(Thanks to Tim V. for sending me the vid link)
Especially interesting from about 3:14 through the end.
Colbert Report: Symbol-Minded
I'm not of the opinion that Colbert is affirming the Christian faith...but he is pointing out how vacuous it is to say it's not an exclusive religion...I'm certain that fact disgusts him, but that's more respectable than those trying to "level" the field where menagerie Jesus can hang out with a Muhammad action figure.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A Theological Consideration of Immigration
Over the past several weeks, there have been issues pertaining to illegal immigration, racialism, and other things related to national sovereignty and identity arising in my little world. In many respects, my mind has not changed much on these issues over the past 8 years or so....I say "not much" but that is not to say the shift was small. One can hold two fundamentally different opinions at different points in his life...and yet have many of the same beliefs. The support structure for the beliefs has changed...either for better, or for iller.
My political views are currently being informed directly by the Scriptures, and yes...the Old Testament. Previously, I held to a "Two Kingdom" view: I was living on the earth, waiting for heaven...and I just kinda sat on my lump of earth looking heavenward on occasion and wondered where the connection between the "secular" and sacred was. As some proponents of Two Kingdom theory would say, God rules the Church by His Word, but the world by Providence...and by Providence, they really mean man sets up his own kingdom by his own standards, and since we're Calvinists, we'll just say that's Providence when we really mean man is autonomous.
Today, many would liken my approach to a second camp called "Christian Reconstruction", or would simply label me a "Theonomist". I'm not sure if either of those descriptors would be accurate. I've read a couple of books by Theonomists (who are also Christian Reconstructionists), but those schools of thought have a lot of baggage attached to them that I really haven't studied...in the mean time, I just describe my approach as "theonomic"...I'm not necessarily a "Theonomist", and I'm certain to use the lower-case "t" when I say theonomic. I'm a Presbyterian (old school, not the liberal mainline version), and Presbyterianism is historically "theonomic". Samuel Rutherford was a Presby, and he wrote Lex Rex...the precursor to our American style of government...though our founders made the religious foundation a bit ambiguous (to say the least). The rule of law, and specifically, a law informed by God's Law was foundational to Old School Calvinists and the preservation of individual liberty while preventing tyranny of the mob or the tyranny of a dictator.
Many have forgotten how instrumental the Old Testament Law has been to Western Civilization, but it's clear. Many think "Oh, that OT Law was wicked cruel"...yadda yadda yadda. That's simply not the case. The Law is concerned with many things, but there are three that jump out time and time again: the fatherless, the widow, and the sojourner. I'm leaving out other things, like incorporating idol worship and other things related to the first table of the Law, so I'm really looking more at the second table.
If the sojourner (i.e. the alien) was of great importance to God, and how His people treated them was brought up constantly, why is it that Christians don't seem to give much consideration to this fact? Perhaps it's because we don't want to sound like liberals...and many will think my view to be liberal if they fail to take the time to reason from the Scriptures. I'm far from liberal. If libs hold to a similar view to me it is an accidental thing arrived at from completely different routes.
What does the Bible say?
Many Evangelicals have divorced their faith completely from the Old Covenant...you know, it's "those types and shadows and all, therefore it's meaningless"...or so they seem to think. What it fails to acknowledge is that God grounds the treatment of aliens on His own activity...something we are to emulate. God hasn't stopped caring for the alien...does the advent of Christ suddenly nullify the command to us to do likewise?
Here are some snippets from the OT:
[admittedly, there are many questions that would be raised while reading this entry...such as the fact that illegals are breaking our law. I have some considerations concerning that among other things, but may save for future installments. This is a first to get our minds back to the Word]
My political views are currently being informed directly by the Scriptures, and yes...the Old Testament. Previously, I held to a "Two Kingdom" view: I was living on the earth, waiting for heaven...and I just kinda sat on my lump of earth looking heavenward on occasion and wondered where the connection between the "secular" and sacred was. As some proponents of Two Kingdom theory would say, God rules the Church by His Word, but the world by Providence...and by Providence, they really mean man sets up his own kingdom by his own standards, and since we're Calvinists, we'll just say that's Providence when we really mean man is autonomous.
Today, many would liken my approach to a second camp called "Christian Reconstruction", or would simply label me a "Theonomist". I'm not sure if either of those descriptors would be accurate. I've read a couple of books by Theonomists (who are also Christian Reconstructionists), but those schools of thought have a lot of baggage attached to them that I really haven't studied...in the mean time, I just describe my approach as "theonomic"...I'm not necessarily a "Theonomist", and I'm certain to use the lower-case "t" when I say theonomic. I'm a Presbyterian (old school, not the liberal mainline version), and Presbyterianism is historically "theonomic". Samuel Rutherford was a Presby, and he wrote Lex Rex...the precursor to our American style of government...though our founders made the religious foundation a bit ambiguous (to say the least). The rule of law, and specifically, a law informed by God's Law was foundational to Old School Calvinists and the preservation of individual liberty while preventing tyranny of the mob or the tyranny of a dictator.
Many have forgotten how instrumental the Old Testament Law has been to Western Civilization, but it's clear. Many think "Oh, that OT Law was wicked cruel"...yadda yadda yadda. That's simply not the case. The Law is concerned with many things, but there are three that jump out time and time again: the fatherless, the widow, and the sojourner. I'm leaving out other things, like incorporating idol worship and other things related to the first table of the Law, so I'm really looking more at the second table.
If the sojourner (i.e. the alien) was of great importance to God, and how His people treated them was brought up constantly, why is it that Christians don't seem to give much consideration to this fact? Perhaps it's because we don't want to sound like liberals...and many will think my view to be liberal if they fail to take the time to reason from the Scriptures. I'm far from liberal. If libs hold to a similar view to me it is an accidental thing arrived at from completely different routes.
What does the Bible say?
Deut 10:17-19This passage isn't exclusive to Deuteronomy 10. It is stated and restated throughout the Pentateuch. The Biblical appeal in favor for the alien is two-fold: 1. God executes justice for him and gives him food and clothing... 2. and we were also aliens in Egypt, so do as God says.
17"For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.18"He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing.19"So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Many Evangelicals have divorced their faith completely from the Old Covenant...you know, it's "those types and shadows and all, therefore it's meaningless"...or so they seem to think. What it fails to acknowledge is that God grounds the treatment of aliens on His own activity...something we are to emulate. God hasn't stopped caring for the alien...does the advent of Christ suddenly nullify the command to us to do likewise?
Here are some snippets from the OT:
Ex 22:21 "You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.God was so thoroughly clear as to how the sojourner was to be cared for that He used that standard as the kindness to be shown to a native son of Israel who found himself in need...yet we neglect this aspect that God says is part and parcel to a land where justice flows. Nations that ignore this standard will be judged by it...and God seems to think very little of those who pervert justice for the alien.
Ex 23:9 "You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
Lev 19:10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.
Lev 23:22 "And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God."
Lev 25:35 "If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.
Psalm 94 3-9aNations will be judged by all of the above...yet we want to build walls to keep out the alien and and kick them out?
3O LORD,how long shall the wicked,
how long shall the wicked exult?
4They pour out theirH)"> arrogant words;
allI)"> the evildoers boast.
5TheyJ)"> crush your people, O LORD,
and afflict your heritage.
6They kill the widow and the sojourner,
and murder the fatherless;
7 and they say, "The LORD does not see;
the God of Jacob does not perceive." 8 Understand, O dullest of the people!
Fools, when will you be wise?
9 He who planted the ear, does he not hear?He who formed the eye, does he not see? 10 He who disciplines the nations...
[admittedly, there are many questions that would be raised while reading this entry...such as the fact that illegals are breaking our law. I have some considerations concerning that among other things, but may save for future installments. This is a first to get our minds back to the Word]
Jay Dyer Re-Converts...Sort Of.
Jay Dyer, who has been an outspoken Catholic, Sedevacantist, Eastern Orthodox (not quite, but almost), Catholic (again)...has decided to convert to Orthodoxy...again...although maybe all the way this time.
See, all you have to do is consult the Church fathers and you're set on which church is the True Church...The fact an Orthodox/Romanist can flip-flop on what church is the "True" Church based on his own studies disproves the premise both Orthodox/Romanists use in their appeals to authority. How much you wanna bet he'll still use the whole "well my church is really, really, really old" argument?
Here's a screen capture of his facebook announcement:
See, all you have to do is consult the Church fathers and you're set on which church is the True Church...The fact an Orthodox/Romanist can flip-flop on what church is the "True" Church based on his own studies disproves the premise both Orthodox/Romanists use in their appeals to authority. How much you wanna bet he'll still use the whole "well my church is really, really, really old" argument?
Here's a screen capture of his facebook announcement:
Friday, October 16, 2009
Keith Bardwell...a Racist Democrat or a Racist Republican?
Don at the Nookular Option posted a blog entry concerning justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell denying an interracial couple a marriage license...Don (preemptively anticipating the passage of issue #3 in Ohio) wagers in the comment section:
(I did not put Bardwell's Republican affiliation in bold, that's how it shows up on the site...I imagine that it's in bold simply because that's his current information)
He was a Democrat from 1996 until 2008...and he bases his views on his own history of observing interracial marriages...a history that likely extends into a past previous to the days of yore known popularly as "A.D. 2008". Concerning Bardwell's position on interracial marriage, it is said:
So, did his party affiliation matter when he was a racialist and a Democrat? Or does it only matter now that he's a Republican?
Anyone want to make a bet as to which political party Keith Bardwell belongs to?I thought I'd do a little research, and here's what I found. This is the Louisiana Secretary of State info concerning the incumbent history of Keith Bardwell:
Justice of the Peace, Justice of the Peace Ward 8, Parish of Tangipahoa | |
|---|---|
| E. Keith Bardwell, Republican, Exp.Date:12/31/14 | 23288 Bardwell Rd.,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 985/542-1732 |
| Keith Bardwell, Democrat, Exp.Date:12/31/08 | 23288 Bardwell Rd.,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 985/542-1732 |
| Keith Bardwell, Democrat, Exp.Date:12/31/02 | 23288 Bardwell Road,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 985/542-1732 |
| Keith Bardwell, Democrat, Exp.Date:12/31/96 | 224 Bardwell Rd.,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 504/542-1732 |
(I did not put Bardwell's Republican affiliation in bold, that's how it shows up on the site...I imagine that it's in bold simply because that's his current information)
He was a Democrat from 1996 until 2008...and he bases his views on his own history of observing interracial marriages...a history that likely extends into a past previous to the days of yore known popularly as "A.D. 2008". Concerning Bardwell's position on interracial marriage, it is said:
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long...[see here]Sounds like he was a racialist before he was a Republican...unless his experience as a justice of the peace between 1996-2008 doesn't count...although the Huffington Post seems to substantiate that Bardwell's views were set when he was a Democrat:
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.If we go back all 2 1/2 years, that puts us squarely into those long-forgotten days of when Bardwell was a Democrat. Someone may say "But see! 2 1/2 years ago...he's only been denying folks for a short time leading up to his change to the Republican party"...yeah, there's also the issue that this is in the Deep South...interracial marriages don't happen too often, and when they do, people tend to be careful. Bardwell's wife fielded calls for him advising folks to go elsewhere if they wanted to marry outside their race:
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them. (ibid)It seems that this is the first couple to challenge Bardwell. Others came, and being denied, simply went somewhere else. Many others, it would be safe to assume, spoke to Mrs. Bardwell and took her advice and never bothered seeking a license through Bardwell and simply went elsewhere for a marriage license.
So, did his party affiliation matter when he was a racialist and a Democrat? Or does it only matter now that he's a Republican?
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Dishonest Danny
James White followed up on a reference Dan Barker made in their debate. Essentially, Dan asserted that Justin Martyr encouraged pagans to become Christians since "we all believe the same things"...Dr. White was a bit incredulous about this, but Barker insisted that was the substance of Justin's argument...sadly (for Dan), he ought to realize Justin Martyr's Apologia is not a little known work...in fact, it's easy to find:
Justin's Apology XI
So Dan...either you're a moron (which I'm quite open to), or you're a liar (open to this, too), or both (to be honest, that's where I'm leaning). Justin is calling Rome hypocritical for killing Christians given the mythology Rome embraced. One wonders why he would become a martyr when dim-witted atheists make him out to be uber ecumenical.
Listen to Dr. White go into greater detail if you like
Justin's Apology XI
Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.So Justin differentiated between Christianity and pagan beliefs...now look at chapter XX
And the Sibyl and Hystaspes said that there should be a dissolution by God of things corruptible. And the philosophers called Stoics teach that even God Himself shall be resolved into fire, and they say that the world is to be formed anew by this revolution; but we understand that God, the Creator of all things, is superior to the things that are to be changed. If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.I encourage you to go on to chapter XXI and watch the sarcasm dripping from Justin's pen...and also where he says the pagan gods are none else than demons!
So Dan...either you're a moron (which I'm quite open to), or you're a liar (open to this, too), or both (to be honest, that's where I'm leaning). Justin is calling Rome hypocritical for killing Christians given the mythology Rome embraced. One wonders why he would become a martyr when dim-witted atheists make him out to be uber ecumenical.
Listen to Dr. White go into greater detail if you like
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
