thoughts concerning the Supreme Court's attempts to redefine morality

I would guess that most of you have heard about the Supreme Court's decision to somehow find gay marriage in the Constitution. Much like the so-called Constitutional right to kill children who have not yet been born, one has to wear special glasses to find this new so-called right, I guess. But, be that as it may, here we are. Hardly a day for rejoicing, when evil is call good and celebrated.

So, what now?
 

Take these thoughts for what they are worth, I'm putting them out there for consideration. No doubt, others have and will give their opinions and thoughts.
 

Separation of God and country
 

For a while, we've accepted a couple of curious ideas —the notion of the separation of church and state along with the notion of a mixing of God and country. I can listen to AFR and hear this in their motto “faith, family, freedom”, I have been to churches which have the country's flag almost as prominently shown as the cross, I can hear and read the non-stop cacophony of calls revival revival revival because that is the only hope for our country and we need to attend the next big conference or rally or stadium event and show people how serious we are and we need to cry out to God for revival and so on and so forth.
 

Maybe it's time to stop trying to dress God up in the American flag.
 

Is patriotism and love of country wrong? I don't think so. One can read the biblical book of Romans and see Paul's love and concern for his kinsmen, even as they were rejecting him and his message. One can read the gospels and see Jesus' concern and heartbreak over Israel, even as He was pronouncing judgment on them for rejecting Him.
 

But love isn't blind. Israel was (and is) a people with a covenant from God, but while Paul lamented his kinsmen's blindness, he also saw that he had another set of kinsmen. He called those who believed in Jesus Christ, who had repented of their sins, his brothers and sisters.
 

Let me give another example. The family is a good thing, something God created, and is one thing being attacked by this attempt to create a new morality. But Jesus also said that those who follow Him are to hate their father and mother and even their own lives, and said that for those who follow Him that their enemies will be those of their households.
 

This is a difficult way to think. We'd rather have a simple dichotomy, “This is good here, that over there is evil”, but we are given a more difficult way of thinking, “Love of country and family is good, but that country and family can become your enemies if you follow Christ”.
 

I'm a citizen of the US, and that's fine as far as it goes. But for Christians, our ultimate citizenship is in Heaven. The bond I have through Christ with the Christians in various prisons across the world, with those being persecuted in various ways, is far stronger and more eternal than the bond I have with anyone claiming only national citizenship.
 

There are no white hats
 

To employ this way of thinking in a more negative way, it's become plain that both side of the aisle, politically and religiously, are simply wrong.
 

It's easy to see how the people on the left are wrong. What evils do they not condone and celebrate? The murders we call abortion and assisted suicide, the various kinds of sexual perversions, government theft and corruption and greed and control.
 

But it's when I have looked to the right, thinking I'm with the “good guys”, the white hats, that I've seen that they really aren't all that good. I may agree with many of the things they stand for, but...

When I look at the religious right, I see much the same kinds of lust for power as I see on the left. I see compromise, even in regards to the basic Christian beliefs. For political reason (and perhaps other reasons, too), Franklin Graham stopped referring to Mormonism as a cult. I can look at the speakers for the Values Voters Summit, and see a Mormon, a few Roman Catholics, and someone with connections to the New Apostolic Reformation. The leaders of the religious right are people like Peter Wagner, a man who is a partner with the worst of the worst in regards to false prophets, false teachers, fake healers.
 

If you don't know the word “dominionism” and the ideas behind it, get acquainted with it. To put it simply, Wagner and those with him want power. They think they have a divine command and even right to run the world, to take over what they call the spheres of society, that they must do those things before Christ will return for His mature warrior-bride.

Now, don't think that dominionism is only a religious right thing. Though he may not use the word dominionism, Brian McLaren is just as set on remaking the world into his own image as Peter Wagner is. But my main concern for the moment with the supposed “good guys”, the ones trying to sport the white hats. But when I look at Wagner and has cronies, I see their hats are just as black as those of people on the left.
 

I'm not a prophet, and not going to pretend to be one, but I'm going to make a non-prophetic prediction, one that I have a small hope will be wrong but I'm pretty sure is going to happen, because it's already happened to some degree, for example with Graham's compromises concerning Mormonism. I predict that many in the NAR will continue to drift to the left, and will even embrace this new morality. They will dress their compromises up in pietistic rhetoric, they will find sad stories they can use to make themselves appear compassionate, they will end in devouring those who stand against them.
 

In other words, when power and wealth are your goals, then compromises will find their needed excuses. The NAR is already built on lies and distortions, they have no solid ground to anchor themselves to anything.
 

Broadly speaking, the Bible tells us these kinds of things will happen
 

Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the dominionists, the Bible tells us that the world will become a darker and more evil place in these end times. Evil men will grow worse and worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves. The times will be perilous for those with faith in Christ. False messiahs and saviors will rise, and many will be deceived by them.
 

Mankind doesn't want to change, unless it is that it wants to dive more and more into sin. And it will continue to the demand that the Church accept its sins, approve of its perversions, check off on what it wants. The world will demand that the church become its friend, and if the church doesn't, well, the church will have to pay.
 

And the US church has not helped itself. It has fed the people in its pews and stadium seating a steady died of theological fluff, promising people their best lives now if they follow the prescribed rituals and say the correct positive words, promising a life of fulfillment and adventure if people make prayer circles and tell the sun to stand still and be audacious and other such things. People in churches think they are lions when they are merely lambs, and not even God's lambs, only meat for the world's grinders. Pastors who pose as tough guys will topple like houses of cards, and their people will follow them.
 

We are being disillusioned. Let us rejoice in that, and repent of believing the earlier illusions. The US is not Heaven, it is not God's Kingdom. I have a greater kinship with many of the people whose sufferings are told on the Voice of the Martyr's website then I do with many politically conservative and liberal politicians and activists.

movie review--The Dark Knight Returns, part 2

I have a bit of a memory of when The Dark Knight Returns comics came out, way back when. I didn't read them until later, though. And now, a bit later still, I've been watching the second part of the recent animated movies based on the comics.

Despite some points of interest in the comics, I remember being put off by some things in it, too. Having learned a bit more since them, I can say that things I found off-putting are even more numerous.
To put it more plainly, this isn't so much an animated movie as a piece of clumsy propoganda, and if people actually knew and remembered history, they would find it ridiculous.

When this comic was first put out, there was this thing called the Cold War going on. The place we know call Russia was at that time a major part of what was called The Soviet Union, along with a lot of other countries around present-day Russia that at that time were a part of the USSR, and not exactly by choice.

That figured into the comics, and is in this animated movie, too. What's happening with Batman and Gotham is set against a grow internationsl conflict between the USA and USSR over a fictional country. While Batman fights the Joker, again, Superman is winning this international conflict. Whether the guy writing the comic is happy about the US winning this conflict is an interesting question, and simply judging by how he handles it, I'd have to say he wasn't.

Somewhat odd. He has a psychiatrist try to say that Batman is the one at fault for the Joker's crimes, right before the Joker kills him and a TV studio full of people. But because of this victory by the US, the Soviet Union launches nuclear missles, which detonate and cause an EMP event, wiping out electronic across the US. One wonders if he thinks the US, or the president in the movie, isn't to blame for this strike by the Soviets.

The writer of the comic included a character that is basically the former US President, Ronald Reagan, though I don't know if he ever names him or now. He basically makes this character a klutz, incompetent, and has newscasters go one about how shameful his handling of the crisis after the EMP event was.

Now, for a touch of reality. One of the big reasons the USSR collapsed was because of Reagan's refusal to back down from them. Far from being as this comic depicts him, Reagan was one of the better US presidents.

This writer, and of course the movie, portrays this Reagan president as someone who would send Superman to take Batman down, because of how Batman is embarrassing him. Can't help but think that that's not how Reagan was.

The writer's politics show through in other ways, too. At one point, Batman is trying to rally a gang of young men who were part of some kind of Batman-cult like group, so he could use them to help restore order to Gotham because of the lack of electrical power. He grabs a rifle or shotgun one of them had, holds it up, tells them that these gusn are the weapons of cowards, and proceeds to destroy it.

It's always interesting whenever these comic book heroes, who often have access to some kind of powers of their own or, like Batman, to really advanced technological weapons, get all worked up because a normal person dares to have a gun. Batman can have Batmoblies, Batcopters, Batplanes, Batarangs, Batcycles, and many of those with some kind of weapon that can blow stuff up, not to mention a bullet-proof suit with all the neat trimmings, and all that stuff in his utility belt, but let some poor normal person dare have a pistol, and that's just unacceptable and cowardly.

Then, when Batman is restoring order and making himself the law in Gotham, he becomes the thought police, deciding who stays "tied up" based on their willingness to display a proper cooperative attitude.

I can't help but think that this animation is pretty much the left's ideas of how things should be run, how the 80s should have happened. For them, Reagan should be seen as incompetent old man, all evidence to the contrary. Having guns in the hands of the average person is a serious problem, one they need to fix. And if you don't want to cooperate with them, well, there are places you can be "tied up" so you don't interfere with their utopia.

Basically, don't bother with it. There's very little in this movie worth seeing.

does "lack of credibility" mean nothing?

So, there's this organization out there called Love146. Their main concern is child sex trafficing, trying to stop it and help the victims. Since that is an issue that needs dealt with, all well and good.

Now, apparently, this organization has recent had it's 10th anniversary, and celebrated it with an event of some kind. At this event, they had a guest speaker.

That guest speaker was former US president Bill Clinton.

Yes, the same Bill Clinton whose presidency was marred by his sexual shenanigans with a White House intern, and whose lies about that resulted in his impeachment. The same Bill Clinton whose political career was marked by accusations of sexual misconduct.

http://youtu.be/F9iy7rhRIRQ

Maybe this organization, Love146, is doing lots of good work. But if they are so all-fired-up about sexual exploitation, why did they have a known sexual exploiter speak at their event? Did they try to get one of the women whom this former president exploited? Would't that have been much more in keeping with their goals and aims?

Does Clintons lack of credibility on this issue mean nothing?

I would like to think that this organization is a good one, well worth supporting, that maybe this was simply a slip in judgment. But it still leaves me wondering.

red letter nuts 2

I think I've mention Frank Schaeffer a few times before. Sadly, he's one of those types who keeps proving that he can go lower and more unbalanced, again and again.

Republicans “Own” Every Child Killed by a Gun and their Weeping Parents

And therein lies the desolation of the Republican Party’s future: They are going to lose many more of their very own through their combination with obstinate extremism and plain stupidity. I mean who wants to defend shooting toddlers as a constitutional right?

Who wants to “own” the pictures of weeping mothers?

The Republican Party does. As if killing themselves with anti-gay marriage homophobia, hatred of Hispanics (masquerading as anti-“illegal” immigrant initiatives) anti-women misogyny (flying under the banner of preventing women from getting contraceptives) and anti-science fundamentalist religion forced into schools wasn’t enough…

… BEHOLD REPUBLICANS WILL NOW OWN EVERY CHILD KILLED BY A GUN.

This is the new Republican Party “winning” platform? Good luck with that!

So, if you try to defend a Constitutional right, then, of course, you are responsible for every abuse of that right.

I suppose Frank Schaeffer, who obviously loves his right to free speech, is going to "own" every time someone abuses that right? Or those who believer in freedom of religion (again, like Schaeffer), he's going to own it when some cult is formed, then they kill themselves when the next comet appears in the sky?

Or...wait for it...maybe Schaeffer, being obvious on the left in regards to politics, will "own" the millions who have been killed in abortion?

Nah. That would require him to be an adult and show responsibility. He'd rather get on blogs like the linked to above, rant like a hormone-imbalanced teenager, and make irresponsible accusations without any foundation in reality.

Fat chance. The Republicans seem incapable of keeping up with the times. They just passed up a hell-sent chance to moderate their opinions. They passed it up, just as Romney passed up his chance to win women back by not publicly blasting Rush Limbaugh when he called a young woman a “whore” for standing up for her reproductive rights re contraception.

Ah, yes, the whole Sandra Fluke thing. Now, how was she in any way denied the right to get contraception? She wasn't. She simply whined that no one else would pay for it for her.

The Republicans have aligned themselves with billionaires against the rest of us. Now they are about to embrace the defending the murder of children and trivializing it with talk of “cap pistols.” That’s the moral equivalant of the talk about rape that derailed the fools running in the last election cycle.

Oh, please. We all know that people like you, Mr. Schaeffer, were the ones who intentionally took their words out-of-context, just like you have in this article of yours, to play politics with them.

Republicans will have to get even more used to losing. And those losses will no doubt give some aging white males even more paranoid fact-free “reasons” to cling to their guns and thereby to facilitate the killers of children. This is the price of right wing delusional freedom. It is a kind of “freedom” that looks more like madness with every child being buried this week.

The only madness is in your inane ranting, Mr. Schaeffer. There have been similar tragedies stopped because there were armed people around who were able to use their weapons to stop the criminals trying to harm others.

We do not surrender our rights simply because there are those who abuse them. We do not surrender our freedom of speech, simply because there are people like Schaeffer who abuse it with screeds like this. The cure is not less freedom, but more.
.

a sojrone goes delusion

Yeah, I know...that's not really any new. But, still, this is just loony.

They're Baaa-aaack: Return of the Christocrats (Who Never Really Went Away)

In the 2012 presidential election, the Christocrats are out in force on many fronts: trying to eliminate prenatal care and all forms of contraception; defunding breast cancer screening; opposing civil rights for same-sex couples; contesting evolution and substituting creationism in public schools; denying the reality of global climate change; and discrediting the "lame stream media."

Wow. So, where to begin...

I suspect that the contraception remark has to do with the recent spat of attempts by the government to try to make religious organizations, like Catholic churches and hospitals, provide free birth control and contraception to employees, despite their religious convictions against such thing, and the US Constitution's statement about the government not imposing itself on religion. In other words, this looney sojrone is has hallucinations about how relgious organization defending themselves from a power-hungry US president and lackies is somehow something evil.

Defunding breast cancer? Ah, the little stink a few weeks ago about Susan B Komen and Planned Parenthood. Apparently, to the lefties like this sojrone, it's bad for Komen to separate from PP. You know, PP being all for killing the unborn and all.

Civil rights. Yeah, playing that card in regards to gay rights and gay marriage. Can someone say "slippery slope"? I suppose morality has nothing to do with this sojrone's rantings.

Contesting evolution? Oh, the horro!! Oh, the humanity!! Stop showing how silly evolution is, and just...stop. You came from a monkey, deal with it!! Stop pointing out the facts otherwise, or we'll take you to court and make a judge shut you up!!

And denying global warming? When the proofs for it have been shown to be fake (much like with evolution), then the crazy thing would be to just close your mind and accept it (much like with evolution).

And the "lame stream media" are the ones who discredit themselves every day.

Perhaps the best responds was from a commenter by the name "CommLaw".

I find this conversation very interesting because while social conservatives are concerned about gay marriage and abortion, it's the left that wants to control virtually every aspect of our lives: health insurance, pipelines, carbon usage, and on and on an on. Yet the left claims the right wants to control all of their lives.

Well said.

sojrone blames Christians, using bad argument

So, what else is new?

'Dexter Theology': Shedding Blood in God's Name

I’ll admit I’m a sucker for stories about the malleability of human morality. From the mob movies, where a guy can whack his cousin but better not show his Patron any “disrespect,” to justice-seeking serial killers like “Dexter,” there’s plenty of justified violence to be found.

Where do such seemingly contradictory value systems come from? And do they actually happen in the real world today?

How about the politician who claims a platform that values a respect for “all life,” while justifying war and advocating for capital punishment? Or those who celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? And the list goes on.

Oh, boy, and there we go...

So, somehow, it's the fault of those who are think there are good reasons for going to war and executing murders that we have "Dexter"?

Sorry, I'm laughing my head off here. Or I would be, if I weren't in a library.

Because, really, how does that work?

I haven't watched "Dexter", and frankly have no wish to. Why should I watch anything that glorifies what is essentially murder, and the glorification of a serial killer no matter his reasons?

So, let's change this argument a bit, shall we? How about if we call it "NCIS theology"? That being one of my favorite shows, I'm a bit more familiar with it.

"NCIS" is essentially a detective show about usually military situations and issues. The team of investigators are law-enforcement officers. They use investigative techniques and technology to solve crimes. Sometimes, that also involves pulling out guns and having to shoot people, and sometimes that means the criminal is killed.

So, we have law-enforcement officers, abiding by the law and rules of their organization (even if they sometimes bend those rules a lot sometimes) and who sometimes have to use lethal force. A far cry from "Dexter", I would guess.

Do they show a disrespect for life when they try to bring criminals to justice and sometimes have to use lethal force? I would say, no. There is nothing in the position that supports capital punishment that leads to a lack of respect for life.

(and would one dare point out that those on the left are the ones who advocate for the real killing of innocents, the unborn, in the form of abortion?)

So, yes, I respect all life, and am pro-life in that I am against abortion, and wish to see it's legality ended. I am also pro-capital punishment, because there are crimes that deserve that punishment.

But, I think this sojrone has a bigger fish to fry.

Some even suggest that a culture of justified violence was applied to Jesus’ own crucifixion. This can even be found in the writings of Paul, who came from a culture in which blood was used to purify one of sinfulness. The sacrifice of life, was a common practice in ancient Judaism as well. So it’s understandable when this same model is applied to Jesus’ death.

His "bigger fish" is the substitutionary atonement of Christ, that "Christ died for our sins, as the Scriptures tell us".

Jesus forgave sin while he was still alive. Was this a lie? A Mistake? Or did he actually present a grace to the world that was greater than sin, even then?

How does Jesus forgiving sins while He was alive contradict anything? Christ was going to lay down His life for us. Forgiveness, then, was likely based on Him doing that, just like all other sins before His death were forgiven through it. There is nothing contradictory there.

I believe that Walter Wink’s interpretation of Jesus’ message rings the most true, and it can be summed up in three simple words:

Violence never redeems.

We come to it, the real point of this whole sad sojo post--the death of Christ is needless.

It’s love that redeems, and love requires no blood to be spilled in order to exist, or else it’s not really love. There’s no such thing as conditional love; love never comes with an asterisk, a caveat or fine print. It is whole, complete and absolute in and of itself.

Justified violence may be culturally acceptable. It may even be considered Biblical in some cases. But it’s not Christ-like.

"Without shedding of blood there is no redemption of sins". That is God's Word, and if the words of Walter Wink or this sojrone contradict it, then they are wrong. "Let God be true, and every man a liar".

Even heathens honor those who sacrifice their own lives for their family or countries, but this sojrone belittles and dishonors the Christ who gave His life for us by his trite and unscriptural positions. This is blasphemy, pure and simple. He is one who trods upon the blood of Christ, calling it an accursed thing.

perry doesn't back down!

That's honking off the Sojrones.

God's Politics BlogPerry Defends his "War on Religion" Attack Ad

PERRY: Well if you sit down with the bishops and archbishops of the Catholic Church, they can give you a very clear understanding of how this administration has gone after their charitable operations, on whether it’s trafficking in individuals or whether it’s those hospitals and those clinics that choose not to do abortions because they have a conscious reason not to and it’s their belief and their faith not to give those abortions – so there’s a clear attack on the Catholics in particular from that perspective.

But when you think about the left in general, which the president is obviously a great part of – not allowing our kids to pray in school, not allowing to celebrate Christmas. I mean, the idea that the left continues to send the message of listen – we, our First Amendment right is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. And that’s what the left has tried to do, is force all of us who are people of faith to basically say you can’t be involved in the public arena. And that is just wrong.

And dippy sojo comments.

When Governor Perry--I'm sorry to say he's my governor--and other "culture warriors" perpetuate the falsehood about children not being allowed to pray in school, they are either ignorant, or they are intentionally lying. I don't think Governor Perry is ignorant

Governor Perry (I wish he were my governor, but sadly my state seems to like lib-inspired misery) is spot-on. There is no myth about kids not being allowed to pray in schools, because it isn't a myth. Oh, sure, if you want to do it quietly and on-the-sly, so be it. Or, as I remember during a college graduation ceremony, you give a rather lame PC type of prayer to some unnamed power out there somewhere.

And when it is allowed, it certainly isn't because the people on Sojo's side of the issues aren't trying to ban it. This article also has a bit more on the issue.

We included the following quote from the U.S. Department of Education Secretarys Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, which specifically addresses student prayer during non-instructional time:

Prayer During Noninstructional Time

Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

So, yes, kids are still technically allowed to pray, but this is a far cry from the prayer and religious instruction schools could give.

Before 1949, public schools were actually allowed to have religious education teachers, who would instruct the students in the Christian faith and moral values. In that year, the Court stated that public schools could no longer do this because it “breached the historical separation of church and state.” However, the Court did allow a “released time” program, which permitted students to leave school early in order to attend religious instruction given at their churches [2]. By having the students leave school grounds to receive religious instruction, the Court believed that it had reached an acceptable compromise by preventing the violation of the establishment of religion in public schools but still allowing everyone’s religious freedom.

So, kudos to Perry.

rick perry must NOT apologize

Rick Perry Must Apologize

Oh, dear, and what did Perry say that Wallis thinks is oh-so horrible???

In case you didn't quite catch it all, here's the text:

"I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian. But you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again."

Sounds to me like Perry's pretty much spot-on. No wonder Wallis objects vehemently.

Wallis' response is full of LOL fail.

Governor Perry and President Obama, like millions of other Americans, are Christians. Both of them.

See. Told you. LOL!!!

I'm not on board with everything Perry seems to believe or all he has associated with, he seems a bit too cozy with some of the KC false prophets and apostles, but compared to Obama he's pretty solid. At the least, he hasn't had a pastor going around spewing "God d--- America!!".

Not all Americans believe the same things or worship in the same way, but that doesn’t mean there is a “war on religion”

In America, we respect and support religious liberty.

Oh, maybe we used to. But thanks to people like you, Mr. Wallis, Perry is right that kids can't openly pray in school or, at least in some places, can't celebrate Christmas. Heck, just this past year, one school was even offended by the idea of Easter eggs. What did they call them instead, Spring Spheres?

What denigrates our religious heritage is to accuse someone of sincere faith who disagrees with you by perpetuating the myth of the “war on religion” and accusing him of being a foot soldier in the battle.

No, it doesn't. People like you, Mr. Wallis, who claim to be Christian but mock everything the Bible teaches, are the ones who dengrate Christian heritage.

Diversity of opinion and beliefs is also what makes this country strong.

Coming from someone who's constantly claiming that everyone must agree with him, and who claims that he speaks for God in regards to politics (what else does the title "God's Politics" mean?), you're the one who seems to not welcome diversity of opinions and beliefs. Of, sure, you'll claim to be ecumenical, Mr. Wallis, but isn't it odd that your ecumenism is based on agreement in political aims and means?

Governor Perry should take the ad down, apologize both to President Obama and the American people, ask God for forgiveness and make amends for perpetuating polarization and disharmony in the body of Christ.

Candidate Perry should NOT apoligize. He is simply speaking truth, and offending people like Wallis is part and parcel with speaking truth. Wallis is the one who should be asking God for forgiveness, for misrepresenting Him and His Word into somehow supporting the leftist socialist agenda, supporting sloth while punishing work, promoting class warfare, and openly claiming Christ was a socialist. He is the one who is "perpetuating polariszation and disharmony in the body of Christ".

And if Perry were to repent of listening to and supporting false apostles and prophets, all the better for him.

misadventure in badly missing the point

Various systems or worldviews fight for power and authority. Yet Christianity, as a religion without religion, offers a radically different approach. Christ opens up the idea of a system that seeks always to find those who are excluded from the system that is in power. The Christian “worldview” is thus manifested as always seeking out those who have been rejected from the worldviews that have authority. The way this works itself out in practice is that whatever political or religious idea is dominating the society at any given time, Christianity seeks out those who are excluded by it, the one sheep who is not in the pen, the one coin not in the purse, those who have not been invited to the party, the nobodies, the nothings. The Christian “system” can thus never take power for, by definition, it is always that which stands against power, seeking to identify with the powerless and the voiceless. It is a system in the sense that it systematically seeks out those who do not fit into the system offered up by the currently prevailing political and religious authorities.
Rollins, Peter, Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1934-1941)

If one were to actually read the Gospels, how would one find any of that?

It could be pointed out that those who would likely have been considered on the outside, sick people and lepers and blind and Romans and Gentiles, did find Jesus usually welcoming. But then, it wasn't an exclusive thing. Jesus was welcoming to an 'insider' in the person of the Pharisee Nicodemus. He cared deeply for the young man who was rich and a ruler. He was very complimentary of the faith of the Roman centurion who wanted Him to heal his servant. Some of his closest friends seem to have been Lazarus and his sisters, people who had their own home and likely had some means and influence.

As well, we do not find any hint that Jesus was some kind of rebel. Jesus did not try to overthrow the Pharisees or other religious leaders, He did not try to overthrow the Romans. In fact, He tells the people to respect those in the seat of Moses, to do what they said, but to not live as they lived, for they were hypocrites. Jesus' problem, we can see, is not with religious authorities, but rather with those who have such authority and do not use it wisely and justly.

In the epistles, this respect for human authority continues. Peter tells us to obey the rulers. Another epistle explains that the rulers are ministers of God. The only time that the Apostles stood against the rulers was when they were told to not preach and teach in the name of Jesus, that in such a case they had the explicit command to Christ to take the Gospel to everyone, so they obeyed God rather than men.

Does Christianity stand against power? Where is that in the Bible?

Behind the convoluted nature of Rollins' words, his thinking is far too simplistic. Christianity is not an eternal game of being against whomever is in power, like some kind of perpetural counter-culture no matter what the culture is; rather, it's about right and wrong, righteousness and sin.

Rollins points to certain parables of Jesus', ones that are about someone seeking something of value. He wants to make this about outsiders, as if it's only about being counter-cultural or whatever. But what did Jesus Himself say? "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save those that are lost".

Because here is the truth--when it comes to God, we are all outsiders, we are all poor and miserable, we are all sinners. We can preach the Gospel in the poorest ghetto and the richest mansion, because the most abject addict and most successful billionaire are alike in their poverty before God. Peter can heal a lame beggar at the Temple one day, then later preach in the house of a Roman Centurion, because the Gospel he preached both times was applicable to the people present on both occasions.

Rollins wants to make this about human politics, which is asinine. It's not about such shallow and worldly things, but rather about Christ having been born of the virgin Mary, living a sinless perfect life, laying down His own life as a sacrifice for our sins and to appease the wrath of the Father, rising from the dead and ascending to Glory. It's about us through repentence of our sins and belief in Christ being made right with God.

It's not about works at all. We can do no work that will make we who are sinners in any way right with God; rather, God says that all of our works of righteousness are as putrid rags. He is not impressed with our works at all.

never have a sojrone over for the holiday

Unless it may be something like the day the Bolshies took over Russia, or Castro's conquest of Cuba, or some such leftist day of celebration. May want to pass on the day the Berlin Wall fell, though.

Rewriting History: Thanksgiving or Genocide?

Well, we have the word 'genocide'. Guess we know where this is going.

Thanksgiving — in its original intent — was to mark a good harvest in the plight of the early Pilgrims. While there are disputes about specific dates, most point to the first gathering to the Fall of 1621 where the Pilgrims and [some] local Indians gathered (fewer than 100) to celebrate a feast. Most are in agreement that the Indians were invited simply because the Pilgrims knew that they would have died had it not been for the help of the local Indians.

While it is true that we’re not entirely sure all the specific details, those that we would now categorize as “illegal aliens” not only came without invitation but they came to take over. In fact, beyond the first joint “Thanksgiving,” there were no further meals of mutual peace, dependence, and friendship.

Wow. So, the Pilgrims were "illegal aliens". Should that mean the Sojrones should condone anything they do? But they were white illegal aliens, so they should have stayed in Europe, one may suppose.

But I'm thinking that, really, this Sojrone is afraid of the real story of Thanksgiving, one that puts paid to the things Sojo holds dear.

The True Story of Thanksgiving

The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.

'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense,'" without being paid for it, "'that was thought injustice.' Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself?" That's what he was saying. " The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

"Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you're laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.' But this story stops when the Indians taught the newly arrived suffering-in-socialism Pilgrims how to plant corn and fish for cod. That's where the original Thanksgiving story stops, and the story basically doesn't even begin there. The real story of Thanksgiving is William Bradford giving thanks to God for the guidance and the inspiration to set up a thriving colony. The bounty was shared with the Indians." They did sit down" and they did have free-range turkey and organic vegetables, "but it was not the Indians who saved the day. It was capitalism and Scripture which saved the day," as acknowledged by George Washington in his first Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1789.

So, the story of Thanksgiving is a cautionary tale of the failure of Socialism, which is what Sojo thinks is what is so good and great. No, that story of Thanksgiving must be silenced and not celebrated.

The Sojo article is aptly titled, if one keeps in mind that it is the Sojrone himself who is rewriting history.

generation brats gets special treatment

Occupier Outrages Omitted

MRC analysts reviewed the Big Three network evening (ABC’s World News, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News) and morning shows (Good Morning America, The Early Show, Today) for the month of October and found accounts of anti-Semitism and sexual assault arrests have been completely omitted from the Big Three broadcasts. And when confrontations erupted between the police and the protestors, the networks were much more likely to pin the blame on police for instigating the violence.

In fact, in the few stories of violence at the protests, like the one in Oakland, the Big Three networks took the side of the protestors against the police more often than not with 15 stories (54%) putting more blame on law enforcement officers. Only seven stories (25%) mostly faulted the protestors for acts of aggression. Six stories (6%) didn’t blame any particular side for the violence. Viewers of these stories were also far more likely to hear statements made by reporters or talking heads blaming law enforcement officials for the violence with 36 (71%) blaming officers to just 15 (29%) blaming the protestors.

Despite several charges of sexual assault and rape and instances of anti-Semitism the Big Three reporters have completely ignored these incidents. Not only did NBC’s Today show omit the ugly instances, but on their October 21 show, they actually preached that parents should use the OWS protest as a teachable moment for kids.

Not a single anchor or reporter brought up the anti-Semitic rants found at some of the rallies, like this one caught by MRC-TV cameras on October 21: “The Jews commit more white collar crime than any other ethnic group on the earth, and they go unprosecuted because they can buy their way out of it.... Whenever there’s a billion dollar fraud, there’s a Jew involved.”

So, while the Tea Party is given all kinds of bad labels without any evidential support, Generation Brats of Occupy (whatever) get their racism and violence covered over.

And who says the media isn't biased?

so they emphasize the point, again

Hey, Sojo, I think your marxism is showing, again.

Yep, scroll down that page, and you'll see a photo of a guy, sitting down (what kinda wussa protester is that, anyway), holding a sign, saying the exact same thing that was the Sojo photo from last week said. You know, the convenient fiction that Jesus was a socialist who gave out free health care and was anti-war, even though He wasn't, He didn't, and seemed to have a fondness for soldiers.

Which tells me that, if these Occupy Wall Street shenanigans have any religious aspect to them, it based on lies and really bad teachings. Just the sort of thing Sojo would be all in for.

so, Beck was right, after all

I think it was last year when Glenn Beck turned his attention to showing the solid red streak in Jim Wallis, and how Wallis tried to at least make it seem less than it claimed. See here.

Jim Wallis, yet another spiritual adviser to the president of the United States — a guy who believes a lot of the stuff that Jeremiah Wright does. He is a blatant redistribution of wealth advocate, a Marxist.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?

WALLIS: Absolutely, without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is all about.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Being one who occasionally ventures over to Sojourners to see the latest wackiness there, I'd little doubt that Beck was on to something. Now, Wallis' little political blog, God's Politics, has a little something that makes me think Beck was indeed correct.

True Story.

Yes, that really is the article's title.

This Sojo entry is basically a photo of a sign, probably at some event. Here is what the sign says.

Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free health care. You're think of Jesus.

Rather odd, that the title "True Story" should be put to an entry that consists only of a photo of this sign, don't you think? Kinda like the Sojrone, going by the name of God's Politics Editor, thinks this sign neatly sums up what Jesus was all about.

It's interesting, too, that almost nothing on the sign is really true or verifiable. What color was Jesus' skin? Well, since photography wasn't around at that time, we really don't know. This may tell us something about Him, though.

Revelation 1
12Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw(AI) seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the lampstands(AJ) one like(AK) a son of man,(AL) clothed with a long robe and(AM) with a golden sash around his chest. 14(AN) The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow.(AO) His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15(AP) his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and(AQ) his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16(AR) In his right hand he held seven stars,(AS) from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and(AT) his face was like the sun shining(AU) in full strength.

It tells us that His feet were like bronze. Perhaps a tad on the brown side, then, though maybe more tan than anything else.

One would be hard-pressed to find anything in the Bible that says Jesus was anti-war (one would be hard-pressed to find anything in the Obama administration that says he is anti-war, either). In fact, consider this from Revelation as well, emphasis mine.

Revelation 19
11Then I saw(W) heaven opened, and behold,(X) a white horse! The one sitting on it is called(Y) Faithful and True, and(Z) in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12(AA) His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are(AB) many diadems, and he has(AC) a name written that no one knows but himself. 13He is clothed in(AD) a robe dipped in[d] blood, and the name by which he is called is(AE) The Word of God. 14And the armies of heaven,(AF) arrayed in fine linen, white and pure,(AG) were following him on white horses. 15(AH) From his mouth comes a sharp sword(AI) with which to strike down the nations, and(AJ) he will rule them with a rod of iron.(AK) He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh(AL) he has a name written,(AM) King of kings and Lord of lords.

Jesus does not seem to be anti-war here, and this is not the only place in the Bible that speaks of Christ returning as a warrior, despite the absurd attempt by Brian McLaren to make this passage speak of pacifism.

Did Jesus give out free health care? Jesus healed people, yes. But His healings really were free, in that sense--meaning, He didn't take the healings He would have given to the rich and give them to poor. Nor did He take anything from the rich of His day and give it to the poor simply because they were poor.

In fact, Jesus' healings seemed based on something else--faith. He even spoke very highly of the faith of one of those evil Roman soldier types, when the Roman came to Him asking for his servant to be healed.

Was Jesus a Socialist? It's amazing, what people get from the account where Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give it to the poor. One might think that they think Jesus told everyone to do that. But He didn't. One may guess He let Zaccheaus off easy for only giving away half of his goods. One may think that He wasn't hard on the Roman Centurion mentioned above, because He didn't require that the man give anything away before healing his servant. And, well, if he stayed in the home of Lazarus and his sisters, it seems logical that they have had a home for them to stay in, and probably a rather large one to house Jesus and the disciples.

You will find much in the Bible about caring for the poor, but nothing about using government coercion to force them to do so. You will find Jesus preaching the Gospel to the poor, but also to those who were rich, too. What you will not find is Jesus trying to make Israel into a communist utopia.

But, it seems that is the jesus Sojo believes in, and so, Beck is proven right by Sojo's own blog entries.

ched myers and twisting peter's statement

At the structural center of Marks story is Jesus famous double question to his disciples, upon which all Christian theology turns:

"Who do the people say that I am?...
Who do you say I am?" (8:27, 29a)

Here Mark boldly transforms teh foundational declaration of Hebrew faith--"God said to Moses, 'I am who I am!" (Exod. 3:14)--into a query. Significantly, Peter sees in this remarkable solicitation a happy occasion for confessional orthodoxy: "You are the Christ!" (8:29b). Yet Jesus responds to Peter as if he were merely another demon attempting to "name" him--he silences him (8:30; cf. 1:25, 3:12, 9:25).

This precipitates what I have called the "confessional crisis" in Mark (8:31-33). Jesus repudiates Messianic triumphalism by invoking the political vocation of the Human One; Peter attempts in turn to repudiate such a "negating" theology. Jesus then utterly problematizes the matter by aligning the Petrine confession (which was, let us not forget, the creed of the churches to which Mark wrote, aand which still read him today) with Satan! The struggle conclude with Jesus' invitation to his disciples to a practice of the cross (8:34ff). Mark thus displaces Peter's confession with Jesus' quandary about losing life in order to save it.
Ched Myers, in his entry """I Will Ask You A Question": Interrogatory Theology", in the book "Theology Without Foundation", edited by Hauerwas, Murphy, and Nation, pp. 100-101

It seems like a theme is starting to pop up here, dealing with some rather bizarre scriptural twistings. I don't know if I can say that the above is among the most bizarre, as the so-called apostles and prophets are among those who regularly go to some strange places, but it may be among the most distasteful.

First, the passage in question.

Mark 8
27And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea
Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do
men say that I am? 28And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and
others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets. 29And he asked them, But
who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the
Christ. 30And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. 31And
he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and
be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be
killed, and after three days rise again. 32And he spake the saying openly.
And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33But he turning about, and
seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan;
for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. 34And he
called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any
man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and
follow me. 35For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and
whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s shall save it.
36For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his
life? 37For what should a man give in exchange for his life? 38For
whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he
cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

First, Myers tries to say the Jesus silenced Peter as He silences the demons in other passages. But is that so? Emphases mine.

Mark 1
40And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to
him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 41And
being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched
him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean. 42And straightway the
leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean. 43And he strictly
charged him, and straightway sent him out, 44and saith unto him, See thou
say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for
thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto
them. 45But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread
abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a
city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every
quarter.

Mark 8
31And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through
Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of
Decapolis. 32And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an
impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to lay his hand upon him.
33And he took him aside from the multitude privately, and put his fingers
into his ears, and he spat, and touched his tongue; 34and looking up to
heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
35And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and
he spake plain. 36And he charged them that they should tell no man: but
the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it.
37And they were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all
things well; he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

Mark 9
1And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of
them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the
kingdom of God come with power. 2And after six days Jesus taketh with
him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain
apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them; 3and his
garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can
whiten them. 4And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they
were talking with Jesus. 5And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it
is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee,
and one for Moses, and one for Elijah. 6For he knew not what to answer;
for they became sore afraid. 7And there came a cloud overshadowing them:
and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye
him. 8And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save
Jesus only with themselves. 9And as they were coming down from the
mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they
had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.
10And they kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising
again from the dead should mean.

From these passages, we can see that Jesus did not tell only demons to be silent about who He is or things He had done or shown to them. Jesus telling the disciples to not say anything about Him being the Christ at that time does not mean He was equating Peter's statement with something said by demons; iu fact, I think Myers is falling into blasphemy when he says that.

Also, the incident is mentioned in other Gospels. In Matthew, for example, it does like this:

Matthew 16
13Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? 14And they
said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one
of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? 16And
Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father who is in heaven. 18And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not
prevail against it. 19I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then
charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the
Christ.21From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go
unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and
scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up. 22And Peter took
him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall
never be unto thee. 23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind
me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the
things of God, but the things of men.

Interesting that this pasage contains all the elements Myers appeals to, but has other things that perhaps Myers wouldn't like; for example, rather than Jesus repudiating Peter's statement that He is the Christ, Jesus says that he is blessed for making it, that the Father is the one who has shown that to him.

A far cry from Myers' attempts to make Peter's statement the problem, isn't it?

Myers' statement that Jesus tried to align Peter's statement with Satan is simply blasphemy. Peter's statement that Jesus is the Christ was revealed to him by God, yet Myers' says it is aligned with Satan. Would it not be logical, then, that it is Myers who is speaking the words of Satan here, since they contradict Jesus' own statement that Peter's insight was given to him by God?

why did YWAM allow this liar to speak at their conference?

"You add to that, in my country, post 9-11, you have the phenomenon that is fearing immigration. We're trying to build a wall to Mexico, you know. As one brilliant black professor at Princeton calls it...hold on...the niggardization of white America. And what he means by that, Cornell West is his name, what Cornell means by that is, yesterday's soccer moms are todays security moms. Helicopter parents hover over their children. And I'm finding missionary congregations afraid, afraid to let people from other countries come into our countries, as though we own them, as though Psalm 24:1 doesn't exist. What is Psalm 24:1? The earth is the Lord's. And besides, if you put all 300 million Americans in the state of California (God forbid) we all had to live their together, we'd still be less crowded then Japan, and we'd have 49 empty states. So when you think about stewarding the Earth, I say let 'em come, tear down your walls, build bridges, let 'em all come here."
Dr. Ray Bakke, in a lecture called "Old Testament City Theology (Part 1)" at the YWAM North American Cities Conference in Vancouver, 2008, at about the 2:00 to 3:00 marks.

Lies.

There is no better way to put it, Dr. Bakke is lying to these YWAMers, and YWAM was irresponible for letting this man speak to their people in this way.

This was in 2008, though the issue is still around today--the issue of illegal immigrants coming to the US from Mexico. There are many reasons this is an issue. There are drugs and narcotics being brought in to the US illegally. Accompanying this is violence against people, American and Mexican. There is the exploitation of people desperate to leave their poor conditions in Mexico, by charging them high prices to transport them, by using them to transport drugs. There is the fact that people here illegally usually work for less pay then people from the US may do the work, which means they are being economically exploited, which sets up a kind of underclass, even a form of servitude. Plus, there is simply the fact that we have people who go through the legal process of immigrating to the US, and those who are waiting to do so, and they are following the legal process, while those who are entering through illegal means are to some degree jumping ahead of those who were doing things the right way. Add in the threat of terrorism, and how such illegal means may be exploited for terroristic means, this is a real and serious issue.

Dr. Bakke's lie is to say that we in the US, I assume he means conservatives, are anti-immigrant. That's nonsense. We are the ones who celebrate immigration. We are the ones who even acknowledge that there are those who need to ask for asylum from particularly bad governments. But we want people to come here legally, to respect and follow our laws.

I've traveled to other countries a few times. When I have, I have respected the laws of those countries for entering. I have followed their rules for getting visas. I did not get haughty concerning their rules, and try to enter the countries without them. I did not try to sneak into the countries in some other way. As I respected the rules of those places, I expect the rules of my country to be respected.

One can wonder what he sees in Psalm 24:1 that is some call for open borders. This is the same God who gave the land to Israel. There is no call here for a lack of responsibility to one's own land and borders.

So, I'm saying here and now, YWAM should be ashamed for letting this liar teach these things in one of their conferences. Whatever else that may have been good he may have taught, here he is flat-out lying.

it does boggle the mind

The things and people other people put their faith in, that they take as authoritative and to be accepted without question, it does rais the eyebrows.

Climate Witness as Act of Faithfulness

During the 1980s, many Christians were at the forefront of a movement to avert nuclear annihilation.

Let me reinterpret that, please--they wanted to stop the arms race that was one major reason the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. Throw in Star Wars (not the movies, the missle defense system) too, which I would image they opposed.

Sojrones--all these years and all those failures, but still gamely trying to make the world safe for Communism.

The scientific community is warning that we approach a “tipping point” when tremendous natural forces spin out of control and the laws of physics will take over. When that line is crossed, humanity will be helpless to stop a frightening slide into global disaster.

To show just how far this faith in 'science' goes, I'll borrow a bit from a comment.

. If it isn't in the bible then it isn't true.
2. If it is in the bible then there is a spiritual reason why it is happening or should happen and we should not mess with the outcome.
3. If it interrupts people's rights to jobs it takes away freedom and therefore it is Un-American.
4. If it is promoted by progressives or liberals, it is both Un-American and Un-Christian.
5. Science is Un-Christian.
6. Scientists are not Christian. This is true primarily since the advent of Darwinism.
7. We were told to subdue, conquer and use what God has given us.
8. I never heard any earth care or wise stewardship verses from the bible any year I was growing up. I was oblivious to their existence.
9. If I am a holy and righteous, church attending, God-fearing person, God will take care of me and I don't have to worry about anything else because I'll be snatched away from the really bad stuff that the unrighteous will suffer as a result of their sin.

And a source that shows that not all in the scientific community are as united behind the global warming scare as this Sojrone wants us to believe.

NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming

Bonhoeffer questioned how someone could claim to be Christian and yet maintain silence in the face of the Nazi holocaust. Now we are faced with a holocaust even more sweeping. Is it not legitimate to ask the same question? Does not silence in the face of the greatest moral crisis of our time constitute a failure to follow the most fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ?

And here the Sojrone goes off the rail, which will likely mean that he will be accepted all the more by fellow Sojrones, and the blame for him going off the rail will be laid on those who dare disagree with him. But it is outlandish that those who are skeptical of the global warming scare, who know that the data has been faked, are here being compared to Nazis, and the faked threat of global warming is compared to the very real horror of the Holocaust.

Worse than silence is mindless acquiescence and irresponsible rhetoric. Silence may at least indicate thoughtfulness and a willingness to look at all real evidence, and to not engage in fear-mongering.

But the point of this entry is this. Read Sojo, read the people who blog there, read those who are on their side of the issues like Emergent Village. See how they handle the Word of God. They will go to great lengths to try to discount it's teachings, especially in regards to things they disagree with it on. Great favorites are sexual morality, eternal punishment, salvation through faith in Christ alone, but there are those who go so far as to make the Bible essentially a work of fiction in order to make it say what they want it to say about any social issue.

God can be questioned, His Word can be hacked and slashed, and they will praise the hacker to the stars. But dare to question man when he poses as scientist, dare to question the anti-god people who have put forth the theory that I am a monkey's uncle, dare to point out that the facts behind global warming are not facts at all, dare to point out how liberals have in the passed used the fear of global cooling to push their agendas upon people, and you are anti-all-science and are not worth listening to.

sojo's great hero

A Call to Civil Disobedience Against the Keystone Pipeline

It seems that the Sojrones are continuing their jroning in support of high gasoline prices. Now, they have a low-grade martyr, of sorts.

Environmental activist Tim DeChristopher was sentenced recently to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine for disrupting a federal oil and gas lease auction in 2008 that was later deemed illegal. But don’t cry for him. Having met the man, I can confidently say the last thing he wants is pity.

Ok, so, Tim DeChristopher. New name, what did he do?

Tim's Bio:

Tim DeChristopher, as Bidder 70, disrupted an illegitimate BLM oil and gas auction in December of 2008, by outbidding oil companies for parcels around Arches and Canyonlands National Parks in Utah. Tim subsequently founded Peaceful Uprising, a climate justice group working to build an uncompromising movement to defend a livable future. Tim’s actions earned him a national and international media presence, which he has used as a platform to spread the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for bold, confrontational action in order to create a just and healthy world.

Oh, so he's an environmental whacko who has bought into the lies about global warming, and practiced "civil disobedience" by disrupting an auction that would have resulted in the US being able to access it's own resources rather than continuing to buy it from people who dislike us, like the Saudis. And he got caught and sentenced to prison, which makes him a convenient rallying cry.

Yes, folks, next time you have to fork over about $4 a gallon for gasoline so you can get to work or go to the store or whatever your reasons, and whenever someone tells you that the money used to buy that gas goes to some rather questionable people, you can thank Mr. DeChristopher and those at Sojourners for think he's a hero. For my money, he's not hero, just a misguided twerp.

frankie schaeffer's daddy issues

It seems a shame that one of Francis Schaeffer's legacies has been his son, Frankie. While one can have hope for the prodigal, first that prodigal must cease to revel in living with the pigs and to think that slop is a choice delicacy.

Sadly, Frankie seems to still be reveling in it. In this article, he is in full-bore, rabid hate mode, denouncing anyone who would dare to disagree with him, not least of whom is his father, who happens to not be around to defend himself from these slanders.

Here's a bit from Manifesto on how the government was "taking away" our country and turning it over to Liberals, codenamed by Dad as "this total humanistic way of thinking":

"The law, and especially the courts, is the vehicle to force this total humanistic way of thinking upon the entire population..."

I recommend to you Francis Schaeffer's book "A Christian Manifesto". Frankie gives no page number or reference for this quote, but fortunate "A Christian Manifesto" is not a large book, and it has an index, which helped in finding this particular quote. Here is a bit of context for it, found on page 49.

The law, and especially the courts, is the vehicle to force this total humanistic way of thinking upon the entire population. This is what has happened. The abortion law is a perfect example. The Supreme Court abortion ruling invalidated abortion laws in all fifty states, even though it seems clear that in 1973 the majority of Americans were against abortion. It did not matter. The Supreme Court arbitrarily ruled that abortion was legal, and overnight they overthrew the state laws and forced onto American thinking not only that abortion was legal, but that it was ethical. They, as an elite, thus forced their will on the majority, even though their ruling was arbitrary both legally and medically. Thus law and the courts became the vehicle for forcing a totally secular concept on the population.

In other parts of the book, Francis Schaeffer deals with how abortion is the product of secular, humanistic thinking. I'll not go into it here. But considering what he is saying in the paragraph quoted above, what is he saying that is so wrong? The Supreme Courth ruling was arbitrary, that has been freely admitted. It took a matter that should have been left to the states, and made it a federal matter. It was a horrible law, and that's not even considering the millions of children whose murders were given legal sanction through the ruling.

And this:

"Simply put, the Declaration of Independence states that the people, if they find that their basic rights are being systematically attacked by the state, have a duty to try and change that government, and if they cannot do so, to abolish it."

Well, at least Frankie has quoted a whole paragraph this time, though I think the context would again be helpful. From pages 127-128

The Declaration of Independence contains many elements of the Reformation thinking of Knox and Rutherford and should be considered carefully when discussing resistence. It speaks directly tot he responsibility of citizens concerning oppressive civil government.

After recognizing man's God-given absolute rights, the Declaration goes on to declare that whenever civil government becomes destructive to these rights, "it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it, and institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The Founding Fathers, in the spirit of Lex Rex, cautioned in the Declaration of Independence that established governments should not be altered or abolished for "light and transient causes." But when there is a "long train of abuses and usurpations" designed to produce an oppressive, authoritarian state, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government..."

Simply put, the Declaration of Independence states that the people, if they find that their basic rights are being systematically attacked by the state, have a duty to try and change that government, and if they cannot do so, to abolish it.

So, what did Francis Schaeffer write that is incorrect? Those words are in the Declaration of Independence, as is the concept.

Then this:

"There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. . . . A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion. . . . It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates its authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation."

This one may take an even longer excerpt. From pages 117-120

There comes a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. The Christian is not to take the law into his own hands and become a law unto himself. But when all avenues to flight and protest have closed, force in the defensive posture is appropriate. This was the situation of the American Revolution. The colonists used force in defending themselves. Great Britain, because of its policy toward the colonies, was seen as a foreign power invading America. The colonists defended their homeland. As such, the American Revolution was a conservative counter-revolution. The colonists saw the British as the revolutionaries trying to overthrow the legitimate colonial governments.

A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state and hidden his Jewish neighbors from the German SS Troops. The government had abrogated its authority, and it had no right to make any demands.

This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States--the issue of aboriton. Whiat is involved is the whole issue of the value of human life. A recent report indicaes that for every three live births, one child is aborted. Christians must come to the children's defense, and Christians must come to the defense of human life as such.

This defense should be carried out on at least four fronts:

First, we should aggressively support a human life bill or a constitutional amendment protecting unborn children.

Second, we must enter the courts seeking to overturn the Supreme Courts abortion decision.

Third, legal and politcal action should be taken against hospital and abortion clinics that perform abortions.

Fourth, the State must be made to feel the presence of the Christian community.

And from pages 131-132.

What does all this mean in practice to us today. I must say, I really am not sure all that it means to us in practice at this moment. To begin, however, it certainly means this: We have been utterly foolish in our concentration on bits and pieces, and in our complete failure to face the total world view that is rooted in a false view of reality. And we have not understood that this view of reality inevitably brings forth different and wrong and inhuman results in all of life. This is nowhere more certain than in law and government--where law and government are used by this false view of reality as a tool to force this false view and its results on everyone.

It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's Law it abrogates its authority. And out loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation to such a tyrannical usurping of power. I would emphasize at this point that Samuel Rutherford was not wrong, he was right; it was not only in the seventeenth century in Scotland where he was right; in was not only in 1776 where he was right; he is right in our century.

So, again, taking things in their context, what has the father said that the son should be so much against? Would Frankie Schaeffer say that physical force is never appropriate? Should Christians like Corrie Ten Boom have not helped Jewish people escape from the Nazis? If Christians should have resisted the Nazis in their murders of the Jewish people, why then should Christians be accepting of the murders of unborn children in the form of abortion? And if the rulers of a nation command what is against God's law, are Christians meekly to submit? Was Peter wrong to tell the rulers in his day that "We ought to obey God rather than men" when the rulers told him and the Apostles to stop preaching in the name of Jesus?

In other words, Dad's followers were told that (1) force is a legitimate weapon to use against an evil government; (2) America was like Hitler's Germany--because of legal abortion and of the forcing of "Humanism" on the population--and thus intrinsically evil; and (3) whatever would have been the "appropriate response" to stop Hitler was now appropriate to do here in America to stop our government, which Dad had just branded a "counterfeit state."

Frankie's entire hate-filled article is meant to somehow link the recent killings in Norway to the conservatives in the US--those who are against legalized abortion, gay marriage, socialized government funding, and the like. In looking at how Frankie absolutely butchers his father's words, one would think that his father was a flaming madman ready to reign down fire and anarchy and death, like the Norway killer.

Rather, here are Francis Schaeffer's own words, from page 126.

And fourth, we must say that speaking of civil disobedience is frightening because there are many kooky people around. People are always irresponsible in a fallen world. But we live in a special time of irresponsible people, and such people will in their unbalanced way tend to do the very opposite from considering the appropriate means at the appropriate time and place. Anarchy is never appropriate.

Francis Schaeffer was not a frothing-at-the-mouth hate-mongerer, unlike what his son seems to have become. If he advocated the use of force, it was entirely as a last resort, after all other attempts had failed, and there was no alternative, like what happened with the American colonies and what led up to the American Revolution. He certainly did not advocate bombing abortion clinics, political assassinations, or the killing of innocent people as political statements.

Francis Schaeffer had nothing to do with what happened in Norway, and it is to his son's everlasting shame that he would try to insinuate it solely for politcal reasons. Frankie Schaeffer has become one of those kooky people his father wrote about, an irresponsible and unbalanced person. His lies are evident here and now.

more lying sojo rhetoric

Alabama Clergy Sue to Stop Anti-Immigrant Law

HB 56, which will go into effect September 1, attacks virtually every aspect of immigrants’ lives. Among many punitive measures, it authorizes police to detain anyone they suspect is undocumented, mandates criminal penalties for those who transport undocumented migrants, and demands that public schools determine the immigration status of all students.

I've thought for a while that the attempts by the left to pretty much equate legal and illegal immigration is intentional, and here is another example.

I've also long thought that I would like to see how these Sojrones would react if we treated their own homes as they want to treat the states--see how they distinguish between people they invite into their own homes and those who sneak in through the windows, between those they invite for dinner and those who sneak in and steal the frig, between those they give money to and those who steal their identity and empty their bank accounts. I have no intention of taking this experiment to reality, though. Unlike liberals, I believe in private property, even the private property of liberals who do not believe in private property for others.

And there is more lying rhetoric in this article.

The law prohibits almost every activity of our St. Vincent de Paul chapters or Catholic Social Services. If it involves an undocumented immigrant, it is illegal to give the disabled person a ride to the doctor; give food or clothing or financial assistance in an emergency; allow them to shop at our thrift stores or to learn English; it is illegal to counsel a mother who has a problem pregnancy, or to help her with baby food or diapers, thus making it far more likely that she will choose abortion…

Now, to be fair and balanced, emphasis mine.

HB-56 FACT SHEET: Combating Illegal Immigration

•Prohibits the transport, concealment, harboring and housing of unauthorized aliens if a person recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is illegally in the U.S. This does not apply to persons acting in the capacity of a child or adult protective service worker, a first responder, an ambulance attendant, or an emergency medical attendant.

I suspected the above rhetoric was mere fear-mongering, and it is. There is nothing in this bill against helping people in emergencies--they aren't going to require fire fighters to make sure a burning home is owned by people here legally or not.

Sojo is shamelessly spreading lies to fit their political agenda. They should be ashamed of themselves.