Praying vs doing - FB Conversation

This prayer request was posted by a FB friend. Don't get me wrong, praying is a good thing, but please note that every comment is an agreement to pray with no one actually stepping up to help.

I am not wanting to toot my own horn here. But it's the way I think about things that causes me to respond with actual help. 

It seems to me that the world's thinking has infiltrated the church. We have acclimatized ourselves into thinking that it's other peoples' responsibility to help. Send them to Love, INC. Send them to government. Send them to a shelter or a charity. But under no circumstances get out your checkbook, or your hammer and saw.

You can put a stamp of spirituality on things by praying, and so relieved yourself of further responsibility. In reality we should pray, but we don't need to pray about stuff for which there is already an answer. "God, should I feed the hungry?" is a as nonsensical prayer as "God, should I commit adultery?" 

We need to remember that the hungry, the afflicted, the poor, and the orphan have a special place in God's heart. Mistreatment of the weak gets God's dander up. "

He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the 

children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor." 

Ps. 72:4

So by all means, pray. But get off your butt and do something about it.

-------------------------------------------------

J.C.: Please pray I have three friends who need miracles. Their power is being shut off, Rent behind, Cars are breaking down and can't pay for repairs and their phones are going to be shut off.

M.M.: I know of some and feel so helpless because things are tight for us also.

J.C.: I know it's kinda crazy

J.F.: We know a God who give us miracles every day Amen! Prayers that way

L.F.: In jesus name we claim all miracles be supplied, for this family and many others around the valley too, amen

M.B.: Agreeing with you ladies for the many families struggling.

C.W.: J.C., you are such an awesome prayer warrior for others & yourself. Thank you for storming the gates of heaven & getting others to storm with you

Me: Have them contact me, I'll help them.

Me: Raised $200 so far. Anyone else want to chip in?

Corporation are not people - letter by Alanna K. Brown

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

---------------------------------

What always strikes me about the Left when they talk about issues like economics is how incredibly colorblind they are. They are content to regurgitate talking points they read on Leftist websites, despite what must be a painful cognitive dissonance. Read on:

-------------------------------
What is so striking about our current political atmosphere is the utter denial by True Believers of the failure of the Voodoo economics of the Conservative Movement of the last 35 years. (Let's note for the record that Reagan left office 25 years ago, and we have had both Republicans and Democrats as president since then. "Voodoo economics," aka "trickledown," has not been in operation since then, if it ever really was. 

But more importantly, with the exception of 1995-1998 and 2001-2007, Democrats have been in control of Congress, and frequently with a Democrat president. It is Congress that has sole constitutional authority to appropriate and spend taxpayer dollars. So let's affix blame were it belongs. Leftist fiscal policies have continued unabated for decades, with only mild mitigation for brief periods. The big spenders, mostly Democrat, but with a number of complicit RINOs, have led this country to its financial devastation.)

Why History isn't Scientific (or, atheists are historically illiterate) - By Tim O'Neill

(This is a guest post I was invited to write for the atheist blog Deity Schmeity. Regular readers of Armarium Magnum or of my answers on Quora will recognise the general themes).


"History sucks."

In April last year Grundy, the usual writer of this blog, posted "History Isn't My Area", commenting on the release of Bart Ehrman's critique of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Unlike the majority of actual historians, many prominent atheists find Jesus Mythicism convincing and many of them are unhappy with the generally sceptical and highly renowned Ehrman for criticising this idea. Grundy, for his part, stated frankly "I honestly have little knowledge as to whether or not Jesus existed", though added "I tend to think he did". That said, he made it clear why the overwhelming consensus of historians and other relevant scholars that the Jesus Myth idea is junk was underwhelming for him:

"History sucks. Okay, that’s unfair, but it was never my subject. My confidence of the accuracy of historical events goes down exponentially with the paper trail. The idea that history is written by the victors highlights the biases of the past. Books are burned. Records fade. Who should I trust for an accurate portrayal of events two thousand years ago?"

Since history actually is my area, I responded by making some critical comments on this attitude and some points about how history , as an academic discipline, is studied. Grundy, unlike many so-called "rationalists" I've encountered over the years, was happy to listen, and he invited me to expand on my points in this guest post.


Atheists and Historical Illiteracy

I should begin, however, by pointing out that I am an atheist. I have been an atheist for my entire adult life, am a paid up member of several atheist and sceptical organisations and have a 21 year online record of posting to discussions as an unbeliever. I note this because I've found that when I begin to criticise my fellow atheists and their grasp of history or historiography, people tend to assume I must be some kind of theist apologist (which doesn't follow at all, but this happens all the time anyway).

After 30+ years of observing and taking part in debates about history with many of my fellow atheists I can safely claim that most atheists are historically illiterate. This is not particular to atheists: they tend to be about as historically illiterate as most people, since historical illiteracy is pretty much the norm. But it does mean that when most (not all) atheists comment about history or, worse, try to use history in debates about religion, they are usually doing so with a grasp of the subject that is stunted at about high school level.

This is hardly surprising, given that most people don't study history past high school. But it means their understanding of any given historical person, subject or event is (like that of most people), based on half-remembered school lessons, perhaps a TV documentary or two and popular culture: mainly novels and movies. Which is why most atheists (like most people) have a grasp of history which is, to be brutally frank, largely crap.

Worse, this also means that most atheists (again, like most people) have a grasp of how history is studied and the techniques of historical analysis and synthesis which is also stunted at high school level - i.e. virtually non-existent. With a few laudable exceptions, high school history teachers still tend to reduce history to facts and dates organised into themes or broad topics. How we can know what happened in the past, with what degree of certitude we can know it and the techniques used to arrive at these conclusions are rarely more than touched on at this level. This means that when the average atheist (yet again, like the average person generally) grasps that our knowledge of the past is not as cut and dried and clear as Mr Wilkins the history teacher gave us to understand, they tend to reject the whole thing as highly uncertain at best or subjective waffle at worst. Or, as Grundy put it, as "crap".

This rejection can be more pronounced in atheists, because many (not all) come to their atheism via a study of science. Science seems very certain compared to history. You can make hypotheses and test them in science. You can actually prove things. Scientific propositions are, by definition, falsifiable. Compared to science, history can seem like so much hand-waving, where anyone can pretty much argue anything they like.


History and Science

In fact, history is very much a rigorous academic discipline, with its own rules and methodology much like the hard sciences. This does not mean it is a science. It is sometimes referred to as one, especially in Europe, but this is only in the broader sense of the word; as in "a systematic way of ordering and analysing knowledge". But before looking at how the historical method works, it might be useful to look at how sciences differ from it.

ARE MEN CREATED TOTALLY DEPRAVED? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

--------------------------------

According to Calvinism all men are born guilty of the sin of Adam, and therefore are born totally depraved. (We note here the first assertion: Men are born depraved because of the sin of Adam. However, this assertion is different than his title question. there is a difference between being born and being created.)

Psalms 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. 14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. (NASB)

God did not create David totally depraved. God does not create people guilty of sin in the womb of their mother. (So, the first Scripture offered as proof that men are not born totally depraved does not speak of sin, it speaks of the wonder of creation. Interestingly, David himself was able to make that distinction: "Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me.” - Ps 51:5)

Genesis 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NASB)

God's image is not that of a totally depraved person that is guilty of sin. God is still creating men today in His image. (OK, so the second Scripture offered tells us we have been made in the image of God. That is, we have a spiritual nature, created by God, which reflects His nature. But something happened after that, when corruption entered the world after Adam and Eve sinned. 

All of creation fell, not just man himself: "Ge. 3:17b: “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life." And Ro. 8:20-22: "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

Even Paul recognized he was a slave to this fallen nature: 

Ro. 7:18 "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what good, but I cannot carry it out."

It was Christ who redeemed us, not just by taking our sin, but also dealing with the curse of the law: 

Ga. 3:13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'" [Deut. 21:23] 

Jesus' death that reversed the curse, and His resurrection that gives us life in His presence: 

Re. 22:3: "No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him."

We see this over and over in Scripture, that death came through Adam, and life through Christ:

Ro. 7:5: "For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,  the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death."

Ro. 8:3: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man..."

1 Co. 15:21-22: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a ma n. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." 

Ga. 5:24: "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."

Col. 2:13-15: "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

We therefore are commanded to take off the sinful nature and live in the new life we've been given:

Col. 3:9-10: "Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator."

Ro. 8:13-14 "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

How to fix Obamacare - The Economist

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------

It is very nearly astonishing that the Left-leaning Economist would even admit there is anything wrong with the ACA. Generally speaking, the Left has steadfastly refused to even consider that their heroic legislation had even the slightest flaw, preferring instead to vilify detractors as being in favor of sick people.

So let's see if the Economist is able to accurately represent both the law and its flaws.
--------------------------------------

America’s health-care system remains dysfunctional, but it could be made better (The subtitle contains a subtle leftist meme, "America's health-care system," which suggests that it is an entity as opposed to an industry.)


It is now nearly a year since the roll-out of Obamacare. The launch was a shambles, and Obamacare is a totem for every American who hates big government. Republicans will deride it, yet again, in the mid-term elections. (The implication is that Republicans are out of bounds for being anti-ACA, and that they should shut up about it.)

Obamacare is indeed costly and overcomplicated. (And ineffective and ill-conceived and punitive and...) 

Yet it is not to blame for America’s health mess, (Let's see what the author says is to blame.)

and it could just contain the beginnings of a partial solution to it. But that will only happen if politicians treat health care like a patient: first, diagnose the disease, then examine whether Barack Obama’s treatment helped, and then ask what will make the patient better. (This is a job for politicians? Really? The same politicians who created the mess?)

A quick check-up

Begin with the disease. At the core of America’s problems with health care is a great delusion: it likes to think it has a vibrant private marketplace. (America thinks this? America is an entity with singular thoughts? In actual fact, very few, if any, think we have a "vibrant private marketplace." Almost everyone acknowledges that the healthcare system is broken. As we will see, the author likes to give unsupported assertions as if they were fact.) 

In fact the country has long had a subsidy-laden system that is the most expensive and complicated in the world, (This is what conservative have been complaining about for decades!) 

with much of the government cash going to the rich, (Unsupported assertion. Government healthcare cash went to the rich? What does this even mean?) 

millions of people left out and little individual responsibility. ( A free market, something we haven't had in decades, relies on individual responsibility. It is government intervention that has discouraged this and created our present problems. Healthcare has been heavily legislated and regulated, where government spent $.47 out of every healthcare dollar. Government forces insurance policy language and coverage, strictly limits choice, and dictates pricing and access. All of this is contrary to the free market.) 

America devotes 17% of GDP to health care, (Again note the implication that America is a singular entity, which "devotes" spending to this or that. The phrasing almost sounds like there's a deliberate allocation of America's collective money by some governing body.) 

compared with 9% in Britain, yet nearly 50m Americans were uninsured in 2012 and life expectancy is slightly below average for a rich country. And the taxpayer foots much of the bill: government health spending per head in 2012, before Obamacare’s main provisions took effect, was 50% higher than in Britain, which has a nationalised health system. Some spending, such as the huge Medicare programme for the elderly and Medicaid for the hard-up, is obvious. But much is opaque. (The author is swerving into the truth here. Much of the healthcare system operated totally outside the marketplace.)

Employer-sponsored coverage is tax exempt, costing the government at least $200 billion a year. (This is nonsense. Declining to tax something simply means those who were going to be taxed get to keep their money. This does not "cost" the government, as if government should tax something simply because it isn't. 

In addition, taxation does not happen in a vacuum. Taxes are an additional cost, which means money that could be spent elsewhere by those who actually possess it, gets turned over to the government instead. These economic effects filter all throughout the economy. And we know that taxation discourages the activity being taxed. That's the reason for tobacco taxes, isn't it? So if government taxed employer-provided health insurance benefits, fewer people would be insured, correct?)  

Democracy Alliance Political Action Network - A cadre of billionaires funding Democrats

Found here.

But the Koch brothers are the real problem...

SIGNS & MIRACLES? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Originally found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------------------

We need to give this guy some credit for his unabashed certainty about his positions. As you read his blog you will find an enthusiasm for his own perspective coupled with an implied "there is nothing more to say" underlying everything. 

We wish we could be so certain about our "perfect" doctrine. This is the intellectual legacy of the Greeks (1 Cor. 1:22), so much so that we are trapped by intellectualism and thus remain closed to the renewing of our minds.

Paul tells us in Ro. 11:33: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!" One thing that marks the beginning of our journey into the maturity in the faith begins when we finally admit we can't systematize God.  We can't figure Him out. He is so much more than we thought.

But all that is beside the point. Mr. Finnell is certain about a great many things, and being persuaded is not necessarily a bad thing. But God seems to delight in changing paradigms. Man thought one thing, God did another. Jesus said, "You have heard it said... but I say to you..." and completely overturned everything. He destroyed the Pharisees' intellectual systems, and provided a new paradigm, a Kingdom paradigm. 

An important part of the new paradigm is our need to walk according to the Spirit (Gal 5:25), to abandon the thinking of the world, to stop thinking like children (1 Cor 14:20). Which means that we must be open to God bringing revelation about the truth of Scripture. Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot understand the Bible, and we certainly cannot know the truth if we cling to our ways of understanding. 

OK, enough of that. Let's get on to analyzing Mr. Finnell's myopic presentation:

---------------------------------------

Signs and miracles, are they present today? No, they are not! (An emphatic response. Will his presentation be as conclusive? We shall see.)

John 20:30-31 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

The signs Jesus performed are written in Scripture. (This directly contradicts the quoted Scripture.)

We do not need new signs in order to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. (This is an unsupported assertion which is not addressed by the quoted Scripture. Further, Mr. Finnell's original question was, "...are signs and miracles present today," not, "do we need signs to believe..." Two separate topics for which answering the second does not illuminate the first.)

Why do we have to choose between the environment and the economy?

This was posted by a FB friend. I wanted to analyze it (or over-analyze it), because it has so many logical fallacies and Leftist tropes in it.

First, there's that ubiquitous use of the word "we," which is never you and me, it's always government. To be sure, it will require heavy-handed government intervention into the private sector, a fundamental rework of every facet of peoples' lives, and a substantial reduction in the standard of living of everyone, in order to achieve environmental nirvana. By "substantial," we mean grass huts and berries.

Second, it asks a false binary question: "Why do we have to choose between the environment and the economy?" The question actually is, how much pollution is acceptable as we live our lives? Because that's what we have to do, no matter how clean we try make things. Pollution will never be zero, so the real issue is how much is acceptable. Therefore, everyone is in favor of some pollution.

There is a growing clamor in the environmentalist movement to reduce fossil fuel usage to zero by 2050. In order to achieve this, oppressive measures will need to be undertaken, and those measures are not restricted to lifestyles.

Clearly the world's population in 2050, projected to be 9.6 billion, cannot exist without fossil fuels. A substantial reduction of the world's population must be achieved. Thus, many organizations are advocating universal birth control, but even that will not be enough.

At least there are some environmentalists who are being honest about their goals, a 90% reduction in humanity from present levels. Can you imagine, a population of 700 million? There are actually people out there who want to eliminate billions of people for the sake of the environment, and want to empower governments to achieve such a goal!

And yet, 700 million people still will pollute, so even for these extremists, some amount of pollution is still acceptable. Enter VHEMT, which is calling for our extinction. The only zero-pollution people in the debate, a perspective the even the most ardent environmentalist would recoil from, these are the true believers, willing to die for their god. At least they are all-in. You know, I think they should take the first step themselves to demonstrate their commitment to their ideals.

So the second question in the picture is, "Why not make the environment the economy?" In light of the above discussion, we can see this question is nonsensical. Setting aside the fact that "clean energy" is economically unfeasible, we can see from the above discussion that it isn't even the real solution environmentalists are seeking.

However, you can be sure that if the world's government totally bought in to the idea of windfarms and solar energy and then took over the entirety of the population's choices about how they will lead their lives, they would soon see they could not stop there. VHEMT's ideas might start looking good, and then who can stop them?

That is the problem with these government lovers, they invest totally in government's ability to do good, which eventually leads to the possibility of going the whole way. But you can be sure that someone will stop and say, "hey, why should we wipe out everybody? We are rich and we control everything. What a shame to waste all that wealth and have no one to enjoy it." Thus, utopia is achieved, and it only cost a few billion lives.

It is clear that the typical environmentalist has not thought through the ramifications of their ideology. I suspect many of them have good intentions, although there is no reason to dismiss the idea that the real agenda at work is the destruction of capitalism, ala Naomi Klein.

These people really don't like humans. They're anti-life. The love abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics, though they will never admit it. For many of them, the agenda is far reaching and fundamental. They don't like freedom, choice, prosperity, or happiness. Theirs is a utopian vision, where everyone but them is out.

Welcome to the new order, paradise on earth.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, hero - FB conversation

FB friend S.B. posted this:

Just a few seats left for tonight, a few more tomorrow

Neil deGrasse Tyson - Tickets - Cordiner Hall - Walla Walla, Wa - September 12th, 2014


A.V.: how are any tickets left???

S.B.: Yeah I don't understand either

Me: It may surprise you, but most people don't regard him as some sort of hero.

S.B.: A lot of folks do respect him a great deal Rich. He's been selling out larger venues in major cities with tickets going in excess of $200.

I sure can't draw crowds like that. Lol

K.J.: Anyone who can influence even one child to be interested in science and learning is a hero in my book.

D.C.: @Rich, Neil is not your hero. What he is an amazing critical thinker that can cut through the BS in pretty much anyone's flawed way of thinking. He is very good at taking what people incorrectly call Theories and turns them back into crackpot hypothesis that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. What makes him a hero to many is that he has a talent many people wish they had. In that sense he is the same kind of a hero as "name your favorite sports player or political figure or religious personality".

Me: I did not say he was not my hero. There's no need to defend him since I did not criticize him. I simply pointed out that he's not everyone's hero. He can be yours, but I really don't care.

D.C.: @Rich, so you just went out of your way to point out the obvious? No one in the history of mankind is a hero to "most" people. If you really don't care, then why do you just post random pointless thoughts? (these points are rhetorical - no need to answer; you can just think about them before you post comments)

Me: I think I was clear that I don't care who YOU find to be a hero. More power to you. Nor do I really care what you consider pointless or obvious. But please feel free to police the thread for people who violate your sensibilities.

M.P.: @Rich I think what folks are reacting to is why you felt the need to mention his non-hero status to us all when nothing in the post or comments before your line claimed him to be such, to the world or an individual, yet you felt the need to "go there".

Me: Someone expressed astonishment that there were tickets left. I supplied a reason.

M.P.: No, you talked about hero status, not ticket status. People can like a show just because, not thinking they need to see a hero.

Me:  Feel free to parse and analyze my brief comment about a man who is regularly lionized. As Scott said, a lot of folks respect him a great deal, and he commands $200 ticket prices. But using the word "hero," well, that's just beyond the pale.

Today's lesson in Irony - Christian charity and welfare

Posted by FB friend R.E.:

Food for thought... excuse the Pun, I thought it was Punny!

C.C.: A little bias, There are legitimate need for food stamps as well as food banks. You should read up on Social Justice in a Christian context.

R.E.: But government programs are good if they aren't abused or they don't become dependent on them instead of use them while you are down on your luck. The old hand up instead of a hand out.

C.C.: True, There is some abuse, but Republicans seem to want to scrap the safety nets which is BS. They are despicable. Always wanting to balance their spending on the backs of the poor. A loaf of bread costs a rich man the same as a poor man. We always will have people who for whatever reason are unable to work. The solution is not to let them starve.

Me: Forcing some people to pay for others, no matter how needy, is abuse.

M.S.: Rich, would you not help out your neighbor if they were in need? Would you receive help from your neighbor if you were in need? We are all in this (life) together and everyone has the same basic needs, and for some, those needs are not being met. It is our duty as good human beings to assist those less fortunate.

Me: Agreed, M.S.. However, you have described something different. There is nothing compassionate about a government who by the use of force extracts money from some people and redistributes it to others. In fact, that is the opposite of compassion, because the government inserts itself into my compassion transaction, and chooses for me the time, place, and kind of exchange that will occur.

By way of illustration, if a person approaches you on the street and robs you, then gives the money to a poor person, is that compassionate? No, it's theft. If a group of people get together and vote to take money from you and then give it to the poor, is that compassion? No, that is also theft. A majority vote does not make theft moral or legitimate.

M.S.: Although I see your concern, most of the "1%" aren't spreading their wealth in compassionate ways or in sums that people are comfortable with. That is why there is a mandated "donation" in the form of tax. It's based under the assumption that people are greedy, and sadly, most people are.

Providence Is Remarkable - by Phil Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

This is a long, meandering transcription (9361 words!), where the author attempts to make the case that cessationism does not lean towards deism. 

As is becoming increasingly apparent to us, cessationists content themselves with making unsupported assertions, and when they finally do quote a Scripture, they invariably try to make it say something it does not. Here  Mr. Johnson will quote Scripture to document ancillary claims, but none of them bolster any claim he makes the supposed difference between providence and the miraculous. Those claims are left undocumented.
--------------------------

One of the underlying presuppositions of the Charismatic world is that if God is not actively intervening in creation through miracles and signs and wonders and things like that, then you’ve got an absentee God. (Frankly, we've never heard this argument in charismatic circles. We suppose that if the author is citing it, it is his intent to suggest it is a widespread and common argument, so that he can set up a straw man to refute, and thus negate charismatics as a whole.

In addition, if the author is intent on explaining a Bible doctrine, the actions of other people are irrelevant to the biblical case.) 

If we don’t take the Charismatic position, they say, your God isn’t really there. (Who says this? We have never heard anyone say such a thing.)

Charismatics frequently (Frequently? How frequently? He does eventually cite some people who have perhaps done this, but the issue is not quite so cut-and-dried as he suggests.) 

lob this charge at non-Charismatics, that, you know, if you believe the miraculous Charismatic gifts have ceased, they say, then your view is a close cousin of deism, which is virtually a denial that God is present and at work in this world’s affairs. (Virtually? And how close is "close cousin?" 

Does the author intend to refute those who say that cessationism can be in some ways similar to deism, or does he instead intend to refute a supposed belief that cessationists are deists? There's a substantial difference.

Regardless, if author intends to refute either of these positions, We'll certainly examine his arguments, but his loose language and attempt to paint with a broad brush is not giving us confidence that he will make his case.

By the way, we googled the cessation-deism connection to see if we could find how widespread this line of thought is. We found precious little.)

If you doubt whether today’s Charismatics are truly speaking in tongues, and getting direct revelation from God, they (Each and every one... The reader will note the swerving back and forth between general and absolute terms.) 

will tell you that your skepticism is tantamount to materialistic rationalism. It’s essentially a form of rank unbelief. That’s because the only way (Absolutes.)

the typical Charismatic (Back to a generalization.) 

can envision God as active and personal is as if He is constantly (Back to absolutes.) 

displaying His presence in creation by miraculous means, you know, through constant, direct extra-biblical revelation or with supernatural signs and wonders in the heavens. And they think if He’s not doing that, then He’s not there. (Absolutes again. 

So really, do charismatics all think this? How does he know what people are thinking? Who has used language like what he has described, and why is it representative of what all charismatics say?)

That way of thinking comes dangerously close to the Gnostic notion that that’s how God is. (Now the author flings back a charge at charismatics, equally undocumented. It's almost like, "You calling me a deist? Well, you're a Gnostic. Take that!")

He stands outside His creation and therefore if He acts at all, it must be from outside the cosmos by overturning the natural order of things. And if you think I exaggerate, let me quote some fairly typical sources. (Ok, now we get some "typical sources." That is, prominent representatives of the charismatic line of thought, we should hope.

But more to the point, is Mr. Johnson going to actually explain providence?)

Here’s one from a blog post written by Dave Miller who is senior pastor of a Southern Baptist church in Sioux City, Iowa. (Who?) 

He actually edits fairly heavily blog (sic) known as SBC Voices, and he is a former cessationist and he wrote this article titled, “God told me that the Bible does not teach cessationism.” (How about a link, sir?)

I think he’s being…I think he’s trying to be humorous there, I don’t think he really means God sent him a private message on that. Maybe he does.

He cites some of the standard Charismatic arguments and then in a summary at the end of his article, he writes this, quote: (A quote is coming up from someone who is supposedly a representative opinion of the charismatic position. 

Thankfully, this documentation [albeit sparse] allows us to analyze the presentation to see if it jibes with Mr. Johnson's representation. Indeed, we will find that the author's claims about Miller are inaccurate and diversionary.)

“I think that some (First we notice, "some." Not all.) 

in the cessationist movement have adopted what I call biblical deism. (Miller has created a neologism, biblical deism, the concepts of which must be examined on their own merits. It is not enough to dismiss Miller as though he had asserted that deism and cessationism are synonymous. Miller quite clearly doesn't do this.) 

Deism believed in an impersonal God, one who created the world and then stood back and let it operate according to certain principles. Biblical deism creates a somewhat ("Somewhat." Not "exactly like.") 

impersonal God today. He does not walk with me and talk with me.”

And he sort of gratuitously tacks on a throwaway line in his closing paragraph saying that his criticism of cessationists was intended, these are his words, “was intended playfully, not in a belittling way.” But it’s clear that he’s seriously equating cessationism (Well, no. He's drawing comparisons. Unlike the author, who makes broad absolute statements about charismatics, Miller is looking at similarities.

These kinds of comparative analyses are certainly acceptable ways of drawing conclusions.) 

with the underlying principles of deism and we don’t really have a God, these are his words again, A God who is personal, who speaks and listens and enters in to relationship with us.

Labor is prior to, and independent of capital - President Lincoln

This was posted by a leftist friend on FB, in honor of labor day:

The quote comes from Lincoln's 1861 State of the Union address. One might get the impression that Lincoln was pontificating on the labor theory of value 6 years before Karl Marx published Das Kapital, which stuck me as ridiculous from the start. Indeed, that is exactly what my leftist friend thought, until I corrected him.

Being naturally skeptical, especially since it was a leftist that posted it, I googled the quote. This yielded me the previously cited link. Here we find that Lincoln's address was wide ranging, with budget figures, commentary on the "insurrection," as he called slavery issue, and information regarding territories and potential additions to the Union.

Late in the speech we arrive at the quoted sentences. What was Lincoln talking about? Was he a forerunner of socialist thought? Was he dissing corporations and extolling the labor movement? Was he talking about the worker rising up and taking over from the eeevil elite? Well, no. Turns out, he was really talking about the American dream: Working hard, pulling one's self up by his bootstraps, building up value by being diligent, and making a life in this land of opportunity.

Here's what he said in the next paragraph, as he expanded his thoughts:

"Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all."

Not exactly a treatise regarding the struggle of the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois, eh?