5 Questions For Libertarians Who Support Privatizing Marriage - By Stella Morabito

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

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

It's an interesting perspective here, but terribly flawed. I'll explain as we go.

Read on:

------------------------------------------
Reason magazine went out on a limb recently and published an article entitled “Privatizing Marriage Is a Terrible Idea,” by Shikha Dalmia. She presented an argument that is boldly counter-intuitive for many libertarians these days: that abolishing state-recognized marriage would increase government interference in our lives rather than reduce it. (The assumption is that reducing government in one area leads to more government in another. Let's see how this plays out.)

Dalmia is absolutely correct about this. And it would behoove anyone who truly stands for limited government to consider her points thoughtfully and soberly. The libertarian default position that goes by the slogan “let’s just get the government out of the marriage business” is short on substance. If it sounds like a good idea, that’s probably due more to its mantra-like repetition than anything else. (First point made is that libertarians are mind-numbed robots chanting mantras. The author starts her argument by attacking her opponents. This is a frequent technique of the Left, and just as objectionable when the Right does it.)

Recently I wrote in The Federalist about Sen. Rand Paul’s pitch to end state-recognized marriage and replace domestic arrangements with ordinary contracts. I too explained why this idea would grow government rather than limit it. With the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, I think we can expect the cry for abolishing civil marriage to get louder. (We are now three paragraphs in, and the author has yet to start to make her case.)

It’s important to note that the notion of abolishing civil marriage is also a mission of people on the far Left who are proponents of gigantic government. They include gender legal theorist Martha Fineman, Obama’s former regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, and journalist Masha Gesson, to name a few. It’s also a pet project of singles’ rights advocates, who tend to be fans of big government, although they say they want civil marriage abolished on the grounds that it is discriminatory against single individuals. (Second point made is that there are others advocating it. Far from important, it simply means that there are other perspectives leading to the same conclusion. This does not bolster the author's case in any way.)

Ideology - Zarathustra @ Notes From Underground

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

I am not a "member" of any political party. I am not registered as a Republican or a Democrat. I have never donated any money or time for any political campaign, to any political candidate, or for any political cause whatsoever. I am not a Republican and I am not a member of the Tea Party or Libertarian Party...I have no party affiliation...

So, what am I?

I am a Constitutionalist. At the very base of my beliefs are individual freedom, individual liberty, and individual private property rights. I believe these are inalienable rights, not granted by deity or some supreme being, but agreed upon by social contract and social constructs with one-another. (That puts the writer at odds with the Declaration, upon which the the Constitution is founded. Thus, the writer cannot be a Constitutionalist. His concept of the nature of rights reduces them to "things we agree on," or "stuff government does." These are not rights, they're opinions. They're laws that are passed, modified, or rescinded at will. They're what's popular right now. 

And when the winds of culture change, so do the "social contracts" and "social constructs." The author reduces the concept of rights to a fleeting moment in time where on a certain day we all agreed that free speech is good, but tomorrow it might not be.

True rights cannot exist without objective, transcendent standard. Thus, the author negates rights altogether. But of course, it is necessary for him as an atheist to do so. Because the atheist cannot acknowledge God, he cannot acknowledge the true nature of rights. 

Interestingly, the Left uses the same reasoning as the author, just to different ends.)

Theist v Atheist - John C. Wright

Found here. An excellent discussion on the inadequacies of atheism.
---------------------------------

I have been exploring some argument for and against theism and atheism in my biweekly columns at EveryJoe. Unfortunately, the constraints of time and patience do not allow me to state each argument at length, and so, as a gift to my readers, I here publish some of the discussion that did not see print. Make of it what you will.

The strongest argument in favor of one model over another is how much it explained, how clearly, without recourse to special pleading, lapses in logic, or ad hoc. I propose that while the Christian religion contains mysteries certain to daze even the most patient of theologians, it is nonetheless the more robust, on the grounds that it requires fewer assumptions and leaves far less unexplained. For the atheist, nearly everything his worldview seeks to explain is left unexplained, marked off with a mere somehow.

While it is possible (in that it is not a logical self contradiction) that we live in a universe where irrational and non-deliberate chemical and evolutionary processes gave rise to creatures like ourselves capable of reason and deliberation, and that our reason somehow is able to deduce and predict correctly some of the processes of that material universe as well as the imponderable truths of logic, aesthetics, law and ethics, which just so happensomehow to apply to and work inside the material universe as well, it requires a leap of faith to believe that this is the case here in the real universe in which we actually live.

Where is the proof that the real universe behaves in this way?

Where is even a single example?

We have never seen any irrational process lead to a rational result, nor any non deliberate process give rise to a deliberate conclusion, and so our assumption that this somehow happened in the past rests on no evidence, and involves a seeming paradox of something arising from nothing, the paradox of beauty coming from randomness, of ethics springing from remorseless Darwinian struggles to survive, of logic and science arising from unintentional by products of brain chemistry.

And somehow, nearly every human being who has ever lived has had a joy for music and a fear of ghosts, two things which Darwinian selection could not possibly select into existence.

What natural process made it so that natural processes derive order out of chaos without any intention of creating order is also an unanswered somehow.

You see, even if it were true that Darwinian evolution creates order out of disorder (it is not), the question of how Darwinian evolution came to have this property, who or what makes evolution be something that creates order out of disorder, is not answered by the atheist worldview. The atheist must either dismiss the question as unanswerable because it is beyond human knowledge, or must dismiss the question as unanswerable because it is incoherent conceptually, that is, not a real question (like asking how far up is ‘up’?). That dismissal is yet another somehow, a thing the model does not explain.

It would not be an act of faith for any atheist who had seen an irrational primate evolve into a man to believe that order can arise from disorder. Indeed, even seeing a designed system like a computer be engineered into having self awareness and a moral sense would affirm that the hypothesis of order from chaos were reasonable because he would have some reason to believe it were possible. None have ever seen such a thing. As it is, the atheist walks by faith, not by sight.

The assumption that human reason comes from a rational creature, a rational divine creature with a mind, who designed us deliberately to be rational like himself is a less paradoxical assumption, and does not contain the dubioussomehows mentioned above. God himself is dubious, the king of somehow, but the explanation of how and why these other things arose becomes coherent granting this doubtful assumption.

And, indeed, the incomprehensible axiom in the theist model concerns a being alleged to be incomprehensible, which is an assumption less vulnerable to skeptical question than the atheist model.

The atheist model requires the assumption that fundamental things we know about human and animal nature, such as that we have free will where animals do not, are merely gross illusions, bewilderingly universe. It is the greater coherency of the theorem which makes it the more reasonable of the two.

Let us turn to specific arguments to show this greater coherency.



Below I make seven arguments. The first argument is divided into four lemmas.

Let us define the word Natural to refer to any events taking place inside the continuum of time and space due to cause-and-effect, that is, necessary efficient causes. Supernatural is anything that cannot be defined solely in terms of events taking place inside the continuum of time and space due to cause-and-effect, that is, necessary efficient causes.

The first argument is ontological, that is, it seeks to show that the nature of being itself is such that it cannot be explained absent a creator who is supernatural, uncaused, and necessary.

The first lemma is about the nature of time and space:
Time exists and has a definite nature and property.
Time either came into existence by a natural process, or did not.
Time cannot have come into existence by a natural process that took time to complete, by definition.
Therefore time either has always existed, or it came into existence by a supernatural act.
If time always existed, then there is no event which defined its nature, which is absurd. Therefore time did not always exist.
Therefore time came into existence by a supernatural act.

A simpler way to state the same argument, assuming the standard model of physics is true: So, while the Big Bang is itself a natural event, it cannot be said to have arisen from natural causes, that is, causes inside the ambit of time and space, simply because time and space arose from and during the Big Bang. Since the Big Bang created time, whatever brought the Big Bang into being could not be inside time, and could not be a natural cause. Another type of causation is needed, and the only alternative is supernatural causation.

One we conclude that a supernatural act rather than a natural one created time, the definition of supernatural requires us to conclude that this creation was not necessitated by cause-and-effect, as there can be no cause-and-effect outside time. This does not mean there are no events, it merely means no events necessitated by cause and effect. The only thing in human experience akin to this is an act of free will. Hence the event of creation was an act of free will, or something akin to it.

One cannot have a will without a willer, that is, a rational entity, who made specific decisions about the nature of the continuum thus created. Since this entity or entities has the power to create the universe and define their contents, including its laws of nature, laws of matter, and laws of morality, it is reasonable to call him God, since that is what all men know that word to mean.

The second lemma is about the nature of nature:
The sum total of natural processes we call ‘nature’ that is, the whole material universe in motion from atoms to stars, exists and has a definite nature. Nature taken as a whole acts in one way and not in another.
Nature taken as a whole cannot have caused itself, since nothing causes itself.
Nor can nature taken as a whole have a natural cause inside nature, since the part cannot be the cause of the whole.
Therefore the cause of the whole of nature is supernatural. And this all men know to be God, for the reasons given above.

The third lemma is about infinite regress:
In nature, all events have causes.
It is impossible that any natural chains of events have no first cause, or else there is no defined chain of cause and effect.
Therefore for every chain of causes and effect, there must be an first cause, which is itself uncaused.
Since this uncaused first cause must exist, and cannot be natural, therefore it is supernatural. And this all men know to be God, for the reasons given above.

The fourth lemma is about necessity and contingency:

Definition: A contingent fact is something that can conceivably be the other way: I can imagine the sun rising in the West without any logical contradictions. But no one can conceive a situation where the axioms and common notions of Euclid are true, and the Pythagorean Theorem is false. These are necessarily the case, if the axioms are true.

Common notion: all contingencies are dependent on a logically prior necessity. Example: the sun cannot rise in the east if there is no such thing as motion. The contingent fact of the sun rising in the east logically depends on the truth of the concept of motion. But the concept of motion depends in turn on the concept of time, which is a prior and more fundamental notion. Hence motion is contingent on time, whereas sunrise is contingent on (among other things) motion. Time is contingent on the concept of self identity, since if the statement A is A were false, the concept of time could not be true. The concept of self-identity is dependent on the concept of identity, that is, being qua being. Such is an example of the chain of contingency.
In nature, all contingencies are dependent on a logically prior necessity, which in turn is dependent on a higher logically prior necessity, forming a chain of contingency.
There can be no infinite chain of contingencies, for it there is no first being, nothing in the chain is defined.
Ergo, there must be one necessary being on which all contingent beings depend, itself dependant on no prior necessity.
Since this necessary being must exist, and cannot be natural, it is supernatural. And this all men know to be God, for the reasons given above.

Such is my first argument, divided here into four heads.

I here give additional arguments showing the weakness of the atheist worldview.

Second, the argument from law.
There are manmade laws we all know to be unjust.
If there is no supernatural order, there can be no supernatural lawgiver.
Absent a supernatural lawgiver, there is no law with universal authority to overrule manmade law. Likewise, absent a supernatural lawgiver, the conscience has no authority to overrule manmade law.
If there is no law with authority to overrule manmade law, manmade law cannot be justly overruled, and hence cannot be unjust.
Which is contradicts the first assumption, hence is absurd. Therefore, QED.

Third, the argument from logic.
If there is no supernatural order deliberately to design human reason to follow the reason of the universe, the forms of logic which exist in the human mind are either manmade (that is, a construction of his own devising) or natural (an inherited property of his brain structure).
If logic is manmade, men could change or abolish the rules of logic at will, in which case all reasoning is in vain.
If logic is an inherited property of the brain structure, there is no reason to suppose that logic is objective, or reflects anything in reality, in which case all reasoning is in vain.
If all reasoning is in vain, then so is the reasoning in this argument, which is a self-contradiction, hence absurd. Therefore, QED.

This has a corollary in an argument from free will
If there is no supernatural order, then there is nothing outside nature.
If nothing outside nature, then nothing exists aside from natural processes, matter in motion.
Ergo thinking is merely one more natural process like any other, whose outcome is determined by the previous vectors of matter in motion.
If so, then no decision (not even the decision to foreswear belief in free will) is decided or even influenced by you.
Which is a self-contradiction, hence absurd. Therefore, QED.

Fourth, the argument from beauty:
Absent a supernatural order, there are no standards of beauty possible aside from natural standards, which includes only either individual tastes, or culturally determined tastes, or tastes based on instinctive reaction programmed by evolution into our brain chemistry.
The common experience of mankind shows that certain things, including those dangerous or indifferent to any possible Darwinian survival trait, such as beholding stars or storms at sea, desert canyons, snowy mountains, horses in full career, images of the rings of Saturn, and on and on, are universally seen as sublime.
If such natural beauty is dangerous or indifferent to any possible Darwinian survival trait, then this taste cannot be based on instinctive reaction programmed by evolution into our brain chemistry.
Again, if universal, then this taste cannot be personal taste nor culturally determined tastes.
Therefore, QED

As a coda, one might mention that neither do musical melodies exist in nature at all, hence could not have influenced Darwinian evolution in any way. But there is no human culture, no, not one, which lacks the love of musical melody.

Fifth, the argument from philanthropy:
Law is based on awarding each man his due dignity and right, his by mere fact of being human, neither granted by the fiat of a sovereign nor earned by a test of intelligence or strength.
But no one grants another such dignity except to his brother, who needs no grant nor earning to be one’s brother.
Hence, universal law is possible when and only when all men are brothers. Civilization, including such delightful pastimes as speculations of philosophy and theology, is not possible unless universal law orders the manmade law, hence civilization is not possible unless all men are brothers.
Either all men are brothers, in which case they are due the dignity one offers a brother, or not.
Absent a supernatural order, all man cannot literally be brothers. They are instead members of different races and tribes in a Darwinian competition with each other for scarce resources. While temporary accommodations and truces are possible, brotherly love is inappropriate, because, in fact, all men are not brothers.
Hence, since all men are not brothers, it is illogical and inappropriate to award all men equal dignity and equal rights, whereupon civilization is without justification, including the civilized courtesy which alone allows this conversation to take place.
Therefore anyone who rebut this argument, or even grants it the civilized courtesy of a hearing, tacitly repudiates the preconditions of all argument, which is absurd, therefore QED.

Sixth, the argument from physics:
Unlike Alchemy, physics cannot be an untrue nor meaningless discipline, for if it were, airplanes would not fly, electricity would not flow, and bridges would not stand. The common experience of mankind is that the discipline of physics is not in vain.
Cause and effect is a precondition without which the discipline of physics is meaningless. Likewise, the regularity of phenomenon is a precondition without which the discipline of physics is meaningless.
No discipline can prove its own preconditions. Hence, causality and regularity are not deductions of physics, nor of any empirical study. These axioms must come before physics, hence are rightly called metaphysical.
These metaphysical ideas of causality and regularity are nonmaterial, imponderable, occupy neither time nor space, and, in a word, are purely mental abstractions. They do not exist inside the natural order of the material universe.
If there is no supernatural order, then metaphysical ideas of causality and regularity do not exist at all, whereupon all metaphysics hence all physics is in vain.
Which contradicts the first assumption, hence is absurd, hence QED.

The Seventh argument is an appeal to historical reality.
Most men for most of time have believed in a supernatural order. This belief is not only peculiar, for most of them, it was central to their lives and their cultures, even to the point where they were willing to kill and die for it.
The belief is either wholly false (as the atheist would have it) or is not wholly false (the Catholic Church teaches that the pagan religions were dim but honest attempts to reach a supernatural reality, hence that they were incomplete, misguided, or inchoate, partly false, but not wholly so).
If it is wholly false, then all religious men whatsoever are either lunatics, who believe in something more preposterous and easier to disprove than a belief in invisible giant flying spaghetti monsters, or abominable cowards, playing along with the preposterous Pastaferians despite the self evident absurdity and wickedness of these beliefs.
Likewise, if wholly false, then all atheist men are the sole men free of this nearly universal and dangerous lunacy. Freed from the bonds of priest-craft and superstition, we would expect to find atheists outnumbering theists in the areas noted for intellectual honesty and brightness of wit.
But if not wholly false, we would expect to find all men to be sinners, and indeed to find sinners up to and including Judas or the Antichrist highly placed in the Church; and to find not all pagans lacking in virtue; nor for that matter all atheists.
Even a passing glance at the history of mankind shows that those who believed in the supernatural order were not only not all lunatics, but include the greatest genius and heroes of all time, and the most generous of saints and more fearless of martyrs.
Even a passing glance at the history of intellectuals from Rousseau to Nietzsche to Marx to Ayn Rand show them to have violated the common decency and moral code of mankind, sometimes egregiously so, and possessed of less intellectual honesty than the norm.
Ergo some extraordinary explanation is needed to explain how famous theists can be afflicted by a lunacy as stupid as pasta-worship, but still be equal or superior to the enlightened atheists in moral and intellectual and all other forms of accomplishment.
If no such extraordinary explanation is found, the atheist worldview does not explain the facts on the ground as well as the theist, and hence is not to be preferred.

Again, as previously stated, the argument here is not that theism is the only possible rational conclusion to reach. The argument is that belief in a supernatural order is the more parsimonious assumption, hence more reasonable than disbelief.

Of all places, Sanders' presidential bid has growing support in Montana By Troy Carter Chronicle Staff Writer

From the Bozeman Chronicle. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------------------

(I find it hard to account for the enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders. He's an aged, withered-up socialist fossil advocating treadworn, failed ideas derived from an ideology that has killed millions. 

He has accomplished absolutely nothing in Congress, he has strange ideas about rape and women's orgasms. He represents a bygone era, where armed invaders rounded up and executed farmers and university professors. he cannot point to any success of his ideas. 

Yet, local businessman Andy Boyd likes him. It makes no sense.

Read on:
------------------------

2016 Republican candidates are stupid and evil

Leftist voting guide for 2016:

Jeb Bush - Stupid
Ben Carson - Really stupid
Chris Christie - Fat and stupid
Ted Cruz - Stupid. No, wait, evil.
Carly Fiorina - Clueless.
Lindsay Graham - Really stupid.
Mike Huckabee - Religious and stupid
Bobby Jindal - Totally dumb.
George Pataki - Stupider.
Rand Paul - Evil. No, wait. Stupid.
Rick Perry - Dumb as a bag of hammers.
Marco Rubio - Idiot.
Rick Santorum - Dim bulb.
Donald Trump - Evil. Definitely evil.
Scott Walker - Evil and stupid.

5 ERRORS OF THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL - David W. Jones

Very good article found here.
------------------------------------

Previously: “Prosperity Gospel Born in the USA” (Russell Woodbridge) The following is an edited version of an article that originally appeared in the 9Marks Journal on the prosperity gospel.

More than a century ago, speaking to the then-largest congregation in all Christendom, Charles Spurgeon said, “I believe that it is anti-Christian and unholy for any Christian to live with the object of accumulating wealth. You will say, ‘Are we not to strive all we can to get all the money we can?’ You may do so. I cannot doubt but what, in so doing, you may do service to the cause of God. But what I said was that to live with the object of accumulating wealth is anti-Christian.”

Over the years, however, the message being preached in some of the largest churches in the world has changed—indeed, a new gospel is being taught to many congregations today. This message has been ascribed many name, such as the “name it and claim it” gospel, the “blab it and grab it” gospel, the “health and wealth” gospel, the “prosperity gospel,” and “positive confession theology.”

No matter what name is used, the essence of this message is the same. Simply put, this “prosperity gospel” teaches that God wants believers to be physically healthy, materially wealthy, and personally happy. Listen to the words of Robert Tilton, one of its best-known spokesmen: “I believe that it is the will of God for all to prosper because I see it in the Word, not because it has worked mightily for someone else. I do not put my eyes on men, but on God who gives me the power to get wealth.” Teachers of the prosperity gospel encourage their followers to pray for and even demand material flourishing from God.

Five Theological Errors

Russell Woodbridge and I wrote a book titled Health, Wealth, and Happiness: Has the Prosperity Gospel Overshadowed the Gospel of Christ? (Kregel, 2010) to examine the claims of prosperity gospel advocates. While the book is too wide-ranging to summarize here, in this article I’d like to review five doctrines we cover in it—doctrines on which prosperity gospel advocates err. By discerning these errors regarding key doctrines, I hope you will plainly see the dangers of the prosperity gospel.

1. The Abrahamic covenant is a means to material entitlement.
The Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12, 15, 17, 22) is one of the theological bases of the prosperity gospel. It’s good that prosperity theologians recognize much of Scripture is the record of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, but it’s bad that they don’t maintain an orthodox view of this covenant. They incorrectly view the inception of the covenant; more significantly, they erroneously view the application of the covenant.

In his book Spreading the Flame (Zondervan, 1992), Edward Pousson stated the prosperity view on the application of the Abrahamic covenant: “Christians are Abraham’s spiritual children and heirs to the blessings of faith. . . . This Abrahamic inheritance is unpacked primarily in terms of material entitlements.” In other words, the prosperity gospel teaches that the primary purpose of the Abrahamic covenant was for God to bless Abraham materially. Since believers are now Abraham’s spiritual children, we have inherited these financial blessings. As Kenneth Copeland wrote in his 1974 book The Laws of Prosperity, “Since God’s covenant has been established and prosperity is a provision of this covenant, you need to realize that prosperity belongs to you now!”

To support this claim, prosperity teachers appeal to Galatians 3:14, which refers to “the blessings of Abraham [that] come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus.” It’s interesting, however, that in their appeals to Galatians 3:14 these teachers ignore the second half of the verse: “that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Paul is clearly reminding the Galatians of the spiritual blessing of salvation, not the material blessing of wealth.

2. Jesus’s atonement extends to the “sin” of material poverty.
In his Bibliotheca Sacra article “A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel,” theologian Ken Sarles observes how the prosperity gospel claims that “both physical healing and financial prosperity have been provided for in the atonement.” This seems to be an accurate observation in light of Copeland’s statement that “the basic principle of the Christian life is to know that God put our sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, and poverty on Jesus at Calvary.” This misunderstanding of the scope of the atonement stems from two errors prosperity gospel proponents make.

First, many who espouse prosperity theology have a fundamental misconception of the life of Jesus. For example, teacher John Avanzini proclaimed on a TBN program, Jesus had “a nice house,” “a big house,” “Jesus was handling big money,” and he even “wore designer clothes.” It’s easy to see how such a warped view of the life of Christ could lead to an equally warped misconception of the death of Christ.

A second error that leads to a faulty view of the atonement is misinterpreting 2 Corinthians 8:9, which reads, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty might become rich.” While a shallow reading of this verse may lead one to believe Paul was teaching about an increase in material wealth, a contextual reading reveals he was actually teaching the exact opposite principle. Indeed, Paul was teaching the Corinthians that since Christ accomplished so much for them through the atonement, they should empty themselves of their riches in service of the Savior. This is why just five short verses later Paul would urge the Corinthians to give their wealth away to their needy brothers, writing “that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack” (2 Cor. 8:14).

12 Teachings That Harm the Church - by JOSEPH MATTERA

Found here. Some good stuff.
---------------------------------

I have heard it said that "balance is the key to life." I agree with that statement, as I have found that any truth taken to the extreme (that ignores others aspects related to its subject) is unbalanced and can be harmful.

This is also why Paul the Apostle said that he teaches "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), which involves a full-orbed presentation of truth.

The following are some of the hyper-teachings that have been harmful to the body of Christ, in my opinion:

1. Hyper-Grace. Grace is typically defined as unmerited favor given to humans by God. This is a satisfactory definition albeit not comprehensive. Since Scripture teaches us that we are saved by grace and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9), those in the hyper-grace camp believe and teach that once a person is saved, they can live any way they want and still achieve the benefits of salvation. They need a full dose of the book of James to counter-balance their hyper-grace!

2. Hyper-Holiness. Those in this camp put an overemphasis on outward holiness to the point in which they believe a person has to dress a certain way in order to have right standing with God. (For example: women should not cut their hair, wear pants, makeup or jewelry.) Their emphasis on outward conformity to strict standards makes them more like Pharisees than Christians. They need to meditate on Matthew 23 to understand God's view that inward holiness is a greater priority than outward holiness.

3. Hyper-Calvinist. This camp emphasizes God's sovereignty to the point that it bypasses what Scripture teaches regarding human responsibility. For example, during Charles Finney's ministry, he had to constantly debate hyper-Calvinists who taught that it was wrong for preachers to induce sinners to repent, make decisions for Christ, and/or do anything that aided in the process of salvation. Of course, the majority of Calvinists have not taken this approach as we study the ministries of former heroes of the faith such as George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon and other Calvinists who were mightily used of God to bring thousands of sinners to Christ by commanding repentance and obedience to the gospel.

4. Hyper-Arminianism. Those in this camp overemphasize human responsibility to the point that they nullify God's sovereignty. Extreme Arminianism such as "open theism" even goes as far as teaching that God doesn't know everything in the future and that God makes His decisions after He sees how humans respond to Him. They have reduced predestination (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:29-30) to "post-destination" and have created a god that responds to time and space rather than the One who controls it.

The difference between predestination and human responsibility is a scriptural paradox that will never be fully understood this side of heaven. I always say that Scriptures that emphasize predestination are taken from God's transcendent view of human reality (from heaven's perspective), and Scriptures that emphasize human responsibility are from an immanent view of human reality (from the earth's perspective).

5. Hyper-Love. Those in this camp emphasize the love of God to the exclusion of the holiness and righteousness of God (Psalm 89:14 says "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne"). Whenever we focus on one attribute of God to the exclusion of the other attributes of God, we become unbalanced and present a wrong view of God's character and nature. Those in this camp say that God is love (1 John 4:7) and ignore the Scriptures that deal with God's wrath, along with the laws of sowing and reaping due to sin (Eph. 5:1-6; Gal. 6:7-8).

Even the Apostle John, who wrote "God is love," also said in the same epistle that those who practice sin are of the devil and are lawless because sin is lawlessness (1 John 4:1-10).

Love Wins author Rob Bell went so far as to teach that all men would eventually be saved because of God's love. Read Revelation 20:11-15 to balance that view.

6. Hyper-Faith. Those in this camp primarily preach on faith for healing and deliverance, and set believers up to think there will always be victory with very little suffering or pain if they exert faith in God. This neglects the fact that Jesus not only healed the sick but also spoke about the need for His followers to walk in humility and meekness, to take up their cross and lose their lives in order to find it (Matt. 5:1-10 and Mark 8:34-35).

7. Hyper-Prosperity. Similar to the faith camp, this circle of preachers primarily emphasizes Scriptures that deal with personal blessing and financial prosperity. Although there is some truth in their teachings, this overemphasis produces believers who seek the blessing more than the Blesser! It can also produce false expectations of people who sow their money into a ministry expecting a hundredfold return, which rarely if ever happens on a purely financial level. I believe in biblical prosperity but not in a "rights-centered" gospel that ignores our biblical stewardship to produce wealth primarily to confirm His covenant in the earth (Deuteronomy 8:18).

8. Hyper-High Church. Those in this camp emphasize institutional church traditions and protocols that produce a professional class of clergy who have to walk around all day in clerical garb. They insist that the church be set up as a hierarchical organization replete with titles, and even a throne for the head bishop! Those in this camp are losing most of their young people and have to reread the New Testament to understand the way of Jesus and the Apostles. Somehow I cannot picture Jesus, the original apostles and/or Paul wearing clerical robes and collars every Sunday and focusing on hierarchical titles and titular elevations.

To counterbalance this approach Philippians 2:1-12 comes to mind as well as Matthew 23, which is a judgment against the religious system set up by those who claim to follow God.

9. Hyper-Kingdom. Those in this camp preach as though the fullness of the kingdom has already come and that there are no more biblical prophecies left to be fulfilled. (Some call them "full preterists".) Many don't even believe things could get worse on the earth and don't believe in the second bodily return of Christ. Scripture teaches a paradoxical view that the kingdom is already here (Col. 1:12-13), but not yet fully manifest (Rom. 16:20).

10. Hyper-Dispensational. Those in this camp believe they have to passively wait for the rapture and avoid political and social reform, because trying to transform culture is like "re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic." This is based on a faulty reading of Scriptures such as Daniel 9:24-27.

Although I do not believe every nation and all people will be saved before the second bodily return of Christ, I do believe there will be some sort of strong kingdom influence in the nations (especially "sheep nations"; read Matt. 25:32) before the second coming. All of the major biblical covenants and themes point to a victorious church and victorious gospel before the end of human history (read Gen. 1:28; 12:1-3; 22:17-18; Ps. 110:2; Acts 3:21).

11. Hyper-Charismatic. Those in this camp focus more on the gifts of the Spirit than on the Word of God, character development and inward holiness. They elevate their spiritual experiences above the truth of Scripture.

12. Hyper-Rational. Those in this camp are afraid of any spiritual (subjective) experiences and/or manifestations. They depend upon their mind to the neglect of their spirit. They believe God only speaks through His written Word. They rationalize their faith and have little or no real prayer life or substantive fellowship with God. They split hairs over biblical doctrines and in some ways worship the Bible more than the God of the Bible. (Jesus said it is possible to study the Scriptures without coming to God; read John 5:39-40).

In conclusion, whenever we focus on a truth to the exclusion of other aspects of truth we end up in error.

May God help us to understand and preach the whole counsel of God so that we can feed the flock of God and equip them to fulfill their divine purpose!

The Unsoundness of Judicial Supremacy - by Paul R. DeHart

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. A very informative article.

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

Decisions of the Supreme Court that go beyond power delegated to the judicial branch or are contrary to the Constitution are null and void. To protect our constitutional republic, citizens, states, and the other branches of the federal government must resist any such decision.

The Supreme Court looms large in American politics. In fact, many accept the claim—made by the Court and others—that the Supreme Court gets the final say as to what counts as law under our system of government. Judicial review is now bound together with the doctrine of judicial supremacy, crafted by Chief Justice Roger Taney in Ableman v. Booth—the case that infamously upheld the Fugitive Slave Act.

Together with Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Carson Holloway, and Robert George, I dissent from this view. Judicial supremacy is contrary to republicanism (that is, to popular sovereignty) and to constitutionalism (that is, to the rule of law rather than men). Indeed, the doctrine of judicial supremacy unravels the entire fabric of our constitutional order.

Several weeks ago, I entered this debate publicly by critiquing an argument proffered by Gabriel Malor. In a column at The Federalist, Malor criticized Governor Mike Huckabee’s claim that states have the right to resist or refuse to comply with decisions of the Court that extend beyond their jurisdiction under the Constitution. According to Malor, such a view is pure “gobbledygook.”

On the contrary, I argued, our founders and framers held that no act of the federal government—the Supreme Court included—that goes beyond power granted in the Constitution or that is contrary to its express prohibitions possesses the power to bind. Other actors—the legislative or executive branches, the state government, and even individuals—therefore have the right to ignore decisions of the Court that exceed its jurisdiction. I demonstrated that this was the position of the framers of the Constitution, including not only James Madison but also Alexander Hamilton, the principal architect of judicial review. And I maintained that constitutionalism and republican form depend upon affirming that decisions of the Court that go beyond power delegated by, or contrary to, the Constitution are null and void.

In reply, Malor made two points that will serve as my point of departure here. First, he maintained that Huckabee “is off in fringe territory” when he claims that “the Supreme Court . . . cannot overrule the other branches of government.” Second, he maintained that my rejection of judicial supremacy turned on a normative rather than a notional account of law. While I describe the way things should be, Malor describes the way things are. In our current climate, he thinks, it’s just not possible to resist the decrees of the Supreme Court, and to suggest that things could or should be different is simply nonsensical.

Could vs. Should
This argument obviously turns on the conflation of cannot with may not. Any intelligible claim that resistance to decrees of the Supreme Court is sheer nonsense logically must rely upon a normative or de jure claim. By installing a de facto proposition as the major premise of their argument, the proponents of judicial supremacy are able to claim no more than this: resistance to the Court cannot be made because it will not succeed. Resistance to the Court is wrong or nonsensical just because such resistance is futile.

This claim sounds very much like the arguments of the Greek Sophist Thrasymachus or of the Athenians in Thucydides’ “Melian Dialogue.” As the Athenian representatives said to the Melian delegation, “Nature always compels gods (we believe) and men (we are certain) to rule over anyone they can control.” In short, might makes right. The Supreme Court cannot be resisted because it has power; justice is of no consequence here.

Making the major premise of the argument for judicial supremacy a de facto rather de jure claim renders the argument invalid. Even if it’s true that resistance to the Supreme Court will not succeed, it does not follow that such resistance cannot or ought not be undertaken. But even if the argument were not invalid, the major premise—that the Supreme Court cannot be successfully resisted—is demonstrably false.

The Weakest Branch
The proponents of judicial supremacy ignore the numerous instances in which Congress, the president, and the states have all very successfully resisted Supreme Court decisions—sometimes tragically, sometimes quite legitimately. According to Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist no. 78, the Supreme Court is the least dangerous branch of the federal government because it is far and away the weakest branch. It cannot even enforce its own decisions.

Advocates of judicial supremacy often make John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison the cornerstone of their case. But everyone knows that one reason for the decision in Marbury—that section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which expanded the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to cases like Marbury’s, was unconstitutional—was precisely because Marbury knew Jefferson and Madison would (very successfully) defy any order from the Court to deliver Mr. Marbury’s commission to him. Marshall did not want the institutional weakness of the Court on full display, and so he rendered a decision that did not require Madison or Jefferson to do anything.

But let’s set the politics of Marbury to the side and consider a few instances in which the decisions of the Court were ignored by the coordinate branches of the federal government, by state governments, or by local governments and individuals.

In the case of Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that Georgia law was not binding within the Cherokee Nation. Consequently, missionaries working with the Cherokee and not from Georgia could not be required by the state to take an oath of allegiance to Georgia. Thus the Court ordered Georgia to release two missionaries who had been arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for refusing to swear allegiance to the state of Georgia.

The State of Georgia refused. In his annual message, Governor Wilson Lumpkin railed against the “fallibility, infirmities, and errors of this Supreme tribunal.” Shortly thereafter, the missionaries stopped pursuing legal proceedings in federal courts to compel Georgia’s compliance to the order of the Supreme Court that they be released. They did so precisely because of the Supreme Court’s failure to compel Georgia’s obedience to its decision, which President Jackson had no inclination to enforce. Instead, they appealed to Governor Lumpkin for a pardon, and Lumpkin granted their request.

This story clearly illustrates the inability of the Court to enforce its decisions—especially when the national executive sided with Georgia against the Court. In the Worcester case, the Court certainly lost.

Northern Resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act
In 1859, the Court tendered a decision in Ableman v. Booth that, if we simply read the holding and opinion of the Court, would seem to support the argument for judicial supremacy.

In 1854, northern abolitionist Sherman Booth was arrested by US Marshal Stephen V. Ableman for violating the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Booth had led a mob to rescue Joshua Glover, an escaped slave living in Wisconsin whom Ableman had taken into custody. A reluctant jury convicted Booth of violating the federal law and sent him to jail. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, issued a writ of habeas corpus compelling Booth’s release. Ableman, in turn, sought a writ of error from the Supreme Court to get the action of the Wisconsin high court reviewed. The Supreme Court obliged and found against the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Ableman ultimately rearrested Booth and sent him back to jail (only to have President Buchanan pardon Booth six months later).

Chief Justice Roger Taney composed the Court’s opinion. Taney declared the Fugitive Slave Act constitutional, asserted that the states must “support this Constitution,” and claimed that “no power is more clearly conferred than the power of this court to decide ultimately and finally, all cases arising under such Constitution and laws.” In short, Chief Justice Taney created the doctrine of judicial supremacy—including a rejection of the right of states to resist decisions of the Supreme Court—in the context of upholding the Fugitive Slave Law.

In spite of the Supreme Court’s ruling, active resistance of Northern states to the Fugitive Slave Act did not slacken. In fact, Northern resistance effectively nullified the Fugitive Slave Act even though the act was federal law upheld by the Supreme Court and even though the Supreme Court had declared such resistance illegal.

Similarly, President Lincoln defied Chief Justice Taney’s holding in Dred Scott that former slaves who had attained freedom could never be citizens of the United States. Over and against the Dred Scott decision, the Lincoln administration issued passports of citizenship to freed slaves—and the Court couldn’t successfully tell Lincoln to stop. It might have issued a decision, but the Court cannot impose its own judgments. It relies on the executive for that.

Modern Resistance to the Court
Lest I be accused of harkening back to a bygone era, we should consider some examples of successful resistance to the Court in more recent times. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of legislative vetoes.

Congress paid no attention. According to leading congressional scholar Louis Fisher, thirteen years later, Congress had enacted more legislative vetoes (over 400!) than before the Court told them they could not. In short, the Supreme Court reached a decision with which Congress disagreed, and the Supreme Court lost.

The paradigm case for proponents of judicial supremacy is Brown v. Board of Education. In 1957, Governor Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students (the Little Rock Nine) from entering a previously whites-only school. President Eisenhower, however, nationalized the Arkansas National Guard to enforce desegregation. Ultimately, says Malor, “The Supreme Court’s determination trumped a state official’s personal beliefs, as contemplated by the Supremacy Clause.”

For the proponents of judicial supremacy, the story ends here, with the Court triumphing over local resistance to its decrees. But the story does not really end here. In the decade after Brown, before the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there was virtually no desegregation. The Little Rock Nine were—tragically—an exception to the rule. As Gerald Rosenberg notes,

despite Cooper v. Aaron and the sending of troops to Little Rock in 1957, as of June 1963, only 69 of 7,700 students [less than 1 percent] at the supposedly desegregated, ‘formerly’ white, junior and senior high schools of Little Rock were black. Public resistance, supported by local political action, can almost always effectively defeat court-ordered civil rights.

Indeed, a decade after Brown virtually nothing had changed for African-American students living in the 11 states of the former Confederacy that required race-based school segregation by law. For example, in the 1963-1964 school year, barely one in 100 (1.2%) of these African-American children was in a non-segregated school. That means that for 99 of every 100 African-American children in the South a decade after Brown, the finding of a constitutional right changed nothing.

Partisans of judicial supremacy would have us believe that the Brown decision was effective. But, standing alone (i.e., prior to the adoption of the Civil Rights Act a decade later), this decision too was a dead letter for the overwhelming majority of states and, tragically, the overwhelming majority of African-American students.

Constitutional Republic or Non-Constitutional Oligarchy?
My point is not that individuals or states or the coordinate branches of the federal government never comply with the Supreme Court. Sometimes they do, but often they do not. Nor is my point that resistance is always acceptable. Sometimes resistance to decisions of the Court is unconstitutional, illegal, or unjust. Resistance to desegregation was both unconstitutional and unjust. It was also overwhelmingly successful.

My point is only this: If the proponents of judicial supremacy are right, then we have neither a republic nor a constitutional regime. In their understanding of the power of the Court, we have rule by an elite few—an aristocracy or an oligarchy. Moreover, if the Supreme Court has the ultimate say as to what counts as law—just because it has the final say as to what the Constitution means or requires—then these aristocrats or oligarchs are not constrained by the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution is constrained by them. And in that case we have the rule of men (and women) rather than the rule of law. Such a regime is, as a matter of definition, non-constitutional.

In a constitutional order, judges sometimes get the Constitution wrong. According to Marshall’s doctrine of judicial review, when Congress gets the Constitution wrong, its laws are null and void. In a truly constitutional order, the same goes for unconstitutional decisions of the Supreme Court. And that means the rightness of resistance, whether at the founding or now, doesn’t depend on the ability of the Court to enforce a ruling but, rather, on the answer to this de jure question: Did the Court get the Constitution right?

Paul R. DeHart is an associate professor of political science at Texas State University. He is author of Uncovering the Constitution’s Moral Design (University of Missouri Press) and editor (with Carson Holloway) of Reason, Revelation, and the Civic Order: Political Philosophy and the Claims of Faith (Northern Illinois University Press).

How to Talk to a Non-Leftist the Other 364 Days of the Year - By Robert Tracinski

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposed. A very good article.
--------------------------------------

They’ve done it again. The same sort of people who thought it would be a great idea to ruin Thanksgiving by spouting political propaganda to their relatives have now offered helpful hints on how to be a jerk by boring your family about ObamaCare over the Fourth of July weekend.

If this is something you are seriously considering doing, I suggest you take Sean Davis’s advice, and then seriously rethink whether politics is really as important to your life as you think it is.

But there’s something else about this compulsion to gird for intellectual battle at family holidays. This guy gets it right:

@charlescwcooke For many liberals, it's the only time they have to have a conversation with a conservative and they don't know how

The problem isn’t what’s happening on the Fourth of July or Thanksgiving. It’s what’s not happening the rest of the year. Too many young people are walled off in the left-wing monoculture of the universities or in hipster enclaves where everybody gets their news from the same sources and believes the same things. They need talking points to figure out how to discuss ObamaCare with “Uncle Ted” and “Aunt Janine” (as this latest version calls them) because discussing politics with people who disagree with them is such an unfamiliar experience.

If you feel that you need talking points to guide you through the exotic process of arguing for ObamaCare against people who hate it—who constitute more than half the adult population—then you need to get out more.

Here is a handy guide for young people who want to broaden their horizons and find a favorite right-winger to talk to in between family holidays.

First off, where oh where do you even find people on the right to converse with? If you live on a college campus, or in Park Slope, this is a real dilemma. So here are a few pointers.

Desegregate your Internet.

In theory, we’re all tied to everyone through online “social networks.” But those networks tend to be ideologically segregated. It’s natural enough. Opposition is grating and annoying, and when we check Twitter or Facebook or whatever else every five minutes, we like to hear things that we like to hear, which is the sweet sound of people agreeing with us. And it’s not all our fault. Some of it is Mark Zuckerberg’s fault. Facebook algorithms have figured out that we like to hear affirmations, so they tend to filter ideological diversity out of our news feeds. If you live on social media, as so many of us do nowadays, I’m afraid you live in an echo chamber.

Here’s a good test. When a celebrity on the left, like George Takei, says something offensive, do you hear about it first from a report about what he said, or do hear about it first from a defense of him in a sympathetic news source? Or have you not heard about it at all?

If so, make an effort to friend or follow someone on the right. Since you probably already know a few people who lean right, even if they don’t advertise that fact to you, engage them in polite discussion and debate (more in a moment on how to do that) when they post something expressing their views. There’s a good chance Uncle Ted and Aunt Janine are on Facebook. Engage them during the rest of the year, instead of waiting for the family cookout to ambush them.

I’m of the school of thought that it’s a good idea to talk about politics with relatives. While it’s easy to yell at random strangers on the Internet, there’s a much greater incentive for everyone to be nice when you’re talking to people you’ve known for a long time, who you know you are going to see again at every family event for the next 30 years.

Talk to people beneath your station.

At a university or in an urban hipsterville neighborhood, you may think that everyone around you is on the same page ideologically. But you are almost certainly wrong. Part of the problem is that a lot of the people who differ from you on politics are the people you don’t notice. They’re not the professors or administrators or graduate students, or the performance artists, and baristas, and artisanal vegan sriracha curators. They are receptionists and groundskeepers and especially small business owners who run some of the stores and shops and restaurants you go to.

Some university employees might be on the right, but I’m afraid they probably won’t talk to you about it. Why? Because they are afraid of losing their jobs. They are afraid that if word gets around about their retrograde views, people will show up with mattresses demanding that they be fired. At the very least, their bosses will quietly disapprove and their potential for advancement and new opportunities will shrink. Maybe they would open up if you talked to them nicely, but chances are that they just don’t trust you.

The same goes for people who work at your graphic design firm in Park Slope. People respond to incentives—you’ll discover this is one of the things those of us on the right believe—and your right-leaning coworkers have little incentive to advertise their heresies.

So you might have to go a little outside of your normal sphere and talk to people who are independent of your left-leaning enclave. And this may mean talking to people on the other side of the one real American class divide: the college-educated versus the non-college educated. Talk to blue-collar types—you know, the “working class” that your favorite politicians always say they want to help. Find out what they think. They’re at the hardware store, Walmart, Bass Pro Shop, Outback Steakhouse, or at their church.

I was at the dentist that other day, for example, and the hygienist asked what I do for a living. I replied that I’m a writer, and that I write about politics. After the awkward conversational pause that this usually creates, I ended up having a lively conversation with her and the receptionist about who was the greater leader: Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. This sort of thing happens all the time if you let it.

Talk to people older than you.

No one ever warns you about the biggest problem you will encounter when discussing politics with your relatives. The problem is that Uncle Ted and Aunt Janine are older than you. They’ve lived longer and had more life experience and more experience out the real world of work and business. They’ve seen a lot of glib, charismatic politicians come and go. And you may not want to think about this, but they still remember you as a little kid, which was not so long ago from their perspective. Someone who has changed your diaper is not that open to the notion that you are going to educate them about the ways of the world.

The other thing about people who are older than you is that a lot of them were once as far left as you are now, and they have drifted to the right over the years as they had to pay bills, raise kids, or run a business. So they will know where you’re coming from, but they will have their own experiences and new ideas they have picked up over the years. Engaging them is a good way to encounter people who have different experiences and a different outlook on life.

Don’t shun conservatives.

Chances are that at your university, or in your left-leaning town, there are open, self-identified conservatives, libertarians, Objectivists, Evangelicals, you name it. They have organizations and hold meetings. You don’t know these people or talk to them because they are terminally uncool. Seek them out. Show up to their meetings. Engage them in conversation. You don’t have to agree with them, but after a while, you might find that they don’t seem so scary or exotic any more. You might not need trigger warnings to prepare you for encountering their views, or a safe space to recover from it.

All of these encounters will work a lot better if you know how to talk to people who don’t share your views. And I don’t mean just coming armed with the right charts and talking points. I’m talking about some much broader rules.

Figure out where they’re coming from.

You may not believe it, but it’s likely that people who disagree with you did not start just by hating Barack Obama or rejecting ObamaCare. There is whole worldview behind their political positions. So spouting some statistics or talking points about current sign-up rates on ObamaCare isn’t really going to answer them.

Don’t assume their views come from ignorance or prejudice or are spoonfed to them by watching “Faux News.” (Besides, people who get their politics from fake news showsshouldn’t throw stones.) In fact, people on the right are tied in to a whole network of ideas and books spanning a diverse range of philosophies—from Ayn Rand to C.S. Lewis, from the Founding Fathers to Thomas Sowell. There are ideas about politics, morality, economics, art, culture, and individual rights. Try familiarizing yourself with some of this intellectual background so you know where Uncle Ted and Aunt Janine are coming from.

That also applies to the politics of the moment. If you want to know what Ted Cruz has to say, for example, don’t just watch a Jon Stewart clip with a few lines from Cruz, chosen and edited to make him look deranged. Find out what Ted Cruz actually had to say.

You can’t convince anyone unless you first know his state of mind, the basis for his position. You probably didn’t learn that at college, even though that’s supposed to be one of the purposes of higher education. So you’re going to have to make an effort to learn it on your own.

Don’t reach for the sick burn.

You also can’t convince anyone just by hitting them over the head with glib one-line putdowns. This is another problem with the Jon Stewart/Twitter era: a whole generation of young people has been raised to think this is what a political discussion looks like.

Don’t try to beat down your opponents with jibes meant to expose them as hopelessly out-of-touch losers. What they are likely to take from this is not that they are wrong but that you think they’re idiots. That closes minds and ends conversations.

And there’s an even faster way to end a conversation.

Don’t police for microaggressions.

At today’s universities, you are taught to identify subtle “microaggressions” and other forms of covert racism and privilege so amazingly well hidden that even the people who say them are curiously unaware of their own bigotry. You have been taught that learning to recognize these makes you enlightened and progressive. Actually, it makes you a closed-minded jerk, the sort of person who shuts down every discussion before it even starts by accusing the other person of some imagined moral crime.

Earlier, I cautioned you not to assume people who disagree with you are stupid or unintellectual. It’s also a good idea not to assume that they are evil or have vicious motives. Start by taking their arguments at face value and on good faith rather than trying to read into them some hidden evil.

All of this advice really can be boiled down to one point.

Listen.

The real problem with all of these “how to talk to your relatives about ObamaCare” guides is that they are directions for how to talk at other people, not how to go back and forth. They’re about how to give a lecture, not have a conversation.


You know what’s the best way to talk to people about politics? Especially people you know, people you like, and people you are going to see again in the future? Start by listening. Take some time in the middle to listen. And end by listening.

You may not win the argument as quickly, or at all. But you will gain more insight into where the other person’s opinion comes from and what ideas and arguments you have to consider. And who knows, you might learn something from him, and you might end up being the one who is convinced. Worse things have happened.

I won’t say that following this advice is easy, and I won’t promise that everyone on the right will make the same effort. We tend to have a greater familiarity with opposing ideas and more experience discussing them, but that’s because we can’t avoid encountering the left’s ideas from the cultural high ground of Hollywood, universities, and the mainstream media, whether or not we make any effort to broaden our horizons. If you’re on the left, it’s much easier to bury yourself in a cocoon where encountering opposing ideas is something that happens only on special occasions, when you bump into that uncle back home on the Fourth of July weekend. So it takes more of a deliberate effort to counteract.

Maybe if you do this on a regular basis, through the rest of the year, you won’t even feel the need to talk about politics during holidays and celebrations. You will feel comfortable not proselytizing to your relatives, and you can just relax and talk about how great Aunt Janine’s potato salad is and whether Uncle Ted thinks his favorite team could go all the way this year.

That’s how normal people spend their holidays, and it’s a lot more fun.

Ruling establishes 'new' right side of history - Chronicle editorial

My comments in bold.
-----------------------------

The reliably Left Bozeman Chronicle editorial board once again wades in over its head. This time it affirms gay marriage in a way that would leave the Founders scratching their heads.-----------------------------

Regarding social values in America, nothing in memory has changed more rapidly than attitudes toward gay rights. A mere 15 years ago, the idea that a majority of Americans would favor legalization of same-sex marriage seemed unthinkable as polling showed clear and strong opposition to the idea. (Indeed, the propaganda assault and guilt-shaming has been relentless. Dissent is shouted down with invective and hysterical name calling. Average people are afraid of having their lives ruined by the simple fact of their principled dissent. No wonder the tide of opinion has shifted. It's either change your opinion or have your life be destroyed.)

5 Things Churches Should Do Immediately to Protect Themselves - Charisma News

Found here.

1. Have something in the church bylaws that state that your church will not perform same-sex weddings for members and non-members but will conduct wedding ceremonies for one man and one woman as biologically designed by birth (to protect against having to perform "transgender weddings" between those identifying themselves as a man and a woman).

2, Have a stipulation in your church by laws that say something like "if their congregation is ever legally forced to perform same sex weddings, all clergy in their congregation will opt out of performing civil ceremonies and will only perform biblically based "covenant ceremonies" that bless the union between one man and one woman as biologically defined by their natural birth.

3. Every church needs to have clear criteria regarding who qualifies to be a church member–based on the biblical standards of morality and ethics as well as a process for membership termination. Once written, this section of the bylaws should be given and signed off by each person before they are accepted as official church members.

4. The church should have a written policy that disallows non-members and non-attendees and or outsiders to rent and or use any of their facilities for same-sex weddings and or any civil ceremonies related to marriage.

5. If all else fails, and the courts eventually override church by laws—then the only alternative left will be for biblically based clergy to engage in civil disobedience and refuse to comply with the law—irrespective of the penalties, consequences and cultural stigma they will receive.

Speaking In Tongues - by GEORGE L. FAULL

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------------

We have discussed cessationist thought rather frequently on this blog, including the ceasing of the gift of tongues. We continue to discuss it, because we have yet to find a persuasive biblical case for cessationism. We want to emphasize "biblical," because almost all defenses we have seen invoke silence, contemporary events or practices, and post biblical history. We have found precious little Scriptural apology.

Doctrine is derived from the Bible. Thus, we shall not tolerate any non-scriptural evidence in Mr. Faull's presentation below. Nor shall we accept bare assertions not backed up by Scripture. We shall summarily dismiss such evidence via highlight. 

Read on:
-------------------------------

Dear Brother Faull,

It is my understanding that you do not practice "Speaking in tongues." Why?

Let me give you the reasons why I do not wish to "speak in tongues."

1. I could not defend it as having practical value. It does not prove that I am saved, nor that I'm spiritual, nor that I have the truth, for men of every creed claim this gift.

2. I could not defend it as an aid to devotions. It does not do anything the Holy Spirit does not do for every believer. He searches out our unspeakable requests and make intercession for us.

Romans 8:26-27, "26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God." 

(The author quotes a Scripture, but it is unrelated to his point.)

3. I could not defend it as a sign for unbelievers. If I do it publicly, men of all conflicting doctrines do the same. If I do it in my prayer closet, how will the unbeliever know of it?

(Confused thinking. The public/private expression of tongues is a discussion that does not yield for us a biblical case for their cessation.)

4. I could not defend its "continual existence" from the Word of God. The Scriptures neither imply nor promise the continuance of the gift, but, in fact, states that they will cease while faith, and hope yet abide.

I Corinthians 13:8-13, "8 Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I under-stood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity."

(Well, we finally get a claim based on Scripture. Not a very impressive start. We discuss this passage in great depth here. In addition, cessationist Tom Pennington tells us that this passage is not sufficient to establish cessationism. Indeed, the entire thing rests on the speculation as to what "the perfect" is, and that is certainly shaky ground.

One other thing. The author writes, "The Scriptures neither imply nor promise the continuance of the gift..." This is an astonishing statement. It is a fallacy to expect that Scripture must tell us something will continue in order for us to not assume its end. Apply this reasoning to any other doctrine to see how preposterous this is.)