A brief Introduction:While studying to be a pastor in college I abandoned my faith. In fact, I abandoned everything I thought I believed and rebuilt.
To my own surprise at the time, I found that Christianity was much stronger than I had thought. As I rebuilt my belief system, I realized that there needed to be people out there responding to the questions people have. I had them myself. So, while not continuing on to be a pastor, I have focused on educating people about what Christianity is all about and responding to the various charges and accusations made against it.
There are some obvious challenges to being successful in that capacity, but a big part of it consists not in arguing with atheists and skeptics, but rather in providing Christians with accurate information in the first place to prevent them from leaving the faith in the first place.
Questioning is a very normal and natural part of growing up, and I am convinced that it is not wrong to ask questions of God at any age. God doesn't strike people down. On the other hand, if people are going to reject Christianity, it is my aim to at least make sure they reject the real Christianity and not a false view of it. Also, much heartache can be avoided by educating Christians properly to begin with. My experience has helped me... but it was unnecessary.
Paul said that some plant, some water, and others reap the increase. My job is to go out into the land and move rocks- or break them if necessary- till the land, and struggle through knee deep fertilizer... all in the effort to allow those who come later to plant, water, and reap the harvest. I look forward to the prospects of either serving you as someone who needs to haul rocks out of the field, or as someone who can look at the field, detect problems, and help farmers more effectively plant, water, and reap.
The impact that Saul Alinksy’s ideology had in the thinking of the man currently occupying the office of the presidency, one Barack Hussein Obama, is well documented. Thus, I will not document it myself, and submit the reader to Google.
Having only read excerpts of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, I was pleased to have the opportunity to sit down and read it for myself in its entirety. Knowing how influential Alinksy was for the young Obama (and many others who now occupy seats of power) I am more worried than I was before now that I’ve actually read this book. Go to the library and pick up the book. You need to read it.
The subtitle of the book is “A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” It is not an inappropriate subtitle. Alinsky is all about pragmatism and realism. Alinsky is dismissive of ethical questions related to the question “Does the end justify the means?” He says:
The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s “conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action”; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them. (pg 25, chapter titled: Of Means and Ends) Read the rest of the entry… »
Over the last week or so I have had several opportunities to tell people about Barack Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive legislation in Illinois which would have required medical assistance to babies that survive the abortion procedure. Without exception, each of these individuals was unaware of the issue.
It would be one thing if people were aware of this but dismissed it or factored it in- or even the unthinkable: they approve of it- but to not even be aware? This I think is the fault of the ‘average American’ and his level of investigation into candidates and claims and the Media’s failure to do its duties impartially and exhaustively.
In the cases I mentioned there was one where they proposed that perhaps it was rare and perhaps Obama was right that existing law covered it so why go the additional step?
I turned up this ’sting’ operation on Planned Parenthood where the nurse admits that survivals continue to happen and whatever ‘existing law’ might ‘cover’ such situations, it isn’t being enforced. Decide for yourself if you want a president who will oppose such legislation with such clear moral weight behind it.
Here was my source article for more background: http://www.lifenews.com/nat4515.html
And here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnlHNbAh6xY
A friend of mine made a comment today that I thought hit the nail on the head. In response to Obama’s statement recently, that [paraphrase], “My opponents have called me every name in the book, and now they are calling me a Socialist. They recently found out that as a kindergartener I shared my toys, and as a child I tore apart my peanut butter sandwiches and gave them to my friend, and they call me a redistributioner. MY Bible says that we are supposed to look after others. I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper.”
She said:
“spreading my own wealth, yes… taking others’ wealth and spreading it… resoundingly NO”
There is a large group of Americans who believe that religious motives are not permitted expression in the public domain. These secular humanists believe that you must have a secular reason for whatever you do within the public domain or else it is a violation of church and state. I don’t suppose that any of these secular humanists- 95% of whom will be voting for Obama- object to Obama’s ‘motives’ as expressed above.
Obama’s sentiment really expresses the gross error of most Christians who vote Democratic. Their motives are sincere enough. They really want to help people. They look at the New Testament and see calls for compassion to the poor and weak. They fail to note that this call is for individuals- there is no justification given for the taking of resources from unwilling parties to give to others. Not in Jesus’ name… not in anyone’s name.
It is unfortunate that this sincere compassion for the poor and weak does not often extend itself to the poorest and weakest among us- the unborn. But there it is, it doesn’t.
There is, in fact, both secular and religious reasons to be concerned about people who wish to use the State to be ‘brother’s keeper.’ Personally, reading Obama’s statement that he is ‘his brother’s keeper’ in this context put chills down my spine. He aims to be the epitome of ‘Big Brother.’ We need not go to the book 1984 to see the dangers when ‘Big Brother’ to see what abuses can arise. Using the government to ‘help’ people means that a select few within the government will have to decide who needs help and what kind of ‘help’ is necessary.
Here we must speak about Obama’s long term association with Bill Ayers and other individuals. (I read a blog entry recently that pointed out that according to an FBI manager, Obama wouldn’t pass the FBI’s background check. Yipes!) In this National Review Article, the hypocrisy of the LA Times refusing to publish the video of a glowing toast that Barack Obama gave to a certain Rashid Khalidi a few years back. Author Andrew McCarthy points out that the original article failed to note that Bill Ayers and his wife was there and that Khalidi and Ayers are good friends.
We are talking about a man with some very unnerving associations vying for the position of ‘Big Brother,’ “Brother’s Keeper in Chief.” But how bad could it be?
Remember, someone has to decide. If it is Barack, we are reasonable to wonder what kinds of principles undergird those decisions. Who/what has influenced him? 20 years in a ‘Black Liberation’ church attacking America in every other breath? Years as Ayer’s friend? A friend of a ‘Death to Israel’ former PLO member now (of course) teaching in an American University? Are we not permitted to draw reasonable inferences from these associations? If the LA Times refuses to publish a video, if the Hawaii governor refuses to release Obama’s ‘Vault’ birth certificate, if Kenya (who ought have no records in the first place) seals Obama’s records, isn’t it reasonable to infer the worst?
Or, perhaps we just don’t understand the nature of these affiliations. I admit that I didn’t understand the Bill Ayer’s thing until recently. I didn’t know much about the Weather Underground, unlike those hoary ancients who know everything. I didn’t understand until this Youtube Video of a man who had infiltrated the Weathermen:
[Summary: Weather Underground aims to murder the 25 million capitalists that could not be 're-educated' if the WU managed to take over the government.]
Now, just think: With Obama, the founder of the organization described in the video above is just one step away. Are we really so certain that the Weather Underground is dismantled? Are we really so sure that in just a couple of days, they may have obtained the control they’ve sought all along?
Even if that is an over-statement, realize that the ’someone must decide’ issue still remains. The Weather Underground was acting ‘for the good of society.’ In their minds, they were ‘helping’ people. Anyone who knows an ounce of history should always be nervous about the government ‘helping’ people- even if Obama was as pure as the wind driven snow. Not even if it was Billy Graham or Dobson. It is always dangerous and when done always requires extremely robust checks and balances.
Yes, secular humanists prefer us all to have merely secular motives, and Christians on the left think that the government is a useful tool for advancing Christian charity. But it was atheists who thought they were doing the ‘good of the people’ and ‘helping’ as they slaughtered millions upon millions… and it was Christians who were silent, or complicit. Why do we think we can out-smart history? Why do we think there can never be a next time?
With Barack Obama, you are only a heart beat away from a whole host of associations with people whose ideology has been shown to be downright dangerous. We are being asked to overlook this. Any time a person believes it is right to take from someone else to give to another, whether in the name of compassion or not, someone must decide what to take, and why, and how. Barack Obama wants to be that ’someone.’
But hey, perhaps this is all an over-reaction. Maybe he distinguishes himself from Ayer’s views on the one critical point that Ayers would have murdered 25 million people while Obama thinks that its just best to keep them in re-education camps. *shrug* This is the kind of thing we’d only know after it is too late. But don’t blame me… I voted for the other guy.
Answer: They should inform themselves and then absolutely vote against him.
I am writing expressly to Christians here so bear this in mind.
In my email box I have a letter from a Christian pastor saying that he is voting pro-life, which means he is voting for Obama, on the grounds that protecting the environment is protecting everyone’s life. McCain, of course, is on the global warming band wagon, so on its face the comment seems unnerving. In light of what abortion is and the scale of which it occurs in our country, though, complaining about the environment while the abortion issue is on the table seems to me like complaining about the pollution made by the furnaces of one of Hitler’s death camps as it incinerates tens of thousands of Jews a day. I guess what I’m saying is that I agree that the environment is important, but set against the deaths of millions of people a year before they’ve even had a chance to take their first breath… well, first things first, is all I’m saying.
Because of Obama’s extreme and radical position on abortion- far more extreme then Hillary Clinton or many other Democrats- I wonder if a Christian can in good conscience vote for Obama.
I will not dwell on the point. Let me rather provide two links that I hope will put it into context and compel the Christian who does not agree with me to arrive at the same opinion.
Here is the first link. It is a well stated description of just how extreme Obama is on this score. Incidentally, it also takes aim at Christians voting for Obama: Public Discourse.
Here is the second link. It makes a very pointed comparison with child sacrifice: truly, the Canaanites never did anything as bad as we are doing today. Judeo-Christian Worldview.
Because I believe that the unborn are really persons abortion is a huge issue for me. I am generally sympathetic to some pro-choicers… some of them lack the imagination required to treat as a human person something that doesn’t quite look like a human. I still vehemently reject the position but I’m sympathetic. But what Obama is advocating removes any hope for sympathy. Obama is in support of partial birth abortion and voted against legislation that would have required giving medical treatment to a child that survives the abortion.
If you’d like to see what happens in partial birth abortion click here. Jill Stanek was a key person in bringing to light the fact that in Illinois, children that survive the abortion are put into a ‘utility’ room until finally they die. Now she has documented Obama’s resistance to the ‘born alive’ while he was involved in Illinois politics, here. Though Obama decried this all as a ‘lie’ he has offered shifting reasons for why he did what he did (so I guess it wasn’t a lie, after all!) and Stanek documents those, here.
Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that’s because it’s not true. The — here are the facts.
…
With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception.
And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that’s why I voted present, because I’m willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.
It is true. Obama expects that no one will notice the sleight of hand here. It is true, he did vote against that legislation, but today the reason is because the legislation was redundant. It is true. I guess it all depends on what the definition of is, is. Only Obama makes it sound better.
Barack, if you think you’ve got good reasons for what you did then be man enough to admit you did them when you turn around and give the reasons for why you did them.
It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a woman’s life is in such jeapordy where it is safer to deliver the child all the way up to the head where you jam a knife into the skull and suck out the brains then to deliver the child altogether, at the very least by c-section.
And naturally, if the child is already out of the womb then the ‘life of the mother’ is no longer in danger, right? Therefore the question of the health of the mother ought to be moot. According to some versions of Obama’s opposition to the ‘born alive’ legislation (see link to list above), Obama didn’t want to ascribe personhood status to these children because it could jeapordize Roe vs. Wade.
I’m sorry, but I don’t want a man for president who is willing to write off for dead people who are clearly people- clearly to everyone- in furtherance of an agenda, and then lies about it. I can’t imagine how such a person sleeps at night. I definitely don’t want him sleeping in the White House.
PS, it is entirely debateable that Obama really would support bans of any kind. He seems to prefer removing them altogether for any reason whatsoever. This article outlines Obama’s views, including some statements to Planned Parenthood, which you just know are going to be rich.
Last week a Democrat lady said that Sarah Palin’s chief credential seemed to be that she had not had an abortion. She later tried to apologize (I have no idea why) saying the comment arose in the context of a discussion about ‘one issue’ voters. I have occasionally met people who have ‘one issue’ which isn’t abortion but it seems rare to me. ‘One issue voters’ seems to be a reference to those in the abortion debate.
One thing that I’ve noticed is that pro-choice people are as likely to be ‘one issue’ voters as pro-lifers with the difference being that the pro-choicers happen to agree with so many other aspects of liberalism that they really think they have more than one issue in play. Anyway, pro-lifers I think get a bad rap here because this is no ordinary one issue.
If you believe that the unborn ‘thing’ is not a ‘thing’ at all but a person entitled to the rights and privileges that we accord other persons, then it obviously follows that legalized abortion on demand will be something that apalls you. According to this belief, some 40,000,000 people, in the US alone, have died since Roe vs. Wade.
Let us set aside for a moment the dispute about when the unborn becomes worthy of personhood status.
Let me ask a simple question: if the candidate was right on 99 out of a 100 issues but the one he was wrong on was that he wanted to finish the job that Hitler left unfinished and exterminate all the rest of the Jews, would you be able to overlook that?
I want to meet the person who would vote for a candidate who was right on everything else but wanted to slaughter millions of Jews. I doubt such a person exists, but if he does, I want to meet him, if only so I can know where he is at all times.
Now, ‘only’ six million Jews were killed by Hitler and another couple of million of handicapped, etc. Compared to that, what has been done in the ‘land of the free and home of the brave’ blows it out of the water. IF you believe that the unborn are persons then it makes complete and utter sense that this is ‘one issue’ which demands your 100% attention. You may even be willing to vote for a person who is only right 50 out of a 100 times, if they at least get this one honkingly huge issue right.
The reason why pro-choice people believe ‘one issue’ voting is absurd is because they of course don’t believe that the unborn represents real people. When they try to persuade us ‘one issue’ people the underlying presumption is that they are correct in their unbelief. It is one more example of talking at cross purposes.
The really sad part of this is that in the face of the prospect that millions and millions of real persons have died and are dying, the pro-choicers cannot give us an alternative view that can say with any kind of objectivity exactly when the ‘thing’ becomes a person. Imagine cornering your neighborhood Nazi during World War 2 and asking him to differentiate between the ‘personhood’ status of Germans and the ‘personhood’ status of Jews. You’re just supposed to ‘get it.’
As far as I’m concerned, so long as there is any reasonable possibility that the unborn are persons, prudence and good moral sense demands that we protect them. Though I doubt it will ever come, if there were ever a day when we were quite certain about the point when the unborn ‘magically’ becomes a person apart from conception, I might be willing to change my tune. With a large element of pro-choicers out there willing to support measures such as ‘partial birth abortion‘ right up to the last stage of pregnancy, I strongly believe that moment will ever come, in large part because people who are willing to do things like that, I believe, do not really care to define such a moment. It isn’t even on their radar.
For these reasons and more, I am a proud one issue voter. I am under no illusions about the other things I have to tolerate that I don’t like nor am I unaware that political candidates may decide to take advantage of this, opposing abortion with their lips but never acting. That is still better than voting for someone who with both lips and action perpetuate the American Holocaust.
This morning I woke up to a fascinating news report describing out the ADF is seeking churches to make political statements so that the IRS can penalize the churches, giving the ADF a vehicle to challenge the tax exemption requirement that such entities refrain from making political statements.
This is the sort of ‘fighting fire with fire’ approach that we need today. The ACLU and the FFRF have been going bonkers trying to create court cases that further their cause. It is high time Christians and religious people did the same.
One of the reasons why I have not made my own ministry tax exempt is precisely for the reasons described in this article. I did not want to be muzzled on political affairs. Moreover, one of the underlying themes of my apologetics ministry is that beliefs and actions are intertwined. One’s politics are not in a separate box that never touch the ‘religion’ box. A person who says he has no such box certainly does. He might just call it something a little different, like an ‘inferred metaphysical statement.’ So, we all have this box, whatever we call it.
Despite the close connection between beliefs and actions in reality, we like to pretend that connection isn’t so clear. It must be confessed, too, that in today’s day and age it is much easier to believe one thing and act another way. With the all out assault on the idea that there is an objective truth and reality out there, many people have their beliefs but are timid about expressing them in action. But this isn’t really a case where beliefs don’t lead to actions, it is really the exact opposite. The timidity itself arise from a belief, expressed in a question like this: “Who am I to say what is true?” Read the rest of the entry… »
Besides a CP blogger, I am also the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries. I am proud to announce that our ministry will be hosting its first annual online apologetics conference this May, 2010. […]
