Red Friday
June 13th, 2008 . by Cary
Wearing my Lightning Sharp polo today – being all casual and what not.
You would have known this if you had listened to the show this morning – oh, wait, that’s right. I had connectivity issues and couldn’t host the show, so it was pretty much a bust.
Next time.
One of the things I was going to touch on on the show was the Supreme’s ruling that people don’t have to be citizens in order to be protected by this country’s constitution.
Great. Now all the illegals can claim rights under the constitution, since the Gitmo detainees have managed to weasel their way under it’s umbrella.
President Bush, it’s time to grow a pair – what, are you afraid your popularity rating will nosedive? You aren’t headed for another term in the White House, so what’s the harm? Cowboy up, Mr. President, and tell the Supremes they are WRONG to grant rights to non-citizens.
So, if you are a terrorist, fighting US soldiers, and are captured in the process of fighting US soldiers, and you are not wearing a uniform – it’s OK! Before, if the US had abided by the Geneva Convention, the detainee would have been executed in the field. Since that is distasteful to the liberals, the US afforded them protections under the Geneva Convention, by instead imprisoning them and granting them legal representation. Apparently that isn’t enough for the Justices Who Would Be Kings, and now these non-citizens, held for participating in non-uniformed acts of aggression on uniformed members of a recognized, standing army, have all the same rights and privileges as any citizen of the United States under the constitution.
Fantastic. Annie, get your gun.
Thank you for stopping by, God bless you all, listen to The O Word on BlogTalkRadio, Wear Red on Fridays, and support Warriors for Innocence!
I don’t think this ruling applies to illegal/legal immigrants. When are Mexican day-laborers considered *enemy combatants* anyway? Do you think Americans who hire these day laborers should be considered war criminals?
And let me ask you Cary…Do you think it was distasteful for Jesus Christ to have been executed by his enemies in broad daylight?
I probably wasn’t clear enough – what I should have said was, now that a precedent has been set, the illegals will start claiming rights under the constitution, since Gitmo detainees got them. The basic ruling the Supremes made was that the constitution could be applied to non-citizens, therefore illegals and their supporters could jump all over it AS a precedent.
Whether I think it was distasteful for Jesus to have been executed in broad daylight or not is of no concern. That is the way God chose for His Son to be killed, so that prophecy could be fulfilled. With His death in broad daylight, it is that much tougher for His enemies to claim that He had not died on the cross at all. Afterwards, He was seen again for forty days, living once again, risen bodily from the dead. If He had not died so publicly, his reappearance would not have had the impact and weight that it did.
It’s too early to tell what the immediate impact will be. But I think it’s easy to distinguish those people who are trying to kill us vs those who want to pick our strawberries. These rulings were *specifically* in response to DTA05 and MCA06 and not our illegal immigration problem.
All I’m saying is that a distasteful reaction to killing and torture is a natural response by most normal people and is not limited to libruls.
Don’t you think it would have been easier for God to simply start another flood instead of killing his own son? I mean look at your logic. You’re essentially telling me that Jesus’s death was a publicity stunt.
I’m saying that the illegals and their lawyers are going to look at this as a precedent they can use in the future. That’s all.
Killing is part of war. They started it, we just haven’t fully taken it back to them yet. The fact that we are treating those captured as uniformed members of an opposing force, instead of non-uniformed terrorists, is the chink in our armor, and they are exploiting it to the best of their ability. That, and the lack of action from the administration.
It is obvious you don’t understand that the Bible is, to a Christian, the inerrant Word of God. This means that there is no error, there is no contradiction. In the case of “starting another flood”, this would have caused a contradiction, as God told Noah that never again would He flood the earth.
I am not saying that Jesus’ death was a publicity stunt. God’s Son had to die to assume the sins of all people, for all time, since no one is capable of meeting God’s highest standards. By His death on the cross, Jesus died for the sins of all people, including you, me, and everyone else who has ever breathed on this planet. This is not a given, this is a free gift that each person must accept in their own life. You cannot be given the grace of God, you can only receive that which is there. If you refuse the gift, that is your decision – and nothing I say or anyone else says is going to change you mind about the whole subject of God, Jesus, and the death on the cross for our salvation. The only one who can change you heart and your mind is God; when that happens (if it happens) you will not be mistaken in knowing that it has happened.
It’s not my logic, I’m simply relaying to you what is in the Bible, how it happened, and why it happened, in my pathetically incapable human way. Christianity is faith, and faith is believing. Faith that Jesus died on the cross for your sins.
I will give you a bit of logic that I have come to hold close: It is better to believe in Jesus, live like Him and be right in the end, than to live like there is no God and be wrong.
There’s certainly many ways to define or describe faith. What I don’t understand is that if one is so sure of their ideology then how could it still be faith? Even Hebrews describes it a belief in things unseen. When did faith become fact?
To be clear I am not opposed to faith in general because I believe I have a lot of it but what I’m opposed to is dogma. Faith has been replaced by dogma and that’s what troubles me the most.
I tell Christians all the time if they’re gonna continue to use Pascal’s Wager to try to win people over to their faith it simply won’t work. Not with a new generation at least that is fed instant-internet feeds.
We live in an evidence-based society and for competing religions to continually say we’re going to hell if we don’t believe without providing evidence then that makes it difficult to have a rational 21st century conversation. If the Bible were used as evidence why is not taught in History classes or cited in court decisions. The simple answer is the Bible is not evidence. It’s a complex book no doubt filled with both good *and* bad teachings.
Cary and Rodolfo, interesting exchange. Biblical “faith” is not “well, you just have to have faith that it’s true.” Faith, believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, died on the cross and rose again, is knowing that these things are true because our “Father who is in heaven” has “revealed” them to you (Mt.16:17). Without this “revelation” there is no faith.
“Jesus therefore answered and said to them, ‘Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me” (Jn. 6:43-45). This is why Heb. 11:1 says that “faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.”
Faith, the gift of God to those who by His grace believe, is knowing that the gospel is true, not hoping it is true. Faith is substantial evidence, a convincing if you will, given by God to those whom He has drawn to His Son (II Thess. 2:13). This is why we “believe.”
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8)
Faith is not “fire insurance” where someone says that it’s safer to believe than not, just in case it’s true. “Well, I’ll believe in Jesus because it might be true. And I don’t want to go to hell.”
Faith is not about “having a rational 21st century conversation.” But faith can involve a rational conversation. Jesus was very rational in His thinking and in His dealing with the people of His day. Paul the apostle was the same, rational and logical in his arguments. But if logic and rationality are your goals then you can attain that goal and still miss the gospel. “For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness” (I Cor. 1:22-23).
And Rodolfo, what do you have “a lot” of faith in? If you don’t understand what faith is, how can you be sure you have faith in anything? Biblical faith is not hoping something is true, but knowing something is true. And, it may be that what you are talking about when you say “dogma has replaced faith” is dogmatism. Faith and dogma are necessarily in the same camp, with the Bible being the recognized authority upon which dogma is based. Christianity does have tenets that are essential elements of the faith (Rom. 10:9-13). And we do tend to become extremely dogmatic about certain of those tenets…and it does get ugly. But one who is not passionate about his faith and dogma isn’t worth his salt.
Cary, I hope I haven’t trespassed against you, brother, by replying here.
And….,
The Bible is not taught in history classes because it is not allowed in history classes. But that does not mean that it does not include historical references that have been proved true by archaeologly. The so-called “separation of church and state” has disallowed the Bible’s presence in public schools as a legitimate historical work.
As far as its use in courts, what would that entail? Ahhhh (this is not my being a smart—I simply thought of a few examples where the Bible could be used as evidence), perhaps in the case of parents who will not allow their children to go to a doctor because of their religious beliefs. It certainly doesn’t hold up there.
Or, perhaps in the case of home-school parents who do not like the direction public schools are headed. So, I can see the Bible used as evidence in court in defense of some legitimate cases as well as those that are egregious. It is cited in some court cases, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
I’m not sure that we do “live in an evidence based society.” We might elect Obama as our next president in spite of the evidence that he is unfit and a blatant socialist/leftist/liberal.
Our colleges have embraced post-modernism whose basic tenet is there are no absolute truths even in the face of evidence contrary to that belief.
How many criminals get off scott-free in spite of the evidnece presented against them and the crowds go wild over the prisoner’s exoneration? Can we say “OJ?”
I’m going to return to your statement on faith: “What I don’t understand is if one is so sure of their ideology, then how could it still be faith?” I hope I have explained clearly my understanding of Biblical faith. Being “so sure” is faith. It is Heb. 11:1. Again, faith is not hoping something is true, it is knowing something is true. You have confused the two as have many, many others, even Christians.
Faith is substance and evidence. Faith is real. It is tangible for the Christian. And I have this faith because it was given to me by the Father who is in heaven. One day as I heard the gospel clearly presented I suddenly knew it was true.
Rodolfo, are you a Christian? Just curious.
Cary, now I see your invitation to “join the discussion.” Thanks.
Hi Johnny thanks for your sharing your thoughtful insight.
You wrote: Biblical “faith” is not “well, you just have to have faith that it’s true.” Faith, believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, died on the cross and rose again, is knowing that these things are true because our “Father who is in heaven” has “revealed” them to you (Mt.16:17). Without this “revelation” there is no faith.
But with so many *revelations* out there how does one go about believing what is true? The claims made by theologians about our origins and the afterlife are all based on stories from their respective books. What makes you so sure your particular book is the *one true book*?
You asked: And Rodolfo, what do you have “a lot” of faith in? If you don’t understand what faith is, how can you be sure you have faith in anything?
Well I have faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. Time and time again I’ve been *proven* correct in this belief by strangers that help me seemingly for no good reason other than they really want to help me. I have faith in my family and the love and bond that we share. I have faith that if we as Americans can put aside our personal biases for a moment there is no obstacle too difficult that we can’t overcome. I have faith that there exists outside our solar system something my feeble mind can’t possibly understand. Now is this a *Creator* well I don’t know for sure and I’m not afraid to admit that.
You wrote: Biblical faith is not hoping something is true, but knowing something is true. And, it may be that what you are talking about when you say “dogma has replaced faith” is dogmatism. Faith and dogma are necessarily in the same camp, with the Bible being the recognized authority upon which dogma is based. Christianity does have tenets that are essential elements of the faith (Rom. 10:9-13). And we do tend to become extremely dogmatic about certain of those tenets…and it does get ugly. But one who is not passionate about his faith and dogma isn’t worth his salt.
And I think this is the issue we face with Jihadists today. They’re absolutely dogmatic about their faith and use it to try and set their political agenda. I think some Christians make the mistake by trying to out-dogmatize their counterparts. The religion that will win out more support in the end is the one that will show less dogma and more humility.
You wrote: The Bible is not taught in history classes because it is not allowed in history classes. But that does not mean that it does not include historical references that have been proved true by archaeologly.
I’m sure one can look at Greek mythology and verify that there was an ancient city that existed during the time in question yet we don’t see continued worship of Zeus and Hera. What I’m more fascinated with is how one can believe that a human being can be conceived without sexual intercourse. If you study the other ancient stories of messiahs you will find they all shared similar *virgin* births yet most reasonable people today won’t take them seriously.
You wrote: I’m not sure that we do “live in an evidence based society.” We might elect Obama as our next president in spite of the evidence that he is unfit and a blatant socialist/leftist/liberal.
Of course we live in an evidence based society. What constitutes as evidence is what’s in question. You can say you have evidence that Barry’s unfit and I can show you about us much evidence that he is fit. So liberal is the new evil in 2008. Well that makes sense because during uncertain times who’d want to shy away from conservatism? I think Barry is like most Americans in that he’s liberal about some things and conservative in others. Besides he’s not running on a liberal agenda. He’s actually quite pragmatic about most things. Like health care. I can understand the opposition to *mandates* but all he’s proposing is that insurance companies lower insurance so it can be affordable. How can one object to that? Go ahead and continue to deny his accomplishments. His record of working across the aisle to get things done is out there for you to examine if you simply ignored the talking points for a minute and give him a chance.
You wrote: How many criminals get off scott-free in spite of the evidnece presented against them and the crowds go wild over the prisoner’s exoneration? Can we say “OJ?”
Well I agree with you there. Look the courts are not perfect but it’s the best we have. People with money have been getting away scott-free in this country for a long time. OJ was simply one of the first black guys to use the system. So yea by your logic America has a long way to go.
You wrote: I’m going to return to your statement on faith: “What I don’t understand is if one is so sure of their ideology, then how could it still be faith?” I hope I have explained clearly my understanding of Biblical faith. Being “so sure” is faith. It is Heb. 11:1. Again, faith is not hoping something is true, it is knowing something is true. You have confused the two as have many, many others, even Christians.
I understand your perspective and respect it. I am no more afraid of faith than I am of spirituality. But if as you say you cannot separate faith from dogma (which I believe you can) then the violent clash of religious ideologies will continue for a long time. Most reasonable people don’t want that.
You asked: Rodolfo, are you a Christian? Just curious.
I’m an ex-Christian. More like a recovering Catholic if you want to get technical. I have great sympathy for my fellow religious brothers and sisters because I was raised by them. But my family understands that you don’t need to believe in a supernatural to be moral and that makes them unique from *some* fundamentalists.
Ah, shades of Sam Harris.
Great response, Rodolfo. I love this kind of dialogue.
“With so many ‘revelations’ out there, how does one go about believing what is true?” One doesn’t, and that is my point. This may be circular reasoning but without this revelation one can never discern between what is true and what is false. And I will admit to being “narrow” minded (Mt. 7:13-14).
My theology is Reformed and Biblical, which says that faith, “believing what is true” about God the Father, Jesus the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the finished work of Christ on the cross, is a work of God that one does not “go about believing” on one’s own.
We are spiritually dead and the only way we can “believe” is by an act of God which we call “grace” (Eph. 2:1-10). There’s the proverbial can of worms for ya’ among Christians.
Grace is administered to the “ungodly” (the “dead in trespasses and sins”) by the Holy Spirit upon that ungodly one hearing the gospel (Rom. 4:1-8; 5:1-9; Eph. 1:13-14; II Thess. 2:13). We are made alive by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit that we might believe. The “flesh,” our fallen humanity, contributes nothing to our justification (Salvation) (Jn. 6:63).
There are indeed a plethora of “revelations” out there. Not only from Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Christians. But also from charlatans like Benny Hinn. To which you could reply, “how do you know Hinn isn’t the one that is right?” But nevertheless, you are certainly right about all those revelations out there.
If you have done any study in comparative religions then you are no doubt aware of the tremendouns differences between the world’s religions. Despite what the news media and liberal theologians say today, all religions are not alike.
The virgin birth stories from mythology differ so greatly from the Biblical account of the birth of Christ that there is hardly a comparison. And today a virgin can conceive without sexual intercourse. Poor argument, but it is true.
I have no trouble at all beleiving that God could impregnant Mary. I mean after all, if one believes in God, why not?
Believing that the Bible is “the one true book” has never been a strong argument for me. I believe that it is “the” word of God while acknowledging that there are other books that contain great truths. Hammurabi’s laws, the sayings of Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, are full of wisdom. But when it comes to one’s relationship with our Creator, the Bible, the Old and New Testaments, stand out among them all. And yes, the Buddhists and the Hindu and the Muslim would argue against that. But oddly enough all three acknowledge Christ today. And, the Qu’ran borrows heavily from the Hebrew scriptures account of creation.
I do not believe that the Qu’ran or the books of other religions are the word of God. I do believe that the Bible is the only word of God. Again, you can accuse me of circular reasoning if you wish.
For one to deny the unique inspiration of the Bible would be to deny the faith. And, no, I am not defending my faith in the Bible simply to avoid denying the faith.
You are certainly right: “The courts are not perfect but it’s the best we have.” That is my belief as well. My examples were not against our courts but as recognizable examples of human nature at work. Evidence sometimes goes out the door. When “push comes to shove” we often deny the obvious and choose deception instead in order to defend our personal interests.
You are right as well when you say that dogma and faith are a volatile combination. It is true for all religions, even the peaceful Buddhists and Hindus. It is one of the embarrassing facts of human history that religion has been behind many wars. But the context of those religious wars must be carefully studied as well as the lessons learned by the various religions involved. It is easy to dismiss all religion by saying that religions start wars (you did not say this, I’m just making a point).
While people bring up the Crusades these days in defense of Islamic radicals, they fail to notice the changes the Roman church made throughout its history; they no longer wage crusades; Islam does.
I do not understand how one can separate one’s religious dogma from one’s faith. But I will say that one’s dogma should be subdued by one’s faith. The Bible tells us to do everything and say everything in love (Eph.5:15; I Cor. 13). There’s another place where we consistently fail. Without love, dogman is just so much rubbish.
Rodolfo, I’m going to eat steak at Longhorn with my kids; it’s Father’s Day. If you are a father, happy Father’s Day to you. I hope we can continue this later.
Cary, thanks for the opportunity, you Marine. Thanks for your service and thank you for welcoming me home from VietNam. It didn’t happen once back then.
Brother Helms: You are always welcome here, to drop a line, jump in the discussion, or just to hang out and see what happens.
Thank you for jumping in on this, I had stepped away for the weekend and just now got back; your background and knowledge of all things Christian are better than mine, and your debate is way more reasoned. One day, I hope to be able to come close to that level.
You are right, the “believe and hope” logic doesn’t really work as an evangelizing tool. I have come to that realization, and I hope that Rodolfo will forgive me for trying it on him.
Rodolfo, your debate is full of solid, serious questions. I am sorry I couldn’t answer better than I did; my next entry to you was going to be a referral to the nearest Christian pastor – not a liturgical leader, mind you, but a pastor of, perhaps, a community church. Instead, you got to “meet” Brother Helms. I’m glad you two have engaged, please feel free to continue the discussion here, or, Rodolfo, I am sure he wouldn’t mind you visiting his blog.
At any rate, I hope you both had relaxing and invigorating weekends.
Johnny – you are welcome. It’s because it might not have happened before that I do it now, as you will find out if you backtrack a few posts… 🙂
Cary, thanks. I have thoroughly enjoyed meeting Rodolfo and discussing life with him. I hope to add a little more that I feel I haven’t quite covered yet.
I just had a wonderful Father’s Day dinner with my kids and grandkids. I hope you had a wonderful day as well. See ya’ later.
No I’m not a father….yet….or that I know of….just kidding. I praise the two of you both. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind (faith?) that you guys are wonderful fathers and take care of your family the way fathers are supposed to. I didn’t mean to take too much time from you guys on your day but do hope to have more dialogue in the future should time permit. Thanks guys and Happy Fathers Day once again!