicity of Jesus.

Dan's subsequent responses do little to clarify his position mostly due to the fact that he insists upon consideration for the positions of others.  All of that is irrelevant.  In other words, who cares?  It is DAN'S own position/opinion that is sought, so none of that superfluous crap has any value.  

I have to admit that I need to review the response a few times.  Because Dan is so evasive (under the pretense of seeking clarification), I don't want to misconstrue his positions.  What's more, the conversation is ongoing and I also don't want to misconstrue Bubba's intentions in asking the questions he's asking.  We'll have to wade through the voluminous non-answers Dan will supply to see if a legitimate answer is put forth.  It would help if he'd just answer the question.  But I believe he does as he does because just answering the questions put forth to him would provoke admission that his positions are untenable.  The end of his back and forth with Bubba will demonstrate just how honestly he seeks the truth.

For A Dude On My Facebook Friendlist

Actually, this is not reserved for this friend.  I 'll let him introduce himself in whatever manner he chooses to what ever extent he feels most comfortable.  But this was provoked by my posting of this Laurie Higgins article, which he referred to as "pretentious drivel".  As I am quite the fan of Higgins' work, especially her insightful perspective on the issue of homosexuality and the Agenda That Doesn't Exist, I do not believe I would be so partial to someone for whom the label "pretentious" would be appropriate.  I am certain I've never read anything by her that in any way equates to "drivel".  But then, I am not a proponent, supporter or enabler (and certainly no activist) of the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.

But FB is not the best forum for true debate on any subject, so I invited him to elaborate on his position here.  I have also given him leeway as regards staying on topic so long as it is related to the general issue.  But anyway, he's a new dude so give him a break and if anyone feels compelled to respond to remarks of his, wield the bludgeon gently.  I've no reason to believe he is of the typically thin skinned variety of opponent.  Nonetheless, as always, I will let him draw first blood if that is his intent.  Leave reciprocal fire to me.

As to the link, I am not going to post any commentary at this point, other than to say if you have not seen it via my FB posting, give it a read here.

A Lengthy Analysis of Dan's Post

In a http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-would-that-look-like.html”>recent post

at Dan’s blog, he attempts to respond to questions posed by Craig within a discussion at another blog.  Craig’s questions were provoked by Dan’s typically convoluted explanations of his understanding of Scripture as it relates to matters of wealth and poverty.  Needless to say, Dan’s “take” leaves a little to be desired, in that it smacks of his usual leftist worldliness that colors his understanding.

Before I delve into the quagmire, I want to make especially clear that what follows should in no way be inferred as dismissive of those struggling in economic poverty, or that I in any way believe those who have are not duty bound to help those who have not.  Indeed, this very paragraph should be read a good half dozen times by any left leaning visitor so as to deflect any such nonsensical accusations they might otherwise be so willing to lodge.

One other point necessary to highlight is that Dan is one who constantly refers to himself as one who has come to his Scriptural understanding by way of serious and prayerful study.  I’ll let you, gentle reader, decide if there is evidence of that obvious in his responses.  Now let’s get on with it.

The questions Craig asked of Dan revolve around Dan’s use of the words of Christ to the effect of, “I have come to bring good news to the poor.”  Craig asks of Dan to explain what he thinks it means.  It’s the first question of Craig’s that he attempts to answer.

1. You use this quote a lot, but what do you think it means?

Dan’s initial response is that he cannot know.  No one can know.  Jesus didn’t say.  But Dan goes on to “take a crack at a guess”. 

There’s really no guessing required.  The line comes from Isaiah 61:1-2.  Jesus read from that scroll in the synagogue in Nazareth as told us in Luke 4:14-19.  What Jesus read was that which identified Him as the Messiah.  That’s what the Isaiah piece was describing and Jesus applied these verses to Himself as a way of describing just Who He really was.  This is cemented by Jesus saying in verse 21, “Today this scripture if fulfilled in your hearing.”  The message was quite clear to those of the time who were students of Scripture.  What’s more, that Jesus used the Isaiah piece in this manner is the reason the people of Nazareth moved to throw Him down a cliff. 

Now, I must stop here and elaborate a bit.  Some will look at the verses 24-27 and proclaim them the reason the Nazarenes took umbrage.  Jesus is not speaking well of Israel and suggesting better toward Gentiles.  But the original language that is verse 22 is often interpreted as if the people were impressed in a good way by Christ’s use of Isaiah to introduce Himself as Messiah.  This is not necessarily so and not every Bible version interprets it in such a positive manner.  To some, it is more like they were stunned by His words.  Regardless, His use of the Isaiah piece is indeed meant to imply to His listeners that He is the Messiah. 

None of this shows up in Dan’s response to the question.  He can’t help himself but to put a spin on it that revolves around the people being oppressed by the MAN.  Even when Dan refers to Jesus using this verse in response to John the Baptist, it is to confirm for John that He is indeed the Messiah.  That was, after all, what John was asking of Jesus:  “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect another?”  Jesus answer was, in so many words, “Yes.  I am that One.”

Craig’s next question to which Dan takes a guess is:

”2.  What, specifically, was “the good news” that Jesus preached to the poor?”

Again, Dan doesn’t seem to know or even believe that Jesus explained it.  I don’t know how one can “seriously and prayerfully” study Scripture and then say that Jesus didn’t state what “the good news” was.  The message of the “Good News” was proclaimed from the time of the Immaculate Conception.  It was proclaimed by Zechariah at the birth of his son John, when he said, “...for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins…”-Lk 1:70.  It was proclaimed by angels to shepherds:  “Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; He is Christ the Lord.” Lk1:11.  When Joseph and Mary presented their baby in the temple, Simeon praised the God for having allowed him to live long enough to see the Christ, and the prophetess, Anna, “gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.” Lk2:38.  John the Baptist proclaimed the Good News when he “saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” Jn 1:29.  And of course, Jesus Himself said, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.” Jn14:6. 

Throughout His ministry, Jesus spoke of Himself and His purpose, which was to be our Way to God through His sacrificial death on the cross.  Not all who heard Him understood Him.  Even His apostles were hazy on the true meaning of His teachings in this regard, even when, as Peter did, they acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, they didn’t quite get it entirely.  But Jesus, while not being as straightforward as Dan obviously needed Him to be, did indeed express what the Good News was.  And we certainly should know it by now, with the knowledge of His apostles’ subsequent teachings in Acts and their Epistles. 

Put another, but very accurate way, Jesus was the Good News that Jesus preached to the poor.  So then, the third question of Craig’s…

”3.  What, specifically, does this mean for us?”

It means, quite plainly in fact, that we, as sinners, have the very same path to God.  Jesus is that path and He died for us so that we, as well, can be sanctified and made worthy to be in the presence of God by virtue of His atoning death on the cross.  We accept Him as our Savior and our sins are washed away by the Blood He shed for us.  It means, specifically, we are saved.  Hallelujah!

”4.  What, specifically, should be happening that is not in order for us to ‘preach good news to the poor’?”

This question is not truly answerable to one like Dan who doesn’t even know what the Good News is.  That is to say, discovering that News would seem to be the Prime Directive, the first step before any thought could legitimately be given to how to deliver it.  Indeed, he claims we can’t know what it even means to preach that Good News if we knew what the Good News was!

One thing is certain, and that is that to Dan, it all has something to do with everyone else giving their stuff to the poor, while he does all he can to avoid acquiring stuff to give away.

Dan goes on to list examples of what he believes are manifestations of what should be happening that is not:

He has a problem with “crystal cathedrals” and mega-churches.  I have to assume he doesn’t believe such larger congregations don’t minister to the poor in a manner he finds suitable, regardless of whether or not he has any idea as to their effectiveness.  He also apparently believes there should be some limited size beyond which no congregation should grow, as if his preference for small store-front churches should be shared by all and are somehow an indication of…what, exactly...true Christianity?  There is also the matter of expectations to which one has no right as regards the spending to tithes.  I don’t believe that what a church does with the money it receives in the baskets on Sunday is of any concern to those who donate it.  THAT money belongs to God’s priests and ministers.  All money for charity is what one gives after. 

He speaks of “intentional” community as opposed to gated communities.  Gated communities arose in response to crime.  They would not be necessary if in preaching the Good News to the poor, the actual teaching of Christian behavior was stressed a bit more heavily. 

I really don’t understand the point about art galleries.  Is this to suggest he doesn’t like how the art market operates?  I have no idea what his concern is in this area and would love to see him post on it.  I’m sure it will be entertaining.

Dan speaks of more associating with poor people.  I have a better idea.  Let’s really help them by voting for people who understand the best that can be done for the poor is to expand our nation’s economy.  We can’t help the poor by being poor ourselves. 

Dan wants the church to look like what he thinks the early church looked like based on his understanding of the descriptions of it from the Book of Acts.  But as was pointed out in the video to which I linked in my April 19 post about ending poverty, there is no evidence that what Dan likes to think was common place throughout early Christendom actually was.  That is, there is nothing known to exist as evidence that the pooling of resources was either practiced elsewhere or even was meant to be a permanent practice.  In any case, it was a totally voluntary thing on the part of all the believers described therein.  What’s more, there is nothing anywhere in the story that justifies the suggestion that the early church did not have expectations about behaviors, rules, if you will, nor that ignoring them would not bring consequences of some kind.  Paul, also an early church leader, explicitly taught about expelling the unrepentant. 

The most problematic aspect is Dan’s statement that this early church as he sees it was a spiritual home that would be literally good news for the literal poor.  It sounds then like the Good News was stuff.  That’s not much different than Obama phones and Obama money.  What compels devotion once the stuff is no longer provided?  This is what Dan thinks churches should look like:  stuff for the poor, finding them work, a communal life whether they like it or not.  I have to wonder how this would actually work in a community that avoids wealth as Dan claims to in his own life.  Where would the stuff come from to provide for the poor so that there was no one in need if no one had excess due to their wealth avoidance practices?  This doesn’t even rise to the level of naïve.

I did a little research on the verse  “I have come to bring good news to the poor”.  I looked for commentaries and found a website called “Studylight,org” which provides dozens of commentaries on Scripture.  I looked at what was said about this verse by each of the following:

Adam Clarke

James Burton Coffman

Matthew Henry

John Gill

Peter Pett

Joseph Benson, who was a follower of John Wesley, and

John Wesley himself.

There were others, but I didn’t look at all of them.  But of the above, they each regarded “the poor” of the verse to mean either the poor in spirit, or both the poor in spirit and materially poor.  I don’t recall that any of them were Anabaptists, so they’re all likely full of it.  But that’s what they said in their commentaries.  However, despite God’s concern for the materially poor, and Christ’s teaching that we should care for them ourselves, it is extremely hard to believe that He would focus on those who were marginalized on earth and by doing so marginalize all others.  The thrust of Christ’s ministry was the spiritual, the things of God, not material poverty for material wealth is that which moth and vermin destroy. 

Ending Poverty...If We Really Care About Doing That

Over at John Barron's blog, Dan has continued to chastise those of us who insist that we are living the consequences of our choices and actions.  Dan is especially demonizing of those on the right who dare suggest such a thing about the poor in this country.  It doesn't matter how many others have experiences that support the proposition.  It only matters that Dan doesn't want to hear it, and prefers that everyone give away all their stuff to the poor.  At least that is the unstated expectation, because he thinks Christ came just to tell us to do that.

Unfortunately, helping the poor and alleviating poverty are two different things, and doing whatever is necessary to point out the importance of making the proper choices in life and following through on those choices constitute the beginning of helping the poor and eventually alleviating poverty.

To that end, I offer http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/jay-richards-how-to-end-poverty-in-10-tough-steps/">this video that I stole from Wintery Knight.  It's around an hour and a half long, but worth the time spent.  More to the point, anyone who claims to care about the plight of the poor are merely posturing if they do not view it and ponder deeply the facts and evidence highlighted within it.  The speaker, Jay Richards, also wrote a book on the subject and his presentation is based upon it.  I can't wait to read it.  If this video is any proof, it'll present the conservative position in a nutshell, which actually produces results.

WARNING!!! IRONY ALERT!!! Part II

It was worse than I thought.  Alvin Holmes not only made an incredibly idiotic racist remark, the man with dung for brains actually put money behind it.   These two articles give details surrounding the asinine level of confidence this total buffoon has in his racist opinion of white Republicans.  I would be surprised if he did not try to welch on his wager by suggesting a specific number to satisfy his "whole bunch of whites that adopted blacks in Alabama" criterion.  How many white Alabama families with adopted minority children must there be for this cretin to pay up?

But more importantly, what does it take for Democrats to stand against such blatant misbehavior?  Two lefties showed up when I originally posted on this story and tried to suggest there is a rational explanation for Holmes' vile pronouncements.  But there's a vast chasm-like difference between understanding how white racism in American history, perpetrated by some whites, might influence the perceptions of any given person of color toward the white race, versus using that to dismiss outrageous black racism toward in the other direction.  Like the white racist, Holmes simply does not know enough people of the white race, Republican or otherwise, to justify a blanket condemnation of white people.  This has always been my problem with anyone with prejudice against any group of people.  America was never so completely racist as to justify such a reciprocal racist attitude.

And now Holmes must savor the taste of his own foot, and will be known for the complete jackass as his comments illustrate he is until he ponies up the cash or a public apology.  Not the typical Democrat apology, but an actual apology that demonstrates true remorse for his hatred and a sincere desire to repent of his racism and instead actually judge others by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. 

Agenda Lies 9: How Slippery Is The Slope?

Get a load of THIS!

The above linked article seems quite clearly to suggest that if one thing happens, such as state level enactment of laws that copy the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, then all sorts of nasty will follow.  The argument is that by allowing businesses to opt out of providing their products or services for sale to those who seek them for celebrations of homosexual "weddings", then obviously homosexuals will be discriminated against when seeking to engage in all other sorts of business, such as, for example, buying groceries.  That sounds very much like the slippery slope argument that is considered fallacious when used by opponents of pro-homosexual legislation (especially same-sex weddings--SSM).  Opponents believe, with much justification now that we're beginning to see manifestations, that other groups, such as those favoring polygamous unions, would seek legal recognition for their unions based on the same arguments that have led to the same for homosexuals.

But here's the obvious difference the homosexual activist pretends doesn't exist:  The argument of the SSM opponent is that ANY union that does not meet the normal criteria for state licensing of marital unions (one man/one woman, not closely related, of legal age, neither currently married) fails to qualify for a license and state recognition, while no one who meets the criteria, which is the definition of marriage (legally, up until now in some states), is denied a license.  Thus, ejecting any criterion is justification for ejecting any other and really, mandates that the ejection of any other be given the same consideration since the arguments for doing so were used by the homosexuals in ejecting the criterion that had prevented the licensing of their unions.  And again, as we are now seeing the polygamous push for the same considerations, the "slippery slope" argument used by SSM opponents is clearly not fallacy at all, but coming to fruition.

However, the activist wants to insist that because a person of faith (or principle, for that matter) may discriminate against behaviors, then that will lead to that person of faith discriminating against the person who engages in that behavior.  But that would only be likely if the person engaging in whatever behavior offends the person of faith intends that every business transaction is for the purpose of enhancing an offending behavior he in which he will engage,  AND makes that intention known to the business person of faith.

It's ludicrous and frankly, a dishonest portrayal of the intention of people of faith who wish to live out their lives and conduct business according to the tenets of their faith.  While it may be true that some would try to use a religious exemption to avoid doing business with an Irishman, one would be very hard pressed to prove that this is common amongst people of faith in general.  It just doesn't happen as seems to be the truth in every case of this nature that has been brought to light.  None of the people forced to defend their Constitutionally protected rights have demonstrated the will to discriminate against anyone simply for being who or what they are.  They refused a very specific request for a very specific reason that should be respected by the very people who insist that everyone should respect their immoral beliefs and push for legislation that forces the country to do so.

The linked article is simply another illustration of the dishonesty so necessary in achieving the goals of the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.

Give Them What They Want

In a discussion regarding businesses forced to participate in the celebration of sin and dysfunction, a comment was posted suggesting that we give them what they want, just not how they want it.  A response to that comment was as follows:

"The photographer should have prayed about it in front of them, and she
should have prayed that God would help them see the error of their
ways... she should have just dropped down on her knees right in front of
them and started praying. And then she should offer to pray for them
during the ceremony with their guests looking on... priceless."

I don't know if this is quite the right way to go about it.  The original commenter suggested doing as little as possible to provide the best service, such as making sure the photos were blurry or some such.  Praying aloud in a manner disruptive or disrespectful to the lesbians isn't exactly good for business.  And while this may only bring upon the photographer a lawsuit of a different kind, it does provoke another idea.

I once visited a customer who had a small sign posted just inside the front door that proclaimed to visitors that they are Christians and hope that all would respect that and act in a manner respectful of their faith while doing business there.  At the time, I imagined it referred mostly to things like profane/obscene language or things of that nature.

But imagine if the New Mexico photographer had something similar at her place of business?  Might those lesbians have continued seeking the services of this photographer if the photographer's faith was known to them before they sought her services?  It's been said that there are those activists that seek out Christians in order to force them to act against their beliefs, and if true, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised considering the fascistic nature of the homosexual lobby.

But consider if a business had a notice in their business such as that of the customer to whom I referred above.  What if businesses incorporated the following in their literature, ads, business decor:

LEV 18:22

Few homosexuals in this country are unaware of that verse.  Few would even need the verse to be printed out in full knowing exactly what they'd read if they looked up "Lev 18:22".  

A homosexual or lesbian looks in the Yellow Pages or online for a baker to get a cake for their "wedding" reception and sees that verse reference in the ad.   Only the most militant would insist on giving that baker any of their business, and that only if they are willing to go to court.  But what would that do for them if the baker went ahead and took the gig?  Every correspondence between the homosexuals and the baker would include "Lev 18:22" somewhere in the text.  The baker could even say, "I'd be happy to provide a quality and delicious cake for the celebration of your sinful union.  What exactly to you have in mind.  I want nothing but to provide for your sinful celebration a cake that will please all who taste it."  or something to that effect.

The point isn't to deny them the business to which they believe they are entitled, but to provide it for them with the constant reminder that their intentions are sinful.  The photographer, for example, could have "Lev 18:22" printed in an easy to notice manner on his camera case where the customers can see it before hiring the photographer.  Any business that normally serves the wedding industry could partake in this idea if they oppose such unions for any reason.  A non-religious person can simply post notices that they support traditional marriage or some reference to that effect.

Now, some might reject this idea as hateful.  But they wouldn't take such an attitude with a business that has a rainbow decal on their window, or any pro-homosexual indication.  Such people don't regard it as a double standard to do so, ignoring the fact that to support one thing is to oppose the opposite.

Part of the reason our culture has become so morally corrupted is due to what the old adage suggests when good men do nothing.  It's never too late for people of faith to step up and defend truth and righteousness.  I mean it's not like the corrupt think highly of such people anyway, so why not?

I like this idea.  "Lev 18:22" would make a great bumper sticker.  I'll have to see about how to go about having one made.  I'll have to put up with vandalism or the nasty looks and comments like I received from some people when I first applied "nobama" stickers to my bumper in 2008 (though I got, and still get, a lot of positive comments for that).  But the culture is in desperate need of people to simply stand up and say, "This is wrong" regardless of the heat.  It's harder now because it wasn't done well enough before.

AND, it will draw out those who are the true haters and bigots that have pushed this abomination on the culture.

Not What We've Been Led to Believe

I came across this article and found it disturbing.  Who were these subjects studied for this research?  Were they only black Republicans?  Because as we're told so often after all, Repubs are the bigots and racists.

Or perhaps, as we saw in the last post, Dan and feo will offer some lame reasoning that suggests these blacks are incapable of seeing whites as anything other than adversaries, and thus are justified for maintaining "the code".

One thing's for sure.  We will never attain true racial harmony.  It's just not possible.  Far too many people are hung up on skin color and ethnicity.  If studies like this one yield this type of understanding, what hope can we have?  I had no idea that black people felt this way about other blacks who are too friendly with white people, especially given how we are told only white people can be racist.

I have to admit, that I did not access the actual study itself.  It required a subscription or cost for the single study, neither of which I feel like purchasing.  And the Examiner indicates two numbers that seem to conflict, regarding how many people were studied.  I'm guessing the bigger number relates to the total amount of subjects, and the lesser number refers to the total number of blacks, or black who have the issue.

As anyone who has visited this blog knows, I don't give much credence to studies with a sampling of so few.  But just the idea that ANYONE would alter their perception of one of their race simply for developing a real relationship with someone of another race demonstrates a real problem in that "anyone".  I know we often see films of white racists acting that way, but that's film and often those films are made by liberals who lack a clue.  And I have always had a real problem believing that the races are so different that we couldn't find examples of any attitude as common in one race as any other.  This study lends validity to that belief, except that it shows an attitude more prevalent among blacks.

It ain't a good attitude for any race.  Especially the human one.

WARNING!!! IRONY ALERT!!!

What kind of person votes for idiots like this?  How info free do people have to be to still believe this is the type of person that would best represent them?  Is it any wonder race relations in this country is so bad?  Is it any wonder why there is such division between the left and right when Dems so easily stoop so low?  How does this buffoon back up such a characterization of his opponents?  Shame on anyone who would cast a vote for this idiot.

Term Limits: Bad Idea

Former US Congressman Joe Walsh talks about it often.  Glenn Beck is a proponent.  Illinois gubernatorial hopeful, Bruce Rauner inundates us with radio commercials with it as its main theme.  Many agree with these men about it.  What is it?  Term limits.

 

It is often brought up that a founding father, Jefferson I believe, though it doesn’t really matter, expressed a vision of citizen politicians going to serve in the Congress for a term and then go home to live under the laws they helped craft.  This little bit of trivia is spoken of as if term limits was an intent of the founders.  I don’t know.  I don’t think so, as there is nothing mentioning being forced out of office, while the desire to serve, and the public’s desire to see a politician’s service continue, might exist.

And that’s all that really matters, isn’t it?  That is, the public’s right to choose its representatives is exactly what it means, under our form of government, to be self-governed.

I found http://restartcongress.org/revolution/arguments-for-term-limits/">a site

that seeks to justify the call for term limits.  It begins with several points put forth to argue for term limits, and follows up with objections to term limits, each with reasons the objections supposedly don’t work.

Right from the start, we can see that the arguments in favor do not ring true.  That is to say, that the problems term limits are thought to correct are not truly corrected.  Look at the first:

”With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves. They will have to live under the laws they have created while in office.”

There is no one in Congress who isn’t already supposed to be living under the laws they have created.  If they are not doing so now, how will term limits change that?  I’m not certain, but aren’t they still citizens while also legislators?  Are they somehow exempt while they are legislators from the laws they create?  If so, I have to admit that I was totally unaware that politicians are above the law.  If not, then we, as voters, should be paying attention and voting out those who think they are.  Let’s look at another:

”Members of Congress will have less time in office to develop financially beneficial commitments to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby undermining the threat of lobbyists being a primary influence on legislation.”

No member of Congress should be beholden to anyone but their constituents, the people they were sent to Congress to represent.  No lobbyist should have undue influence on our representatives and cannot have that influence without the representative granting that power to the lobbyist.  If a member of Congress is acting based upon lobbyist influence, it should only be on the merits of the lobbyist’s proposals, assuming the proposals are in the best interests of the people the Congressman represents.  The point above assumes lobbyist influence is always a negative for the people a Congressman represents.  But not all lobbyists are crooked or nefarious.  A lobbyist merely represents a group with shared interests and sometimes those interests are of benefit to all the Congressman represents.  The question is whether or not the lobbyist represents an interest of general benefit to the people on the one side, and that the Congressman will not act without his constituency being properly served by the proposal of the lobbyist.  Should a Congressman be found to legislate in a manner that serves the lobbyist (and the people he represents) at the cost of the Congressman’s constituents, the people should vote him out, if not have him prosecuted.  Term limits will not prevent self-serving Congressman from allowing themselves to be unduly influenced by lobbyists who do not have the people’s best interest in mind. 

In every case of the arguments in favor of term limits, the better remedy is a concerned electorate.  Term limits will not stop any of the concerns it hopes to mitigate from happening. 

At this point, I want to look at how this site deals with objections to term limits by using one example.  First the objection:

”Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else.”

The response to this objection suggests that money is the key reason incumbents win re-election.  It is not.  The problem is still the voters.  If an incumbent is not performing and still wins re-election, as did Barack Obama, it is because of an electorate that will not stay informed about how a politician is doing his job.  Voter ignorance and apathy is the most important reason why all the ills term limits are meant to address exist in the first place.  Very little will change by merely limiting the number of terms anyone can serve in a given office.  When a bum is termed out, the same ignorant group of people will vote for the next bum the party puts forth to replace him.  That is to say, if the majority of voters vote Democrat, for example, they won’t necessarily vote for the Republican next time around no matter how crooked the first guy was found to be.  They’ll just assume the next Democrat will not be that crooked and vote Democrat again.  Term limits solve nothing.  Only an engaged and informed electorate can do that.