Politics of the Week: The Politics of Fair Play

Sportsmanship. Civility. Both seem to be topics of the week involving this concept of 'fair'; whatever that is? Two incidents caught my eye this week and it illustrates how things have gotten out of control.

1. Taylor Swift accepts award and Kayne west Interrupts.

2. Chaminade-Madonna defeats Pampano Beach 83-0 in High School Football down in Florida.

Now I am taking a different take on both.

In the West-Swift incident everyone has been talking about how uncivil it was for West to steal Swifts moment by interrupting and interjecting that he thought some other video should have won. West thought it was Unfair. The reason he was uncivil is not that he was a jerk necessarily but that he has been indoctrinated with this false notion of 'fair'. it was not fair that Taylor won and his candidate did not.

In the second, it is apparently OK to win but not be too much. It is not fair when a team beats a team by too much, but what is too much? Talk about nebulous.

What gets me here is the hypocrisy. On the one hand, in entertainment if a loser or their fans cries foul it is uncivil. If the loser of a sports contest cries foul, it is OK. See the problem.

Sorry, both Taylor and the C-M football team work hard, set goals for themselves and went out to achieve them. Both succeeded I great ways and both should be applauded. The fact is it is the nebulous concept of 'fair' that everyone has that seems to be to blame.

What is a coach supposed to do? 'Now guys if we get up by 40 or more were just going to knee the ball and give it to the other team.' Come on. You coach kids in football to play well so that you can win. Some of those Backups who played late for C-M got not only a chance to play but score and their thunder should not be stolen from them for some stupid concept of fair. In the case of C-M football they did all things well -- offense, defense and special teams. There should be line out the coach's door to ask him -- "how do you do it coach so we can be a better team?" Instead, the man is defending himself for being TOO SUCCESSFUL. As I read Dallas Jacksons story and the coach defended his action I said a hearty 'Amen' after every line he said.

A note to the media -- quit whining. Dallas Jackson get a life, this story shouldn't be about how unfair things were it should have been about how great a program C-M is. It is also unsportsmanlike to whine as a loser too. Quit whining for them.

For the story go here: http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=989089

If I was Kayne or Pampano Beach I would not whine. It is not the time for whining; it is the time for introspection. What can we do to be better?

I know Kayne West was whining about Beyonce but that isn't his job. He should have been asking himself what he could have done to help Beyonce be better next time so she can win, not stealing Taylor's thunder.

For Pampano Beach, I would ask this of myself -- what can we do better so that this never happens again. Take it as an opportunity to change yourself. Remember: TO WHINE ABOUT A LOSS IS UNSPORTSMANLIKE!

Like it or not competition makes us better -- win or lose. No matter what the score was.

Memories of 9/11

I am interrupting my series on Revelation for this one because it's 9/11. Nuff Said.

I remember the day very well, like it was yesterday. I had switched my days off to Tuesday from Thursday and after putting the kids on the bus (We were in Greenville at the time -- ages 11,10,7) I was sitting down to relax and have a good day off. I am not normally a news junkie but that day I decided to turn on FOX News. In a few minutes, We were switched to New York because one of the towers was on fire. In a few moments, I watched as the second plane struck the second tower. The rest of my day off I spent in front of the TV. I knew it was terrorism long before anyone confirmed it. That's why I found it laughable when Michael Moore did his move and accused Bush of reacting too slowly. Nobody knew what was going on for a good hour -- even the media.

The real moment came of course was when the towers began to collapse. Then the second one went down. Nothing will be the same.

Lessons:
1) Eliminate threats before they get big -- we have seemed to forgot this one as we have returned to the 'let's talk'. Keep it up and we may see another monument go down.
2) Even though it was a single terrorist organization that did it, many had the capacity -- we seem have not learned this one either. We keep going after one organization and one guy without realizing there are other that could and would do the same thing. My great fear is that once we deal with bin La din and his organization we will back off.
3) Terrorist are at War with Us. We need to be at war with them. Of course we have forgotten this one with the high minded liberal Obama in the White House. it was one of the first things he ended. It would have been like Roosevelt declaring peace with the Nazis in 1943. Dumb.

What a difference eight years makes.

Never Forget 9/11

Politics of the Week: Barak Obama's Speech to the Children

The whole hubbub this week was about Barack's speech to our children in School. When I read the speech after getting up today I was amazed at how conservative it was. Lets see 'personally responsibility, work hard and stay with it'. Where have I heard that before?

Now I want to remind us conservatives that if we do not acknowledge when Barack does do something right, we are going to be justly accused of just being antagonistic. I did not like Clinton either, but the fact was he did do some conservative things and they needed to be pointed out. The issue is credibility. Creditability is gained when you give an honest assessment of things as they come up pointing out the pro and con.

I know that right now with Republicans out of power, it is easy for every conservative to be fearful of the future. The reactions have been typical for people in fear. Protests, tea parties and the like. I am all for it, but let's not loose our heads and acknowledge when the man does right. The fact is I have heard some leftist criticism of the speech -- 'too conservative'. That is a good thing but it could have been better if we had just let the man speak first and then fired our guns.

What bugs me here is the missed political opportunity. If everyone had not been having a fit and we let Obama give the original speech --we could have pounced on it and used it to show Obama's agenda for education. Because we fired before the man actually did anything he reacted and covered himself. Sometimes in politics the best action is to let your opponent hang himself. Missed a good opportunity here to do so.

Many Presidents have addressed the schools and so I have no beef with Him or any other doing so. The man, like it or not, is the President and if he has any influence to encourage our kids to work harder, stick with it and take responsibility for themsleves, then more power to him.

Rant of the Week: The Greed of the Welfare State

Capitalism, like democracy, is a great system when it works. To make it work, people need to take action and develop both themselves and their business.

Currently the Left in this country have been assaulting rich people and corporations for their greed. I admit that in capitalism the possibilities for greed are good but greed is not limited to any one type of economics nor is it limited to any social class.

One thing no one talks about is the greed of the welfare class because apparently because they are on welfare they can't be greedy. Greed is a spiritual state that results from the relentless pursuit of your own wealth or pleasure at another's expense. It is when you use your position to take somethings that does not belong to you to further your own agenda and selfish desires that one becomes greedy

What can be more selfish that to deem yourself so important that because you live others should take care of your basic needs and you shouldn't have to do anything to earn that support but fill out paperwork. But, I can't work I have 'X'. It is amazing how many 'X's are accepted these days. It is also interesting how many families all have these 'X's in the entire family. For three generations even. Sorry, the I have looked for a job excuse doesn't work for me either. I have seen applications these people fill out -- they sign their name but there are a lot of blank spots or they give false information that actually drives an employer away from them. Or they claim some medical condition or injury. Now I have seen people who are legitimately hurt at work and need help and I have no beef with them, but many times it is not legitimate. It is just excuse

I am now personally convinced that poverty is not a state of economics, it is a state of mind. To be rich you have to do a few Biblical things:
1. Save your money, sacrificing a few things of comfort to get to larger goals. It is amazing how many poor people when they do get some sort of windfall waste it by buying junk entertainment items. Thus, they waste any opportunity to better themselves long term -- it is a pleasure now mentality in the poor.
2. Stay out of debt. I can't count the number of people I have heard that are poor that have both a credit card and are on a first name basis with the telemarketers on the shopping network. Many elderly poor and struggling are of this class. But also you do have those who run up cards and then bail on the debt on purpose.
3. Work hard: There is no shortcut to success -- you have to work hard to get there. most poor folks are just plain lazy and they will blame it on fate or other people who have done them ill. I have seen it. The people that are successful in life have one thing in common -- a good work ethic. Yeah they have nice things and enjoy them but they have earned them.

It wouldn't be so bad but I hear social workers complain that they need more money for programs or the rich don't do their fair share. I hate that. One, I once asked a social worker where in their office they have a board where they show the numbers of people they have helped off welfare into a productive state. She stared at me with a blank look on her face. Sorry folks, the system is not designed to do this. Social workers do not really help people become better people, they are mainly distributors from the haves to the have nots. Any person who leaves the welfare rosters often does so because they have decided to change not because of anything a social worker did. It is also not in the best interest of a social work to get a person off welfare. The more welfare recipients their are the more job security they have.

The odd things is the sense of entitlement the welfare state has. 'We deserve better than this and someone else should pay for it' is the mentality.

Another thing I hate as a pastor is when people use the church and the Bible to try to justify this. They point to all the passages about rich people for ammo. But the Bible is not silent of why poverty exists either. Read Proverbs sometimes -- poverty has a willful cause, the mindset of those who are poor. I would also point out the welfare in the Bible that is provided for in the law required the poor to work. 1) The rich were to leave the corners of their fields and leave grain that fell behind for gleaning by the poor, but the poor still had to go out and harvest it themselves. 2) Every third year, an additional tithe was given for the poor but it was distributed by the priests and that required the poor to come to the temple an ask a priest for it -- personal connection. There is nothing personal about the current welfare system. 3) As much as Jesus talked about helping the poor, when the disciples yelled at Mary for anointing the feet of Jesus his response was one of 'the poor you have always'. Indictating the problem of poverty will never end but it is not an economic problem. It is a question of which expression of greed you can see. 4) Much of the Biblical message is about taking personal responsibility for yourself so you are not a burden to others. It is a message of helping one another to be sure, but the best help you can be to others is to limit how much of a burden you are to others. 5) I also find it interesting in how many people I have helped with church money or programs who complain about how much or the quality they receive. Isn't it a form of greed to think you deserve more when your getting a freebie? It did cost something to someone else you know?

I have been on welfare, when I was in school and in the early days with a young family. It was a hand up to me because I didn't look at it as permanent -- there was a little shame to it for me and I have worked very hard to not need it. Now I am making too much money but it takes two jobs. The one thing I see with many however is generation after generation who have a system of gaining support and money for doing nothing. That also is a form of greed. It is gain at someone elses' expense. I leave you with some famous words that more need to take to heart:
'There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch'. (TANSTAFL).

Ministry and Politics -- Uneasy combination?

Fellowship after church today involved a political conversation regarding conservative values verses liberal values. Liberals loose in my church every time. Nature of the beast around here -- people are very conservative.

There is a school of thought that says that religious people and leaders should not be involved in politics. I break that rule away from the pulpit. I have run for School Board and I speak freely of political issues. I make no secret of my disdain for the direction Barack Obama is taking this country and how he has a contempt for his own country. I try to be considerate but firm in my own convictions.

In the pulpit, my politics takes a back seat. I concern myself only with the politics of the kingdom of God. Issues come up and I attempt to provide a Biblical answer. From the pulpit I can still be conservative in ethics but I do not mention politics. The issue is God not me and my beliefs.

There is a balance I try to maintain, but the real problem is not to be unpolitical. The trick is to be political in the right places.

Would the Real Republican Leadership Stand Up

In the past years I have watched the Republican Party attempt an experiment to move to the left and become more centrist -- the result -- Obama in the White House and a Democrat Congress. To make matters worse I have also seen no leadership step forward to present the conservative agenda in a hostile media world. Everyone seems afraid to stand forward and stand for what we believe in.

This is supposed to be the party of Ronald Reagan, I don't remember Ronald being squeamish about what he believed or what he stood for. Oh yeah, and those two totally dominating landslide elections were great too. I think the republican takeover of Congress had a lot to due with Reagan's ideology being reasserted after Clinton's election. Think those things are coincidence? I don't think so. The real issue is if the Republicans will see it and go back right.

The one thing I am really asking is --where is the leadership to do this? Name me a name. Sarah Palin? Maybe? The one thing for sure is Collin Powell isn't it. We need someone soon because we are not gain ground as far as approval. As much as it tickles me to no end that Obama and Congress' approval numbers are dropping, the Republican numbers are not rising either. Leadership would change that.

My Rant of the Week -- Bush Shoe Thrower Goes Free

Welcome to Monday. Time to rant, This week I heard the news that the Bush shoe thrower went free. His lawyer was very pleased and said that his client's actions were a justified end to the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Perhaps he would like Saddam Hussein back? Did he like the oppression of free speech he enjoyed under that regime where had he thrown a shoe at Saddam he would have been executed without due process of law for political sedition. As it was because of Bush's actions in Iraq he got a lawyer and was released. I don't know, there is obviously no logic in these Bush haters.

The Bush haters have always had a special place of irony. In order to hate Bush on the Iraq issue, you have to basically say the Iraqi people were better of under Saddam Hussein. A regime where rape, murder and real torture were the order of the day. Where free speech, such as throwing shoes at presidents, were illegal. Bush did the world and the Iraqi people a world of good when they both invaded and conquered Iraq. It is a safe country where people are now given due process instead of executed. Terrorists now have little power there (the surge worked) and now were going to continue ot make this issue that things would have been better off had we not gone in. What a laugh?

Ultimately this is what happens when you believe that the best foreign policy is to make every one like you instead of doing the right thing. This policy of making everyone feel good will ultimately destroy us. We need to understand that any treaty is nothing more than a piece of paper without the resolve to enforce it and ultimately this is what we have with Obama -- a man who believes in paper but does not have the resolve to enforce it. This will ultimately lead to two things:

1) Failure -- there will be a WMD attack on someone in the world.

2) A renewed enthusiasm from the terrorists that will lead to another terrorist attack on our own soil.

Rant complete.

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 3 -- "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union"

"In order to form a more perfect union..."

Now you have to know a little history to understand this line. The original Constitution of the United States called 'The Articles of Confederation' was not working. The unity that had once existed between the various states during the revolution had basically disintegrated. The Articles gave the central government very little power --effectively none unless their was a war. The idea of forming a more perfect union was large in many peoples' minds. The thought of protecting the rights of states to run their own affairs was on the minds of others.

Biblically, a parallel existed as the tribes of Israel were much the same before the advent of the kingdom of Saul. The problem with this is some people believe that things were too free and wanted a king to protect them. The statement in Judges "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" is not a moral statement; it is a political one. Samuel himself was probably the author of judges and he was not pro-monarchy but quite the opposite. He can't be saying that the monarch got people to stop sinning because that was far from the truth. The statement is about the fact that each man stood in his own sovereignty before God himself. There was no king to answer to but God himself. The issue is that people often look to centralized authority in times of crisis. In the case of the time of judges, the authority was supposed to be God and His Law but judges would handle the crisis points empowered by God. Each man was very free and had massive liberty as long as he, by choice, followed the law of God. It was in short: a theocratic democracy.

In the United States at the time of late 1700's God was in the picture but not a ruler but as bystander and each state handled its own affairs, unfortunately there existed no central government with the power to handle things when to states had a dispute with each other. Union was not on any person's mind but states rights. The Constitution is a result of finding a better way to balance states rights with a need for a centralized power to handle crisis and disputes. The result was a limited central power but with strength within its limits.

The Constitution in and of itself was not powerful enough in many respects for some when regarding in the rights of individuals and states. The individual question was answered by the Bill of Right some years later. But the question of states verses Federal rights has always been heated as this was and still is not quite spelled out in the Constitution. This issue got so heated once we had a Civil War over it.

This line was an attempt to placate both sides -- we want to be united but we know it is an attempt at a more perfect union, not one that does not respect states' rights.

Next: Establish Justice

The Passing of Kennedy

There is an old expression about people dying -- respect the dead and if you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all. So what can be said good about the passing of Teddy Kennedy
1. The man who escaped justice for his role in Mary Jo Kopechne death will now face bar of God for which justice will be perfect.
2. The Senate is now no longer filibuster proof for the rest of the health care debate in addition without Kennedy a lot of things are going to fall apart.
3. He never became President of the United States.

It always saddens me at somebodies death and that sadness is compounded when someone wastes their life without God. Kennedy wasn't even a good Catholic.

Now I know the media will be going gangbusters covering how wonderful he was as the youngest of the Kennedy clan and they will probably give him more time than Ronald Reagan which would be a crying shame, but the truth is when you look at his life it is just sad in the eyes of eternity.

IMHO.

Whose Health is It Anyway?

In the ongoing debate on health care one thing seems very much lost in the shuffle -- Who's health is it anyway? The reason I ask this is because once we establish who owns the health of an individual does that not define who is responsible for that health?

1. My health belongs to me. It is my responsibility to both maintain and provide for.
2. I must take this responsibility, it is not some other person's or organization's responsibility.
3. No one has the right to take charge of my health from me.

Given these things I find two things reprehensible in the debate:
1. How many people think that someone else should be responsible for their health care. This continued passing the buck has been around since Genesis 3 but the fact is its you health quit looking to someone else to take care of it.
2. The government's continued think that they have the right to take control of my health care as if it belongs to them. Once my health is taken into their care what else are they going to take control of? Under Obama and a liberal Congress is their no end to the power they want to take away from the people and give to themselves?
3. The belief that good health care is a right. It is not a right, but a privilege of and advanced society and a person's ability to provide it for themselves through whatever means they can find.

My health is my own and if in the end I don't have the ability to pay for it that is my fault. What we have in this is a bunch of people who think they are going to live forever, so they do not provide for themselves the means to have heath care. Then when they get sick someone other than themselves must pay for it. One incompetence leads to another.

I like private insurance because it means I get to shop around and I get to provide for myself. The government always makes things difficult and they never do anything that has any true quality to it other than the military. If we give health care to them the quality will diminish and you can bet it will get very expensive for the already overburdened taxpayers. You know if we continue to tax the rich they will live somewhere else and that will ultimately be bad as they are the ones who dive the prosperity of the economy not the government.

The real solution 1) Kill Medicare altogether and 2) put limits on tort so the cost of health care can stay low.

IMHO

Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 3 -- Homosexual Marriage

Isn't it interesting how sometimes things come together that you didn't expect or look for? Like my post for today and the decision yesterday to allow active and practicing homosexuals to be ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELC). I really wonder how they can claim to be Evangelical (there is little conservative evangelicalism in this decision) or Lutheran (Can we really see Martin Luther advocating homosexuals in the pulpit), but then again nothing surprises me these days.

There is absolutely no Biblical basis to say homosexuality is justified by God. In fact, quite the opposite is true. God looks at homosexuality as one of the great sins. Right up their with adultery and rape. Homosexuality is listed by multiple Biblical authors as a sin that will destroy you covenant with God both in the Old and New Testaments. Yet here we are not only fighting about homosexual marriage but whether or not to let such people in the pulpit to preach the Word they are violating.

Now, I want something understood, I consider adultery to be just as bad and I have a fit where many denominations have rehab stuff for ministers caught in infidelity but not in homosexuality. Both are equally abhorrent to God. It is only in our minds that we make one above the other. In the Law of Moses both were punishable by death along with rape, murder and sorcery. (Not fornication, couples caught in 'trouble' are simply required to get married with no option for divorce) The reason I say this is I know many churches where homosexuals are forbidden to attend but people in adultery are openly allowed to go. Sorry, double standard. Sexual sin is sexual sin.

Now, in our relationship with the world I think we need to realize not everyone is a Christian and we can't go around legislating morality or in the end homosexual marriage. The battle is not over on this but I believe it will end with some states having homosexual rights. California surprised me. but don't think that is forever. Just means California gays will probably take their case to a higher court which is what they have been looking for in the first place. What we will see is gays immigrating to states that allow them their wishes. Ultimately legislation solves nothing, if people want to engage in sin, they will do so whether it is legal or not. Only the gospel and the changed life through its acceptance stops homosexuality, adultery or any other sin. This gospel is very difficult to preach to someone if they look at you as an enemy political force or trying to take away their rights.

Homosexual marriage has some implications to other things normally seen in this issue.

1. If the homosexuals get their way, what other marriage situations will suddenly petition to have equal rights: polygamy (subject of another post in this series) -- which might include one man with multiple women or *gasp* a woman with multiple men and group marriages of all types (One form is 'line marriage' with men and women sharing each other -- say three men and four women -- the combinations are endless -- for the purpose creating and raising children -- a la Robert A. Heinlein's views in his science fiction) and open marriages. Or is it open if hubby is dating his perspective fourth wife? Yipe, this gets confusing doesn't it
2. Homosexual and other marriage situations listed above in the church. (I think it might be very interesting for some guy to come into my church and introduce me to his wives!)

The church's response will be interesting because as you can see in some churches like the ELC they accept such things and it makes no difference to many of them if your homosexual or polygamist (See the Mormons in certain places). But what about those good ole boy conservative Evangelicals?
1. We will take the morally superior position and blast people for their lack of moral fortitude that we obviously possess and they don't.
2. We will enter the halls of government as moral crusaders trying to fix every body's bad morality and make things right.
3. When we fail, (and we will fail -- we have been failing with this tactic for over fifty years) we will advocate isolation and casting out with no hope of reconciliation. Creating our own Christian enclaves shut off from the world Jesus loves but is lost in sin.

Not good, but then again it is what we do, even if it hasn't ever ultimately worked. What might work is never done, because we are always looking for someone to blame for the fall of morality in the United States and the real answer is not them, but us. We stopped making change about the gospel and instead left it to the courts and legislatures. We really don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit or the gospel anymore, if we did we would use them more for this and other situations.

Next: Friends with Fringe Benefits

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 2 -- "We the People"

For step on of this long running series I would like to look at the preamble of the Constitution. By far it is one of the best written things by man that is not Scripture. Here is the whole thing:

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'

The thing that starts this off is the "We the People of the United States..." Not a statement by a king or dictator to his subjects but an establishment of sovereignty by the people by the country. The Constitution lets us know who is ordering itself with this Constitution -- the People of the United States. This does have a few implications:

1. The government, whatever is established, is under authority of the people. In short, the people of this country sit as sovereign not the President or Congress or the Supreme Court. The people as a whole are the rulers.

2. There is a Biblical ramification in this for final judgment and relationship with God as a nation. As the people go, so does the relationship. If the people elect ungodly men to run themselves then it is the people that will be held responsible. Also, even if a godly men are placed in office, the sovereignty of the people means that this may not save them from God's judgment as God will hold the people responsible for their actions. There were times that Judah had good kings but because of the wickedness of the people they were still judged.

3. With the people as the sovereign entity, any government established would have to be a limited on so as not to upset this sovereignty. The order of government must be such that "We the People' is never violated.

Next: In Order to Form a More Perfect Union

Jesus Was Not A Pacifist

Every time some conservative group protests something and talks about guns and Jesus with a sign or words or anything else there will always be some ignorant liberal who will espouse their ignorance of Jesus by saying Christians should be bringing guns to protests because it insights violence and Jesus was non-violent.

I wouldn't mind so much if these people didn't have some politically correct axe to grind with an edited politically correct Jesus but I think they are missing a few points from Jesus life itself.

1. John the Baptist when addressing soldiers tells them to be content with their wages but never tells them to give up soldiering -- Jesus never refutes this. (Luke 3:14)
2. Jesus, not once but twice, drives out the money changers and their garbage from the temple and on both occasions created a weapon to do so. (John 2:13-25; Mark 11:15-18; Matthew 21:12-17)
3. Jesus himself said that he had not come to ring peace but a sword. (Matthew 10:34-39)
4. The reason two swords were at the garden in the end was at his request (Luke 22:36-38) -- I don't think Jesus had trouble with carrying weapons.
5. One ultimate thing -- if Jesus is a pacifist and would never hurt a fly, who then is represented in Revelation 19 where the king of kings slaughters his enemies and leaves blood standing that is bridle deep?

One other point, Jesus is the same God (If you beleive the Trinity) that in the Old Testament ordered the Israelites to war and genocide. Odd thing for a pacifist.

There is nothing in Jesus teaching that indicates pacifism. Great restraint and self control maybe in the face of personal insult is taught, but in matters of life and death Jesus is actually quite silent. Maybe he expects the rest of the Word that he inspired to speak for him.

One message to the gun control people -- make your argument but would you please stop using Jesus. The Jesus you believe in has been edited and watered down to fit your beliefs -- He is not the Jesus of Scripture because you are leaving a few things out.

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 1 -- Introduction

The will be a long running series like so many others I am working on at the present time. I like to talk politics from time to time but as a conservative, my reactions are pretty straightforward and you can probably get those opinions from many other blogs and they would be the same as mine. Just think Reagan conservative with Rush Limbaugh thrown in and long running Christian faith and that's me. But one thing I want to look at for myself that is long in coming is the Constitution of the United States. One thing I have always wanted to do is apply interpretation techniques to other documents of importance that I would normally reserve for the Bible. If we let the document stand for what it says, it is what do we get?

I really don't know how long this will take, but as I have decided to engage things long term now, I will make sure I take my time and keep going. Over the next weeks I want to look at the document as a whole. and then break apart the Preamble. Along with this I want to consider what the Bible says along side this great document to see how much the Founders were sticking to Biblical principles. Christians often say so, but has there really been an analysis of this or is this just something we say to be political?

I make no bones about it, I believe that we should as much as possible understand both the Constitution and the Bible in the way they were ORIGINALLY to be understood and apply them the same way as much as possible. This notion of both being flexible documents is a lot of hogwash. But that does not mean that in both cases there might not be some room for interpretation. That said I would have to say that I have a full plate.

Next: Reading the Constitution

Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 1 -- Public Nudity

This is a new series based on some observations I made a week ago about the future of sexual morality in America. In this post, I want to look more fully at the issue of public nudity. The backdrop of this is my series Nudity, Modesty and Culture (If you haven't read it, do so and then come back) where I deal with the following related topics on this issue:

1. That nudity from a Biblical point of view consists of what the apron area of a persons body.
2. The idea of nakedness and women's breasts is never connected in Scripture.
3. Modesty Biblically is supposed to be a matter heart and spirit but the church often makes it a matter of dress and covering up.
4. In the end, modesty is culturally defined.

Which leads us to the culture war between Christians and the secular world of the USA about public nudity. There are significant things to consider here as I look at the news and issues coming up very soon.

1. Several women's groups, lead by the Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA) are advocating equal rights for women to go topless (topfree) in the same places men can -- You can go to their web site but understand they have many pictures of 'topfree' women so if this bothers you don't go. A good chunk of the main supporters are women who breastfeed which have increased TERA's membership in number since the whole Facebook breastfeeding fiasco. There are also a growing number of women who simply see this as a constitutional issue. The argument leveled is that if a man can appear in public without a shirt a women should also be allowed to do so as well. They see this as a question of equal rights under law. The inequality being that a man is only considered naked if he exposes his genitals but a women is also considered indecent if she shows her nipples (by the way this is why a woman can show every part of her breast on those magizine covers as long as she covers her nipples). They further argue that in reality women's breasts do not constitute actual nudity as they really don't have a sexual function but a nurturing one.
2. There of course are many nudist organizations which I will not chronicle but suffice it to say they do not see nudity as a problem but maintain that a person should be allowed to dress or undress as they see fit.
3. Currently there are six states that allow some form of topfree rights for women and two others engaged in legal battles over the issue -- in every case the women have won and I predict they will continue to do so. It also should be noted that in many local areas there are topfree rights already in place by local ordinance and these are changing in favor of the women as well. Bourbon Street in New Orleans has been this way for many years but now they are definitely not alone. Ladies you may already have 'topfree rights' where you live and not know it.

How the Christian culture responds to these things is typical. There is a cry of outrage followed by a blaming society for the moral slippery slope. The self righteous judgment game follows where we all feel better about ourselves and our righteousness by looking down on those that engage in these practices. I would have to say this is not effective. A few observations:

1. Lust as a problem does not exist in these women or nudists -- it is a problem of each individual human heart. If the whole world dressed like the Amish, lust would still exist.
2. Self righteousness never wins a culture war.
3. If people are forced to live a certain way they will resent it, but righteousness that is engaged freely as Christianity is designed to do is a powerful thing.
4. In making a Biblical argument against these things we are going to be hamstrung by a couple things -- One, there is no way to make an argument that Women's breasts constitute nudity and so to get on the Bible here is difficult (shocking but true). Two, this IS a constitutional issue in this country and not a Biblical one and the fact is equality would dictate that either women should be allowed to go topfree, or men are going to have to be covered up (No more shirts and skins basketball guys)
5. Full nudity is something that people still have trouble with that are not Christians so the fight is going to be long here anyway because both sexes are required to cover up the angle of equal rights cannot be used.

My prediction is that the women who are advocating Topfree Rights will eventually win them on a nationwide scale and probably before the next ten years are out. Like when women began to show more leg and the public had a fit along with the moral majority the reaction will be same and then familiarity will come to a point that people will not notice anymore. In fact there may be a time when a women walks into a church with a bare chest and nobody will think anything of it. Sorry, it may happen because women walk in with short skirts now and nobody notices, well accept those people with lust in their hearts or self-righteousness.

This of course assumes we continue to go on the same path we have been going and when it comes to sexual morality and right now there does not seem to be a cultural reason to change course.

IMHO

Next: Pornography

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Nine

This is the final disagreement post with Bart Ehrman's God's Problem, although I have a few more to close the discussion out about this book. Disagreements with chapter nine are many so hang on.

1. More politics --the book is obviously written before the surge which worked and ended the main problems in Iraq.

2. Bart restates his idea that God's discipline of the Israelites was too harsh but the question remains: how do you discipline a nation without doing something that effects the nation as a whole?

3. God held responsible, mankind let off the hook again.

4. Bart decries this world as a good world God has created. My point is this -- this is not the world as God created it --it is a world that stands as it is because we have ruined it. I don't believe God made the best possible world he could make but one in which free creatures could grow and develop in their relationship with him. We destroyed that with sin.

5. Bart continues to rely on a Reformed/Baptist/Classic view of God's nature in his criticism and states that the God of the Bible is incompatible with the world as it is -- but not all view of God do this but Bart never explores them. When talking about God being all powerful he uses classic definitions but not Biblical ones.

6. God does suffer in a sense because of sin -- he grieves over it, gets angry over it, and gets disappointed with sin and human beings. To say God does not suffer in some sense is not Biblically true. This doesn't make God any less God as Bart would assert but it odes make him a person. Bart makes a leap of logic here on p. 274 that he cannot back up -- that the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament cannot be the same because the way of dealing with the problem of evil is different. The problem is he never really proves that the Bible's answers to the problem of evil contradict each other as he claims.

7. Bart does not think that some suffering is redemptive but the problem is that he dos not have God's perspective on the event. How does he know for certain that there is no redemption in events for sure -- is he God?

8. Suffering is only a test of faith if it is faith that causes the suffering-- this is a point Bart seems to miss.

9. Bart talks about the gift of life we have -- but who or what is it a gift from? Ironic that when you get rid of God you don't really have anyone to say life is a gift from anymore.

10. Bart ultimately shows a lot of pride -- he does not want to admit that in the grand scheme of things - -he might just be a peon after all. After a final reading i can also say there is a lot of self righteousness to someone who wants to call God to account but sees no problem with himself or his own contributes to the problem of evil.

Next: Wrap Up #1 -- Over Reliance on Classic Theology

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Five

Chapter 5 of God's Problem by Bart Ehrman's has some problems chief among them is his assumption that god does not intervene in human affairs.

1. Bart makes the statement that if God heals -- why does he not do so today -- heard that before and my response is he does -- I have grown up in Pentecostal churches -- when a person says they have cancer and that the doctors (more than one) have confirmed it and then that person is prayed for and they come back and don't have cancer -- confirmed by the same doctors you have to think something is up. It sounds like Hume when I listen to him on this. "I don't believe in miracles because I don't want to believe in miracles". In addition, he has this -- "God should heal all the time without conditions" attitude.


2. Ehrman talks about being committed to truth and integrity -- but if their is no God to be accountable to about truth then what difference does it make?


3. I think Bart over thinks Grace in pages 128-129 -- he talks about how if a person thanks God for food isn't that person condemning God for not feeding others. Here's the thing -- famine often happens because of short sighted agricultural methods or deliberate starvation of human beings by others -- either through malicious intent or apathy. He quotes the United Nations about the 850million starving stats as well. Yes, I am sure that the UN does not have ulterior motives in saying such things seeing they use such numbers to get more aid from other nations.

4. Why is it that when people want to blame God for everything, they always say that the problem in question is too big for humans to handle? Maybe their just looking for a personal excuse?

5. Says government should do more, quite frankly they cause more problems than they solve.

6. Assumes God always gets his way -- if God's will and his kingdom are a done deal and cannot be messed up than why in Jesus instructions to us in prayer does he ask us to pray that God's will be done and His kingdom come. Seems a strange thing to pray for if both just are and cannot be messed with -- another over reliance on classical theology.

7. Pharoah's hardened heart -- it is not hard to push a person a little harder when they have already demonstrated hardness in the first place. I would also point out for the record that the Egyptians were holding the Israelis as slaves. On the one hand he condemns Solomon for such a practice but here he is saying poor Egyptians forced to be victims of plagues when they are doing the same thing. The Egyptians were not nice people and the people who disobeyed the Passover had some control if they only believed enough to obey.

8. Going back to David's child -- David's own words kind of put this in perspective -- "I will see him again" The fact is what is better -- to live here suffering the stigma of sin and being a bastard child or Paradise. Here is Ehrman's saying poor child, but then turning about and say to be on this planet is suffering -- anybody else see the contradiction.

9. Bart assumes that Paul influence how the gospels are written -- he has no evidence of this other than more higher critical theories but were going to proceed as if it is fact anyway.

10. The Bible does not claim all suffering is redemptive like Ehrman attests on p. 155 (bottom). in fact I would say that sinful suffering is many times senseless and the Bible says this as well.

Next: Agreements with Chapter Six

The Irony of Pacifism

As I was bringing my son home today form Alma College, I saw a bumper stick that said -- "Stop the War". I see many people that support one notion of pacifism or another and i wander if they understand the irony of their position. They live in a nation where they have such peace an prosperity they can both afford and have the ability to speak out freely for their cause. They can do this because we have a strong defense force to protect both.

I am a Christian and I believe that God does not preclude war. Christ will go to war someday and is at war with spiritual darkness so warfare in and of itself is not evil and sinful. In the law is both a commandment not to murder but also laws regarding division of spoils in war. For all you New Testament people -- remember John the Baptist's address to the soldiers -- he never tells them to give up their job.

History now shows that many soldiers in the Roman army were Christians. Seems like the issue is one of personal conscience but no one is going to say god told you to be a pacifist and have true Biblical support.

That said, the pacifist assumes all violence is evil but he or she is wrong. What needs to be considered is why the violent action is performed -- to defend hearth and home to remove oppression to protect yourself from death -- all good in my book.

Pacifism cannot exist in a country that is involved directly in war where the country itself is overrun with violence -- why? Because the pacifist, will probably find himself dead. If not, he will be accused of being 'good' but not doing anything to stop evil. In short, pacifism either disappears or becomes discredited in a land of violence. Only in a country such as the USA where there is peace over a long period of time and people do not have to struggle to survive can pacifism live. This is only possible where a national defense is strong.

You can be a pacifist, but remember the irony.

What Israel Should Do

The fact is that Obama has made it clear that Israel is the one in the wrong and that if push comes to shove the US will not back Israel. That being said here is one American (and I am not alone) that feels that Israel should be backed. But, I don't think the El Presidente of the US is going to back them. Here is the response they should take to all this.

1. They should absolutely reject any plan that involves a Palestinian State. Lets not put the enemy and terrorists on our front door. If Obama suggests this again tell him that he should do the same by giving us Conservatives our own state here in the USA. Lets have the 30 states that didn't vote for him.
2. Develop Nukes, if you haven't already because your neighbors are going to have them and you don't want to be bringing a knife to a gunfight.
3. Be prepared to act alone to defend yourself. Here is one American who will not say you are wrong to defend yourself.

Yes I am a Christian, but God has never given up on his people and we should not either. Why is it that we continue to stand against them when they are the ones who are being attacked by terrorists and being slammed by the media of the Arabs.

Pray for the peace of Israel.

Thoughts on Education

Today I have been thinking about education. I have had two children graduate from the public school system and one with two years to go. The problems I have had have been varied but most of it has to do with philosophy.

1. There has been a dumbing down of education -- lowered standards and less of a push for competition for good grades have hurt education over the years. I think this is particularly true for boys. Boys are naturally competitive but that has been downplayed or taught that they should relax more. Unfortunately this is reflected in lower scores for boys as a whole. In short a drive for competitive excellence has been watered down.

2. ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder)has become a big thing with the use of drugs to control children instead of discipline and teaching self-discipline. The majority of ADD diagnosis seem to be boys again -- makes me wonder if ADD is a legit disease or simple a female reaction to the male drive and activity of boys.

3. Getting in touch with ones' feelings have replaced the idea of thinking things through and calmly. This has resulted in a teaching style that is more conscious about a persons desires than their reality. Results in a lot of emotional decisions and emotions very often do not make good choices.

4. On moral issues the educational establishment has decided to use cover up programs than actually dealing with the problem. Now given that most kids are not familiar with the Judeo-Christian in schools it may be a good thing that some of these programs do what they do. In the end; however, they are not addressing the real issues of young people's decision making processes.

5. Over the years I have watch an growing anti-Christian bigotry (I call it what it is) in the public schools. Many religions outside Christianity are given a fair shake or allowed to be heard as far as their worldview and ethics in the public school, but Christianity has all but been told to go away. I am not against other religions being present, but Christianity should also be allowed to speak. In fact, I think this is the only way to avid violating the first amendment -- let every public forum and organization be open to any speech including all religious speech. When the public schools gag the Christians they are violating this amendment and the idea of free speech.

I think in the end,education has been on of those areas where liberals have concentrated their efforts for good reason. Between this, the media and politics they have done a good job in controlling the debate and ideas presented and taught. This needs to change the other way by conservatives getting involved in all these areas.