Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------
I know, I'm posting yet another letter telling Christians how they should believe. I'm publishing this one because it makes some new assertions. Read on...
-----------------------
Many have spoken against the ordinance in the name of Christianity. They certainly don't represent my interpretation of Christianity (Well, at least Ms. Hull has the honesty to admit that it's her interpretation, a refreshing dose of reality. At least for the moment, because she certainly believes that her interpretation is the only correct one.)
– or what we, as Christians, are called to do, by Christ, himself. (Ok, so Ms. Hull will now tell us the gospel truth. Here we go.)
From the documentation we have in the gospels, (You know, that book no one should take literally...)
Jesus spent much of his time with – and lifting up – the marginalized in his community. (By marginalized, does Ms. Hull mean the sick, the poor, and the hungry? What does she mean by "lifting up?" Was Jesus' ministry really restricted to "his community?" These questions are important, yet she leaves them undefined. They are merely amorphous feel-good buzzwords upon which she builds her argument.)
At the last supper, He gave us two new commandments to add to – and supersede – (Supersede? I don't think so. But since the assertion is undocumented, it's hard to know what the source of her interpretation is.)
the previous 10: To gather together on a frequent basis in his name, (I was unable to locate this "new commandment.")
and to love one another as he loved us. (I'll provide the actual quote, since she misrepresents its contents: Jn. 13:34-35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” In other words, the Christian community is commanded to love each other as an example to the world.)
How then, can maintaining a community in which discrimination is allowed against one sector of the marginalized (LGBT) be considered following this final commandment? (See, she draws an incorrect conclusion that quoted new commandment means we should love to non-Christians. It doesn't.
But another passage does. Here's the correct relevant reference: Lk. 6:27 “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who ill-treat you." This is from the Sermon on the Mount, not the Last Supper. So can we ask, if we can't trust her in this, why should we trust anything else she says?
Beyond that, notice the unwarranted conclusions she jumps to. 1) LGBT are marginalized, 2) the commandment to love is being violated, and 3) discrimination is unloving. These are all non seqiturs.)
For those who claim, "there is no discrimination here," I admonish you to sit down with several members of the LGBT community and invite their stories. (I'm sure there are real stories out there. But we can only accept these claims on face value. We have no way of knowing if LGBT claims are real. Can we really trust the veracity of these claims when we know that these activists will make things up?
LGBTs don't seem to realize that forcing people to agree with them will bear little fruit and simply increase animosity. The great majority of people don't care who you sleep with. But they do care when their disagreement is labeled hate, their personal choices are labeled discrimination, and their right to assembly is dictated by government. LGBTs should not be surprised that their extreme rhetoric has consequences.)
For those who fear abuse of children in bathrooms by transgendered folks, I encourage you to base your opinions on fact – can you actually find any scientific studies that validate this risk? (Spokespersons from our own Haven and MSU's VOICE Center have clearly discredited this concern in this forum – and both organizations specialize in sexual harassment, assault, and violence against women, among other things.)
As Christians – and community members – we are called to lift up the marginalized members of society until marginalization no longer exists. (A truly odd sentence. And a false one. First, "we" doesn't me you and me, it means government. Ms. Hull is not calling for individuals to help people. She is solely concerned with bringing the coercive power of government to bear on the situation.
Second, this does not build relationships, understanding, tolerance, or good will, it tears them down by the force of law. There is nothing Christian about such an act.
Third, it isn't possible to eliminate "marginalization," partly because we don't live in a perfect world, but mostly because there is a vested interest in the "marginalized community to perpetuate their complaint no matter how much capitulation there is. The goal of LGBTs is not fairness or equality, it is to wipe out all disagreement and opposition to their agenda, right up to and including Christian doctrine. They intend to silence all dissent, and it will not stop because there is a lot of money at stake.)
I, for one, plan to do just that. And I hope others, in the name of whatever religion you do – or do not – practice, will see past your fear of the unknown, and do the same. (Yes, of course. Any opposition to the LGBT agenda can only be fear. Principled opposition doesn't exist. People who disagree are simply ignorant. The only sensible thing a Christian can do is agree. Anything else is hateful and bigoted.)
Kimmelin Hull, Bozeman
Monday, May 5, 2014
Friday, May 2, 2014
Protesters in Seattle - FB conversation
FB friend R.W. posted this:
So I'm listening to Komo news say that none of the protestors in Down town Seattle have Permits to march, block traffic, set fires, vandalize, intimidate, or attack the police, and then COMMEND the police for not interfering with their RIGHT to protest! I'm sorry, isn't that right granted by the PERMIT?!
Me: Actually, requiring permits interferes with rights.
R.W.: I see that point, but I also don't think they have the right to impede others. A permit should keep them in certain areas, out of the middle of the street, and allow law enforcement to keep everyone safe. You have the right to protest, but not in front of my car. Or ON my car. If you can require a permit to have a parade, then I see no problem with requiring one to protest. Or maybe I should say, you don't need a permit to protest, but you need permit to limit when and WHERE you can protest.
Me: Agreed. However, like almost every government attempt at "regulating" rights, it doesn't take long for excess to show up. Free speech zones, set back distances for abortion clinics, banning free speech from certain places. "Congress shall make no law" seems pretty clear to me.
R.W.: blocking a street used by first responders is equal to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. If your protest endangers public safety, the courts have found it not to be protected speech. A parade must have a ROUTE and not be during high volume traffic times. There is nothing about these anarchist protests that resemble "Peaceful assembly". You have the right to free speech but not ANYWHERE or anytime you like. Try marching onto a military base to protest their nukes, see how far you get. I agree that it can be abused like so many of our rights routinely are. I am NOT in favor of banning free speech on college campuses or schools or anyplace like that. Just not in the street where the safety of the protestors are at risk. And they should never block entrances to business or even abortion clinics. Remember one groups rights should never interfere with another's.
Me: Once again, agreed. You are talking about things that are not rights. I am talking abut government interfering with rights. The larger danger is government interference.
R.W.: then maybe we are saying the same thing. My grievance is not with protesting, it is with the interference of those of us NOT protesting. I think the government has the right to protect the non-protestors, and to set certain limits on the who, when and where, but they have no authority to stop the protest outright.
So I'm listening to Komo news say that none of the protestors in Down town Seattle have Permits to march, block traffic, set fires, vandalize, intimidate, or attack the police, and then COMMEND the police for not interfering with their RIGHT to protest! I'm sorry, isn't that right granted by the PERMIT?!
Me: Actually, requiring permits interferes with rights.
R.W.: I see that point, but I also don't think they have the right to impede others. A permit should keep them in certain areas, out of the middle of the street, and allow law enforcement to keep everyone safe. You have the right to protest, but not in front of my car. Or ON my car. If you can require a permit to have a parade, then I see no problem with requiring one to protest. Or maybe I should say, you don't need a permit to protest, but you need permit to limit when and WHERE you can protest.
Me: Agreed. However, like almost every government attempt at "regulating" rights, it doesn't take long for excess to show up. Free speech zones, set back distances for abortion clinics, banning free speech from certain places. "Congress shall make no law" seems pretty clear to me.
R.W.: blocking a street used by first responders is equal to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. If your protest endangers public safety, the courts have found it not to be protected speech. A parade must have a ROUTE and not be during high volume traffic times. There is nothing about these anarchist protests that resemble "Peaceful assembly". You have the right to free speech but not ANYWHERE or anytime you like. Try marching onto a military base to protest their nukes, see how far you get. I agree that it can be abused like so many of our rights routinely are. I am NOT in favor of banning free speech on college campuses or schools or anyplace like that. Just not in the street where the safety of the protestors are at risk. And they should never block entrances to business or even abortion clinics. Remember one groups rights should never interfere with another's.
Me: Once again, agreed. You are talking about things that are not rights. I am talking abut government interfering with rights. The larger danger is government interference.
R.W.: then maybe we are saying the same thing. My grievance is not with protesting, it is with the interference of those of us NOT protesting. I think the government has the right to protect the non-protestors, and to set certain limits on the who, when and where, but they have no authority to stop the protest outright.
On eldership and walking with the Spirit: Lift Your Vision Higher
Having been recently installed as an elder in my church, I come to the position with an awareness of how all my prior experiences have prepared me for this. I have been an elder in churches twice before, once in my twenties, once in my thirties, and now in my fifties. I was unofficially a spiritual leader in my forties in a church where the official eldership were not the spiritual leaders of the church.
So why do I think these experiences have prepared me? Well, I'm in a young church with an inexperienced pastor, attended by young Christians, and I'm the oldest elder by a decade. The issues we are dealing with are all familiar ground for me. I've been through them before. Where others are worried and panicking, I am not concerned.
However, I am not serene because I can supply a tried-and-proven solution, it is because I am more keenly aware of how God intervenes in situations. My continuing refrain in elders meetings is, "What is the Holy Spirit saying?" When we stop following the ways of the flesh, or conventional wisdom, or what seems obvious or logical, we start keeping in step with the Spirit (Galatians 5:25), and many of our problems and issues seem to fade away.
So my experience has not supplied me with answers, but with ways of thinking. Romans 12:2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." This verse has been a favorite of mine for a long time, but it continually surprises me afresh as God brings new revelation about what it means to be transformed. So that's where my attention is concentrated. The mind corrupted by the world vs. the mind transformed.
So why do I think these experiences have prepared me? Well, I'm in a young church with an inexperienced pastor, attended by young Christians, and I'm the oldest elder by a decade. The issues we are dealing with are all familiar ground for me. I've been through them before. Where others are worried and panicking, I am not concerned.
However, I am not serene because I can supply a tried-and-proven solution, it is because I am more keenly aware of how God intervenes in situations. My continuing refrain in elders meetings is, "What is the Holy Spirit saying?" When we stop following the ways of the flesh, or conventional wisdom, or what seems obvious or logical, we start keeping in step with the Spirit (Galatians 5:25), and many of our problems and issues seem to fade away.
So my experience has not supplied me with answers, but with ways of thinking. Romans 12:2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." This verse has been a favorite of mine for a long time, but it continually surprises me afresh as God brings new revelation about what it means to be transformed. So that's where my attention is concentrated. The mind corrupted by the world vs. the mind transformed.
Even the charismatics, who to a person would claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, fall into this trap. After all, how many of them think that the move of the Holy Spirit must mean being slain in the spirit or receiving the gift of tongues? We are all stuck in these patterns, these paradigms, which become rigid ways of interpreting spiritual things. We become bound up by what God did yesterday to the point that we cannot see what He is doing today.
God recently gave me a Word, which continues to resonate through our church: "Lift your vision higher." This came to mind as I thought back to a song we used to do years ago with the same title. I realized that our eyes are fixed on the wrong things, and we need to lift our vision higher. We need to be ready to challenge our understandings and recognize what the Holy Spirit is doing today.
So I watched in amazement as a critical issue of the church solved itself without human intervention. This has happened more than once. The elders, including me, were ready to knock some heads. Our list of complaints was long. But one by one, each item was checked off by the Holy Spirit. The people involved, while presenting their ideas for their ministry, repeated almost verbatim the things we needed to see changed. It was astonishing.
"Lift your vision higher." What are we looking at? What are we allowing to divert our attention? As Paul asks in Galatians 5:7: "You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth?" Lift your vision higher. What is God saying right now? Lift your vision higher. Does it violate your paradigm? It's probably the Holy Spirit.
I'm a little wiser (I hope) as time passes. I desperately don't want to become an old geezer stuck in my ways. I want to be on the cutting edge of what the Holy Spirit is doing today. I want to lead as an elder to places no one has seen, if that's where God is. I question everything. Why do we meet on Sunday? Why do we have a worship band? Why do we have an offering? Sunday school? Preaching? We might want some or all these things, but just because we do them doesn't mean we should keep doing them.
Lift your vision higher.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Unfair to selectively apply the tenents of Christianity - By Piet Martens
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
Suppose I object to the Christian "lifestyle." Should I, as a small business owner, then be allowed to refuse to serve Christians in my establishment? Should I be allowed to fire employees as soon as they show the symptoms of the Christian lifestyle? Should I be allowed to refuse to print T-shirts with Christian symbols? Should I be allowed to refuse to sell "Christian" wedding cakes (whatever those may be), or refuse to take pictures at a Christian wedding?
I definitely don't think so, and we have broadly supported laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. So what is different about our love preference? Some argue that it is a choice, unlike skin color or gender. There is plenty of evidence that that is actually not the case, but even if it were, how is that different from being Christian? Certainly that is a choice, otherwise it would be meaningless. So "choice" versus "being born that way" is clearly not the issue. Many conservative Christians would argue that in their biblical view, living gay is a sin. They are entitled to that view but there are also plenty of Christians that see it very differently, with many protestant denominations happily performing gay weddings, and the Catholic pope recently stating "Who am I to judge?" One can quote verses from the Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality, but I prefer John 13:34: "A new command I give you: Love one another." If you call that picking and choosing, my response is that we cannot take every Bible verse literally, otherwise we'd have to believe that the Earth is flat and slavery acceptable. So let us love our gay brothers and sisters and pass the NDO to protect them.
Piet Martens
Bozeman
---------------------------
This is another installment in the continuing saga of the NDO (non-discrimination ordinance) being considered by the City of Bozeman.
Mr. Martens is a frequent contributor to the opinion pages, and he is invariably Left. He asks if it is "fair" to decline to serve Christians, so at least he's philosophically consistent. He apparently is opposed to discrimination against Christians just as much as gays. Or so it would seem.
The problem, of course, is when two opposing opinions butt heads. Selecting in favor of one discriminates against the other, by definition. So it is impossible to be against discrimination because as soon as the choice is made, discrimination against the non-chosen has occurred.
So let's answer the questions Mr. Martens poses. The answer to every one of them is "yes." A free people have the right to peaceably assemble, which means they and only they should get to choose with whom they assemble. They can decline to assemble based on any reason or no reason, so long as it is for a lawful purpose.
Therefore, non-discrimination laws, though well-intended, impinge on private choices. I'm not arguing for the ability to oppress people, far from it, but the role of government in guiding peoples' choices ought to be extremely limited. Or does anyone really think that discrimination can simply be eliminated by passing a law?
Mr. Martens notes that there is a variety of expressions in Christianity, in other words, a diversity of choices and and understandings. From that he concludes that those who oppose homosexuality are "entitled to that view," but apparently not entitled to exercise that view with all the attendant ramifications.
This is why I wonder if Leftists really actually think about their opinions before committing them to paper. Rather than conclude that because there is a variety of understandings, there will be a variety of expressions, he concludes that the expression he agrees with is the proper one.
One last point. Mr. Martens suggests "we cannot take every Bible verse literally," yet he's happy to provide us with a verse. On what basis did he conclude that this verse should be taken literally? Why should we allow him to impose his religious perspective on others? Why is his version of Christianity worthy of being enforced by law?
-----------------------------------------
Suppose I object to the Christian "lifestyle." Should I, as a small business owner, then be allowed to refuse to serve Christians in my establishment? Should I be allowed to fire employees as soon as they show the symptoms of the Christian lifestyle? Should I be allowed to refuse to print T-shirts with Christian symbols? Should I be allowed to refuse to sell "Christian" wedding cakes (whatever those may be), or refuse to take pictures at a Christian wedding?
I definitely don't think so, and we have broadly supported laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. So what is different about our love preference? Some argue that it is a choice, unlike skin color or gender. There is plenty of evidence that that is actually not the case, but even if it were, how is that different from being Christian? Certainly that is a choice, otherwise it would be meaningless. So "choice" versus "being born that way" is clearly not the issue. Many conservative Christians would argue that in their biblical view, living gay is a sin. They are entitled to that view but there are also plenty of Christians that see it very differently, with many protestant denominations happily performing gay weddings, and the Catholic pope recently stating "Who am I to judge?" One can quote verses from the Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality, but I prefer John 13:34: "A new command I give you: Love one another." If you call that picking and choosing, my response is that we cannot take every Bible verse literally, otherwise we'd have to believe that the Earth is flat and slavery acceptable. So let us love our gay brothers and sisters and pass the NDO to protect them.
Piet Martens
Bozeman
Monday, April 28, 2014
Everything happens for a reason, and that reason is usually physics
F.B. friend S.B. posted this:
Me: In other words, no reason at all...
S.B.: precisely.
Me: We are random assemblages of atoms with no purpose, no meaning, and no reason. There is no such thing as virtue, right or wrong, or truth. So the statement is meaningless., as is our lives.
S.B.: not at all - but I see those things as social constructs, and have no problem with that. It's up to me to create my own purpose in life, and to find my own meaning.
to me that doesn't seem to be a problem -- and I certainly have no problems telling right from wrong, nor do I see much evidence to suggest that those who DO feel there's a higher power are especially good at being virtuous.
Me: Your statements are meaningless. Your found purpose is meaningless, because it is also a construct. There is no right and wrong, so there is no way to identify virtue.
I did not claim that believing in a higher power makes one more virtuous. In fact those people are usually the first to admit their inability to be virtuous. But at least they have an objective standard to compare to. Yours is arbitrary.
S.B.: as is yours.
S.B.: precisely.
Me: We are random assemblages of atoms with no purpose, no meaning, and no reason. There is no such thing as virtue, right or wrong, or truth. So the statement is meaningless., as is our lives.
S.B.: not at all - but I see those things as social constructs, and have no problem with that. It's up to me to create my own purpose in life, and to find my own meaning.
to me that doesn't seem to be a problem -- and I certainly have no problems telling right from wrong, nor do I see much evidence to suggest that those who DO feel there's a higher power are especially good at being virtuous.
Me: Your statements are meaningless. Your found purpose is meaningless, because it is also a construct. There is no right and wrong, so there is no way to identify virtue.
I did not claim that believing in a higher power makes one more virtuous. In fact those people are usually the first to admit their inability to be virtuous. But at least they have an objective standard to compare to. Yours is arbitrary.
S.B.: as is yours.
K.R.: Guys---just chill-- We all want our life on this earth to count.
B.D.: What reason could there possibly be to be decent to your fellow man unless there's an invisible guy in the sky threatening to punish you if you don't?
Me: What reason could there possibly be to be decent to your fellow man if there isn't an invisible guy in the sky threatening to punish you if you don't?
Me: Kristi, we are engaging in a polite debate, which Scott and I have done many times before on a variety of subjects. No one is angry here.
S.B.: Rich -- How about a social contract with your fellow human beings, handed down over tens of thousands of years of cultural traditions and reinforced through genetics (portions of our brains appear to be hard-wired to "care" about what others think of our actions -- which may explain why sociopathy is relatively uncommon).
And from a non-believer's point of view, that's really no different than the invisible guy. That's simply another form of social contract, amongst a group of similar believers (because we certainly don't see different religious groups agreeing on the finer points of what laws are God-given) with an enforcement mechanism that carries (for some, at least) more clout than mere ostracism by their peers.
If you've got faith that there is some God to give law to the universe, that's fine -- but don't presume to think that it is the only motivation to be altruistic or to concern yourself with the notions of good/bad, right or wrong.
B.W.: Hmmm. This might be the right time to give Hub's speech about life?
Me: I am presuming nothing, since I have made no defense of my own morality or reason for existence. I have been solely concerned with what, if any reason apart from objective morality, is there to act morally.
Hard wired? That assumes the premise that morality is good, a tautology.
S.B.: No it only presumes that morality confers some sort of competitive advantage in an evolutionary sense. And that's neither tautology nor especially hard to find evidence for.
S.B.: More specifically and precisely - that traits that are often linked to morality, such as empathy (do unto others), altruism (you ARE your brothers keeper), and honesty (don't lie), are traits that have provided us with some tiny advantage - not hard to imagine especially in light of how much of our evolutionary history is set in the context of small, tribal groups where how you treated others often had bearing on how likely you were to share in the group's bounty
Me: Altruism is an advantage? Sacrificing what you have for someone else puts you in a evolutionary disadvantage.
You assume virtue in various things without context or cause.
S.B.: actually, there's a very large literature examining the evolutionary basis for altruism. Again, recall that we have evolved as a social creature, and most of that evolutionary history has taken place in small, tight knit tribal settings -- plenty of time for certain traits that make it easier to survive in a group setting to leave a genetic fingerprint.
Nice review of the literature in this paper: http://ggsc-web02.ist.berkeley.edu/.../Trivers...
as to the nature vs. nurture question, and the degree to which behavioral traits might be in part genetic, I recommend reading Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" -- outstanding discussion of the whole issue.
B.D.: What reason could there possibly be to be decent to your fellow man unless there's an invisible guy in the sky threatening to punish you if you don't?
Me: What reason could there possibly be to be decent to your fellow man if there isn't an invisible guy in the sky threatening to punish you if you don't?
Me: Kristi, we are engaging in a polite debate, which Scott and I have done many times before on a variety of subjects. No one is angry here.
S.B.: Rich -- How about a social contract with your fellow human beings, handed down over tens of thousands of years of cultural traditions and reinforced through genetics (portions of our brains appear to be hard-wired to "care" about what others think of our actions -- which may explain why sociopathy is relatively uncommon).
And from a non-believer's point of view, that's really no different than the invisible guy. That's simply another form of social contract, amongst a group of similar believers (because we certainly don't see different religious groups agreeing on the finer points of what laws are God-given) with an enforcement mechanism that carries (for some, at least) more clout than mere ostracism by their peers.
If you've got faith that there is some God to give law to the universe, that's fine -- but don't presume to think that it is the only motivation to be altruistic or to concern yourself with the notions of good/bad, right or wrong.
B.W.: Hmmm. This might be the right time to give Hub's speech about life?
Me: I am presuming nothing, since I have made no defense of my own morality or reason for existence. I have been solely concerned with what, if any reason apart from objective morality, is there to act morally.
Hard wired? That assumes the premise that morality is good, a tautology.
S.B.: No it only presumes that morality confers some sort of competitive advantage in an evolutionary sense. And that's neither tautology nor especially hard to find evidence for.
S.B.: More specifically and precisely - that traits that are often linked to morality, such as empathy (do unto others), altruism (you ARE your brothers keeper), and honesty (don't lie), are traits that have provided us with some tiny advantage - not hard to imagine especially in light of how much of our evolutionary history is set in the context of small, tribal groups where how you treated others often had bearing on how likely you were to share in the group's bounty
Me: Altruism is an advantage? Sacrificing what you have for someone else puts you in a evolutionary disadvantage.
You assume virtue in various things without context or cause.
S.B.: actually, there's a very large literature examining the evolutionary basis for altruism. Again, recall that we have evolved as a social creature, and most of that evolutionary history has taken place in small, tight knit tribal settings -- plenty of time for certain traits that make it easier to survive in a group setting to leave a genetic fingerprint.
Nice review of the literature in this paper: http://ggsc-web02.ist.berkeley.edu/.../Trivers...
as to the nature vs. nurture question, and the degree to which behavioral traits might be in part genetic, I recommend reading Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" -- outstanding discussion of the whole issue.
C.S.: Rich, it is also important to remember that evolutionary advantage is a concepts applies to the group, not JUST individuals. Things like altruism are ultimately good for the survival of the group/tribe/species.
Me: Because evolution is all about what's good for groups.
Me: It's amazing how we are able to imagine purpose, goodness, and utility in a purposeless universe.
S.B.: Evolution often is about group survival Rich - a direct consequence of how it works
As to purpose, that's your words not mine. There is often utility but that hardly need be imagined - it's demonstrated daily.
I'd argue that goodness is defined socially - whether we imagine a higher power as part of that definition is simply detail
Me: You are attempting to describe mechanics. No purpose required.
How is different than why. There is no why, therefore there is no purpose, no reason, no order other than unguided forces. It's nothing but laughable self-delusion to attempt to invent your own purpose in a void.
Me: Because evolution is all about what's good for groups.
Me: It's amazing how we are able to imagine purpose, goodness, and utility in a purposeless universe.
S.B.: Evolution often is about group survival Rich - a direct consequence of how it works
As to purpose, that's your words not mine. There is often utility but that hardly need be imagined - it's demonstrated daily.
I'd argue that goodness is defined socially - whether we imagine a higher power as part of that definition is simply detail
Me: You are attempting to describe mechanics. No purpose required.
How is different than why. There is no why, therefore there is no purpose, no reason, no order other than unguided forces. It's nothing but laughable self-delusion to attempt to invent your own purpose in a void.
B.W.: Butting in...
I would tend to agree that a universe that has no transcendental purpose has little (if any) intrinsic value. However, a universe that has transcendental purpose may have great value. Since we can't prove (or disprove) either with physics or philosophy, we are left to choose which paradigm we assume.
In the movie, "Second Hand Lions", the character, Hub, played by Robert Diniro, attempts to tell us which paradigm we should accept, whether it's true or not: http://youtu.be/wJemDZcgIZE
S.B.: Rich, -- what's laughable to you is not to me. And vice versa. The notion that there is some unseen entity guiding all this is irrelevant to me if I can neither prove it nor disprove it -- lacking faith I see no reason to feign it "just in case"
Me: I have made no case or mention of an unseen entity. You case stands or falls on its own.
I would tend to agree that a universe that has no transcendental purpose has little (if any) intrinsic value. However, a universe that has transcendental purpose may have great value. Since we can't prove (or disprove) either with physics or philosophy, we are left to choose which paradigm we assume.
In the movie, "Second Hand Lions", the character, Hub, played by Robert Diniro, attempts to tell us which paradigm we should accept, whether it's true or not: http://youtu.be/wJemDZcgIZE
S.B.: Rich, -- what's laughable to you is not to me. And vice versa. The notion that there is some unseen entity guiding all this is irrelevant to me if I can neither prove it nor disprove it -- lacking faith I see no reason to feign it "just in case"
Me: I have made no case or mention of an unseen entity. You case stands or falls on its own.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
5 Things Conservatives Lie Shamelessly About - Amanda Marcotte
Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------
You can almost bank on the fact that when Leftists complain about something the opposition is doing, they are the ones that are doing it. Lying shamelessly is also a patented technique of the Left, where a point is hammered incessantly until it is accepted as gospel truth. Examples? "Citizens United" opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate campaign contributions. Tax increases reduce the national debt. The rich aren't paying their fair share. Christians are intolerant. The list goes on and on...
So here we have a good little leftist promulgating her own "truth," this time as a fact checker against conservatives. Right off we know she's full of it, because her article is headlined with a picture of Bill O'Reilly. Since O'Reilly is not a conservative, well, this only means that she doesn't exactly inspire our confidence. Read on:
-------------------------------
Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: tell lies so fast your opponents can't keep up.
Mark Twain once famously said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Twain wasn’t praising lies with this comment, of course, but modern-day conservatives seem to think he was dishing out advice instead of damning the practice of dishonesty. Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: One lie is easy for your opponents to debunk. Tell one lie after another, however, and your opponent’s debunkings will never catch up. By the time the liberal opposition has debunked one lie, there’s a dozen more to take its place. (As we have noted, Leftists have already got quite a bit of difficulty with the truth. The fact they have difficulty "debunking" conservative "lies" should not surprise us since the truth so often eludes the Left.)
Science educator Eugenie Scott deemed the technique the “Gish Gallop,” named for a notoriously sleazy creationist named Duane Gish. The Urban Dictionary defines the Gish Gallop as a technique that “involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it.” (Again, Leftists are particularly adept at this technique.)
Often users of the Gish Gallop know their arguments are nonsense or made in bad faith, but don’t particularly care because they are so dead set on advancing their agenda. Unfortunately, the strategy is so effective that it’s been expanding rapidly in right-wing circles. Here are just a few of the most disturbing examples of the Gish Gallop in action.
1. Creationism. It’s no surprise creationists inspired the coining of the term Gish Gallop, as they have perfected the art of making up nonsense faster than scientists can refute it. The list of false or irrelevant claims made by creationists, as chronicled by Talk Origins, numbers in the dozens, perhaps even hundreds, and more are always being spun out. Trying to argue with a creationist, therefore, turns into a hellish game of Whack-A-Mole. Debunk the lie that the speed of light is not constant, and you’ll find he’s already arguing that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. Argue that it’s unconstitutional to put the story of Adam and Eve in the science classroom, and find he’s pretending he was never asking for that and instead wants to “teach the controversy.” (Whew. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between the issue of creationism, and what might or might not be constitutional. One is a scientific/philosophical question, the other is a legal question.
Offering opinions, drawing conclusions, or exercising faith are matters apart from lying. We also need to note here that neither link supplied provides evidence for the author's claims. Remember, the claim is that creationists lie and change the subject to other lies when confronted. Documentation, please?)
You can almost bank on the fact that when Leftists complain about something the opposition is doing, they are the ones that are doing it. Lying shamelessly is also a patented technique of the Left, where a point is hammered incessantly until it is accepted as gospel truth. Examples? "Citizens United" opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate campaign contributions. Tax increases reduce the national debt. The rich aren't paying their fair share. Christians are intolerant. The list goes on and on...
So here we have a good little leftist promulgating her own "truth," this time as a fact checker against conservatives. Right off we know she's full of it, because her article is headlined with a picture of Bill O'Reilly. Since O'Reilly is not a conservative, well, this only means that she doesn't exactly inspire our confidence. Read on:
-------------------------------
Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: tell lies so fast your opponents can't keep up.
Mark Twain once famously said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Twain wasn’t praising lies with this comment, of course, but modern-day conservatives seem to think he was dishing out advice instead of damning the practice of dishonesty. Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: One lie is easy for your opponents to debunk. Tell one lie after another, however, and your opponent’s debunkings will never catch up. By the time the liberal opposition has debunked one lie, there’s a dozen more to take its place. (As we have noted, Leftists have already got quite a bit of difficulty with the truth. The fact they have difficulty "debunking" conservative "lies" should not surprise us since the truth so often eludes the Left.)
Science educator Eugenie Scott deemed the technique the “Gish Gallop,” named for a notoriously sleazy creationist named Duane Gish. The Urban Dictionary defines the Gish Gallop as a technique that “involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it.” (Again, Leftists are particularly adept at this technique.)
Often users of the Gish Gallop know their arguments are nonsense or made in bad faith, but don’t particularly care because they are so dead set on advancing their agenda. Unfortunately, the strategy is so effective that it’s been expanding rapidly in right-wing circles. Here are just a few of the most disturbing examples of the Gish Gallop in action.
1. Creationism. It’s no surprise creationists inspired the coining of the term Gish Gallop, as they have perfected the art of making up nonsense faster than scientists can refute it. The list of false or irrelevant claims made by creationists, as chronicled by Talk Origins, numbers in the dozens, perhaps even hundreds, and more are always being spun out. Trying to argue with a creationist, therefore, turns into a hellish game of Whack-A-Mole. Debunk the lie that the speed of light is not constant, and you’ll find he’s already arguing that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. Argue that it’s unconstitutional to put the story of Adam and Eve in the science classroom, and find he’s pretending he was never asking for that and instead wants to “teach the controversy.” (Whew. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between the issue of creationism, and what might or might not be constitutional. One is a scientific/philosophical question, the other is a legal question.
Offering opinions, drawing conclusions, or exercising faith are matters apart from lying. We also need to note here that neither link supplied provides evidence for the author's claims. Remember, the claim is that creationists lie and change the subject to other lies when confronted. Documentation, please?)
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Letter to the editor: NDO is in keeping with MLK's spirit of just laws - Steve Kirchhoff
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------
MLK is a useful and frequently invoked symbol for the Left, but only by misrepresenting him with out-of-context snippets can they get him to conform to their dysfunctional world view. Here is another such attempt:
----------------------------
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously wrote that laws which uplift the human personality are good laws, while laws which degrade human personality are unjust. (It only takes one sentence for Mr. Kirchhoff to wander into fantasyland. Here is MLK's full quote: "How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." So the appropriation of this quote from its context turns MLK's beliefs 180 degrees. MLK believed that laws must conform to morality, that is, God's law. Mr. Kirchoff completely reverses this.)
----------------------------
MLK is a useful and frequently invoked symbol for the Left, but only by misrepresenting him with out-of-context snippets can they get him to conform to their dysfunctional world view. Here is another such attempt:
----------------------------
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously wrote that laws which uplift the human personality are good laws, while laws which degrade human personality are unjust. (It only takes one sentence for Mr. Kirchhoff to wander into fantasyland. Here is MLK's full quote: "How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." So the appropriation of this quote from its context turns MLK's beliefs 180 degrees. MLK believed that laws must conform to morality, that is, God's law. Mr. Kirchoff completely reverses this.)
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Divorce, remarriage, and sin - a conversation
A conversation with my friend David:
David: Matthew 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."
Well it is pretty clear here in Matthew that people like this are committing adultery.
It depends on if a person believes "once an adulterer, always an adulterer." For this we would need to assume that continuing to be married to a divorced woman is a continuing sin.
Why do we never say, "once an idolater, always an idolater?" Or continuing on in vs. 10, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers as well? In all these other cases, a person can simply cease to engage in those sins, while being married to a divorced woman is a continuing status.
But this doesn't work for me, because divorcing a woman, even a divorced woman, is a sin. If remaining married is also a sin, then there's no way to avoid sin. So this can't be true.
The next verse provides the remedy, which I think must apply to all the sins mentioned, including divorce: 1Co. 6:11 "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Well it is pretty clear here in Matthew that people like this are committing adultery.
Me: So, where does repentance fit in?
David: These are tough questions, I don't have an answer for you, it is clear to me that Jesus calls them adulterers, and Paul says they won't inherit the kingdom of God (see scripture below). I personally want to avoid this situation, keep the wife I have and therefore not have to reconcile wither or not I need to repent. It is easier to avoid the sin than to have to repent.
To repent is to change course or to stop doing what you have been doing. For these men to change course, seems a bit excessive. The only example I can think of is in Ezra 10 where they sent the women and children away. I sure am not suggesting that they do that.
Also what do you do with 1 Cor 6: 9: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men."
Surely you have an answer to this dilemma, right?
To repent is to change course or to stop doing what you have been doing. For these men to change course, seems a bit excessive. The only example I can think of is in Ezra 10 where they sent the women and children away. I sure am not suggesting that they do that.
Also what do you do with 1 Cor 6: 9: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men."
Surely you have an answer to this dilemma, right?
Me: Quite right, as usual.
It depends on if a person believes "once an adulterer, always an adulterer." For this we would need to assume that continuing to be married to a divorced woman is a continuing sin.
Why do we never say, "once an idolater, always an idolater?" Or continuing on in vs. 10, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers as well? In all these other cases, a person can simply cease to engage in those sins, while being married to a divorced woman is a continuing status.
But this doesn't work for me, because divorcing a woman, even a divorced woman, is a sin. If remaining married is also a sin, then there's no way to avoid sin. So this can't be true.
The next verse provides the remedy, which I think must apply to all the sins mentioned, including divorce: 1Co. 6:11 "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Monday, March 31, 2014
The Bozeman Non-Discrimination Ordinance - a letter of support
I’m writing
in support of the NDO.
It’s so
upsetting to me that Christians don’t know the Bible. They act so unchristian. They
don’t seem to be interested in loving people, but instead are haters and
bigots. Jesus was not this way. He loved everyone. And so do I.
So these
narrow-minded knuckle-dragging idiots need to shut up and start loving.
But for
some reason, these Christians seem to want to stop others from loving. Not
only is this about love, it’s about families, fairness, tolerance, justice,
privacy, equality, and choice.
They are
listening to the Koch brothers and Faux News. Oh, and George Bush hated LGBTs.
And do I need to remind you about Reagan, Cheney, and Rush? My God, how
horrible!
Haven’t
they read the Bible? “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” It’s the only part of the
Bible that anyone needs to know. After all, the Bible is just an irrelevant,
ancient book with has no relevance for today. Except for that one verse, of
course.
We need to protect
peoples’ right to their preferred orifices and adopt additional constitutional
protections. This is what Jesus, Gandhi, and the founders would have wanted.
I know that
some of you reading this are going to accuse me of judging because I said some
people are bad Christians. Stop judging me! Didn’t you read the verse? “Judge
not, lest ye be judged,” remember?
Jeebus H.
Christ, you are just proving all the more how truly intolerant and ignorant you
are.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Letter to the editor: Bigotry cloaked by religion doesn't hide the hatred - Denise Hoepfner
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------
Here is another person who is apparently qualified to tell people whether or not they're true Christians.
--------------------
Every time I read about the proposed non-discrimination ordinance, I lose a little faith in humanity because of the comments of those opposed. My biggest issue is when they identify themselves as “Christians,” as if it were some exclusive club the LGBTQ community is not part of. (As if? Does Ms. Hoepfner have any information to this effect, or is she speculating? Has she actually talked to any Christians to find out for sure?)
There are many LGBTQ Christians. (Probably. Or perhaps more precisely, there are many LGBTQs who identify themselves as Christians. Ms. Hoepfner seems to have the special ability to discern if people are Christians, and if they're being good enough Chistians.)
The words are not mutually exclusive and there is no “Christians” vs. “The Gays” war going on here; let’s be clear. (Quite true. It's actually the bigoted Left vs. Christians. But I'm splitting hairs...)
Bigotry, fear and ignorance cloaked behind religion doesn’t change the nature of the beast. (An expert in Christianity, now Ms. Hoepfner demonstrates yet another uncanny ability to know peoples' emotional state. In her world, the only opposition to the gay agenda must only be "bigotry, fear, and ignorance." Abandoning her civility, she now gets down and dirty.)
-------------------
Here is another person who is apparently qualified to tell people whether or not they're true Christians.
--------------------
Every time I read about the proposed non-discrimination ordinance, I lose a little faith in humanity because of the comments of those opposed. My biggest issue is when they identify themselves as “Christians,” as if it were some exclusive club the LGBTQ community is not part of. (As if? Does Ms. Hoepfner have any information to this effect, or is she speculating? Has she actually talked to any Christians to find out for sure?)
There are many LGBTQ Christians. (Probably. Or perhaps more precisely, there are many LGBTQs who identify themselves as Christians. Ms. Hoepfner seems to have the special ability to discern if people are Christians, and if they're being good enough Chistians.)
The words are not mutually exclusive and there is no “Christians” vs. “The Gays” war going on here; let’s be clear. (Quite true. It's actually the bigoted Left vs. Christians. But I'm splitting hairs...)
Bigotry, fear and ignorance cloaked behind religion doesn’t change the nature of the beast. (An expert in Christianity, now Ms. Hoepfner demonstrates yet another uncanny ability to know peoples' emotional state. In her world, the only opposition to the gay agenda must only be "bigotry, fear, and ignorance." Abandoning her civility, she now gets down and dirty.)
Monday, March 24, 2014
Why Beth Moore and Not Me? The Danger of Claiming to Receive Direct Revelation - by Erin Benziger
Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------------
It seems there is an ongoing debate between cessationists and those they deem to be not cessationist enough. Happily, the general dialogue seems respectful. This article appears to be written in pursuit of that debate, for it appears on the website that spends a lot of effort attempting to refute what it considers false doctrine.
My purpose here is not to defend Beth Moore, but rather to consider what the author offers as proof of her position. Read on:
-----------------------------------
When God speaks, He does so with authority. He issues no 'lesser' revelation. (The author is establishing what she considers to be the opposition's position by making bare assertions. Let's see if she provides scriptural evidence.)
His words are full and final and they stand for eternity. (Here is her premise, but is what she says true? Is she correct on these points? She provides no scriptural support for the assertions, so we can rightly contest them. Indeed, she presumes what she sets out to prove that His words are "final.")
This is why His Word is so precious. It is unchanging, and it is the sole authority for the Christian. (Again, is the author 100% correct? Is the Bible "the sole authority for the Christian?" Well, no. What about government authorities? Human spiritual authorities? But again, these are bare assertions, which she needs to back up with evidence.)
In the Bible, God has revealed all that the Christian needs to know in matters pertaining to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). (I've noticed a trend among cessationist writers lately. They make an assertion about a Scripture without quoting it. Does the Scripture really say what is being attributed to it? Apparently it is left to me to quote it in full: "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness." The reader will note that this Scripture says nothing about the Bible, and in fact appeals to "His divine power."
She then attempts to connect this Scripture to a second one, as if they speak to the same issue:)
In this Word, He has revealed to us His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is the Living Word (John 1:1) and He is the final Word (Heb 1:1–2). (Again the author attempts to force a concept onto a Scripture in order to establish her point. But here's the full quote: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." So, does this Scripture make the claim that Jesus is the "final Word?" Well, no.
When God speaks, He does so with authority. He issues no 'lesser' revelation. (The author is establishing what she considers to be the opposition's position by making bare assertions. Let's see if she provides scriptural evidence.)
His words are full and final and they stand for eternity. (Here is her premise, but is what she says true? Is she correct on these points? She provides no scriptural support for the assertions, so we can rightly contest them. Indeed, she presumes what she sets out to prove that His words are "final.")
This is why His Word is so precious. It is unchanging, and it is the sole authority for the Christian. (Again, is the author 100% correct? Is the Bible "the sole authority for the Christian?" Well, no. What about government authorities? Human spiritual authorities? But again, these are bare assertions, which she needs to back up with evidence.)
In the Bible, God has revealed all that the Christian needs to know in matters pertaining to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). (I've noticed a trend among cessationist writers lately. They make an assertion about a Scripture without quoting it. Does the Scripture really say what is being attributed to it? Apparently it is left to me to quote it in full: "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness." The reader will note that this Scripture says nothing about the Bible, and in fact appeals to "His divine power."
She then attempts to connect this Scripture to a second one, as if they speak to the same issue:)
In this Word, He has revealed to us His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is the Living Word (John 1:1) and He is the final Word (Heb 1:1–2). (Again the author attempts to force a concept onto a Scripture in order to establish her point. But here's the full quote: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." So, does this Scripture make the claim that Jesus is the "final Word?" Well, no.
It is clear that Hebrews is equating the revelation of the prophets of old to the revelation of Christ so that the superior nature of His revelation is established. In fact, much of what follows in Hebrews expounds on the superiority of Christ as the revealer of God's purpose, as the sacrifice for sin, and positionally higher than the angels. When understood in context, we see that the author's claims are misinformed.)
The Holy Spirit – A doctrinal testimony
I am not a theologian, so what I write here is not being presented as a scholarly thesis. It is more a narrative, culminating in what I have concluded is the truth. So, make up your own mind.
The more conservative denominations like the one I was a part of tend to minimize the Holy Spirit. Almost like “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Scriptures.” Now that I’m on the outside looking in, this is somewhat puzzling. There is a lot of teaching about the Holy Spirit in the Bible, but you would not know this if you attend a conservative church.
But that was fine with me. Until one day the Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on my door, and they became the first to challenge what I believed. It would be easy to dismiss the Witnesses, but they motivated for me to dive deeply into the Scriptures. The Witnesses have thrived by providing their “real truth.” It can easily lure a person in, even people who have been Christians for years or decades.
Of course, it isn’t particularly hard to refute the Witnesses if you have truly spent time in the Word, but I soon discovered that it isn’t doctrine, logic, or effective debate that turns hearts. I spent many a long meeting with my theological opponents with no change. They did not waver from their belief despite being confronted with the truth, and this was inexplicable. I thought when people heard the truth they would simply accept it!
But back then, I was convinced I knew everything about the faith I needed to know. And it’s human nature for people tend to hang out with like minds. As long as I remained in the “cloistered” environment of the denomination, I was pretty much untouched as far as differing perspectives. In these circumstances one can easily believe that there is only one way to interpret doctrine, and that everyone that disagrees with your interpretation is heretical.
I am now convinced that this attitude has created much God dishonoring division in the faith. People of faith can legitimately have a different perspective, yet still be Christian. There are some out there who have made it their life’s work to dissect the doctrine of other Christians in the most severe and heavy-handed of ways. It’s almost as if they think that the more perfect their doctrine is, the happier God will be with them.
We are not saved by honing our doctrine. Of course we must stand for the truth, but I think it’s an unhealthy obsession to patrol the internet looking for doctrinal violators. And that’s what some people do. It seems that’s all they do. It isn’t healthy or edifying.
Anyway. I want to contrast two ideas. The first is the idea that you can learn everything you need about God by study and intellectual pursuit. The second idea is that nothing you know about God comes except that He reveals it to you. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. Even the most conservative Christian will acknowledge that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, and it is He who opens our understanding as we study and rightly divide the Word. And clearly God reveals Himself, for He could easily hide His existence and we would know nothing of Him.
This means He has revealed Himself, and we can come to know of Him.
Therefore, the debate is not whether or not God is revelatory in the present day. The debate is the degree to which He does speak. Whether or not you consider yourself a “cessationist,” you do believe that God is actively engaged in the hearts and minds of men, enlightening, clarifying, revealing, and communicating with humans on this planet. It’s that you simply draw the line in a different place.
Previously I was very much oriented to the rational side, but more and more I am disposed to include the experiential end of the continuum. After all, God wants us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. That is the total man, with nothing left out. Every part of us, the physical, the emotional, the rational, the spiritual, our entire being is called to love Him.
The Psalmist asks, “Why are you downcast, O my soul?” Psalm 42:5. Clearly the Psalmist is speaking to an aspect of his being, commanding it in a sense to praise God. We are multi-dimensional creatures, and thus cannot restrict ourselves to what we can intellectually figure out. That is not the way we are made.
Continuing with my story. My early faith in the Baptist church provided the intellectual and doctrinal clarity to think deeply about things, and the continuing exposure to the spiritual/experiential has built upon that foundation into a living and real faith, a faith that might give pause to my Baptist brethren. Yet I am persuaded that we must go further into faith realms to comprehend the mind of Christ.
Years later when my wife and I moved to Bozeman, we set about to find a new church. The local Baptist church was a liberal Baptist denomination, which meant we were forced to turn to other denominations. It surprised us to discover that as we searched we found a delightful mix of fantastic people doing good things. People filled with faith who were wonderful, upstanding men and women of faith.
And they weren’t Baptists. That shocked me. Indeed, many of the churches we visited had a variety of people worshiping side by side. It didn’t seem to matter that some were Calvinists, or some believed in sprinkling, or that some believed the rapture was after the tribulation. What was important is that they all agreed that Jesus alone is Lord, and that His death and resurrection made it possible for us to come to the Father and receive His life.
We eventually settled in what we thought was a pretty conservative church. The pastor was an older man who loved to preach on the power of prayer. I had never heard such preaching, and at that point even believed that prayer wasn’t a way to change things. God didn’t do stuff simply because people prayed. But I remember that there was life in that church, something that was foreign to me. It was tangible. This church was the first place that I wept during worship, and I didn’t even know why.
Fast forward a few years. A couple of nice young Latter Day Saints ladies knocked on my door, wanting to tell me the truth. We spent quite some time on my doorstep. Maybe I had become a little wiser over the years. I didn’t argue doctrine. Instead of seeing them as intellectual adversaries I saw them with compassion. We talked on common elements between our faiths, which I’m told is a technique they use. But instead of letting it remain there, I asked them if they knew how much the Father loved them. Did they understand how truly precious they were to the Him, and how they could please Him simply by accepting His son as Savior? They seemed puzzled, and said they did things for their church in order to please God. They work hard for God, and then hope it’s enough.
The next formative event in my life was when I played trombone in the horn section of a conglomerated worship band formed for a series of events called “valley praise.” The idea was to join churches together to worship God. It was a marvelous series of events. We had a large kickin’ band, with a dozen horns, several guitars, and many singers. We did nothing but praise and worship music for two hours.
One of the worship leaders was an associate pastor at the local Assemblies of God. I was on guard because I knew that A.G.s believed in spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues, and I believed these things had ceased after the death of the Apostles. But I was disarmed by this fellow, because he wasn’t a kook, he was fun, humorous, intelligent, passionate, and desired above all else to genuinely know and worship God. In spite of myself I really liked him, and came to respect him.
So I was surprised to discover that there were people who believed differently than me that were not stupid or evil, they were not deceived, they were not cultists bent on destroying peoples’ faith.
Sometime after this the church we attended had a blow-up. The assistant pastor, who had been in charge of leading worship, had been appointed to succeed the older pastor who had been preaching on the power of prayer. As it turns out, the new pastor subsequently experienced a life-changing event along with a number of leaders in the church. It seems a spiritual awakening of sorts had occurred. Charismatics would call it being baptized by the Holy Spirit.
What happened was a large group from several churches had gone to Toronto to attend some meetings at the Vineyard church there, which was experiencing, shall we say, an outpouring. I didn’t know it at the time, but the blow up was tied to this event. We didn’t know how it all played out. Still don’t. However, I knew and respected every one of these folks as mature people of faith, not given to being swayed by the winds of doctrine.
The new pastor was one of them. We liked this man and were sad to see him leave (or actually, be forced out of) the church as a result of what happened to him and others in Toronto. He hadn’t even preached about this stuff, he hadn’t even mentioned from the pulpit that he had gone to Toronto, let alone anything about what had happened there.
Eventually we learned that he was considering starting a new church. We met with him and his wife and liked what we heard. We started attending the small planning meetings. At one of these meetings they played a video tape of a Toronto meeting. It was nothing like anything I’d ever seen. People were fervently worshiping, lifting their hands, shouting and dancing, and even falling down to the ground.
I was offended and greatly troubled. I went to my Bible and began the task of refuting what I saw on that video. But I found no help at all. My Bible talked about all these things that I didn’t believe!
So I took on a clinical detachment regarding these issues in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, yet decided to join up with the new church and play keyboard in the band because I knew it was where God was leading me. The pastor was an excellent musician and gifted worship leader, so worship took center stage in the fledgling gathering. It eventually developed into a worship like none I’d ever experienced. We weren’t whipping up emotions, or manipulating people, or lulling them into a suggestible state with repetition. No, we were singing worship songs and hymns that were full of correct doctrine and beautiful melodies, and things started happening.
I’ve written elsewhere about worship, so I won’t recount those thoughts here. But I will say that worship is a primary calling for Christians, a powerful vehicle to change hearts, churches, and communities. People who seek God will find Him. And churches who seek God will find God.
So we worshiped and sought God and prayed and worshiped some more. And, we found God. How do I know? The church grew, people got saved, they gave up their addictions, they went into the ministry, they wrote powerful songs of worship, they made a difference in the Kingdom. There is no better evidence than the fruit of a transformed life. “By their fruit you shall know them.”
We have now finally arrived at the purpose of this presentation. Those who seek God will find Him. That’s it. God rewards the seeker, He honors the one who hungers and thirst for righteousness by giving Himself. Lk. 11:11-13 says,
Here are more Scriptures about the Holy Spirit’s ministry. He’s very active and at work in us in a multitude of ways. It’s time to acknowledge Him and give Him the due He deserves. Let the weight and power of Scripture speak to you as to the proper place of the Holy Spirit in your life.
------------------------
First, a little history. I had no noteworthy supernatural experience or emotional response when I got saved, unlike many. I just knew I needed to get right with God. I think the lack of such an experience laid the groundwork for years of intellectual pursuit of the faith. I fell in with the Baptists, which actually was good for me since I tend to be analytical, and the Baptists have a long history of theological scholarship. I learned a lot about the faith as a Baptist.
The more conservative denominations like the one I was a part of tend to minimize the Holy Spirit. Almost like “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Scriptures.” Now that I’m on the outside looking in, this is somewhat puzzling. There is a lot of teaching about the Holy Spirit in the Bible, but you would not know this if you attend a conservative church.
But that was fine with me. Until one day the Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on my door, and they became the first to challenge what I believed. It would be easy to dismiss the Witnesses, but they motivated for me to dive deeply into the Scriptures. The Witnesses have thrived by providing their “real truth.” It can easily lure a person in, even people who have been Christians for years or decades.
Of course, it isn’t particularly hard to refute the Witnesses if you have truly spent time in the Word, but I soon discovered that it isn’t doctrine, logic, or effective debate that turns hearts. I spent many a long meeting with my theological opponents with no change. They did not waver from their belief despite being confronted with the truth, and this was inexplicable. I thought when people heard the truth they would simply accept it!
But back then, I was convinced I knew everything about the faith I needed to know. And it’s human nature for people tend to hang out with like minds. As long as I remained in the “cloistered” environment of the denomination, I was pretty much untouched as far as differing perspectives. In these circumstances one can easily believe that there is only one way to interpret doctrine, and that everyone that disagrees with your interpretation is heretical.
I am now convinced that this attitude has created much God dishonoring division in the faith. People of faith can legitimately have a different perspective, yet still be Christian. There are some out there who have made it their life’s work to dissect the doctrine of other Christians in the most severe and heavy-handed of ways. It’s almost as if they think that the more perfect their doctrine is, the happier God will be with them.
We are not saved by honing our doctrine. Of course we must stand for the truth, but I think it’s an unhealthy obsession to patrol the internet looking for doctrinal violators. And that’s what some people do. It seems that’s all they do. It isn’t healthy or edifying.
Anyway. I want to contrast two ideas. The first is the idea that you can learn everything you need about God by study and intellectual pursuit. The second idea is that nothing you know about God comes except that He reveals it to you. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. Even the most conservative Christian will acknowledge that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, and it is He who opens our understanding as we study and rightly divide the Word. And clearly God reveals Himself, for He could easily hide His existence and we would know nothing of Him.
This means He has revealed Himself, and we can come to know of Him.
Therefore, the debate is not whether or not God is revelatory in the present day. The debate is the degree to which He does speak. Whether or not you consider yourself a “cessationist,” you do believe that God is actively engaged in the hearts and minds of men, enlightening, clarifying, revealing, and communicating with humans on this planet. It’s that you simply draw the line in a different place.
Previously I was very much oriented to the rational side, but more and more I am disposed to include the experiential end of the continuum. After all, God wants us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. That is the total man, with nothing left out. Every part of us, the physical, the emotional, the rational, the spiritual, our entire being is called to love Him.
The Psalmist asks, “Why are you downcast, O my soul?” Psalm 42:5. Clearly the Psalmist is speaking to an aspect of his being, commanding it in a sense to praise God. We are multi-dimensional creatures, and thus cannot restrict ourselves to what we can intellectually figure out. That is not the way we are made.
Continuing with my story. My early faith in the Baptist church provided the intellectual and doctrinal clarity to think deeply about things, and the continuing exposure to the spiritual/experiential has built upon that foundation into a living and real faith, a faith that might give pause to my Baptist brethren. Yet I am persuaded that we must go further into faith realms to comprehend the mind of Christ.
Years later when my wife and I moved to Bozeman, we set about to find a new church. The local Baptist church was a liberal Baptist denomination, which meant we were forced to turn to other denominations. It surprised us to discover that as we searched we found a delightful mix of fantastic people doing good things. People filled with faith who were wonderful, upstanding men and women of faith.
And they weren’t Baptists. That shocked me. Indeed, many of the churches we visited had a variety of people worshiping side by side. It didn’t seem to matter that some were Calvinists, or some believed in sprinkling, or that some believed the rapture was after the tribulation. What was important is that they all agreed that Jesus alone is Lord, and that His death and resurrection made it possible for us to come to the Father and receive His life.
We eventually settled in what we thought was a pretty conservative church. The pastor was an older man who loved to preach on the power of prayer. I had never heard such preaching, and at that point even believed that prayer wasn’t a way to change things. God didn’t do stuff simply because people prayed. But I remember that there was life in that church, something that was foreign to me. It was tangible. This church was the first place that I wept during worship, and I didn’t even know why.
Fast forward a few years. A couple of nice young Latter Day Saints ladies knocked on my door, wanting to tell me the truth. We spent quite some time on my doorstep. Maybe I had become a little wiser over the years. I didn’t argue doctrine. Instead of seeing them as intellectual adversaries I saw them with compassion. We talked on common elements between our faiths, which I’m told is a technique they use. But instead of letting it remain there, I asked them if they knew how much the Father loved them. Did they understand how truly precious they were to the Him, and how they could please Him simply by accepting His son as Savior? They seemed puzzled, and said they did things for their church in order to please God. They work hard for God, and then hope it’s enough.
We talked a while longer, and I noticed that one of the young ladies was acting differently. Eventually we said goodbye, and I watched them as they walked away. About half way up my driveway one young lady fell to her knees, weeping. The other gal tried to console her, and instantly I knew that the Father had touched her with His love. I never saw them again.
The next formative event in my life was when I played trombone in the horn section of a conglomerated worship band formed for a series of events called “valley praise.” The idea was to join churches together to worship God. It was a marvelous series of events. We had a large kickin’ band, with a dozen horns, several guitars, and many singers. We did nothing but praise and worship music for two hours.
One of the worship leaders was an associate pastor at the local Assemblies of God. I was on guard because I knew that A.G.s believed in spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues, and I believed these things had ceased after the death of the Apostles. But I was disarmed by this fellow, because he wasn’t a kook, he was fun, humorous, intelligent, passionate, and desired above all else to genuinely know and worship God. In spite of myself I really liked him, and came to respect him.
So I was surprised to discover that there were people who believed differently than me that were not stupid or evil, they were not deceived, they were not cultists bent on destroying peoples’ faith.
Sometime after this the church we attended had a blow-up. The assistant pastor, who had been in charge of leading worship, had been appointed to succeed the older pastor who had been preaching on the power of prayer. As it turns out, the new pastor subsequently experienced a life-changing event along with a number of leaders in the church. It seems a spiritual awakening of sorts had occurred. Charismatics would call it being baptized by the Holy Spirit.
What happened was a large group from several churches had gone to Toronto to attend some meetings at the Vineyard church there, which was experiencing, shall we say, an outpouring. I didn’t know it at the time, but the blow up was tied to this event. We didn’t know how it all played out. Still don’t. However, I knew and respected every one of these folks as mature people of faith, not given to being swayed by the winds of doctrine.
The new pastor was one of them. We liked this man and were sad to see him leave (or actually, be forced out of) the church as a result of what happened to him and others in Toronto. He hadn’t even preached about this stuff, he hadn’t even mentioned from the pulpit that he had gone to Toronto, let alone anything about what had happened there.
Eventually we learned that he was considering starting a new church. We met with him and his wife and liked what we heard. We started attending the small planning meetings. At one of these meetings they played a video tape of a Toronto meeting. It was nothing like anything I’d ever seen. People were fervently worshiping, lifting their hands, shouting and dancing, and even falling down to the ground.
I was offended and greatly troubled. I went to my Bible and began the task of refuting what I saw on that video. But I found no help at all. My Bible talked about all these things that I didn’t believe!
Dancing: 2Sa. 6:16: “As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart.”
Lifting hands: Ps. 141:2 “May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice.”
Falling down: Da. 8:17 “As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.” 18 While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground.”
Shouting: Ps. 118:15 “Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous.”These Scriptures chronicled everything I saw on the video. I could not automatically deem them unholy or evil, because there were obvious cases of these things in the Bible that were God-glorifying. But I wouldn’t accept it. My doctrine didn’t allow it, because God didn’t do these things in our day. People who did these things were deceived, possessed, or fleshly. That was that. But I was conflicted, because I knew these people were not like my caricature. Again, they were people that I knew and respected.
So I took on a clinical detachment regarding these issues in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, yet decided to join up with the new church and play keyboard in the band because I knew it was where God was leading me. The pastor was an excellent musician and gifted worship leader, so worship took center stage in the fledgling gathering. It eventually developed into a worship like none I’d ever experienced. We weren’t whipping up emotions, or manipulating people, or lulling them into a suggestible state with repetition. No, we were singing worship songs and hymns that were full of correct doctrine and beautiful melodies, and things started happening.
I’ve written elsewhere about worship, so I won’t recount those thoughts here. But I will say that worship is a primary calling for Christians, a powerful vehicle to change hearts, churches, and communities. People who seek God will find Him. And churches who seek God will find God.
So we worshiped and sought God and prayed and worshiped some more. And, we found God. How do I know? The church grew, people got saved, they gave up their addictions, they went into the ministry, they wrote powerful songs of worship, they made a difference in the Kingdom. There is no better evidence than the fruit of a transformed life. “By their fruit you shall know them.”
We have now finally arrived at the purpose of this presentation. Those who seek God will find Him. That’s it. God rewards the seeker, He honors the one who hungers and thirst for righteousness by giving Himself. Lk. 11:11-13 says,
Which of you fathers, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone; or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him! (emphasis added)
It’s interesting that Jesus compares the good things an earthly father will do for his children to what our heavenly Father will do for His. And He characterizes it as giving more of the Holy Spirit to those who ask. That is described as a good thing! The Holy Spirit is the supernatural presence of God who lives inside us. 1Co. 6:19 says,
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?
The Holy Spirit is a person, not an “it.”
- He can be angered: Mi. 2:7 Should it be said, O house of Jacob: “Is the Spirit of the LORD angry?”
- He can be blasphemed: Mk. 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.
- He can be grieved: Ep. 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
- He can be lied to: Ac. 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?”
- He can be tested: Ac. 5:9 Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
- He witnesses things: Ac. 5:32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.
- He can be resisted: Ac. 7:51 You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
- The Holy Spirit is the one who brings us to the truth: My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. 1 Cor 2:4-5
- The Holy Spirit is one of the ways God shows His love for us: the Ro. 5:5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
Remember the phrase I used earlier? “Baptized with the Holy Spirit?” Mt. 3:11:
I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
This sounds to me like something that will happen to us, something that must happen. A good thing. The Holy Spirit is God’s gift to us: Ac. 2:38
Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'
It seems clear that there’s some sort of measure of fullness of the Holy Spirit that goes beyond getting saved:
Ro. 15:13: May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Ep. 5:18: Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit is apportioned according to God’s purposes.
Ep. 4:4-7 There is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to one hope when you were called — one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.
There is so much Scripture about the Holy Spirit that it embarrassed me that I could not see this stuff before. Really, what does the cessationist do with the Holy Spirit? He’s part of the Godhead, He’s one of the Trinity, we were marked with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession — to the praise of his glory.” Ep. 1:13-14 We cannot continue to ignore Him!
He ministers to us, teaches us truth, fills us, he empowers us and protects us.
Jn. 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Ac. 1:8 “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
Ac. 4:31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
He’s a gift given to us to show we belong to Him, and a necessary part of salvation.
Acts 10:47 Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.
Acts 19:2-4 ’Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ They answered, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ So Paul asked, ‘Then what baptism did you receive?’ ‘John’s baptism,’ they replied. Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’
The Holy Spirit imparts spiritual characteristics in us: Ro. 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit…
He manifests in us in different ways according to the purposes of the Father:
He manifests in us in different ways according to the purposes of the Father:
1Co. 12:5-13: There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.
All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body — whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free — and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.There is a warning in Mt. 12:32. It is a matter of some debate among theologians as to who it applies to and under what circumstances. I really don’t know myself, but I don’t want to find myself in this position: Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. We must honor and worship the Holy Spirit for he is God. We are taught to seek more of Him, as we saw above. He’s important! He’s worth knowing!
Here are more Scriptures about the Holy Spirit’s ministry. He’s very active and at work in us in a multitude of ways. It’s time to acknowledge Him and give Him the due He deserves. Let the weight and power of Scripture speak to you as to the proper place of the Holy Spirit in your life.
1Th. 1:5 …because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake.
Tit. 3:5-6 …he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior…
He. 2:3-4 …how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
He. 10:15 -17 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." [Jer. 31:33] Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” [Jer. 31:34]
2Pe. 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Jude 20 But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
John MacArthur answers questions about Strange Fire
Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------------
We have yet to see a persuasive case made for the cessationist perspective. John MacArthur is a prominent Bible teacher, and a rather good one at times. He is also cessationist, so we are hopeful that he can adequately justify this position scripturally.
Dr. MacArthur seems curiously reluctant to actually quote Scripture. In fact, nowhere in this article does he actually do so. He makes reference to Scripture, takes a bit of a phrase and extrapolates, but nowhere does he actually give us the verse itself. It is left to us to actually quote them, which we are happy to do.
-----------------------------
(...)
Q: You noted that you see this issue clearly resolved in Scripture. Can you explain, briefly, the biblical case (emphasis added) for cessationism?
A: The full answer to this question would require a lengthy response; and I spend several chapters in the book making the case. But since you asked me to be brief, I’ll do my best to stay concise. I find it helpful to shape the case (Um, the "biblical case," please.)
for cessationism around three questions: What?, When?, and Why?.
First, what were the miraculous and revelatory gifts (like apostleship, prophecy, tongues, and healing) according to the Word of God? Scripture gives us a clear description. But when we compare that biblical description with the modern charismatic movement, we find that the latter falls far short. Though charismatics use biblical terminology to describe their contemporary experiences, nothing about the modern charismatic gifts matches the biblical reality. (He diverts the issue. The problem to be addressed is not if charismatics are properly expressing the biblical gifts, but rather, what does the Bible have to say about the "supernatural" gifts? Dr. MacArthur cannot not refute the spiritual gifts by pointing to the failures of those whom he opposes.
Remember, we are looking for the biblical case.)
--------------------------------
We have yet to see a persuasive case made for the cessationist perspective. John MacArthur is a prominent Bible teacher, and a rather good one at times. He is also cessationist, so we are hopeful that he can adequately justify this position scripturally.
Dr. MacArthur seems curiously reluctant to actually quote Scripture. In fact, nowhere in this article does he actually do so. He makes reference to Scripture, takes a bit of a phrase and extrapolates, but nowhere does he actually give us the verse itself. It is left to us to actually quote them, which we are happy to do.
-----------------------------
(...)
Q: You noted that you see this issue clearly resolved in Scripture. Can you explain, briefly, the biblical case (emphasis added) for cessationism?
A: The full answer to this question would require a lengthy response; and I spend several chapters in the book making the case. But since you asked me to be brief, I’ll do my best to stay concise. I find it helpful to shape the case (Um, the "biblical case," please.)
for cessationism around three questions: What?, When?, and Why?.
First, what were the miraculous and revelatory gifts (like apostleship, prophecy, tongues, and healing) according to the Word of God? Scripture gives us a clear description. But when we compare that biblical description with the modern charismatic movement, we find that the latter falls far short. Though charismatics use biblical terminology to describe their contemporary experiences, nothing about the modern charismatic gifts matches the biblical reality. (He diverts the issue. The problem to be addressed is not if charismatics are properly expressing the biblical gifts, but rather, what does the Bible have to say about the "supernatural" gifts? Dr. MacArthur cannot not refute the spiritual gifts by pointing to the failures of those whom he opposes.
Remember, we are looking for the biblical case.)
Friday, March 14, 2014
Church Discipline: Principles and Reasons
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.
---------------------------------
The following notes are from Jonathan Leeman’s short and very helpful book, Church Discipline: How the Church Protects the Name of Jesus (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).
3 Forms of Discipline
The following notes have to do with “corrective discipline.”
6 Reasons Churches Should Practice Church Discipline
4 Ways Church Discipline Demonstrates Love
The following notes are from Jonathan Leeman’s short and very helpful book, Church Discipline: How the Church Protects the Name of Jesus (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).
3 Forms of Discipline
Formative discipline helps to form the disciple through instruction.
Corrective discipline helps to correct the disciple through correcting sin (Matt. 18:15-17; Gal. 6:1;Eph. 5:11; Titus 3:10; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; 1 Cor. 5:1-13).
Preemptive discipline disallows someone from participating in the fellowship of the church in the first place (2 John 2:9-10; see an example of this in Acts 8:17-24).
The following notes have to do with “corrective discipline.”
6 Reasons Churches Should Practice Church Discipline
Church discipline is biblical.
Church discipline is an implication of the gospel.
Church discipline promotes the health of the church.
Church discipline clarifies and burnishes the church’s witness before the nations.
Church discipline warns sinners of an even greater judgment to come.
Most importantly, church discipline protects the name and reputation of Jesus Christ on earth.
4 Ways Church Discipline Demonstrates Love
Church discipline shows love for the individual, that he or she might be warned and brought to repentance.
Church discipline shows love for the church, that weaker sheep might be protected.
Church discipline shows love for the watching world, that it might see Christ’s transforming power.
Church discipline shows love for Christ, that churches might uphold his holy name and obey him.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Founding Fathers may have weighed wealth distribution - letter by Richard Benert
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
Perish the thought of forcing (Hmm, a slip of the pen. It is anathema for the Left to admit that people are being forced to do things, particularly via the tax system.) anyone with more to share (If they're forced, how can it be sharing?) with anyone with less. It’s not the American way. Witness Joe Balyeat’s recent attack (It's always an attack to disagree with a Leftist. I reproduced Joe Balyeat's column below. Read it for yourself. You'll look in vain for any sort of "attack" on anything.) on Obamacare (Ooops, another slip of the pen. We can't call it "Obamacare.") for spreading “some peoples’ known high medical costs onto everyone else’s back.” Surely the Founding Fathers weep in their graves at how the once sturdy breed of self-sufficient Americans has fallen prey to the Nanny State.
Well, maybe not. Scholars (If you can call Newsweek writers scholars...) (on the East Coast, of course) have recently uncovered statements by our Founders that suggest that profit sharing may be the American way. (Here where Mr. Benert engages in some wholesale appropriation from the Newsweek article...) Madison, for example, said that government should prevent “an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches” by enacting laws which “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort.” (This quote cannot be documented. A google search yields no documented sources, as well as quite a bit of discussion as to the genuineness of the quote. I especially doubt the either Newsweek or Mr. Benert accurately quoted Madison in context.)
Washington himself saw the new country as a place where “persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital” could live, where “it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.” (Here we can find the letter in its entirety as written by Washington. As you might suspect, Washington is not advocating "forced sharing" of wealth. Here's the entire quote:
John Adams even foresaw how the rich would be adored by the not-so-rich. A business aristocracy would likely manipulate voters, he feared, and unless they were constrained, the “rich and proud” would possess power that “will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves.” (Happily, we are once again able to locate the document in its entirety once again. Here Adams was discussing the problems of government, how they tend to start as one thing and end up changing into another. Adams shows how a variety of governments seem to always become corrupted and tyrannical. He concludes, "This is the rotation of governments, and this the order of nature, by which they are changed, transformed, and return to the same point of the circle."
Guest column: Understanding Obamacare … and why it will fail
By Joe Balyeat, Guest Columnist
----------------------------
Mr. Benert's has been the subject of Mountain Man Trails before, and as is typical for him, he expounds on things he does not know about, arrogantly dismissing ideas he thinks he has refuted.
Mr. Benert's has been the subject of Mountain Man Trails before, and as is typical for him, he expounds on things he does not know about, arrogantly dismissing ideas he thinks he has refuted.
His letter is pretty much a regurgitation of a recent Newsweek article, as well as heavily flawed PBS article lauding a book called "The Citizens Share." I probably should refute those instead of Mr. Benert, but he so perfect parrots Leftist talking points, it's probably more entertaining to pop his little balloon instead.
Read on:
--------------------------------
Nothing is more likely to raise the hackles of our friends on the right than to recommend any policy that smacks of “redistribution of wealth.” No matter how ridiculously rich the small minority of “hard workers” get and how stagnant remain the wages of what used to be the middle class, the free-market chorus sings the praises of unfettered accumulation, with little or no recognition of any need, let alone duty, to try to maintain some balance. (Here's his premise. He thinks that the wealth of the country needs to be balanced because of the "unfettered accumulation" of wealth by the rich while the average Joe's wages are stagnant. The staggering ignorance of this is breathtaking. Some inconvenient facts: The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all income taxes, the top 1% pay 39%. This percentage has been increasing over the years as high wage earners bear more and more of the income tax burden.
Nothing is more likely to raise the hackles of our friends on the right than to recommend any policy that smacks of “redistribution of wealth.” No matter how ridiculously rich the small minority of “hard workers” get and how stagnant remain the wages of what used to be the middle class, the free-market chorus sings the praises of unfettered accumulation, with little or no recognition of any need, let alone duty, to try to maintain some balance. (Here's his premise. He thinks that the wealth of the country needs to be balanced because of the "unfettered accumulation" of wealth by the rich while the average Joe's wages are stagnant. The staggering ignorance of this is breathtaking. Some inconvenient facts: The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all income taxes, the top 1% pay 39%. This percentage has been increasing over the years as high wage earners bear more and more of the income tax burden.
Given this, there is most certainly no "unfettered accumulation." But this is a typical tactic of the Left. They describe a situation that does not exist, in this case, "unfettered accumulation," in order to assert that something must be done right now to fix it. That is, nothing has been done in the past because the Left does not remember the past, or at least, they only remember the past in terms of the problems that existed. Therefore, the problem has never been addressed before, today is a new day, and so we must take action to solve this problem of "unfettered accumulation.")
Perish the thought of forcing (Hmm, a slip of the pen. It is anathema for the Left to admit that people are being forced to do things, particularly via the tax system.) anyone with more to share (If they're forced, how can it be sharing?) with anyone with less. It’s not the American way. Witness Joe Balyeat’s recent attack (It's always an attack to disagree with a Leftist. I reproduced Joe Balyeat's column below. Read it for yourself. You'll look in vain for any sort of "attack" on anything.) on Obamacare (Ooops, another slip of the pen. We can't call it "Obamacare.") for spreading “some peoples’ known high medical costs onto everyone else’s back.” Surely the Founding Fathers weep in their graves at how the once sturdy breed of self-sufficient Americans has fallen prey to the Nanny State.
Well, maybe not. Scholars (If you can call Newsweek writers scholars...) (on the East Coast, of course) have recently uncovered statements by our Founders that suggest that profit sharing may be the American way. (Here where Mr. Benert engages in some wholesale appropriation from the Newsweek article...) Madison, for example, said that government should prevent “an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches” by enacting laws which “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort.” (This quote cannot be documented. A google search yields no documented sources, as well as quite a bit of discussion as to the genuineness of the quote. I especially doubt the either Newsweek or Mr. Benert accurately quoted Madison in context.)
Washington himself saw the new country as a place where “persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital” could live, where “it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.” (Here we can find the letter in its entirety as written by Washington. As you might suspect, Washington is not advocating "forced sharing" of wealth. Here's the entire quote:
"America, under an efficient government, will be the most favorable Country of any in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of a moderate capital, to inhabit. It is also believed that it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people because of the equal distribution of property the great plenty of unocupied lands, and the facility of procuring the means of subsistance. The scheme of purchasing a good tract of freehold estate and bringing out a number of ableboded men, indented for a certain time appears to be indisputably a rationale one."My, my my. How context changes everything. No further comment needed.)
John Adams even foresaw how the rich would be adored by the not-so-rich. A business aristocracy would likely manipulate voters, he feared, and unless they were constrained, the “rich and proud” would possess power that “will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves.” (Happily, we are once again able to locate the document in its entirety once again. Here Adams was discussing the problems of government, how they tend to start as one thing and end up changing into another. Adams shows how a variety of governments seem to always become corrupted and tyrannical. He concludes, "This is the rotation of governments, and this the order of nature, by which they are changed, transformed, and return to the same point of the circle."
In this context we see that Adams was warning of the dangers of too powerful government, how it tends towards corruption at the hands of the monarch, the rich, and the manipulators. Which of course is the government we have now. Absent from Adams' letter is any mention of redistributing wealth, heavy taxation of the rich, or giving money to the poor via redistributive taxation. The concept is completely absent from the writings of the Founders. Too bad, Mr. Benert.)
Darn socialist Founding Fathers! (See Blasi, Kruse, and Freeman, “The Citizen’s Share.”)
Richard Benert, Bozeman
Darn socialist Founding Fathers! (See Blasi, Kruse, and Freeman, “The Citizen’s Share.”)
Richard Benert, Bozeman
-------------------------------
Guest column: Understanding Obamacare … and why it will fail
By Joe Balyeat, Guest Columnist
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
BIBLICAL ELDERSHIP Restoring the Eldership to Its Rightful Place in the Church - by Alexander Strauch
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. This is a long, long article, but well worth the read. I think I agree with every word written here.
-------------------
LEWIS AND ROTH PUBLISHERS - Littleton, Colorado 80160-0569 U. S. A.
This booklet is an abridgment of Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Eldership by Alexander Strauch. Copyright © 1987, 1997. All rights reserved. Editors: Stephen and Amanda Sorenson
All Scripture quotations, except those noted otherwise, are from the New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, and are used by permission.
ISBN 0-936083-15-8-------------------------------
While attending a sacred music concert, I received an insightful lesson in ecclesiology. As I walked into the main foyer of the church where the concert was being held, I immediately noticed the photographs and names of the senior pastor and his staff arranged in a pyramid within a glass encasement. The senior pastor's photograph was at the top, his three associate pastor's photographs were below, and the rest of the church staff's photographs completed the base of the pyramid. As I walked further into the building and down a side hall, I saw another glass encasement that contained the photographs and names of the church elders. I immediately thought, What a superb illustration of how the church elders have been pushed aside to a scarcely visible position in the church! This is quite different from the New Testament model of eldership.
My first encounter with church elders occurred when I was a young teenager preparing for confirmation. During confirmation classes, I told the minister about my conversion to Christ, which had taken place the previous summer at a Bible camp. He was so intrigued by my youthful, exuberant testimony of Christ that he asked me to share my story with the church elders. So I met with the elders and told them about my new relationship with Jesus Christ. They sat speechless, looking totally puzzled. I was saddened by their response because I realized that they didn't understand what I was saying. That experience left me with little confidence in the elders or the church.
My next encounter with church elders, however, was altogether different. While attending college away from home, I was invited to a church that taught and practiced authentic biblical eldership. The elders of this church took seriously the New Testament commands for elders to be biblically qualified and to actively pastor the flock of God. They provided strong leadership, loving pastoral care and discipline, sound Bible teaching, and humble, sacrificial examples of Christian living. As a result, they were highly esteemed by the church. The inspiring example of these men first awakened in me a positive interest in the subject of church eldership.
Later, while attending seminary, my growing interest in eldership was vigorously challenged. During a class on church polity, which stubbornly resisted any notion of an elder-led church, I asked the professor, "But what do you do with all the scriptural texts on elders?"
He quickly responded, "Numbers of texts on elders mean nothing!"
I thought, but didn't have the nerve to express it publicly, Well, what does mean something? Your nonexistent texts on clerics?
This and other similar experiences served only to stir my increasing conviction that eldership was a biblically sound doctrine that most churches either ignored or misinterpreted.
Several years later, I was preparing a series of sermons on the doctrine of the Church. When I came to the subject of eldership, I was shocked to discover that there was no full-length book on the subject. There were small booklets, journal articles, and chapters within books, but no thorough treatment of the subject from an expository viewpoint. This lack of exposition was hardly believable, especially when I considered the elders' primary role as leaders in the first churches and the number of scriptural texts devoted to elders. It finally ignited my desire to write on the subject of eldership.
I don't believe any doctrine of Holy Scripture should be neglected or defined out of existence. Yet this is precisely what many churches have done to the biblical doctrine of eldership. Even among churches that claim to practice eldership, elders have been reduced to being temporary, lay, church board members, which is quite contrary to the New Testament model of pastoral eldership. Although such churches may have an eldership, it is not a biblical eldership.
LEWIS AND ROTH PUBLISHERS - Littleton, Colorado 80160-0569 U. S. A.
This booklet is an abridgment of Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Eldership by Alexander Strauch. Copyright © 1987, 1997. All rights reserved. Editors: Stephen and Amanda Sorenson
All Scripture quotations, except those noted otherwise, are from the New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, and are used by permission.
ISBN 0-936083-15-8-------------------------------
THE PROBLEM
While attending a sacred music concert, I received an insightful lesson in ecclesiology. As I walked into the main foyer of the church where the concert was being held, I immediately noticed the photographs and names of the senior pastor and his staff arranged in a pyramid within a glass encasement. The senior pastor's photograph was at the top, his three associate pastor's photographs were below, and the rest of the church staff's photographs completed the base of the pyramid. As I walked further into the building and down a side hall, I saw another glass encasement that contained the photographs and names of the church elders. I immediately thought, What a superb illustration of how the church elders have been pushed aside to a scarcely visible position in the church! This is quite different from the New Testament model of eldership.
My first encounter with church elders occurred when I was a young teenager preparing for confirmation. During confirmation classes, I told the minister about my conversion to Christ, which had taken place the previous summer at a Bible camp. He was so intrigued by my youthful, exuberant testimony of Christ that he asked me to share my story with the church elders. So I met with the elders and told them about my new relationship with Jesus Christ. They sat speechless, looking totally puzzled. I was saddened by their response because I realized that they didn't understand what I was saying. That experience left me with little confidence in the elders or the church.
My next encounter with church elders, however, was altogether different. While attending college away from home, I was invited to a church that taught and practiced authentic biblical eldership. The elders of this church took seriously the New Testament commands for elders to be biblically qualified and to actively pastor the flock of God. They provided strong leadership, loving pastoral care and discipline, sound Bible teaching, and humble, sacrificial examples of Christian living. As a result, they were highly esteemed by the church. The inspiring example of these men first awakened in me a positive interest in the subject of church eldership.
Later, while attending seminary, my growing interest in eldership was vigorously challenged. During a class on church polity, which stubbornly resisted any notion of an elder-led church, I asked the professor, "But what do you do with all the scriptural texts on elders?"
He quickly responded, "Numbers of texts on elders mean nothing!"
I thought, but didn't have the nerve to express it publicly, Well, what does mean something? Your nonexistent texts on clerics?
This and other similar experiences served only to stir my increasing conviction that eldership was a biblically sound doctrine that most churches either ignored or misinterpreted.
Several years later, I was preparing a series of sermons on the doctrine of the Church. When I came to the subject of eldership, I was shocked to discover that there was no full-length book on the subject. There were small booklets, journal articles, and chapters within books, but no thorough treatment of the subject from an expository viewpoint. This lack of exposition was hardly believable, especially when I considered the elders' primary role as leaders in the first churches and the number of scriptural texts devoted to elders. It finally ignited my desire to write on the subject of eldership.
I don't believe any doctrine of Holy Scripture should be neglected or defined out of existence. Yet this is precisely what many churches have done to the biblical doctrine of eldership. Even among churches that claim to practice eldership, elders have been reduced to being temporary, lay, church board members, which is quite contrary to the New Testament model of pastoral eldership. Although such churches may have an eldership, it is not a biblical eldership.
Friday, March 7, 2014
How To Know The Will of God For Your Life - By Brannon S. Howse
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------------
This is an outline of a talk given by the author. He does an excellent job establishing the Scriptural basis for knowing the will of God. However, our cheering began to wane as we got to the end, where we find his commentary. You'll find our analysis there at the end.
----------------------------------
Finding the will of God and walking in the will of God is an imperative for the true believer. The will of God is not found in false teaching, man-centered theology, or through emotional experiences.
Ephesians 5:17 makes it clear that we are to know the will of the Lord: "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is."
How does God direct us in His will?
1. God has ordained His will for us before time began
-----------------------------
This is an outline of a talk given by the author. He does an excellent job establishing the Scriptural basis for knowing the will of God. However, our cheering began to wane as we got to the end, where we find his commentary. You'll find our analysis there at the end.
----------------------------------
Finding the will of God and walking in the will of God is an imperative for the true believer. The will of God is not found in false teaching, man-centered theology, or through emotional experiences.
Ephesians 5:17 makes it clear that we are to know the will of the Lord: "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is."
How does God direct us in His will?
1. God has ordained His will for us before time began
Ephesians 2:10: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."2. God reveals His will in His Word
John 7:17: "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority."
Psalm 119:105: "Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path."
Ephesians 5:17: "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is."
Ephesians 5:18: "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit."
2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."3. The Holy Spirit Illuminates The Word and Will of God
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Jesus was a radical....
This was posted by a FB friend.
Oviously the intent is to paint Jesus as a liberal. Let's look at where this goes wrong.
As is typical for the Left, they attempt to isolate Jesus from the rest of the Bible in order to suggest that they have much in common with Him. However, Jesus is woven throughout the Bible. In the O.T. He was known as the Word of God, so God speaking in the O.T. is Jesus. All the things the Left doesn't like about God is manifested in the person of Jesus.
Since the Left is making claims about what Jesus believed and taught, I shall quote His own words as recorded in the Gospels. I will not quote the O.T. or the epistles, since the Left's caricature of Jesus comes from their flawed understanding of His teaching, which is contained in the Gospel narratives.
I will note, however, that Jesus frequently quoted the O.T., affirming its applicability.
Our comments are found after each phrase.
------------------------------------
Jesus was a radical
(Yes, agreed, but Jesus never had a political agenda, so interpreting his ministry via politics is unjustifiable. Unfortunately for the Left, Jesus' harshest words were reserved for the political power of the day, the Pharisees.)
non-violent revolutionary
(Jn. 2:14-16 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”
Mt. 11:12 "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.")
who hung around lepers hookers and crooks;
(Mt. 9:11-13 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and `sinners’?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: `I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ [Hosea 6:6] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”)
wasn't English and never spoke English;
(Um, duh.)
An outline for church vision, purpose, and structure
Church Clarification of Purpose and Structure
A) Our Purpose – Our reason for existence
1. What is the church's calling? Our calling is God’s summons into our place/position
2. What is its vision? Vision is what we see for the goal
3. What are its values? Values are the guidelines/rules under which we operate
4. What is its mission? Mission is how we get to the vision
5. Name the foundational Scriptures for each
B) Authority - Who is in charge, and in what ways
1. What is the scriptural view of authority?
2. What is the Scriptural role of Pastor?
3. What is the Scriptural role of Elder?
4. What is the Scriptural role of Deacon?
5. Describe Scriptural submission, service, leadership
C) Identity - Self awareness
1. Who am I? Who are we? We must answer this before we can answer God's call to ministry
2. Fill in the blank: “There’s nothing more important to me than …”
3. Inventory of the leadership: Gifts, abilities, passions
4. Inventory of the whole church: Gifts, abilities, passions
5. Why are we doing what we are doing? Why do we have church, a sermon, sing songs? Why do we meet on Sunday? Why do we pray? We cannot assume that we should do something just because we are doing something.
D) Ministry - Vision Implementation
1. Immediate goals
a. Overall for the church
b. Individual for each ministry
c. Where do they agree and/or conflict?2. Short term goals
3. Long term goals
E) Evaluation - How we know if our vision is clear and our mission is proceeding
1. Measuring success
2. Learning from failure
3. Grace granted for taking the risk in a safe environment
4. Vision/mission can and does change
F) The next generation - Perpetuation
1. What are the plans for succession?
2. What is the procedure to dissolve the church?
Monday, March 3, 2014
Why you’re wrong about communism: 7 huge misconceptions about it (and capitalism) - by Jesse Myerson
Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------
I've noticed that people who are pointing out the author's many errors are basing their commentaries on the contents of the article. They're dealing with the error of his positions.
However, I haven't seen anyone address the misdirection the author employs. By this I mean that the author is not accurately representing the opposition. You can see it in his topic headings, for example: "Only communist economies rely on state violence." His less-than-clever use of language serves to obfuscate the issue. Out of 7 words in this sentence, four of them are deceptively employed.
----------------------------------------
As the commentary around the recent deaths of Nelson Mandela, Amiri Baraka and Pete Seeger made abundantly clear, most of what Americans think they know about capitalism and communism is arrant nonsense. ("Arrant:" utter, complete, total, unmitigated. In other words, what most Americans believe is apparently beyond simple ignorance. The author is suggesting it reaches heights of stupidity never before achieved. This, of course, is an astoundingly pompous claim, reeking of elitism and snotty superiority.)
This is not surprising, given our country’s history of Red Scares designed to impress that anti-capitalism is tantamount to treason. In 2014, though, we are too far removed from the Cold War-era threat of thermonuclear annihilation to continue without taking stock of the hype we’ve been made, despite Harry Allen’s famous injunction, to believe. So, here are seven bogus claims people (People? Who has made these claims?)
make about communism and capitalism.
1. Only communist economies rely on state violence.
Obviously, no private equity baron (The author smoke screens the issue by using the "baron" referent, an attempt to characterize capitalism by the actions of thieves and swindlers. We must note that those who steal, cheat, and lie are violators of capitalism, not examples of it.)
worth his weight in leveraged buyouts will ever part willingly with his fortune, and any attempt to achieve economic justice (like taxation) (Of course not "willingly," which apparently that the unwilling confiscation of someone's wealth is perfectly ok.
Here is a loaded phrase, "economic justice." In the strange world of the leftist mind, justice is achieved by taking money that belongs to one person and giving it to another who did not earn it. I very much doubt that the rightful owner considers this just.)
will encounter stiff opposition from the ownership class. (Another quasi-clever use of language. There is no such thing as an "ownership class" except for those who believe in Marxist doctrine. "An "ownership class" is simply individuals who own things, like land, houses, businesses, or even a cell phone.
This is known as agitprop, a time-honored leftist technique stolen right from the politburo.)
But state violence (like taxation) (Remember the title of this subsection, Only communist economies rely on state violence? When one reads a title like this, one expects a discussion of actual physical violence resulting in mass deaths. The author, however, substitutes taxation as the method of violence, thus placing any and every government into a single, violence-perpetrating category.)
is inherent in every set of property rights a government can conceivably adopt – including those that allowed the aforementioned hypothetical baron to amass said fortune. (Really, this sentence makes no sense. Governments do not "adopt" property rights, and property rights do not enable robber barons. But more to the point, we are one paragraph into the author's presentation, and have found multiple egregious misrepresentations, biases, and misleading characterizations. This is a long article. I hope he improves.)
-----------------------
I've noticed that people who are pointing out the author's many errors are basing their commentaries on the contents of the article. They're dealing with the error of his positions.
However, I haven't seen anyone address the misdirection the author employs. By this I mean that the author is not accurately representing the opposition. You can see it in his topic headings, for example: "Only communist economies rely on state violence." His less-than-clever use of language serves to obfuscate the issue. Out of 7 words in this sentence, four of them are deceptively employed.
1) "Only:" which sets up an false exclusivity that few, if anyone, have actually postulated. Those who oppose communism do not suggest that "only" communism does this.
2) "Economies:" It is not the economic status at issue, it is the wielding of power by tyrannical leaders facilitated by the centralization of power.
3) "Rely:" This suggests that there must be a focus upon certain techniques, which artificially narrows the situation to exclude communistic governments that might only occasionally use violence.
4) "Violence:" Oppression takes many forms, of which violence is only one. Confiscation of wealth and property, denial of opportunity, threats and intimidation, loss of privacy, loss of freedom of movement, lack of free speech, lack of choice, are all features of communism that do not require physical violence.So as you read we will make note of the author's tendency to frame things deceptively in order to make his point.
----------------------------------------
As the commentary around the recent deaths of Nelson Mandela, Amiri Baraka and Pete Seeger made abundantly clear, most of what Americans think they know about capitalism and communism is arrant nonsense. ("Arrant:" utter, complete, total, unmitigated. In other words, what most Americans believe is apparently beyond simple ignorance. The author is suggesting it reaches heights of stupidity never before achieved. This, of course, is an astoundingly pompous claim, reeking of elitism and snotty superiority.)
This is not surprising, given our country’s history of Red Scares designed to impress that anti-capitalism is tantamount to treason. In 2014, though, we are too far removed from the Cold War-era threat of thermonuclear annihilation to continue without taking stock of the hype we’ve been made, despite Harry Allen’s famous injunction, to believe. So, here are seven bogus claims people (People? Who has made these claims?)
make about communism and capitalism.
1. Only communist economies rely on state violence.
Obviously, no private equity baron (The author smoke screens the issue by using the "baron" referent, an attempt to characterize capitalism by the actions of thieves and swindlers. We must note that those who steal, cheat, and lie are violators of capitalism, not examples of it.)
worth his weight in leveraged buyouts will ever part willingly with his fortune, and any attempt to achieve economic justice (like taxation) (Of course not "willingly," which apparently that the unwilling confiscation of someone's wealth is perfectly ok.
Here is a loaded phrase, "economic justice." In the strange world of the leftist mind, justice is achieved by taking money that belongs to one person and giving it to another who did not earn it. I very much doubt that the rightful owner considers this just.)
will encounter stiff opposition from the ownership class. (Another quasi-clever use of language. There is no such thing as an "ownership class" except for those who believe in Marxist doctrine. "An "ownership class" is simply individuals who own things, like land, houses, businesses, or even a cell phone.
This is known as agitprop, a time-honored leftist technique stolen right from the politburo.)
But state violence (like taxation) (Remember the title of this subsection, Only communist economies rely on state violence? When one reads a title like this, one expects a discussion of actual physical violence resulting in mass deaths. The author, however, substitutes taxation as the method of violence, thus placing any and every government into a single, violence-perpetrating category.)
is inherent in every set of property rights a government can conceivably adopt – including those that allowed the aforementioned hypothetical baron to amass said fortune. (Really, this sentence makes no sense. Governments do not "adopt" property rights, and property rights do not enable robber barons. But more to the point, we are one paragraph into the author's presentation, and have found multiple egregious misrepresentations, biases, and misleading characterizations. This is a long article. I hope he improves.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)