Frames of Reference

Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom From

2013-05-10T19:02:06Z

Many people don’t grasp the First Amendment. Here is another misunderstanding of the First Amendment as the debate over the United States as a Christian Nation isn’t a matter of opinion, but fact.

We hope this person doesn’t actually feel all the hatred and vitriol he writes, so we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and ignore the obvious poor expression and try to get to the idea itself, rather than the way he expressed it.

I founded the civil rights fighting organization the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to do one thing: fight those monsters who would tear down the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating church and state in the technologically most lethal entity ever created by humankind, the U.S. military.

Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.

First, he’s wildly ignorant of the First Amendment. Just where is this wall he speaks of? Perhaps a review of the First Amendment is in order.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Oops. Sorry, the “wall of separation” doesn’t exist. The First Amendment says two things about religion:

Congress can’t enforce a national religion.
Congress can’t restrict freedom of religion.

Sorry, but no wall of separation exists, or was intended. The author makes a huge mistake (or simply is uneducated). It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from.

As our society moves toward a whiny, entitlement, victim mentality, views similar to what the author expresses become more common: “I don’t like to hear this, so it’s offensive, therefore is should be banned or censored.”

That attitude lacks understanding in a free society. Freedom does not mean you’ll never hear something you don’t agree with. It means everyone can make their case for their position.

If the Hare Krishna’s want to pass out flowers at the airport, that’s fine and a protected display of their freedom of religion. You may or may not agree with them, but it’s their right to state their case; freedom does not mean citizens won’t hear ideas they don’t agree with.

Of course, when people have a phobia like God-fear, they want to push their fears and phobias on to the rest of society. That’s a perversion of freedom.

The author is free to make his anti-God rant as he wishes; a free society never wants to silence discussion and debate. Of course, the method the author uses isn’t necessarily productive to civilized discussion.

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror.

Wrong again — he’s free to spout any nonsense he likes (some of the commentators did see through his ideas, however. It’s nice to see even on a far-left site like HuffPo, at least a few people still believe in expressing your ideas in civilized discussion and debate).

Had he said these words on a psychiatrists couch he would probably be put on medication.

Wow. This is one of the most poorly written articles I have read in a long time. While some of the points made have some merit, the ad hominem attacks undermine any legitimate argument.

But know this, Christians are not in a protected class. As just one example, in 2009 an article appeared titled Did Christianity Cause the Crash? Never heard of it? Not surprising.

Now, imagine if the article said, did Islam cause the crash? It would be national news.

Both are wrong, yet only one would be news or a scandal. That’s called bias, and most media has perfected it.

The fact this author can rant about Christians, yet generate little criticism for wildly bizarre ideas, proves Christianity doesn’t exist with other “protected” groups. Make no mistake, rants like the author’s are more frequent, and as long as directed at non-protected groups, those rants are ignored.

A time will soon come when you’ll be forced — like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego — to make a choice. Will you stand up, or fold like a cheap lawn chair? It’s your choice.

… because as Mr Weinstein’s article proves, it’s 2:59 AM.

It’s the Truth, Stupid

2013-05-03T15:02:03Z

Of previous presidential elections, one of the most remembered catch phrases was “It’s the economy, stupid,” used to remind phone-bank workers to always steer the conversation back to the economy, as it was seen as a winning issue for the candidate.

Christians should use a reminder phrase of their own: It’s the truth, stupid.

I read a lot of blogs, from all viewpoints, on many subjects. For liberal, progressive “Christians,” one popular topic is the death of Christianity, and how to survive Christians must abandon traditional theology and embrace liberal theology.

Lost in their dissertation is what is true, or in other words, what does the Bible proclaim?

As a representative of liberals, consider Bishop Spong and his 12 thesis. We’ll get these from the diocese of Newark, and while we won’t cover every one, you’ll quickly understand the point: It’s the Bible, stupid.

Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

Let’s look at what some of the twelve points really mean; Spong’s “Christianity”:

Denies the deity of Christ. (#2)
Denies the virgin birth. (#4)
Denies the creation. (#3)
Denies the inerrancy of the Bible. (#2, #3, #4)
Denies the atonement of the cross. (#6, #7)

The Bible instructs on all those ideas, and contradicts what Spong would like us to believe. Your question: is Spong smarter than God and His Word?

This is the poison of liberal theology as it infects the church, denying virtually all of Christianity while maintaining the name. It stems from post-modern philosophy and its desire to rebel against God.

Liberal theology frequently aligns itself with radical far-left politics. It’s always fun to point out to those people—using their own liberal theology methods—that Jesus was a Republican, not a Democrat (note: people seem to miss the point of the article, so be sure to read to the end).

You must be careful as the poison of liberalism infests the church. They may use the same terms, read the same Bible, and even pray, but make no mistake — liberal theology is not in any way Christian, as even atheist Christopher Hitches said:

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

You know it’s danger-time when an atheist professes a better understanding of foundational Christian theology than many pastors preaching weekly from the pulpit.

It’s time for each person to do their homework and study for themselves. For those that do, you’ll quickly discover liberalism holds nothing more than rebellion against God’s Word, and a desire to create a semblance of Christianity, all while denying its foundation.

It’s the Bible, stupid.

5 Reasons Disgust with Washington Won’t Be Solved

2013-04-26T15:02:05Z

We normally don’t discuss politics for politics sake. However, when the majority of people—of all political stripes—are hugely unhappy with Washington, it’s time to peel back the curtain and reveal why Washington is so broken, and why it fails to solve anything, only making situations worse. How did we get to the point when government is dysfunctional?

Reading the far-left’s comments about the retirement of Max Baucus (D-Montana) has been interesting. The anger spewed towards him from the left has been fascinating.

1. In the Beginning There Was ... Gerrymandering

… And the “D’s” and “R’s” saw that it was good.

Gerrymandering involves creating election districts favoring one party over the other.

The object is to pack your opponents party into a few massively favorable districts (like 75/25 or more), and give your party many more districts with favorable—but smaller—ratios (like 60/40). The resulting districts look like strange creatures; for example, Illinois District 4:

As taught in political-science class: the fair apportioning of voters is called “districting,” while unfair is called “Gerrymandering.” Naturally, the favorable party thinks it’s fair, while the other cries foul.

Two things happen via this strategy:

The party doing the Gerrymandering wins more districts.
Each Gerrymandered district is “safe” for one party or the other.

The political parties have become so good at this strategy, it leads to the next problem.

2. Moderates Don’t Exist Anymore

As Gerrymandering becomes more entrenched, it leads to more extreme political candidates. In most districts, the winner of the primary of the Gerrymandered party wins the general. For a “D” district, whoever wins the primary wins the general, and the same for a safe “R” district.

Two things thus occur:

If you don’t get to vote in the primary, your vote won’t matter.
It encourages extreme political views, and discourages compromise.

The first because if you’re a “D” voting in an “R” district, you don’t get to vote in the primary for the “R” candidates, but since it’s a safe district, the winning party is already known. Whoever wins the primary wins the general.

This also affects national elections: If you’re a voter in California, Texas, or New York, those outcomes are already decided — the parties could run Mickey Mouse versus Einstein and the mouse would win (some would say the parties have already run Mickey Mouse and he won, but we digress).

Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco has nothing to fear from moderate candidates (or candidates of the other party), as her district has been programmed to elect radical Democrats. In fact, Pelosi benefits the more extreme positions she takes, as her only realistic challenge would come in a primary from someone more extreme than she (i.e. farther left).

The result? Compromise and civilized discourse tossed out the window.

3. You Vote for Party Leaders, not Candidates

It does not matter what your Congress critter says their positions are during election season. It only matters what their leadership says. In other words, if you vote for a “D”, you’re really voting for Pelosi/Reid, and if you vote for an “R”, you’re really voting for McConnell/Boehner.

What your Congress critter says is 100% irrelevant. If you vote “D”, listen to Pelosi — that’s what you’re voting for (and similarly on the other side).

This has played out on everything from the Patriot act to Obamacare as the last few years has seen the normal process for a bill subverted. Now, the new norm is back-room deals cut by the leadership, with few rank-and-file members having any input at all until the bill is thrown onto the floor for a vote. As one Senator said in 2007:

This is not how the process is supposed to work. We should not be asked to trust our colleagues and vote to put a bill on the floor when we do not know that the bill text is even finalized, that the bill has not been drafted by legislative counsel, the bill has not been introduced or even given a bill number, the committee process was skipped and not followed … Congressional Record, May 21, 2007

It happened with the Patriot act, Obamacare, and others. When those bills got to the floor, votes were rushed with no time to actually examine and read the bills; members of Congress are arm-twisted into voting whatever the party leadership says.

Only later does the public discover what a stinking, festering, pile of doggy doo-doo the bill actually was (is).

4. Bribery / Ethics-challenged

During the recent Democrat party attempt at gun-control, the truth came out:

“Bribery isn’t what it once was,” said an official with one of the major gun-control groups. “The government has no money. Once upon a time you would throw somebody a post office or a research facility in times like this. Frankly, there’s not a lot of leverage.”

Remember, it’s not how much you get that determines whether it’s ethical or not, but considering the offer. When people defend they got $300 Million for their pet group, we’re supposed to be relieved by the amount they sold their soul for, instead of 30 pieces of silver?

The end result remains the same as Judas: they sold their soul. Perhaps those bribed Congressmen should read Psalm 15.

5. Politicians Despise the Voters

The fallout over the sequester you may or may not agree with. However, one thing every sane person will agree with — when the administration says to make the cuts painful, that’s a sign Washington simply does not care about citizens.

Keep in mind, there are no budget cuts — only reductions to requested increases. In the alternate universe of politics, if a budget was $100 Million, and next year they ask for $150 Million, but receive $120 Million, they consider that a “cut” of $30 Million, not an increase of 20%.

Be assured, the government will spend more this year than last as each debt deal leads to disaster; budget cuts are second only to the myth of the surplus in false ideas claimed as true.

Some people choose to believe the lie, others do their homework and discover the deception.

Voters exist only to be manipulated to voting to return those in power yet again. The aptly named “LIV” or Low Information Voter believes whatever garbage is tossed their way (like budget cuts actually exist, the so-called Clinton surplus existed, Social Security is funded, and so on). Of course, the failure of public education creates people who can’t think logically as schools use whatever trendy technique exists, rather than what works — my child is not a social experiment.

Conclusion

There you have it, 5 reasons why Washington remains broken.

Gerrymandering
Loss of moderates
Only party leaders count
Poor ethics
Washington Monument Strategy.

Want to fix it? Good luck. As the country turns away more and more from ethics and morals — even for people in the highest elected offices — it’s no surprise those values permeate society. A return to old-fashioned God-given morals and people holding leaders accountable for their lies will always be step one in turning the country away from corruption.

Only then can we return to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The Cross — Salvation or Subversion?

2013-04-12T15:02:02Z

As we enter the age of apostasy it’s becoming fashionable to re-define Biblical doctrine to align with radical political ideology or change terms like sin to something “softer”; heretics abandon God’s Word for the cult of liberal theology in their rebellion against God.

Many heretical ideas originate from post-modern theology and those living in the Matrix, replacing the rock-solid of God’s Word with the shifting sand of … well … nothing.

This week’s attempt to change clear and obvious Biblical teaching:

What we now call the “substitutionary atonement theory” has understood the cross primarily as the beginning of salvation, and not also as the culmination of a radical life lived within an Empire. … We can, however, see the cross in a different interpretative light with regard to the story of Jesus. The cross, rather than being understood as the reason of Jesus’ incarnation, can rather be understood as the culmination of the subversive way he lived as well as the subversive lessons he taught. (italics in original)

Yes, you can change that, but that doesn’t make it correct.

Trying to cram political ideology onto the Bible just doesn’t work … no matter how much verbal twister you play.

In allusions concerning Jesus in the Old Testament, is there one which puts the cross in a subversive and radical political light? Or are they illustrated as a substitute atonement for us?

The defining question: What is the gospel? Is it social justice? Common good? Or is it what Paul taught?

I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand … that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15)

… and what Paul warned against replacing.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! (Galatians 1:6--8 NIV)

The cross is the reason for Jesus’ coming to earth. It is what provides salvation.

Paul called viewing the cross in a different interpretative light a perversion.

Yes, as the author says, we can see the cross under any number of alternative views. But those are not Biblical, and the re-definition was specifically warned against by Paul in the strongest language you could put on paper.

The cross came because of sin, not subversive and radical political ideology. Period.

If being subversive is what the cross is about, Paul was wrong, thus the Bible is wrong, and in error.

Who wants to agree with that?

Motivation is not Pretty

2013-04-05T15:02:01Z

When your 3AM call finally arrives (and one day it will), will you be prepared to handle it? We frequently discuss various bad ideas blowing through the church, but what if you’re suddenly all alone — will you be able to determine heresy from reality?

It comes down to one word: motivation.

Lou Holtz is one of my favorite commentators; his special segments on ESPN are priceless. If you’ve caught him on a political program discussing current events, you can only come to one conclusion: Lou Holtz for President.

Lou has a masterful way of getting the most out of his players. Let’s apply Lou’s method to Christianity.

Ability is what you’re capable of doing.

Motivation determines what you do.

Attitude determines how well you do it. (Lou Holtz)

Ability

In sports, some have more ability than others. In the church, everyone has the basic ability to perform their own studies. Can you read? Do you have common sense? Then you’re qualified.

Sure, learning Greek, logic, textual analysis, and critical thinking at times will help, but make no excuses — everyone in the church has the ability to do their own homework.

God didn’t lock His truths away so only a learned few could understand.

99.5% of people in church have the basic skills needed. No excuses. You’re capable of in-depth study, so Lou moves on to the next step: motivation.

Motivation

Motivation determines what you do. You could have the ability to run a sub-10 second 100 meter dash, but if you don’t put down the bon-bons and get off the couch, you’ll never accomplish what your ability allows you to do.

That’s a big problem in the church: slothfulness.

It’s easy to say, hey, the pastor will be around to answer questions and figure out the tough stuff.

That’s not a sure thing. What will you do when nobody is around? It’s a sad commentary on our society watching everyone look for a bailout — as long as someone else pays, I want free stuff!

The same attitude infests the church. It’s time to get off the couch, and get in the game.

Attitude

Attitude is tough. Ability and motivation only take you so far. What if a soldier has a bad attitude? Will their training be effective?

When the bad-attitude soldier enters combat, they’ll be easy prey for the enemy.

Of course, the same idea applies to you. Once motivated to get involved, it’s time to have the correct attitude — never quit, never give in, never surrender.

Dare to get in the game. If you need help, ask questions.

What’s holding you back … right now? More importantly, what can we do to help you through it? Email, comment, ask.

How you respond to the challenge in the second half will determine what you become after the game, whether you are a winner or a loser. (Lou Holtz)

… because it’s 2:59AM.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. (Theodore Roosevelt "The Man in The Arena")