As Christians, we are required to follow the 10 Commandments. We of course don't follow them in the sense that we derive our salvation from them as with the Jews, rather our salvation is from Jesus Christ alone. We are however required to follow them as they are a righteous expression of our love and reverence for Almighty God.
Many of us may think of our respective nations as Christian nations, but are they really? We are often wooed by candidates who try to mention their faith in Jesus as often as they can, but do they really believe?
One of the ways you tell if your nation is a nation after God's own heart, and whether a political candidate is indeed a godly representative, is how they address taxation. This may be a new idea for some of you, but yes indeed, taxes are a form of theft and therefore violate the 7th Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19)
It's a scary proposition isn't it? I'm sure you're thinking that if you get rid of taxes you will have no services and chaos will ensue. Not so fast. According to CNBC, Denmark has the highest taxes as a percentage of GDP at 48.2%. So imagine bringing home only half of your paycheck for a second. Now, some may argue Denmark has great services. So what if they had no taxes? They would still have good services. You see when you cut taxes, you're not cutting spending. 48.2% of Denmark's income instead of being spent by the government, would instead be spent on the Danish people themselves. The people themselves would be involved with deciding how they would like to spend their own money, most likely through participation of local organizations. Genuine local organizations, not the local branch of a national organization. The people would have the choice to decide what sectors of the economy they would like to promote by choosing to purchase some product, service or donating to that sector. Instead of your money being collected federally and dispersed on the other side of the country, you yourself could disperse your own money locally where you think it matters most.
And for my American friends who are probably panicking because of the implication of cutting military spending, first I'd like to point out that military spending is not the same as defence spending. Think of it this way, whenever you hear military spending, think offensive spending - that is spending overseas because everyone is a potential threat. In the mental health profession, this is considered paranoia, just you know. And since I know a lot of you Americans who support offensive spending like to call yourselves Christians, I invite you to explain to me in the comments section exactly how you justify breaking the 7th Commandment in order to break the 5th Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill?" (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17)
And since some of you like to justify for example the Bush Administration's lie the Saddam Hussein had WMDs in order to invade Iraq for oil, you are also invited to explain why you support the breaking of the 8th Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour," (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20) so that you could break the 5th Commandment, in order to break the 9th and 10th Commandment, "Thou shalt not covet they neighbours' house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's?" (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21)
I digress, so let's return to taxation being theft. It's pretty simple. You agree that taking money from your neighbour is stealing, no? So how is it that hiring the government to steal that money from your neighbour some how okay? And if you refuse to pay-up, you face fines and imprisonment. This is exactly how the mafia works too. They offer you protection for a fee, and if you refuse they get some goons to come and rough you and your family up, and thus make you pay the fee. Government works the exact same way.
The government is supposed to protect your rights (life, liberty, pursuit of meaningful existence) and that is it. They are not suppose to rob everyone and then reward certain sectors of society be it corporations, education, or whatever.
So what do you do? Elect those to office who want to slash offensive spending, lower the rate of theft - oh sorry, taxation- and so on. For you Americans that are reading this, you choice is a simple one: http://www.ronpaul.com/. For the rest of us, let us ask ourselves if we really believe in Jesus Christ, and then act accordingly.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Creation, Darwin, and Evolution
I watched the film creation quite some time ago. I didn't finish it, due to it's glaring historical inconsistencies and outright lies. The main one of course being near the beginning when one of Darwin's countrymen went on a tirade and proclaimed that Darwin had killed God. Such a statement is an extremely ignorant.
First of all, Darwin did not actually create the theory of evolution. He had learned about it from his father, who had learned it from his father, and so forth. In truth the idea of evolution has been around since before Jesus Christ. It's an idea first proposed by the Ancient Greeks and has actually always been at peace with the Church.
Second of all, the theory of evolution never killed God. If you actually read the theory of evolution you will find that like all good scientific theories it is neutral on the question of God. This is because the question of God is a philosophical question, and not a scientific one. However, one can certainly add their own interpretation and use to the theory if they feel so obliged. This is what we call new atheists do, by proposing that evolution is how man came about and not by the hand of God. I and others, propose that evolution is actually precisely how God created man. The theory itself, however, remains neutral.
Thirdly, the decades following Darwin's publishing of "Origin of Species," actually saw a strengthening of faith in England. Indeed, it was actually hailed by some of the Anglican bishops there. Hardly, a killing of of God and religion.
So where did this idea that Darwin killed God come from? It was actually a reaction of sorts. You see, creationism, the idea of a literal account of creation in Genesis, only really solidified in the 60's oddly enough as a response to the chaos and sexual revolution at the time. In short, it was an attempt at control and return to stability. Later, in reaction to the newly founded creationism, there came about ultra-Darwinists which sought to use the theory of evolution to prove God did not exist. So you see this silliness came about long after Darwin and in fact had very little to do with him. That's why it's so unfortunate that the sentiments I described above made it into the film.
Darwin, who was a Christian at the time he authored Origin of Species, did not lose his faith because of it, but rather due to the loss of his dear daughter. From the examination of the historical record at best you could make the claim that he became an agnostic.
What prompted all of this, you may be thinking? Last night I watched "State of the Nation 2" with creationist Ken Ham on YouTube. It illustrates the cognitive dissonance of both creationists as well as ultra-Darwinists who think evolution is all that really matters. If you would like exposure to something that will actually inform you, the BBC put out an excellent documentary, "Did Darwin Kill God?" which I highly recommend.
First of all, Darwin did not actually create the theory of evolution. He had learned about it from his father, who had learned it from his father, and so forth. In truth the idea of evolution has been around since before Jesus Christ. It's an idea first proposed by the Ancient Greeks and has actually always been at peace with the Church.
Second of all, the theory of evolution never killed God. If you actually read the theory of evolution you will find that like all good scientific theories it is neutral on the question of God. This is because the question of God is a philosophical question, and not a scientific one. However, one can certainly add their own interpretation and use to the theory if they feel so obliged. This is what we call new atheists do, by proposing that evolution is how man came about and not by the hand of God. I and others, propose that evolution is actually precisely how God created man. The theory itself, however, remains neutral.
Thirdly, the decades following Darwin's publishing of "Origin of Species," actually saw a strengthening of faith in England. Indeed, it was actually hailed by some of the Anglican bishops there. Hardly, a killing of of God and religion.
So where did this idea that Darwin killed God come from? It was actually a reaction of sorts. You see, creationism, the idea of a literal account of creation in Genesis, only really solidified in the 60's oddly enough as a response to the chaos and sexual revolution at the time. In short, it was an attempt at control and return to stability. Later, in reaction to the newly founded creationism, there came about ultra-Darwinists which sought to use the theory of evolution to prove God did not exist. So you see this silliness came about long after Darwin and in fact had very little to do with him. That's why it's so unfortunate that the sentiments I described above made it into the film.
Darwin, who was a Christian at the time he authored Origin of Species, did not lose his faith because of it, but rather due to the loss of his dear daughter. From the examination of the historical record at best you could make the claim that he became an agnostic.
What prompted all of this, you may be thinking? Last night I watched "State of the Nation 2" with creationist Ken Ham on YouTube. It illustrates the cognitive dissonance of both creationists as well as ultra-Darwinists who think evolution is all that really matters. If you would like exposure to something that will actually inform you, the BBC put out an excellent documentary, "Did Darwin Kill God?" which I highly recommend.
Politics, Policy, and Secrecy
What's not a secret is that governments get into a whole lot of trouble doing things they shouldn't do. Take for example the Bush Administration's fabricated lies to convince the public that Saddam Hussein actually had WMDs. What's scary is some people actually still believe that Saddam really did have WMDs. As you probably know the Iraq War was a really bad idea. It would never have happened first of all if Bush took his Christian beliefs seriously (Matthew 5:1-9), and never lied in the first place.
There's an old peace of wisdom that governments, policy makers, and basically everyone regardless of authority seriously ought to remember namely that, "For whatsoever things you have spoken in darkness, shall be published in the light: and that which you have spoken in the ear in the chambers, shall be preached on the housetops." (Luke 12:3)
Therefore my approach to politics, policy, and life is basically not to say and do anything that I wouldn't want the whole world to know. Think about that. What if those with great responsibility such as our politicians simply didn't do anything that they did not want their fellow countrymen or the rest of the world to know about? Perhaps then, we really would be makers of peace, and could actually keep that peace too.
There's an old peace of wisdom that governments, policy makers, and basically everyone regardless of authority seriously ought to remember namely that, "For whatsoever things you have spoken in darkness, shall be published in the light: and that which you have spoken in the ear in the chambers, shall be preached on the housetops." (Luke 12:3)
Therefore my approach to politics, policy, and life is basically not to say and do anything that I wouldn't want the whole world to know. Think about that. What if those with great responsibility such as our politicians simply didn't do anything that they did not want their fellow countrymen or the rest of the world to know about? Perhaps then, we really would be makers of peace, and could actually keep that peace too.
50 Shades of Grey
Over the weekend I learned of this book, but decided against it due to its erotic nature. Originally a Twilight fanfiction, the book -part of a trilogy- details the sexual lust that a college graduate and an influential businessman mutually partake in.
I was actually surprised to see it was a story on the national news, due to the fact that it is essentially pornography for women. It is no secret the men are visual creatures so the markets of visual pornography are largely inhabited by men. The pornography for market for women though is largely inhabited by erotic literature. Every man knows that women swoon over words, after all. Unlike men's pornography, women's pornography is found right out in the open - that awkward isle of your local book store. Now don't get me wrong, I'm neither an enemy of sex nor romance, but these are a stretch from pornography.
These erotic novels produce similar reactions in the brains of women that visual pornography does for men which is ultimately compared to the effects of heroine. This is why both mediums are quite difficult to quit. Even after your initial consumption has ceased both are remembered and chewed over in the mind, and often influence what goes on in the bedroom. Like visual pornography, erotic literature tends to create unhealthy and unrealistic expectations of relationships and sexuality. They also negatively impact how one views either gender.
The discerning woman (and man) are instead called to consider the following verses:
"For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things." (Philippians 4:8)
For an understanding of true romance, please consider the Song of Solomon. For a description of a truly desirable woman consider the Proverbs 31 Woman. For singles, you may find the Road to Cana to be of interest. For those couples who are struggling, you may consider the Alexander House. Finally, a great romantic film for your consideration is Fireproof.
I was actually surprised to see it was a story on the national news, due to the fact that it is essentially pornography for women. It is no secret the men are visual creatures so the markets of visual pornography are largely inhabited by men. The pornography for market for women though is largely inhabited by erotic literature. Every man knows that women swoon over words, after all. Unlike men's pornography, women's pornography is found right out in the open - that awkward isle of your local book store. Now don't get me wrong, I'm neither an enemy of sex nor romance, but these are a stretch from pornography.
These erotic novels produce similar reactions in the brains of women that visual pornography does for men which is ultimately compared to the effects of heroine. This is why both mediums are quite difficult to quit. Even after your initial consumption has ceased both are remembered and chewed over in the mind, and often influence what goes on in the bedroom. Like visual pornography, erotic literature tends to create unhealthy and unrealistic expectations of relationships and sexuality. They also negatively impact how one views either gender.
The discerning woman (and man) are instead called to consider the following verses:
"For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things." (Philippians 4:8)
"But if thy eye be evil thy whole body shall be darksome. If then the light that is in thee, be darkness: the darkness itself how great shall it be!" (Matthew 6:32)
"You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell." (Matthew 5:27-30)
"Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized? But he answering them, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit. And Peter answering, said to him: Expound to us this parable. But he said: Are you also yet without understanding? Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy? But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man." (Matthew 15:7-20)
For an understanding of true romance, please consider the Song of Solomon. For a description of a truly desirable woman consider the Proverbs 31 Woman. For singles, you may find the Road to Cana to be of interest. For those couples who are struggling, you may consider the Alexander House. Finally, a great romantic film for your consideration is Fireproof.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
A Way to Speak, Especially the Gospel Message
There have been many ways to evangelise over these 2000 years of Christ. Some are effective, some not so much. I quite like the example of St. Francis of Assisi in which he says, “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” There are however times when we must open our mouths, however, and St. Peter declares, "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." (1 Peter 3:15)
What then shall I say? Well, we are assured the Holy Spirit will guide us in our words according to Matthew 10:19. The Holy Bible gives us plenty of wisdom on this issue, if we would only listen. I quite like what St. James had to say about this in James, Chapter 3, verses 1 through 16 saying:
"For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. He is able also with a bridle to lead about the whole body. For if we put bits into the mouths of horses, that they may obey us, and we turn about their whole body. Behold also ships, whereas they are great, and are driven by strong winds, yet are they turned about with a small helm, whithersoever the force of the governor willeth. Even so the tongue is indeed a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold how small a fire kindleth a great wood.
What then shall I say? Well, we are assured the Holy Spirit will guide us in our words according to Matthew 10:19. The Holy Bible gives us plenty of wisdom on this issue, if we would only listen. I quite like what St. James had to say about this in James, Chapter 3, verses 1 through 16 saying:
"For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. He is able also with a bridle to lead about the whole body. For if we put bits into the mouths of horses, that they may obey us, and we turn about their whole body. Behold also ships, whereas they are great, and are driven by strong winds, yet are they turned about with a small helm, whithersoever the force of the governor willeth. Even so the tongue is indeed a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold how small a fire kindleth a great wood.
"And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is placed among our members, which defileth the whole body, and inflameth the wheel of our nativity, being set on fire by hell. For every nature of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of the rest, is tamed, and hath been tamed, by the nature of man: But the tongue no man can tame, an unquiet evil, full of deadly poison. By it we bless God and the Father: and by it we curse men, who are made after the likeness of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
"Doth a fountain send forth, out of the same hole, sweet and bitter water? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear grapes; or the vine, figs? So neither can the salt water yield sweet. Who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew, by a good conversation, his work in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter zeal, and there be contentions in your hearts; glory not, and be not liars against the truth. For this is not wisdom, descending from above: but earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and contention is, there is inconstancy, and every evil work."
So we must exercise caution in how we speak. It is quite important to note that a gentle or inoffensive word does not mean watering down the very Word of God, for indeed there is nothing more offensive! Rather, it means that what you say otherwise, should be gentle."A mild answer breaketh wrath: but a harsh word stirreth up fury. The tongue of the wise adorneth knowledge: but the mouth of fools bubbleth out folly." (Proverbs 15:1-2)
We see also that knowledge is required. What knowledge? Knowledge of whomever you happen to be speaking to. You see this is where The Way of the Master method fails. It claims to imitate Jesus Christ in causing conversions through the confronting of ones sin. While certainly the knowledge of sin is required for repentance which leads to forgiveness and acceptance of Christ, we are not Jesus Christ. Jesus knew the hearts and thoughts of man, which is why the way he used their sin to convert some people. Reading the Gospel, there are only a few recorded instances of this. Usually people were converted by the miracles or wisdom of Christ, and his eventual revealing of being the long awaited Messiah.
We see also that knowledge is required. What knowledge? Knowledge of whomever you happen to be speaking to. You see this is where The Way of the Master method fails. It claims to imitate Jesus Christ in causing conversions through the confronting of ones sin. While certainly the knowledge of sin is required for repentance which leads to forgiveness and acceptance of Christ, we are not Jesus Christ. Jesus knew the hearts and thoughts of man, which is why the way he used their sin to convert some people. Reading the Gospel, there are only a few recorded instances of this. Usually people were converted by the miracles or wisdom of Christ, and his eventual revealing of being the long awaited Messiah.
I instead advocate a more personal approach. We cannot know the thoughts and hearts of man, but we can nonetheless be a friend to them. And I'm not talking about being a friend for the sole purpose of conversions, for that is not a genuine friend. Jesus says a true friend lays down his life for others (John 15:13). You wouldn't do this if you were only putting on the appearances of caring for the sake of a conversion.
The way I do things doesn't imply lengthy relationships either. It can be achieved simply by being a kind stranger. Be helpful, loving and emphatic always, and always try to smile. When you do engage people, stranger or not, be a friend to them. When I'm in a conversation with someone, even if they are Christian, I like to ask, "So, how's your walk with the Lord going?" It always provokes honest responses. Some might be struggling, and some might be without hope. Be true in how you respond to this. I hold off using Scripture as sometimes it can seem as if I'm not really hearing this person where they are. Sometimes I use Scripture but along the lines of, "A wise man one said that ..." The Word of God is the Word of God, sometimes you don't have to go out of your way to point it out. Not citing the chapter and verse doesn't lessen the impact it has. You don't hear Jesus citing the chapter and verse every time he speaks, do you? No, so be real as Jesus is.
This is actually why I'm not a big fan of street preaching. While yes, it does get the word out, often the people have ears but do not hear. And with the signs, the people walking or driving by may have eyes, but that doesn't mean they see. And of the street preachers I have seen, when someone does look up and engages the preacher, the preacher cowers and shouts Scripture! Certainly, this is not what Jesus did at all, especially when he was confronted. Street preaching would be effective if it was more personal. Those who engage often do so because they have been hurt in the past or have grievances, and so one should be sensitive and listen and respond heart to heart. "The Bible says you're going to Hell," is the worse thing you could say. Read the Gospel, who did Jesus imply a certain fate to? The righteous, the ones who were sure they were going to Heaven. He had mercy and compassion for sinners and so should you, because guess what, you and I are both sinners (1 John 1:10).
And the best part of this way, is that if can be modified and applied to every day speech and actions especially under the wisdom of St. Francis of Assisi who I remind you said, "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words." Be of Christ all the time, even when no one sees you "and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee." (Matthew 6:4)
Monday, March 26, 2012
Evangelical Pastors Do More Harm Than Good?
It's no secret in the evangelical community that youth are fleeing in droves and often to more orthodox and conservative communities such as the Roman Catholic Church. The evangelical community much like the GOP (with exception of Ron Paul) is a becoming more of a seniors hall than anything. Evangelical pastors are more concerned with filling seats with a positive message then actually saving souls.
The youth are sick of it. They are tired of the watered down Gospel being served up and so they are fleeing to true biblical communities. So far the evangelical community seems to think this mass exodus can be resolved with more Christian rock concerts and even easier messages.
The reason I think the evangelical community doesn't get it, is because they simply don't want to. The elderly have become comfortable, perhaps even lukewarm (Revelations 3:16) with their happy happy services and hippie concerts that some how pass as a "worship service." The elderly are more concerned with their own comfort levels then actually saving souls
This is why so many heresies have crept into mostly evangelical communities. They enjoy easy, touchy feely messages and so quickly embrace the heretical prosperity gospel (aka health and wealth, word faith). It has so much appeal for the elderly because the elderly often don't own their own homes and are dissatisfied with their lives. So for them an easy escape is this idea that by giving God (read: a ministry) x number of dollars then they will some how receive this amount back and in an even greater amount. It's much more alluring for the elderly than the college debt carrying youth because the youth are living out their dreams, or are at least trying to.
Heresy isn't the only poison in evangelical communities. It's always a shock when I watch an evangelical service because for a people claiming to be big on the bible, there is often so little of the Word of God in their services! Just a little nibble of the Word, since heaven forbid we actually teach something that requires people to change. Well, change that doesn't include increasing their tithe so that their pastor can buy another mansion or private jet. Oh I'm sorry, that's God's will. (sarcasm)
For example, I was watching Pastor TD Jakes (I will not call him by his self appointed title of bishop) just the other day as he gave a sermon for chapel at Regent University. For those uninitiated, chapel is more like a pep rally which is peppered with Christian words and themes. He gave a sermon on Matthew 5:8-10. I don't understand how this is a substantive enough amount of Scripture. I personally frown upon the evangelical tendency to only focus on a verse or two at a time. This method, if you can even call it that, can present a very warped understanding of the Gospel, not to mention make the community susceptible to heresy.
Any ways, while he did make a good point about the importance of humility with regards to an increase in status and responsibility, he inevitably slipped back into his usual prosperity gospel rubbish. Basically, he emphasised that God will give one anything they ever wanted. On a side note, I caught part of Joseph Prince as he gave a sermon to Joel Olsteen's Lakewood Church and unsurprisingly he gave the same message -that God will give you anything you could ever dream of. I don't know about you, but the Gospel isn't self-centred.
"For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." (Philippians 2:5-12)
Now back to Pastor TD Jakes. He went on to empathize that Jesus "sat." He even went so far as to say that the whole of the Gospel can be found when Jesus sat. I was surprised when he said it, because it simply isn't true. The culmination of the Gospel is the Cross, that is, the Crucifixion - not these random times Jesus happened to sit down.
"And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the scandal of the cross made void. I would they were even cut off, who trouble you." (Galatians 5:11-12)
It is my opinion that the Pharisees and Sadducees wished to follow the law, but rather it was what was familiar to them and so comforting. Likewise did TD Jakes avoid the true Gospel, the Cross, for that would have been a great offence and created uproar and anger. Rather he stayed with what he himself was most comfortable with, prosperity.
The youth are sick of it. They are tired of the watered down Gospel being served up and so they are fleeing to true biblical communities. So far the evangelical community seems to think this mass exodus can be resolved with more Christian rock concerts and even easier messages.
The reason I think the evangelical community doesn't get it, is because they simply don't want to. The elderly have become comfortable, perhaps even lukewarm (Revelations 3:16) with their happy happy services and hippie concerts that some how pass as a "worship service." The elderly are more concerned with their own comfort levels then actually saving souls
This is why so many heresies have crept into mostly evangelical communities. They enjoy easy, touchy feely messages and so quickly embrace the heretical prosperity gospel (aka health and wealth, word faith). It has so much appeal for the elderly because the elderly often don't own their own homes and are dissatisfied with their lives. So for them an easy escape is this idea that by giving God (read: a ministry) x number of dollars then they will some how receive this amount back and in an even greater amount. It's much more alluring for the elderly than the college debt carrying youth because the youth are living out their dreams, or are at least trying to.
Heresy isn't the only poison in evangelical communities. It's always a shock when I watch an evangelical service because for a people claiming to be big on the bible, there is often so little of the Word of God in their services! Just a little nibble of the Word, since heaven forbid we actually teach something that requires people to change. Well, change that doesn't include increasing their tithe so that their pastor can buy another mansion or private jet. Oh I'm sorry, that's God's will. (sarcasm)
For example, I was watching Pastor TD Jakes (I will not call him by his self appointed title of bishop) just the other day as he gave a sermon for chapel at Regent University. For those uninitiated, chapel is more like a pep rally which is peppered with Christian words and themes. He gave a sermon on Matthew 5:8-10. I don't understand how this is a substantive enough amount of Scripture. I personally frown upon the evangelical tendency to only focus on a verse or two at a time. This method, if you can even call it that, can present a very warped understanding of the Gospel, not to mention make the community susceptible to heresy.
Any ways, while he did make a good point about the importance of humility with regards to an increase in status and responsibility, he inevitably slipped back into his usual prosperity gospel rubbish. Basically, he emphasised that God will give one anything they ever wanted. On a side note, I caught part of Joseph Prince as he gave a sermon to Joel Olsteen's Lakewood Church and unsurprisingly he gave the same message -that God will give you anything you could ever dream of. I don't know about you, but the Gospel isn't self-centred.
"For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." (Philippians 2:5-12)
Now back to Pastor TD Jakes. He went on to empathize that Jesus "sat." He even went so far as to say that the whole of the Gospel can be found when Jesus sat. I was surprised when he said it, because it simply isn't true. The culmination of the Gospel is the Cross, that is, the Crucifixion - not these random times Jesus happened to sit down.
"And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the scandal of the cross made void. I would they were even cut off, who trouble you." (Galatians 5:11-12)
It is my opinion that the Pharisees and Sadducees wished to follow the law, but rather it was what was familiar to them and so comforting. Likewise did TD Jakes avoid the true Gospel, the Cross, for that would have been a great offence and created uproar and anger. Rather he stayed with what he himself was most comfortable with, prosperity.
"Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:13-23) 1600lbs Weight Goal? A View on Susanne Eman
If you haven't heard of her, Susanne Eman is the 750lb mother of two who is currently engaged to a chef, and plans to be the most overweight woman in the world with her goal weight of 1600lbs. I've highlighted four different perspectives on the story so you may have a complete picture: original article from the Daily Mail, Susanne Eman's biography, Dr. Oz Advice, and another blogger's perspective.
Susanne Eman by her own words faced what so many people who try to lose weight face: they try but they just can't seem to lose the weight. This is the same testimony that those who are obese or morbidly obese share. Even for overweight people it can be difficult to lose weight. Part of the reason is that often people go on diets which leave them feeling hungry all the time, and thus miserable.
There is a petition going around to try to stop Susanne from her pursuits. I think this is the wrong attitude - force is not the answer. Understanding and compassion is. Now when I say that, I don't mean one can't raise their concerns - we absolutely should. But we should let our actions be informed not by emotion, but by knowledge. Understand that Susanne at one time tried to lose the wait and was not able to. Understand that she feels really good now due to the hormones released from the type of food she eats and the constant eating of it. So she really does feel really good.
If she could be encouraged to lose weight she would probably be the best candidate for lifestyle, not a diet, a lifestyle like that outlined in Dr. Joel Fuhrman's book, "Eat to Live." She'd be a great candidate because the plan invites you to eat big meals and plenty of snacks, depending on your goal. It focuses on health first, with healthy weight being a side affect and not the goal. It allows you to eat whatever you want, so long as at least 90% of what you eat is nutritionally dense. So most of the time you're eating whole foods in their natural forms and as much as 10% of your day, proportional to how much you eat, you're eating whatever. So if you wanted to eat a slice of cake made with real cream, butter, and sugar, you could totally do that. It can be a generous slice too, you just can't eat the whole cake. You never have to measure your serving size or count calories. In fact, you are encouraged to eat salads the size of a dinner plate along with tasty chilis and new twists to pasta! I love it, as I've tweaked the diet to gain weight and it actually works. Don't worry, I'm one of about 2% or so of women who are underweight. I have about 10-15lbs to go before a reach my goal of 120lbs which if I recall correctly is a BMI of 19. I'm currently a BMI of 17.
So the key is to give her something that actually works for her, instead of using force and judgement.
Susanne Eman by her own words faced what so many people who try to lose weight face: they try but they just can't seem to lose the weight. This is the same testimony that those who are obese or morbidly obese share. Even for overweight people it can be difficult to lose weight. Part of the reason is that often people go on diets which leave them feeling hungry all the time, and thus miserable.
There is a petition going around to try to stop Susanne from her pursuits. I think this is the wrong attitude - force is not the answer. Understanding and compassion is. Now when I say that, I don't mean one can't raise their concerns - we absolutely should. But we should let our actions be informed not by emotion, but by knowledge. Understand that Susanne at one time tried to lose the wait and was not able to. Understand that she feels really good now due to the hormones released from the type of food she eats and the constant eating of it. So she really does feel really good.
If she could be encouraged to lose weight she would probably be the best candidate for lifestyle, not a diet, a lifestyle like that outlined in Dr. Joel Fuhrman's book, "Eat to Live." She'd be a great candidate because the plan invites you to eat big meals and plenty of snacks, depending on your goal. It focuses on health first, with healthy weight being a side affect and not the goal. It allows you to eat whatever you want, so long as at least 90% of what you eat is nutritionally dense. So most of the time you're eating whole foods in their natural forms and as much as 10% of your day, proportional to how much you eat, you're eating whatever. So if you wanted to eat a slice of cake made with real cream, butter, and sugar, you could totally do that. It can be a generous slice too, you just can't eat the whole cake. You never have to measure your serving size or count calories. In fact, you are encouraged to eat salads the size of a dinner plate along with tasty chilis and new twists to pasta! I love it, as I've tweaked the diet to gain weight and it actually works. Don't worry, I'm one of about 2% or so of women who are underweight. I have about 10-15lbs to go before a reach my goal of 120lbs which if I recall correctly is a BMI of 19. I'm currently a BMI of 17.
So the key is to give her something that actually works for her, instead of using force and judgement.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Alternative to Pride Week/Pride Parade
The Pride events have always bothered me. No, not just because it seeks to glorify other sexual lifestyles, and no, not just because the Pride Parade itself often includes persons in various stages of nudity. What really eats away at me is that at its core, whether realised or not, it is ultimately a celebration of pride. Almost worshipping the essence of pride can surely can do no good for the betterment of society.
So, I have an alternative.
What are your thoughts and feelings if say one had a "Week of the Humble" the week after Pride Week, and this also included a "March of the Humble." The aim is simply to distance oneself from the celebration of "Pride." Said event would be all inclusive in the sense that anyone could participate including those with young children. The parade would be a chance to give charities and various community betterment organizations some publicity. The week would probably include film/documentary showings of various humbling causes, a charity fair, and just some casual family fun.
So, I have an alternative.
What are your thoughts and feelings if say one had a "Week of the Humble" the week after Pride Week, and this also included a "March of the Humble." The aim is simply to distance oneself from the celebration of "Pride." Said event would be all inclusive in the sense that anyone could participate including those with young children. The parade would be a chance to give charities and various community betterment organizations some publicity. The week would probably include film/documentary showings of various humbling causes, a charity fair, and just some casual family fun.
Further, and I want to be absolutely clear on this: There will absolutely be no officially sanctioned events pertaining to LGBT. No LGBT groups and no groups opposed to LGBT. This is not an opportunity to share biblical opposition to LGBT. Pride Week is more than enough time set aside to obsess over LGBT issues. This week would be a week to highlight other issues and causes that obviously wouldn't be covered during Pride Week as that would make no sense. Plus, the Week of the Humble would actually be genuinely family friendly. Those who wish to sound off for or against LGBT can do so during the actual Pride Week. You also have the rest of the year to do so.
Does this mean there won't be Christian groups allowed? So long as their exhibit does not include anything pertaining to LGBT, they are more than welcome. In fact, I would think there would be many Christian charities that would come out. I expect many other religious and non-religious charities would come out to. The film/documentary showings I would think would be mostly secular.
You are more than welcome to borrow these ideas and start a Week of the Humble and/or March of the Humble in your own city or country.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Pathetically Faux Feminism
I never refer to myself as a feminist rather I prefer to simply call myself a woman. It's not that I'm against those brave women who afforded the rest of us women's suffrage and whatnot - no, rather I look down my nose at the frauds that came afterwards.
You see, I'm actually crazy enough to think that I don't need to be a man in order to achieve success. That I can achieve just as much if not more success whilst remaining 100% woman. Now, I'm not saying that women are better than men. I love men, and I admire their strengths and weaknesses and see 'em as very vital to society. But at the same time there is more than one way to complete a task and while there is often no preference, one doesn't have to complete said task the way a man would. You're probably well aware that women and men have differing approaches to the same problem. One approach is not better than the other, and I think each unique approach should be celebrated equally. That to me is true gender equality.
Equality doesn't mean we become carbon copies of each other. And to you modern, post 60s feminists out there, it certainly doesn't mean we must all become men. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for thinking such. Our fore-mothers must be rolling in their graves! They did not fight for women to become men, they fought so that we could do the same tasks as men in our own unique feminine way. I actually feel liberated when I wear long ankle length skirts and long dresses. For example of what I'm looking into, click here. You pathetic so called feminists that wish you were born men are traitors! You've effectively traded one form of slavery to men for another form of slavery to men. And I for one will not play your little games any longer! For me, wearing the clothes linked above is akin to the bra burnings of the 60s and it is very counter-cultural indeed!
All modern feminists of today care about, aside from dreaming that they are men, is this so called right to rip apart their own child whilst in the womb. You hear this concern about creationism and how anti-science it is, well there is an even bigger anti-science fish to fry and it can be found in the pro-choice (read: pro-abortion only) movement. Science is on the side of pro-lifers as is religion. Hell even the late atheist Christopher Hitchens was pro-life in a sense. Aside from ad hominems and fearmongering the only real argument the pro-abortion crowd has is that since the child is dependent on them, they reserve the right to rip it to pieces. I alike illustrating this argument with Monopoly money. I as a woman, pull Monopoly money out of my pocket and since the Monopoly money is on my person than I, and only I can decide if it is real money or not and I can even attach my own value to the money. Why? Because I am a woman and as a woman you can't disagree with me. If you do, you're anti-woman. Do you see how stupid this line of "reasoning" is? I'd go so far to declare such logic abusive to women.
I'm not saying you women out there should burn your pants and where ankle-length skirts, but I do extend the invitation for you to join me and restore the true feminism because damnit women, we deserve better than what these wolves in sheepskin have given us!
You see, I'm actually crazy enough to think that I don't need to be a man in order to achieve success. That I can achieve just as much if not more success whilst remaining 100% woman. Now, I'm not saying that women are better than men. I love men, and I admire their strengths and weaknesses and see 'em as very vital to society. But at the same time there is more than one way to complete a task and while there is often no preference, one doesn't have to complete said task the way a man would. You're probably well aware that women and men have differing approaches to the same problem. One approach is not better than the other, and I think each unique approach should be celebrated equally. That to me is true gender equality.
Equality doesn't mean we become carbon copies of each other. And to you modern, post 60s feminists out there, it certainly doesn't mean we must all become men. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for thinking such. Our fore-mothers must be rolling in their graves! They did not fight for women to become men, they fought so that we could do the same tasks as men in our own unique feminine way. I actually feel liberated when I wear long ankle length skirts and long dresses. For example of what I'm looking into, click here. You pathetic so called feminists that wish you were born men are traitors! You've effectively traded one form of slavery to men for another form of slavery to men. And I for one will not play your little games any longer! For me, wearing the clothes linked above is akin to the bra burnings of the 60s and it is very counter-cultural indeed!
All modern feminists of today care about, aside from dreaming that they are men, is this so called right to rip apart their own child whilst in the womb. You hear this concern about creationism and how anti-science it is, well there is an even bigger anti-science fish to fry and it can be found in the pro-choice (read: pro-abortion only) movement. Science is on the side of pro-lifers as is religion. Hell even the late atheist Christopher Hitchens was pro-life in a sense. Aside from ad hominems and fearmongering the only real argument the pro-abortion crowd has is that since the child is dependent on them, they reserve the right to rip it to pieces. I alike illustrating this argument with Monopoly money. I as a woman, pull Monopoly money out of my pocket and since the Monopoly money is on my person than I, and only I can decide if it is real money or not and I can even attach my own value to the money. Why? Because I am a woman and as a woman you can't disagree with me. If you do, you're anti-woman. Do you see how stupid this line of "reasoning" is? I'd go so far to declare such logic abusive to women.
I'm not saying you women out there should burn your pants and where ankle-length skirts, but I do extend the invitation for you to join me and restore the true feminism because damnit women, we deserve better than what these wolves in sheepskin have given us!
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Christians: Misguided or Lazy?
Many people, particularly Christians, are aware of the downward spiral of many countries. One could say it's the fault of the current administration or government. Some could say the state of the schools. Some could blame the media. It is certainly correct to say that these and others share some of the blame, however these are not the sole causes.
If Christians want to lay the blame on someone or something, they ought to blame themselves. Christians complain about "No Child Left Behind" and yet this policy was elected by Republican President and Christian George W. Bush. Christians especially are really big on being prolife and yet this only seems to be conditional. After all, both Democrats and Republicans love war. These are just a few of Christian hypocrisies. Of course those who are genuine Christians don't hold these beliefs but then again they arn't the ones likely to make a big hoopla about being Christian.
Christians today are typically big government types. This is to be said regardless of right or left. The right wants to see things like upholding traditional marriage and passing prolife laws. The left wants to see things life help the poor. The problem is that these things wouldn't be such a big issue if they were left to the care of the Church.
Why is the divorce rate the same for Christians and non-Christians? Why are so many couples cohabitating. Why are most of the countries in the world severely underpopulated? When was the last time the Church taught about marriage, divorce, or children? When was the last time you heard a sermon on abortion, contraception or sterilization? Why are so many countries in a perpetual recession? When was the last time you heard a story about greed or the importance of good works? Instead thanks to the "Prosperity/Health&Wealth/Word Faith" Gospel greed is not only being taught from the pulpit but enshrined in the Church. When was the last time you heard a sermon on the value of life or suffering? Want to know why obesity is increasing? Don't bother with running a drive to support cancer research, tell you congregation about gluttony and how the body is supposed to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Basically what I'm saying is the reason why some many nations are in the state they are is because Christians have gotten lazy and instead want the government to do the things the Church is supposed to be doing. Abortion wouldn't be a thing nor would traditional marriage be under fire if the Church did it's job and Christians didn't follow instead the false god that is government.
If Christians want to lay the blame on someone or something, they ought to blame themselves. Christians complain about "No Child Left Behind" and yet this policy was elected by Republican President and Christian George W. Bush. Christians especially are really big on being prolife and yet this only seems to be conditional. After all, both Democrats and Republicans love war. These are just a few of Christian hypocrisies. Of course those who are genuine Christians don't hold these beliefs but then again they arn't the ones likely to make a big hoopla about being Christian.
Christians today are typically big government types. This is to be said regardless of right or left. The right wants to see things like upholding traditional marriage and passing prolife laws. The left wants to see things life help the poor. The problem is that these things wouldn't be such a big issue if they were left to the care of the Church.
Why is the divorce rate the same for Christians and non-Christians? Why are so many couples cohabitating. Why are most of the countries in the world severely underpopulated? When was the last time the Church taught about marriage, divorce, or children? When was the last time you heard a sermon on abortion, contraception or sterilization? Why are so many countries in a perpetual recession? When was the last time you heard a story about greed or the importance of good works? Instead thanks to the "Prosperity/Health&Wealth/Word Faith" Gospel greed is not only being taught from the pulpit but enshrined in the Church. When was the last time you heard a sermon on the value of life or suffering? Want to know why obesity is increasing? Don't bother with running a drive to support cancer research, tell you congregation about gluttony and how the body is supposed to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Basically what I'm saying is the reason why some many nations are in the state they are is because Christians have gotten lazy and instead want the government to do the things the Church is supposed to be doing. Abortion wouldn't be a thing nor would traditional marriage be under fire if the Church did it's job and Christians didn't follow instead the false god that is government.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Kony 2012, Arab Spring, and OWS
For those who are unaware of what Kony 2012 is, it began with this viral video. Since then, Kony 2012 has spread like wildfire over social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. It is the latest in the attempts by Generation Y to change the world for the better.
The basic approach one takes after learning of Kony 2012 is to update their social networking site of choice. On Facebook, this includes making a group or event and inviting other people to join. This time however there is some backlash. You see, members of the Y's who are more socially aware have already known about Joseph Kony and the LRA for years and resent the bandwagoners of the Kony 2012 movement. It's not that they don't care - rather it is quite the opposite.
You see, most Westerner's won't have a valid avenue of expression outside of social networking so it becomes more about them trying to rid themselves of the guilt of this new found knowledge rather than actually doing something productive. And what can they do? Email or call their Representative to the Government begging them to condemn the actions of Joseph Kony? And then what? Does that actually solve anything? Not really, all it does is make us feel better about ourselves.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad people are finally becoming more aware of the world around them. In fact, it's something that my generation is fantastic at doing spreading awareness. Our proficiency at social networking and our vigour has helped topple dictatorships and raised awareness about the abuses in the financial sector and the lobbying going on in our governments. So yeah, this is something we're really good at.
But we're not so good at moving beyond the point of awareness and impulsive action. We're not so good at formulating permanent organizations to maintain and continue the changes we want to see. For example following the Arab Spring, even more anti-freedom regimes are being democratically elected because we lacked foresight and the ability to stay strong together. After that initial energy dissipated and the real hard work began to actually carve out our new futures we basically gave up and let the old guard return.
We also see this in OWS. Great initiative in the beginning but now several of the groups are devolving into scenes out of Animal Farm. We've lost sight with what we were originally invigorated about and have since become that which we protested against. No real definitive change has been made.
The basic approach one takes after learning of Kony 2012 is to update their social networking site of choice. On Facebook, this includes making a group or event and inviting other people to join. This time however there is some backlash. You see, members of the Y's who are more socially aware have already known about Joseph Kony and the LRA for years and resent the bandwagoners of the Kony 2012 movement. It's not that they don't care - rather it is quite the opposite.
You see, most Westerner's won't have a valid avenue of expression outside of social networking so it becomes more about them trying to rid themselves of the guilt of this new found knowledge rather than actually doing something productive. And what can they do? Email or call their Representative to the Government begging them to condemn the actions of Joseph Kony? And then what? Does that actually solve anything? Not really, all it does is make us feel better about ourselves.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad people are finally becoming more aware of the world around them. In fact, it's something that my generation is fantastic at doing spreading awareness. Our proficiency at social networking and our vigour has helped topple dictatorships and raised awareness about the abuses in the financial sector and the lobbying going on in our governments. So yeah, this is something we're really good at.
But we're not so good at moving beyond the point of awareness and impulsive action. We're not so good at formulating permanent organizations to maintain and continue the changes we want to see. For example following the Arab Spring, even more anti-freedom regimes are being democratically elected because we lacked foresight and the ability to stay strong together. After that initial energy dissipated and the real hard work began to actually carve out our new futures we basically gave up and let the old guard return.
We also see this in OWS. Great initiative in the beginning but now several of the groups are devolving into scenes out of Animal Farm. We've lost sight with what we were originally invigorated about and have since become that which we protested against. No real definitive change has been made.
And now there is Kony 2012. I don't honestly think Kony will hear this campaign to make him popular. He is after all, in the depths of the jungle. I mean, at best he'd have a local paper or perhaps a local frequency radio.Further, this kind of popularity doesn't tend to be effective against people of this type. They either couldn't care less, or they enjoy the attention. There's also the risk that we could be sending other psychopaths that if they do something bad enough, particularly with children, for long enough, then they might become popular around the world too. This has even been a factor in so school shootings. In addition to often being maltreated by others, shooters at the same time look to the example of Columbine and think - maybe then they'll know me, maybe then they'll care. Y'know?
The good thing about the construction of this movement is that it basically fulfils its own end. It gives people shocking information in a way that's easy to connect with, which then causes guilt and compulsion to do something. The compulsion is then fulfilled by telling someone about it and maybe making a Facebook event. And after time when enough people are satisfied this way, the movement will die. It's what happened to the anti-bullying campaigns with exception of a few flare-ups. Same thing with other causes like cancer. You feel guilty that breast cancer is still a thing, so you participate in a run/walk, donate and or buy something pink. All that action does is take away your guilt and line the pockets of the non-profits. All the money in the world won't cure cancer. The human brain is what cures cancer.
So what can you do? If you have children, hold them close and love them. Same with family and friends. Be kind, caring, and helpful when you're out in your community and workplace. Try to be understanding of others and practice being more aware of the world around you so that this kind of thing isn't so shocking. Be active in your communities making them better and safer for all, not just for you. If you're able go volunteer in a Ugandan, Sudanese or Congolese community in your city. If not, reach out to those groups who are often disenfranchised by society for these are at the greatest risk for actually acting on their anger and abandonment.
Be the change you want to see, and you could prevent people like Joseph Kony turning out the way they do.
So what can you do? If you have children, hold them close and love them. Same with family and friends. Be kind, caring, and helpful when you're out in your community and workplace. Try to be understanding of others and practice being more aware of the world around you so that this kind of thing isn't so shocking. Be active in your communities making them better and safer for all, not just for you. If you're able go volunteer in a Ugandan, Sudanese or Congolese community in your city. If not, reach out to those groups who are often disenfranchised by society for these are at the greatest risk for actually acting on their anger and abandonment.
Be the change you want to see, and you could prevent people like Joseph Kony turning out the way they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)