Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Theonomy’ Category

what-can-we-learn-from-deuteronomic-king-for-today

I have been blown away with Deuteronomy’s discussion of Israel’s king.  First it anticipates a king arising out of Israel hundreds of years before it happened.  Secondly I’m amazed at the limits imposed on the kings of Israel in contrast to other kings of the surrounding region.  And thirdly, I think there are some implication for this today.

Here’s the passage from Deuteronomy 17:14-20:

“When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your [l]countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your [m]countryman. 16 Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never again return that way.’ 17 He shall not multiply wives for himself, [n]or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

18 “Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll [o]in the presence of the Levitical priests. 19 It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, [p]by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his [q]countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.

Now I realize this text is primarily talking about Israel and not say the United States, Canada, etc.  But I think there are some implications for today.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Liberty Defined Ron Paul

Ron Paul. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul.  New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing, April 19th, 2011.325 pp.

            In light of this being an election year I think this book is quite relevant to read even though neither Ron Paul nor his son is in the election.  What I appreciate about Ron Paul is his conscious effort in being principled in his approach towards politics and this book truly reflect what’s important for him: Liberty.  He makes the point that the term liberty can be quite misconstrued today so it is important to talk about what liberty is and the importance of safeguarding it.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

This is part of our short series on Superheroes, Comics and Worldview.  The following are comics that I found intriguing in that they have a political overtone and message.  Specifically they warn the readers of the danger of Statism.

V for Vendetta

V for Vendetta

Alan Moore. V for Vendetta. New York, NY: DC Comics, October 12th, 2005. 296 pp.

I read this nearly a year ago back in January and it still left a strong impression on my mind.  I can only compare to this to George Orwell’s 1984.  It is a 1984 with a superhero, if V could be called that.  Originally written in the 1980s it is a story about a future England in 1997 and 1998 in which the government has become tyrannical and authoritarian with a sole dictator on top who is obsessed with his computer dictating to him things by chance.  As powerful and smart as those within government think they are, one lone vigilante suddenly challenges all that.  What’s incredible is that our hero goes about doing what he does while singing, rhyming and throwing out witty slogans.  This shows the incredible genius of the writer Alan Moore and he even manage to alliterate each section of the book with the letter V.  Incredible.  As our hero carry his subversive campaign to undermine the evil government and cause the people to rise up we are also drawn into the story in learning more of the mystery of the origin of V and his motivation to fight the regime.  Although the story does have a bit of the left leaning taste there is still a powerful lesson about the dangers of Statism.

Christian Reflection: 

As I said earlier this book does have the same feel as 1984.  This reminds us just how dark a tyrannical government can be and how the mass could simply let the government do the evils they do.  While our hero is a lone revolutionary as a Christian we must not believe in vigilante justice or call for the rebellious overthrow of the government.  This of course is different from the duties of the lower magistrate to disobey wrongful orders from their superiors.  Christians must be very careful not to subscribe to the pagan ideology that chaos (revolution) will reproduce order.

NOTE: I did not watch the movie nor do I plan on reading it.

Purchase:Amazon

(more…)

Read Full Post »

homosexuality a biblical view greg bahnsen

The late Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen has written a little known book on a biblical view of homosexuality.  The Evangelical Christian Library has hosted this book for free online here.

Here is the table of Content:

Back Cover of the Book

Preface … 5

1. Basic Commitments … 13

The Foundational Question of Scripture … 14

The Law as an Expression of God’s Will … 19

2. Homosexuality as a Sin … 27

The Creation Account … 28

The Story of Sodom … 31

God’s Law … 35

Romans 1 … 47

3. The Act / Orientation Distinction and Causes of Homosexuality … 63

4. The Response of the Church : Hope for Homosexuals … 85

5. The Response of Society : Homosexual Acts as Criminal … 99

6. Conclusion … 125

Read Full Post »

christian-flag-american-flag

I was asked about my opinion about this news story, “Shelby church to fly Christian flag over American flag.

My take on it?

I was never comfortable with the idea of a Christian flag to begin with. I don’t know why the media made this a big story. The Marines have a saying in terms of priorities: “God. Country. Corps.” They even use it for their advertisement. This is a non-story that media is hyping about; why would the media be surprised that serious Christians put God first?

Read Full Post »

Lenin Face palm

I didn’t plan to write this three part series on the question “Were Early Christians Communists?”  It was originally in response to someone online and it just kind of happened as I thought about it more I ended up writing more.

I think it would be good to have one posts that links the series.  Here are the links to the three posts:

Were Early Christians Communists? Part 1: Acts 5

Were Early Christians Communists? Part 2: The Semantic of Communism

Were Early Christians Communists? Part 3: Matthew 19:21 and Luke 14:33 in Context

Read Full Post »

ananiasandsapphirabiblestory1

There was some discussion on a friend’s blog responding to a nonbeliever’s assertion that Acts 5 demonstrate that the early Christians were Communists.  Acts 5:1-16 is the passage concerning Ananias and Sapphira.

I’ve reproduced my comment here with slight editorial change:

I think the fact that Acts 5 still acknowledged private property does not sit well with a Marxist reading of Acts 5.  Specifically, the Apostle Peter in verse four affirmed the right of private property when he asked Ananias: “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not [b]under your control?”

I would also add that the communal passages such as the one you mentioned here in Acts 5 and also Acts 2:44-45 must also be interpreted in the light of the larger flow of the book of Acts.
We must remember that Acts 1:8 is the “controlling” verse for the direction of the book of Acts. Acts 1:8 is the command Jesus gave the disciples: “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” Note there is an emphasis by Jesus that the Gospel is to go outward that comport with Matthew 28:19-20 (what is commonly called the Great Commission).
It seems in light of Acts 1:8 that this gathering of an internal community sharing things in common is not the thing that Jesus or Acts want to stress as normative for the Christian, but it ought to be one of reaching out. In fact it took God bringing a persecution in Acts 8:1-5 that the Acts 1:8 plan gets unfolded (I think my interpretation is justified, note the echoes of Acts 1:8 in Acts 8:1-5 with the term “Jerusalem,” “Judea” and especially the multiple reference to “Samaria.” This point must not be missed).
Acts 8 onwards is more closer to us in terms of the Christian church era and I think Acts 2-7 with the believers gathering together fits in a specific context of Redemptive History in that it was the early Post-Pentecost age when believers from around the world was still getting to know the Gospel more deeply before eventually going back “home” to all the different parts of the Roman empire (see Acts 2 again) and beyond.

I think to pull these passages as supporting Communism does not take into account the immediate context within Acts 5 nor does it take into account the context of the uniqueness of the event in Redemptive History.  In other words, the case for communism from Acts 2 and 5 fail.

In my next post on Wednesday I will address the issue of the term communism, Marxism and the Soviet State.

Read Full Post »

Rude-Wedding-Inspiration

Introduction:  What are the role of Fathers in courtship? So I officiated my first wedding yesterday!  This last week I watched so many weddings on Youtube.  As I was on Youtube I somehow started analyzing closer a popular music video titled “Rude” by Magic.

You can see the video below:

Background of the Song:

The song was released in October 12th, 2013 in Canada and became an international phenomenon even a year later.   There are now over 120 million viewers since December 2013 (I last checked on September 13th).

The story of the song is sung by the leader of the band Nasri about how he asked his girlfriend’s father for her hand in marriage but the father disapproves but he is going to marry her anyway.

The song’s most catchy and famous lyrics are the following lines:

Why you gotta be so rude?
Don’t you know I’m human too?
Why you gotta be so rude?
I’m gonna marry her anyway

Apparently it provoked a very strong response and debate about the role of fathers, daughters and a daughter’s boyfriend.

There is a response called “The Dad’s Side of the Story” by Benji and Jenna Cowart who are Christians.

The lyrics are funny:

you say you want my daughter for the rest of your life
well you gotta make more than burgers and fries
get out your mommas basement boy and get you a life
son your twenty eight
don’t you think it’s time

why you gotta call me rude
for doing what a dad should do
and keep her from a fool like you
and if if you marry her anyway

And what I think was the funniest lyric in the song:

I may be a christian
but I’ll go to prison
I’m not afraid of doin hard time

This prompted other versions and this was what I found:

– Daughter side of the story

– Mother side of the story

-Christian Mom side of the story

– Big Brother side of the story

– Sister side of the story

In all this, we must ask: what is God’s side of the story? We should consider God’s side of the story in light of Proverbs 1:7= “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

Note we must fear God and obey His ways; but not the opposite is that when we don’t consider God’s wisdom and instruction we are called fools.

If I may have a little fun, an alternative title to today’s post it would be “Why you got to be a fool? Turn with me to Exodus 22…”

  1. Fathers also have the role of protecting their daughter’s purity in regards to relationship and sexual manners: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for herto be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall [a]pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.” (Exodus 22:16-17)
    1. Note there is a penalty for the seduction.
    2. “The man who seduces the virgin must answer to her father.”[1]
    3. The father has the right to refuse her daughter marrying the man (v.17)
    4. He still pays the fine even if the father refuse for them to marry.
  1. Application
    1. Parents:
      1. With daughters…
        1. Are you guys raising your daughters with the intention of preparing them for marriage?
        2. Fathers are you actively involved in being diligent with protecting your daughter’s purity?
        3. Do you talk about values, relationship, courtship and boys?
        4. Have you taught your daughter to introduce any boy interested in her to the parents as soon as possible?
      2. With sons…
        1. Are you guys raising your sons with the intention of preparing them for marriage?
        2. Do you talk about values, relationship, courtship and girls?
        3. Have you taught your son to talk to the parents of someone they want to pursue courtship with?
        4. Have you taught your son to respect the girl’s father by consulting him before the relationship?

Conclusion

I began this post with some humor.  But in conclusion I want to make my point that this is no laughing matter.

It would be a cute funny little song but there’s a darker turn in the original story of the song; according to Wikipedia and substantiated in an interview with Zach Sang that it was:

originally based on a real-life situation. The lead singer of Magic!, Nasri, had been in an unhealthy relationship with a previous girlfriend. One day after an argument erupted and she became harsh, Nasri began singing the lines “Why you gotta be so rude/ don’t you know I’m human too” in what he describes as a “dark vibe.” However, the concept did not work with the band well so it was revised and eventually changed so that Nasri was still dating her, and was asking her father if he could propose to her”[1]

If one watches the Youtube interview Nasri emphasize more than once that their music is authentically who they are and are real.  I can’t help but to wonder if there is any relationship between Nasri’s troubled relationship with his view of “old fashion fathers.”  If someone cannot respect authority that is always a dangerous sign; you don’t want to be under that person as it can get tyrannical and dark.  God’s way is still the best.

[1] Voddie Bauchman Jr., What He Must be…if He wants to Marry my Daughter (Wheaton: Crossway 2009), 56.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rude_(song); see also the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6xgeadEtMQ

Read Full Post »

amazon-reviews

Note: I’m taking a break today from our Saturday Series going through the Book of Jonah since there are some exegetical issues I need to resolve through and re-work my outlines in light of further studies (that’s the good thing about continuous studies, you learn you never arrived even after teaching it and if we are faithful we discover our original interpretations sometimes need some revision).

In light of our break, today I want to update everyone on our Amazon review project which I encourage others to do as salt and light on the internet.

Two months ago I wrote a post “

Basically all my book reviews that I have posted on our blog over the years will be reposted at Amazon.  We review all books from the perspective of the Christian worldview.

I’m a bit behind schedule with posting book reviews over there as it gets pretty tedious.  But today we reached our milestone of 200 Book reviews on Amazon.  Lord willing by the time we get all the reviews up there we will reach 285 reviews or more reviews.

Our Amazon Profile page with the book reviews can be accessed by clicking HERE.

Read Full Post »

Sorry for the delay in posting this essay in our Calvinistic Dispensational Presuppositionalism’s series.Titanic-redo

In July 2012, the popular Presuppositional Apologetics’ blog “Choosing Hats” had a post titled “The Transcendental Argument Against Dispensationalism: What is Dispensationalism?” It was written by one of their contributors who goes by the handle “Ben W.”  The post was supposed to be the first of a series critiquing Dispensationalism.  The opening paragraph made it clear that Ben was “not planning to make a historical argument against Dispensationalism.”  Instead, Ben stated in the last sentence: “As this series continues, we will explore further the developments which Progressive Dispensationalism has made to these tenets and discuss whether or not a consistent application of these hermeneutical principles can allow us to interpret scripture intelligibly and consistently.”  The angle sounds interesting but unfortunately the series was discontinued before any Transcendental argument against Dispensationalism (hereafter TAAD) materialized.  What makes the idea of TAAD interesting is that Presuppositionalism is big with the Transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) and to see another Transcendental argument successfully refute another “ism” further boost Presuppositional apologetics and also advance the thesis advocated by some that Presuppositionalism and Dispensationalism are incompatible.  For those interested, I have written on the topic of hermeneutics, Dispensationalism and Presuppositionalism here but reached an opposite conclusion.

The best argument I’ve seen against Dispensationalism by Presuppositionalists that mimic the Transcendental Argument is offered by those within the Christian Reconstructionist camp.  There are some Christians I know who have an instant knee-jerk reaction to anything Christian Reconstructionism, which is also known as Theonomy, due to a lot of misrepresentations out there (all Theonomists reject salvation by grace alone, they want the Church to persecute non-Christians, etc).  I must say that I have benefited from many Theonomists and what they have to say (see our blog’s tag on the category on Theonomy).  I believe non-Theonomists can benefit from reading Christian Reconstructionists, even if they disagree with them, but that’s another subject for another time.  Here in this post I want to limit the scope to the Theonomists’ “Transcendental” argument against Dispensationalism and whether its argument has any weight.

Christian Reconstructionists are Postmillennial in their eschatology and are critical of Amillennialism and Premillennialism.  In 1990 Gary North published a book titled Millennialism and Social Theory. The inside book flap says “In Millennialism and Social Theory, Dr. Gary North, co-founder of this movement, examines why both pre-millennialism and amillennialism have never developed independent social theories, and why the spokesmen of both positions appeal to the prevailing ethics of contemporary humanism as the only possible way to run society.”  Inside on page 95 North writes

“If there is no cultural alternative to humanism available in history, then the one reasonable Christian response is to pray for either the Rapture (dispensationalism) or the end of history (amillennialism).  (Historic premillennialists and post-tribulational dispensationalists believe that the millennium will come only after Christians have gone through Armageddon and the Great Tribulation.  I have no idea what they pray for.)

Premillennialists and amillennialists share a commitment to a coming cosmic discontinuity as the Church’s great hope in history: deliverance from on high (and in the case of premillennial dispensationalism, deliverance to on high).  Again, citing Norman Geisler: ‘Hence they do not view their present social involvement as directly related to the emergence of the future kingdom of God.  In this respect amillenarians are more like premillennarians and have thereby often escaped some of the extremes of postmillennialism.’  This affirmation of a coming cosmic discontinuity cuts the ground from under the Christian who would seek to discover a uniquely biblical social theory.  It also undercuts the incentive for social action.  Social action becomes a holding action at best and a kamikaze action at worst.”

The result? According to North, “The result is predictable: the absence of Christian social theory” (Page 95).

Here we see an argument where North argues that Christian must have a distinctively Christian social theory (as opposed to that of humanistic and godless social theory); I imagine most Christians who desire to be Biblical would agree.  North argues that amillennialism and premillennialism is a defeater for Christian foundation for Christian social theory because its pessimistic philosophy of history would undermine any social endeavor by the Christian.  As the rest of Gary North’s book argues, Postmillennialism’s philosophy of history is optimistic and is a great foundation for Christian social theory.  We see here the argument is Transcendental in form and hence I think it’s helpful to see it as TAAD.

To simplify the above, think of the following illustration from the Titanic.

Titanic orchestra

 

Let’s say you know the ship will sink.  As Theonomists love to quote from Vernon McGee, “Do you polish brass on a sinking ship?”  If you knew that the ship is going to sink at any moment, it seems that polishing brass is relatively unimportant or for that matter anything that doesn’t contribute to survival such as playing music! This illustration originated with McGee but it has been recycled by Theonomists against McGee’s own Dispensationalism ever since Gary North employed it on page 100 of his 1993 book Rapture Fever.  This illustration and argument is really an “internal critique” of Dispensationalism since it attempts to adopt the view of Dispensationalism to show how it is internally problematic.  Again, internal critique is an important Presuppositional apologetics’ motif.

While it’s a powerful and vivid illustration I think it’s an inadequate illustration and argument: In the scenario of the sinking ship, it does not account for the reality of spiritual warfare that will always be the context of constructing any Christian social theory against the prevailing false and unbiblical social theory of the World.  I imagine a better illustration is the following:

There is a big war between the forces of darkness and the forces of light.  You are a warrior in the forces of light.  You know that the eventual outcome would be victory of the side of Light.  However, the outcome of individual battles is not something you know.  Your immediate group of men are surrounded and it seems that as the battle rages on, your sector has all the factors stacked up against you.  Surrounded and having several grounds lost to the enemy, the enemies proposes you surrender and surrender means you must now switch allegiance and fight against the very forces of light.  The other option is futile resistance and you will be anhiliated.  You want to please your King no matter the personal cost.  What will you do?

MarineFallujah

Again, I believe this is a better illustration because it captures the ethical and spiritual warfare dimension of the Christian.  This is also a better illustration because all Christians know that victory is in the Lord and there is a sense of optimism that even Dispensationalists hold on to with the Lord’s victory.  However, where Premillennialists are not as optimistic is the more nearer aspect of End Times events which this illustration captures.  Futhermore, the illustration seems to be more fitting because it stresses the issue is one of faithfulness rather than the pursuit of meaningless activity.

Seen from this angle, one can be dispensational and not have one’s eschatology undermine the meaningfulness of studying and applying a distinctively Christian social theory.  To mix Kuypers’ and Van Til’s illustrations, every square inch is own by God, even those squandered by rebellious renters who do not show respect for the Lord who owns it.  If every sphere belongs to the Lord, we as Christians must be faithful to the Lord in every sphere we are involved with.  It comes down to an issue of being faithful to God despite the opposition and personal costs.  Even if the situation seems very pessimistic, one should continue to be faithful to God in every sphere one is involved in.  We know compromising does not mean peace, but rather that we have now switch sides and at the very least we are enabling the enemy to advance, if not even more, actively fighting God’s Side.

As any good Marine knows, surrender is not an option.  Sometimes it means we lose the battle but we’re not going to be unfaithful to the One who is ALWAYS FAITHFUL.

Read Full Post »

Van Til and the Limit of Reason

This is a book that has been recently published towards the end of 2013 by Chalcedon Foundation. This work is a compilation of writings by R.J. Rushdoony by his son Mark Rushdoony on the insight of the Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til. When I first heard about this work I wanted to get it because Rushdoony was one of Van Til’s early expositor, having written several works expounding his ideas and also applying his apologetics towards other areas as well. Rushdoony’s The One and the Many is one such example in which Van Til’s argument that the Trinity is the solution to the philosophical problem of the one and the many gets some more pages of application especially in the area of critiquing political philosophy. In Van Til and the Limit of Reasons, the first part of the book (chapters 1-3) was originally a booklet on Van Til that Rushdoony wrote for the Modern Thinkers Series in 1960. I have seen this booklet once at a used Christian bookstore years ago and haven’t been able to find it since, so I am happy to see it being republished as three chapters in this present work. I’m also happy that this will also reach a newer audience in our modern world of kindle and the internet. According to the beginning of the book, chapters four through seven are published for the first time. Chapter three is the longest chapter of the book and what seems to me the meat of the book. Rushdoony has a good and memorable analogy from the children story of the Emperor having no clothes to illustrate the task of Christian apologetics: we are exposing the uniblical worldview and philosophy around us as intellectually bankrupt and empty. In this chapter Rushdoony quotes heavily from Van Til’s syllabus Metaphysic of Apologetics and Van Til’s essay titled “Nature and Scripture” in a compilation work by Westminster Theological Seminary titled The Infallible Word. Van Til’s Metaphysic of Apologetics is better known by it’s later publication title A Survey of Christian Epistemology. On page 45 Rushdoony has an excellent discussion distinguishing the difference between ultimate and immediate starting point. This is helpful for readers who might be struggling with the objection that some people have that as human beings we practically begin our starting point with ourselves and what we experience. Van Til’s point was to distinguish between our immediate starting point and the foundation for those starting point, what he calls the ultimate starting point. One of the things I like about reading Rushdoony is following the trail of endnotes of the fascinating documentation of what people think and say. The first half of the book quotes work heavily from the first half of the twentieth century but the second half of the book even quote a work as recent as the 1990s (remember, Rushdoony died in 2001). For the end notes, there is a mistake in which chapter six is titled “Rationalism and Sentimentalism” and chapter seven is titled “The Irrationalism of Rationalism.” It should be the other way around. Examining the end notes and the date of the publication of the works cited made me realized at how old some of these chapters have been written—not necessarily a bad thing but it made me appreciate just how early Rushdoony came around to Van Til’s apologetics and further examine his heavy reading load in light of a Van Tillian framework. The fact that it was written very early also made it valuable to me in terms of historical insight; there are several instances I was surprised to see references to Herman Dooyeweerd. For instance chapter two suggests the optimism of Reformed philosophy during the early days of Dooyeweerd, Van Til and other translators of Dutch Reformed philosophy. I realized Rushdoony’s son in law later published The Twilight of Western Civilization and I can’t help but to imagine Rushdoony had something to do with it but in the end Van Til and Dooyeweerd ended up disagreeing.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this as the first work for someone new to Presuppositional apologetics to read; it require some familiarity with Van Til’s theme and a knowledge of philosophers such as Kant, Hume, etc. But I would recommend this if you want to see how Van Til’s idea eventually shape Rushdoony, and in turn Rushdoony’s application of Van Til here and elsewhere.

Note: Available on Kindle.

Read Full Post »

3982591_orig

These are links on Presuppositional apologetics from around the Web between October 22nd-31st.  Enjoy!

1.) The Christian World View: Rational Predispositions That Support Truth

2.) Jack Kettler on Mormonism

3.) Antitheism Presupposes Theism (3)

4.) Facebook Epistemology [10/27/2013]

5.) Are Atheists Just Guessing? A follow up on a broken thought

6.) The Rape of Morality

Read Full Post »

The Roots of Obama's Rage

Get it on Amazon

I must say I was skeptical of this book before reading it since I am biased against the author. My reading of Dinesh D’Souza in the past has been rather disappointing. But this is probably his better work and he did a good job enough that I’m thinking about reading his follow up work on Obama. D’Souza is a better author on politics than he is on Christianity (the subject of the first two books I read by him). Here in this book D’Souza presents the biography of president Obama and argues that Obama’s public policy is best understood in light of the narrative of Obama’s upbringing. D’Souza argues that it’s not so much the narrative of Obama as the African American that is the predominate theme explaining Obama’s presidency but Obama the child who grew up in the third world and lived in the imagination of his father’s home country of Kenya. Typically I’m cautious with psycho-assertions of why people do what they do but I think this book does make the case powerfully that Obama’s radical upbringing by his mom to be like his dad and his experiences in Indonesia living with his mom that shaped him to become the man who’s ideology is to bring equality between the US and other third world nations. The strength of D’Souza’s argument to me is his analysis of Obama’s book on his father written before he publicly campaigned for president. It’s amazing to think of how Obama barely knew his father growing up but sees him almost as a god. It was quite sad reading this book to imagine the young Obama who looks up and idealized the father he never really knew. It’s no secret to those who follow Obama today that Obama’s father was far from a saint, a radical ideologue who was a dead beat husband, a drunkard who fathered many children with multiple women through affairs. Obama’s infatuation of seeking his father’s approval at times from Obama’s own word seems almost religious, with even the motif of crisis of faith and renewal. D’Souza book is captivating and made me want to learn more about Obama—not just policy but who this man who keeps much to himself is and his worldview.

Read Full Post »

Note: Pray for this post as I am pondering if I should forward this to Anthony Weiner on Twitter.

Anthony Weiner

Some people don’t know how to blush and have shame, you have to blush and be ashamed for them.  Another sign of the times.

The disgraced former Jewish Congressman Anthony Weiner, who is currently a candidate for the major of New York and has issues with sending pictures of himself to women online, has just engaged in a shameful shouting match with a Jewish Voter.

You can see it here:

What disturbs me is the fact that he can go up to a law abiding citizen who voices his concern with Anthony Weiner and he can go on to scream and yell at this voter.

Most disturbing of all is the fact that Anthony Weiner keeps on repeating “Who are you to judge?”  Four things needed to be said about this video.

(1) Let’s start off politically in evaluating his statements in light of the political system of this country.  As a person running for office, voters have the responsibility and the duty to “judge” and make sure they pick the right candidate for office.  That’s the job of the voter!  This is something Weiner needs to understand:  Politicians are accountable to the people.  And if a politician thinks the people does not have a right or basis to judge their elected officials, that is pretty scary; there’s no telling what this kind of dangerous mentality of someone office will do.  I don’t think anyone should vote for him to be governor on this point alone.

(2) Moreover, according to the Jewish Scripture, we see what happens when those in political authority such as the Judges end up being immoral in their life and subscribe to relativism.  The book of Judges is an indicting work of the chaos that follows.  Again and again the book of Judges states this line: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.”  It is frightening to think that Weiner’s form of ethics is one that he could do whatever he want as he sees fit.  In terms of the Jewish Scripture, this is definitely something God does not approve of.   We know where sexual immorality took Judges, Kings and leaders of Israel so Weiner and those who believe in the Scripture should be warned of it’s consequences.

(3) The Jewish guy’s comment about Anthony being a bad example is right on in terms of the Jewish Scripture.  Proverbs 22:24-25 states: “Do not associate with a man given to anger; Or go with a hot-tempered man, 25 Or you will learn his ways And [a]find a snare for yourself.”  While this passage talks about not associating with one who is hot tempered, I think it makes the point that the purpose of this is so that  you will not learn his way (see verse 25).  How much more so you don’t want to put someone in a position of leadership or a pedal-stool that’s angry, because others will follow.

(4) I don’t want this to be political since I’m more concern about Weiner’s guilt before God.  Is Weiner aware of the Ten Commandments: ““You shall not commit adultery.”  Anthony Weiner, before the sight of God, have you committed adultery before?  If so, what does that make you?  I imagine Weiner will probably say to me the same thing he said to this Jewish man: “Go talk to your Rabbi.”  Weiner said more than once about asking your Rabbi.  My Rabbi once said,

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye makes you [w]stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you [x]to lose one of the parts of your body, [y]than for your whole body to be thrown into [z]hell. 30 If your right hand makes you [aa]stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you [ab]to lose one of the parts of your body, [ac]than for your whole body to go into [ad]hell.

(Reference: Matthew 5:27-30)

As He said, there’s consequences of hell.  It’s even better to pluck out our eyes (v.29) but we can keep lusting in our minds.

What we really need is to confess our guilt before God, and trust in Jesus and His Work on the Cross by dying for our sin, and our place of punishment.  Jesus is the Lord and Savior for Jews and Gentiles!  Confess, Repent, and Trust that God can forgive our sins by His Grace Alone In Christ Alone Through faith alone.

Read Full Post »

Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States

I believe that in the long run, gay marriage activism does have serious legal difficulties for Bible Believing churches sometime in the near future.  Of course, many supporters would deny this because they don’t see it coming, since they are engulfed with seeing the issue of gay marriage as a civil right.  An individual on facebook wrote the following concerning gay marriage in light of a discussion about California’s Prop 8 going to the Supreme Court:

 But it is at its core denying civil liberties. No one is saying your church should be forced to go against its faith. If your church does not believe in marrying same sex couples then that is its right protected by the first amendment to practice your religious faith. But to tell an individual that they cannot have the same liberties as others based on a religious faith outside of the church is a civil rights issues.

My response:

I hope this would not seem like I want to attack you or anyone personally. I think legally one must also recognize the distinction between two separate institutions (church and state) and from there realize that it was the people via the state that passed prop 8 and not the church that implemented it; hence any discussion about what the church imposes would seem to me to be an inaccurate assessment of what’s going on. Remember the important legal distinction that the church as an institution is not the same thing as a bloc of voters who hapen to be Christian, religious, what have you. Furthermore I also think your citation of the No Religious Test Clause in the Constitution has no bearing concerning the Supreme Court debate about the definition of marriage since that is in regards to the protective rights of those in political office and not what a people of a state can and cannot decide in an election; ironically, if someone wants to make the case that voters being voters are in some sense serving in a legal capacity of a “political office,” I think to forbid religious people to vote on their religious conviction concerning the definition of marriage would be to violate the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause because now you are saying that legally one should not vote that way if one has that particular religious conviction. I think the scary thing for me is the greater legal ramification and precedence set if Prop 8 gets struck down by SCOTUS, since as a part of the State Constitution it could be struck down despite following correct Constitutional procedure; it would undermined the very process of the people being involve with political decision-making if the court is able to do this; and the rights of the people of California would then be violated. I think if people want to pass gay marriage they should not do it via the courts but rather legislatively via people’s voting for a referendum and elected legislative body (I am speaking about the legal procedure though of course, I would be opposed to gay marriage on the other side of this political process). The court is not the place to do it. I also don’t think Gay marriage is a civil’s right issue since I don’t think any actual concrete substantive right is being violated given the current legal recognition of civil unions.  Homosexual already have their civil unions; but moving a homosexual union to the status of marriage opens up a legal can of worm and religious intolerance for it sets up a dangerous ground for legal standing against churches and clerics that are involved with marriage ceremony who religious conviction is that they believe it is wrong.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »