Michael Wolfe

Standing in the gap for my country, for the sake of future generations

Posts Tagged ‘Bible’

« Previous Entries

How Slavery Came to ancient Egypt.

Posted by americana83 on November 14, 2009

What led to slavery in Egypt thousands of years ago? What can it tell us today? The Bible is full of spiritual truth, but it contains much more than that. It tells how great people fell, how the humble rose to great heights. It also tells of a people who sold themselves into slavery, without complaint or protest. It begins in the time of Joseph. The Egyptian government, under the wise leadership of Joseph, prepared for hard times. The Egyptian people, did not. Seven years of unprecedented prosperity went throughout the land. The people went about their lives, probably thinking it would go on forever. They ate, drank and were merry. They failed to make any kind of preparation for the times ahead. Eventually, as God had said, the good times came to an end. Famine was throughout the land of Egypt. The people consumed whatever feeble supplies they had left, and then went to the government. First went their money, until, the Bible says, money was gone throughout the land. Then they turned over their lively hood in exchange for survival. Now, with nothing else left, they consumed their substance, and surrendered possession of their lands and homes. Now, the people were total wards of the state, and again they ran out of food. So now, with nothing left, they turn once again to the government, with nothing to offer but their very lives. And they were made slaves. Everything they owned, was gone. Freedom was gone. Instead of planning for the future, when times were bountiful, they squandered their substance, and had no where else to look except to big brother.

Before Israel was forcibly taken into slavery by a pharaoh who “knew not Joseph,” the people of Egypt where themselves taken into bondage.

Let me quote the exact words of scripture, and you can read it yourself:

And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house. And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth. And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail. And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not aught left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands: Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate. And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands. Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants. And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s.
(Genesis 47:13-26)

And now the second bondage: the Pharaoh that hired Joseph treated him and his family with gratitude, and one could argue he was a benevolent dictator, one who had absolute authority, but didn’t abuse it like he could have. He gave the children of Israel of the finest land in Israel. And here’s what happened.

And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses.
(Exodus 1:6-11)

Thus, you have the perfect storm: A tyrannical ruler with absolute control. I’m sure dissent wasn’t tolerated, the people of Egypt owed their livelihoods to the pharaoh, who not only was held to be god, but had near-godlike power. It was the son of this man who would-be God that brought about the judgment of, and ultimate destruction of the world’s super power. The pharaoh’s pride reached up to the heavens. It was the hardness of this man’s heart, that sealed the fate of Egypt, which was brought down swiftly by the power of God himself.

Today in America, we can see a similar trend. The fat and goodness of the land is squandered. As the economy falters, men clamor for the government to give them food, housing, lands, healthcare, money. Indeed, the government already provides food and housing and money for many (and it does so above and beyond any constitutional mandate and restriction).

If we continue to demand the government to do everything for us, to give us everything, to cater to our every need and want, we will have traded our American birthright for a cheap bowl of pottage, and sold our children into socialist slavery.

Posted in Barack Obama, Bible, Christianity, Election, Election 2008, Obama, Presidential, children, communism, deception, health care, news, politics, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

President’s agenda clear: “Change the culture”

Posted by americana83 on October 26, 2009

Just recently the president posted a blog on his website discussing his plans for sexuality in America. He also shares what “changes” he is already orchestrating in government programs. Thanks to his urging, we now have money at the HHS divided by sexuality:

On the same day, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a plan to establish the nation’s first ever national resource center to assist communities across the country in their efforts to provide services and support for older LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgender -Ed) Americans.

From that link:

Experts estimate that as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older.   Agencies that provide services to older individuals may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the needs of this group of individuals. The new Resource Center for LGBT Elders will provide information, assistance and resources for both LGBT organizations and mainstream aging services providers at the state and community level to assist them in the development and provision of culturally sensitive supports and services. The LGBT Center will also be available to educate the LGBT community about the importance of planning ahead for future long term care needs.

And just a few weeks ago, the Administration on Aging at HHS issued its first ever grant to an LGBT Aging Services Program through its Community Innovations for Aging in Place initiative to the LA Gay and Lesbian Community Center.

Culturally sensitive?! These programs will likely provide the same services just with different sexually slanted language. Questions about the constitutionality of federal involvement not-withstanding, health and aging services shouldn’t need to differ because of sexuality, nor is this a prudent use of tax payers money. this administration continues to divide and expand government outlays of money for no real value. Further WHY would the government need to know who a person sleeps with to provide retirement services? These expansions provide yet another government intrusion on privacy. Why do only the LGBT “community need to learn “the importance of planning ahead for future long term care needs.” Is this arguably not a generic concern, regardless of who one sleeps with?

Further, isn’t the donation of tax payer’s money to a sexuality based organization discrimination? Wouldn’t such a climate be “hostile” or “discomforting” to a person of hetero preferences? Isn’t it discriminatory? Oh wait, that would only be if it were a grant to a Heterosexual Aging Services Program. the hypocrisy is disgusting.

The president concludes his blog with this ominous tidbit:

Every day so many of us working in the Obama Administration ask:  How can we ensure that our time here makes the lives of LGBT Americans living across this country safer, fairer, and a little better?  We know how much work is ahead of us.  Some items will take longer than others.  But the shift since January is clear, and progress at every level will continue.

Day by day, law by law, mind by changing mind.  That is the promise we are fulfilling.

Safety: laws already provide for protection from violent crimes and agression. Fair: *NOONE* has to talk about their sex life at work. Better? presumably by forcibly changing the vestigial remnants of societal mores in this country to see homosexuality as not only acceptable or “tolerable,” but as something beautiful, to be celebrated, which Obama did in his declaration of  gay pride month this year. With the evil men and agenda surrounding Obama, who can say he is a “devout Christian?” Who can say he loves this country when nearly every word and action he takes weakens or damages the United States.

It is very possible that before this man leaves office (which I hope happens in a fair and open election, as historically the transfer of power has happened in this nation) blogs and articles expressing the beliefs and opinions I have here will be illegal.

Obama is fulfilling one promise he made: To fundamentally change this country. That is the promise he is fulfilling. Day by day, brick by brick, he is transforming this country from one with a free press, free market and free people into a totalitarian state with a muzzled press, a communist market, and an enslaved people. And it is being done to accolades and applause. God save our republic.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
(Isaiah 5:20-21)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
(Proverbs 14:34)

Disclaimer: Opposition to a lifestyle, action or political/social cause (LAoPSC) does not mean hatred of those who engage in aforementioned disapproved LAoPSC. Believing that 2 wrongs do not make a right; I hereby denounce, discourage and reject any and all violence perpetuated, committed or plotted by any individual, group, organization or entity against those who support LAoPSC.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s legal now: Some people are more equal than others.

Posted by americana83 on October 26, 2009

In one of the worst and grossest violation of the legislative process, an entire bill, the`Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act’ was inserted into and passed along with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 . Slipped in as an amendment, the whole process made an utter mockery of our system, and against stressed the need for a law mandating single issue legislation. Why did they do this? They know the American people value free speech, they know ethnic minorities are already protected under current laws, they know that an open debate on Hate Crimes would be a lost cause, much like the open debate that has been raging about ObamaCare which has seriously slowed down (but not yet killed) Obama-Pelosi’s unilateral push for it.

This hell-inspired bill now makes some people more valuable in the eyes of the law, and thus, crimes committed against them receive harsher sentences.

    • (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

Such a bill requires the thought process of the defendant to be taken into consideration, think “the department of pre-crime”.  Not only that, but it adds changeable behaviors to the list of federally protected attributes which once only included immutables like race, color, national origin and disability. Behaviors which many Americans consider perverse are now enshrined essentially as protected minorities in federal law. Moreover, so called “gender identity” can change daily.

Lets look at this tragic legislation. Congress, the wise and all-knowing group that they are:

    Congress makes the following findings:
    • (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

Is not ALL violent crime a “serious national problem?” “Hate crimes dealing with race, color, national origin and sex are already codified law, the sole purpose of this bill, despite the insertion of James Byrd, Jr’s name, was to advance the leftist’s sexual agenda.

    • (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

Again, as is ALL violent crime.

    • (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

The federal government here seeks to integrate itself even deeper into the affairs of states, but I digress.

    • (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

This is a lie. Federal law already provides for the punishment of violent crime. Just because they say it, and write it into a law, does not mean it is the truth.

    • (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

So now, we have an individual crime, that has been transformed into a crime against a huge group of people, who were neither party to, nor victims of the crime.

    • (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

Oh really, this is interesting. So is sexually based regulation of interstate commerce on the way too? If some victims are worth more than others, are some shoppers and business worth more than others? This dangerous line of thinking will go along way in destroying equality in the United States.

      • (A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

This is absurd. The actions of one apprehended and convicted murderer would impede the movements of an entire group of people across the entire nation? Really?

      • (B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

This can only be seen to impact religious or christian business owners, who do not want to be associated with homosexual, transexual or people uncertain of their gender expression, following the biblical injunction to “not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers or unrighteousness.” Racial discrimination is already illegal nationwide.

      • (C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
      • (D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
      • (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

Again, I fail to see what this has to do with interstate commerce, and can only see it leading to sexuality playing a role in some future commerce bill.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
(Isaiah 5:20-21)

What Hate Crimes Legislation means:

Now that we in the United States have a federal law granting “sexual minorities” and religion protected status, here are some of the things we have to look forward to:

English Christian hotel owners sued for marriage policy

New Mexico Christian photographer sued for refusing to photo gay “wedding.”

California Christian school sued for “sexual orientation” policy

Religious Hate Crimes law condemns Christian for speaking against Islam

Canadian Pastor’s letter to the editor with a moral case against homosexuality hate speech

Quote: “Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister’s sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn’t be.

“But won’t Christians benefit from religious hate crimes protection. Given the current administration, no. Second, any group claiming to have the word of God, and to know the will of God should be able to defend the word of God with holy wisdom. The bible has been around for almost 2000 years, and has stood the test of time. Regimes have banned it, churches in the dark ages burned it and those who printed it, “science” critics have ripped into it, and still it stands. God does not need draconian laws to defend his name. Those religions who fear criticism, and seek to pass laws that ban such criticism, as the Islamic “republics” have, must be afraid that their god won’t stand up to criticism.

Now that we have our own national hate crimes law, I *hope* this next article happens here:

Canada’s internet hate crimes law ruled unconstitutional, and they don’t have a “1st amendment!”

Disclaimer: Opposition to a lifestyle, action or political/social cause (LAoPSC) does not mean hatred of those who engage in aforementioned disapproved LAoPSC. Believing that 2 wrongs do not make a right; I hereby denounce, discourage and reject any and all violence perpetuated, committed or plotted by any individual, group, organization or entity against those who support LAoPSC.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

the truth about D’s and R’s

Posted by americana83 on October 23, 2009

I am sure that some of you think I march lock-step with the GOP based on the things I have written about Barack Obama and all his sordid associations. However, if you think that, you have missed the point. Especially within the last year, the GOP has shown an abandonment of the professed principles that attracted me to it in the first place: family values, small government, low taxes, free market. However, it has become much more like the Democrat Party. Lets explore what has happened in the GOP, especially from the last months of G.W. Bush up to now.

George W Bush, really got the ball rolling by signing off on the Democratic progressives’ 700 billion dollar TARP fiasco. The government had no business doing that, and G.W. Bush, as a self-professing conservative, had no business signing off on something so grossly unconstitutional.

Michael Steele. Despite the initial excitement over his being named to the GOP chair, he quickly showed his true colors. In a GQ Interview that has since been scrubbed from the GQ website, Steele dug himself into a hole by revealing how he truly feels about conservatism, marriage, and abortion.

Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
’Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a d**n about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a d**n.

We “offer them nothing?” We “just don’t like them?” Does he think throwing in a curse word makes him trendy?  Has Steele fell into the Al Sharpton/Rev Wright/ Barack Obama mindset that conservative thought is inherently racist? It is clear that Steele knows very little about conservatism. True conservatism doesn’t offer handouts, or bribes for votes. What conservatism offers is equality. No one is esteemed above another on account of their race. Race quotas, race preferences, those things say “look, you’re not good enough because your a minority, and we need to give you a bonus so you can stand up against the non-minorities.” That is diametrically opposed to conservatism, which stresses the individual over the collective. Any organization that claims conservatism, while embracing racism, attempts to integrate an alien and evil ideology that subverts the whole claim of conservatism.

Now lets see what he says about homosexuality:

Do you have a problem with gay priests who are celibate?
No, it’s your nature. It’s your nature. You can’t—I can’t deny you your nature.

For a Seminarian, who would presumably have read the scriptures, God has a clear commandment for would-be priests/pastors/reverend:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach…(1 Timothy 3:1-2). He would also have known this: “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). He would also have been aware of the New Testament condemnation of such behaviors, and that a priest that is “dead in his sins” could never rightly divide the Word of God.

Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Steele tossed his “faith tradition” under the bus. Apparently being a man pleaser is more important than being right. To rephrase his answer another way, “I’m not going to let my faith influence my positions.” Sounds a lot like a certain Senator John Kerry, who’s own professed faith played no role in any decisions he made regarding moral matters. He also throws the perverted concept that sexual perversions are the equivalent of race. Race is immutable, sexual preferences can change. His answer to that last question is just a bunch of waffling. There is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic, radical scientists have been searching for it for years.

How about abortion? What does Steele think about that?

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

How so?
You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.

Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?
Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.

It is the whole stupid concept of the “big tent” that has condemned the GOP to electoral hades.  The party doesn’t claim to stand for anything. Obama and the Democrats are clear where they stand on many issues, even if they are dead wrong. A “big tent” can’t take a stand, a big tent has no choice but to move to the left to pick up the abortionists and the homosexuals and the socialists. Perhaps Steele wasn’t aware that one of the main reasons people were attracted to the GOP is for its professed pro-life stance. So much for “core values and principles,” Steel has chucked those under the bus in his quest to create an ecumenical mush that is incapable of drawing the hard core from the Democrat party, and too perverse to attract the conservative faithful.

The truth about D’s and R’s is this: The Republican party is rapidly selling out its principles and becoming a progressive party, akin to the progressive wing of the Democrat party. If I wanted a liberal candidate, I’d have voted for the progressive democrat. But with party bigwigs like the RNC and Newt Gingrich lining up to endorse and fund Progressives running as Republicans, it looks like you can just vote GOP to get a leftist. With Obama’s progressive appointees worshipping Mao, embracing Islamic Sharia law, and sponsoring gay p!rn, “mere” liberals may look like a better choice. However, the end result will be the same. When a republican receives the Margaret Sanger radical abortionist award, it is time to revoke the conservative credentials of ANYONE who supports, funds or endorses that candidate, regardless of their party affiliation.

All this said, parties labels increasingly mean nothing. It all has to do with positions. Ideologically speaking, liberals embrace change, conservatives preserve the norm. So depending on what is being preserved or changed, either label could be good or bad. With respect to the past, yesterday’s republicans where liberals, in the sense that they opposed tenaciously the establishment of slavery, and sought to change it. So the term “liberal” can be good depending on what kind of change is being sought. Movements towards personal freedoms in china would be liberal in the generic sense. However, on the modern political scene in America, Liberal has come to be associated with a specific set of goals, especially at the federal level. Among them are:

Changing society to embrace abortion as an absolute right

Changing society to embrace homosexuality as beautiful

Changing society to redistribute wealth

Changing society to abhor and abolish private ownership of guns

Change society to accept that government’s duty is to provide everything for its citizens

Change society to believe that profit is evil

Change society to believe religion (Christianity) has no place in the public square

Change society by creating permanent racial divisions, that some are more equal than others

Change society by submerging American exceptionalism and promoting globalist socialism (United Nations)

Changing society by getting citizens to accept outrageous government control (soda tax, carbon tax) out of fear

Changing society by rewarding law breakers (illegal immigrants)

Changing society to believe in a dubious “living constitution” that doesn’t actually mean what it says, but rather, whatever they want it to.

Changing society into a collective, and submerging the individual within it.

John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every other major progressive Democrat politician supports most, if not all, of the above positions and are thus liberal. However, progressive republican politicians like Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Olympia Snowe, DeDe Scozzafava, John McCain and others are increasingly supporting the above statement in a self-centered attempt to grow and strengthen a party structure as opposed to doing what is best for America and her people. Yet both sides of the isle will, when it is beneficial to their own agenda, in many cases parrot a conservative line to deceive the voters into supporting them. President Obama used a good conservative message of self-reliance in the final version of his school speech:

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. SOURCE

Basically, the meaning of the conservatism I espouse is this:

Preserving the concept of unborn children’s rights

Preserving the definition of marriage as between a woman and man

Preserving the right of people to keep what they earn legally

Preserving the private ownership of guns, and means of self defense.

Preserving the concept of personal and religious responsibility.

Preserving the right of people to earn a profit and spend or invest it as they desire.

Preserve the notion that America was founded on Christian principles, and that is what made us strong

Preserve the concept that there should be equality, no institutionalized racial preference or deference.

Restore American exceptionalism by getting us out of entangling alliances that are detrimental to our people (the UN)

Preserve American freedom by opposing all punitive taxes and government power grabs (global warming, soda tax)

Restore the concept that law breakers should be punished, not rewarded for their deeds.

Restore the concept of “original intent,” that the constitution means what it says it does, and that it actually guarantees the rights it claims to.

Preserving right of the individual to excel, and guaranteeing equality of opportunity, not outcome

I hope this clarifies my positions on the political parties, and that I do not champion a corrupt and liberal Republican party  as a replacement to the corrupt and liberal Democrat regime we currently reside under. I hope you will join me in seeking out and supporting conservative constitutionalists that will uphold the best and highest ideals of the American experiment, and speak out with boldness against radicals- regardless of party affiliation.

Actions speak louder than words. Listen and take heed. The future of our republic is at stake.

Newt teams up with Nancy Pelosi to sell the American people on global “climate change,” which is merely a UN scheme to soak the US for more money and even sovereignty:

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations. (SOURCE: official UN site)

unofficial carbon credit ration coupon, based on WWII ration coupon

I daresay NO one who was a genuine conservative would sell out the prosperity and sovereignty of the US and her people for anything, let alone the JUNK science of man-caused global warming, er, I mean climate change.

liberal American politicians know no party lines

Progressive American politicians know no party lines

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The church: a duty forsaken

Posted by americana83 on October 9, 2009

Who’s duty is it to feed the poor? If you listen to the popular political chatter on Washington and ever more frequently on main street  it is the duty of the government to provide all things for the poor (by their own arbitrary definitions). What is the Christian stance on such programs? What does the Bible say regarding the poor? Giving?

Judas knew, and he tried to use it a pretext for theft:

Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. (John 12:4-6)

Ananias and Sapphira knew, however, their motives were wicked and were judged quickly:

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
(Acts 5:1-4)

God comes out and says it in James:

pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
(James 1:27)

Care for the poor is a religious obligation. Therefore, it is the duty of the Christians to uphold, both to provide opportunity to testify to the poor of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to honor their Father in heaven. The Bible testifies that, “God loveth a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7)

Government redistribution programs have some serious Biblical problems:

They usurp God’s mandate from the church.

They separate financial well being from the moral and spiritual, encouraging dependency on government and with restrictions designed to prevent marriage and encourage abortions. Effectively, these programs help to propagate and prolong subsistence poverty, as well as a locked in voting bloc for any unscrupulous politicians willing to spend other people’s hard earned money to get some cheap votes.

They steal money from those who are working, and give it to other people.

The ironic thing is that, for all the liberal complaints about greedy, capitalist conservatives, it is conservatives who give the most to charity, and the effects of private charity can impact lives and families in the way no government program ever can: they can address the whole problem: body, mind and soul, and can truly minister to individuals in need.

Giving is a personal mandate from God, not a mandate for the government to forcibly take and redistribute others. God loves a cheerful giver, and it is to be given to further God’s work, whether in evangelism or clothing and feeding the poor. All things are to be done for the glory of God.

Who gets the glory for “government programs?” Check out the following conversation that took place in a line of thousands waiting in line for a share of “obama money” SOURCE:

here’s a portion of Ken Rogulski reporting on WJR in Michigan, two people here in line for Obama cash.

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where’s it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN #1: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. (laughter) I don’t know where he got it from, but he givin’ it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That’s why we voted for him!

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

Massive government giveaway programs usurp the glory of God, make people think charity is “the government’s duty” and not their personal responsibility, encourage immoral and dangerous lifestyles, and make people dependent on the government for all their needs. Especially in this day in age, where the government is increasingly ignorant of morality, the government is not morally or ethically capable of making medical decisions* or supplying assistance* to the sick and needy. These programs exploit and enslave the poor to the “all sufficient provider,” the giver of health, the  “god-State.” Also, as the above quoted conversation demonstrates, it fosters ignorance and dumb worship. People have no idea that the money, and services provided to them gratis actually do COST someone a whole lot of money. Ignorance in this capacity will help destroy the fabric of society. It is best when individuals and private organizations directly aid the poor instead of faceless government bureaucrats. Personal interactions not only provide for needs, but allow the opportunity to impact people’s lives and let them know that people care, and that God cares.

In whatever capacity you can, do your part and encourage your church to do its part to reach out to the community. It is not the government’s responsibility, it is ours. It is not coercing everyone to pay into amoral or immoral government programs, it is the individual demonstrating their love to God and their fellow man by either directly assisting or supporting organizations that truly care for the poor or needy or sick.

Jesus said,

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
(Matthew 25:34-40)
(Mar 9:41)

* This is beside the lack of Constitutional, legal authority to do so.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The moral case for conservative economic policy

Posted by americana83 on July 21, 2009

Whether we like it or not, the fact is God provides wealth to individuals, and they in turn give to charity (note that God will hold accountable those who misuse their wealth, or who abuse others to gain it). With the exception of sacrificial giving, most families in America will only donate after the basic needs of their families are met. A system of government that encourages free and private competition is the economic system which God has used in America to fuel technological advance and wealth generation. For, money itself or the ability to generate large amounts of it is not the root of all evil, but rather the love of money.


Let us look at Ananias and Sapphira for some lessons about economics and morals.

(Acts 5:1) But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

A perfectly acceptable and moral way to raise money.

(Acts 5:2) And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

This verse reveals the source of the couple’s sin, but it also reveals something else: that men of wealth were receiving Christ and joining the church and were donating large sums of money, and that all the church was rejoicing in how God was blessing. While lying is an abomination, it does say something about the society that honor and exaltation was received by those who gave of their wealth voluntarily to further God’s work in the world, which would have been administering to the poor and widowed (as the bible calls “true religion), and presenting the good news of Christ to a lost and dying world.

(Acts 5:3) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Herein lies the sin: This couple has conspired together to deceive God, that they might receive honor for giving away such a great value as the entire price of what must have been a sizable possession (though in principle it would not have mattered whether it was a comic book or a Beverly Hills mansion).

(Acts 5:4) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:5) And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

The early Christian church recognized the God granted right of private property. Civil governments work best when they honor the basic moral laws and principles explained in God’s word. As surely as lying and theft condemn single persons, so to will governmental theft and deceit condemn a nation. For the Bible says:

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)

When government steals from men and forcibly redistributes wealth, it breaks the process whereby men generate wealth, by destroying personal incentive by progressive taxation and other methods more recently discussed such as special healthcare taxes, special “windfall profit” taxes. The government also engages in theft when it breaks contracts held by private companies and individuals, such as GM bond holders. Governments, like people are not immune to the effects of sin. The offense of slavery nearly broke this country into pieces. American law at that time, in violation of both our own Declaration of independence, and the immutable laws of God robbed people of their most basic rights: life and liberty. Had we not learned the lesson, that would have been the end of America. Today, we are accelerating down a similar road. The government of man in America has completely lost sight of God spiritually, morally, socially, and economically. In the noble name of promoting “economic justice” (as opposed to equal access to the opportunity to engage in the “pursuit of happiness,” the president and his cohorts across all branches of government seek to destroy personal liberty and private prosperity. By doing this, many who currently work will lose jobs, and many charities will decline and fail (and this in addition to the president’s crass desire to deplete the tax credit granted to the wealthy who donate to charity).

This will not hurt the wealthy, who will merely reduce or eliminate charitable giving, but it will have a direct impact on, and increase the number of, those individuals living at or below the poverty level in the United States, and this even as the president wants to force billions of American dollars into the coffers of the United Nations to “loan” to dictators who can then use it to bribe loyalty and prop up their failing regimes.

The economic implosion being engineered by Obama, Pelosi, Volkner* and their cohorts will have a direct and decisive impact on charity and home and abroad. By limp-wristed diplomacy and kissing up to Anti-Israel forces, Islamic Iranian tyrants and Marxist Latin-American dictators he has set himself at odds with the cause of Liberty.

The bottom line is this: Obama is the current figurehead of a movement that, at its higher levels, seeks to subvert America and remake in their own image, which is revealed by looking that those who promoted his agenda and walked closed to him:

Reverend Wright (Who’s ride under the bus came about only when political necessity dictated Obama appear to distance himself from Trinity United Church of Christ)

Frank Marshal Davis (marxist whom Obama noted as his mentor throughout his autobiography, Dreams from my father.

Fidel Castro, who praised Obama as being “the most progressive on worker and human rights”

The Communist Party, USA, who hailed his agenda and his election frequently on their website, and in their journals, People’s Weekly World and Political Affairs

ACORN, for whom he trained community organizers.

The New Black Panther party, who called him “the only choice”

Val Jones, “Green Czar appointee”

*The head of Obama’s economic recovery team, Paul Volcker has openly advocated the enforced decline of the American standard of living. He said:

“The standard of living of the average American has to decline … I don’t think you can escape that” – Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman, and current Obama adviser, in 1979

(note Mr. Volcker’s use of the term “average American” – not him and his type of course). (a Source)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Evolutionary Christianity: Can it stand?

Posted by americana83 on June 12, 2009

The problem created by an evolutionary view of origins is this: The Bible says that death came by sin (in Genesis), therefore we must assume that nothing could have died on earth prior to Adam’s sin, for which God cursed all creation.

However, if evolution is assumed to be true, then death is an essential component, for the scientists say that man came on the scene “only” a few million years ago. If the earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years, and life for 3.5 billion years, then that means death and bloodshed were around long before Man sinned, which means that sin cannot be the source of death: therefore the following:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification. For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”
(Romans 5:12-18)

is false, and our salvation is based on a myth.

It also means that God called death and bloodshed “very good”

Therefore, if God’s first “good” creation was bloody and death-filled before man fell, then the new heaven and new earth promised in Revelation would be no better.

I submit that surrendering the authority of any Scripture to unconfirmed hypotheses has the potential to undermine the authority of all Scripture.

As a side note, there are actually some fascinating scientific facts contained in the Bible, and believing in a literal creation does not mean remaining ignorant of man’s hypothesis. (I was able to use my knowledge of both to present God’s word in a forum). If your interested, I will try to find the link. Also if you haven’t, check out http://www.answersingenesis.org

2 Timothy 3:16

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Professing Christian, Practicing Atheist: a hinderance to prayer and revival

Posted by americana83 on December 19, 2008

It is so easy to look at politicians and see this. Knowing that Americans profess by and large to be Christians of varying flavors, it is common practice for politicians to profess belief in Christ. However, what does this mean really. When they say things like “my faith doesn’t influence my decisions” or “I don’t wear my faith on my sleeve” or “I don’t believe the Bible is literal” What does this mean? Its clear that what they say with their mouths, they deny with their actions (As also evidence by Obama when he claimed to “have a deep faith” rooted in the Christian “tradition”)(And George Bush when he said the Bible is “probably not literally true“). The Bible says:
. The Bible says:

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?  (James 2:18-20)

It is easy to identify those in public life, who are in front of us on TV as hypocrites, or liars, and to rail against their distortion of the Christian faith. However, how many of us, in our daily lives “forget” that we are Christians?

How many days has it been since you last prayed, and I don’t mean vague prayers, but specifically, and expected to see a move of God? When was the last time you opened your Bible? Discussed spiritual matters with someone or shared the Gospel (whether with your mouth or with tracts)? How often do you skip church, or perhaps you don’t attend regularly, though the Bible says “Forsake not the gathering of ourselves together (Hebrews 10:25)”? How often do you laugh at perverted jokes, or sin? These things are just some of the things many professing Christians do(all of us have done these things at some time or another, for all have sinned). When we make any of these things part of our daily life, we are denying the truth of the Scriptures as completely as those who profess Christ and support wicked causes in Washington or City Hall.

Let us be in repentance before God, seeking His face for our daily decisions, whether they be for entertainment, or fellowship or the regular daily decisions, that our prayers be not hindered. The sins of one Achan (Joshua 7) tells how the sins of one man stayed the hand of God’s blessing and even brought judgment upon the nation of Israel, costing many lives. Achan had many chances to come clean, repent before God for disregarding his commandment and be redeemed. However, he chose to wait for God to bring his sin to light and his fate was sealed.

Let us place ourselves in the position to be blessed before God, that righteousness may be exalted in Amerca, that our prayers may be answered and Barack Obama may be converted, and this country will see revival!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Newsweek, Sexuality and the Bible: a simple response

Posted by americana83 on December 16, 2008

You, or someone you know may have read this article, whethere online or in the print release of Newsweek.

Perhaps the sickest claim Newsweek makes about the Bible is the tabloid style scandal it raises about the friendship of David and Jonathan:

The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was “one spirit” and whom he “loved as he loved himself.” Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan’s death and, in grieving, writes a song:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
 You were very dear to me.
 Your love for me was wonderful,
 More wonderful than that of women.

Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.

At first read, this sounds irrefutable, that is if you accept that the greatest form of love is sexual union. However, the Bible does not have this assumption, and indeed does define the greatest love(and if it is the greatest love, it must, when it is demonstrated surpass even the sexual union:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

Jonathan put his life on the line for David repeatedly. What a friend! In light of Jesus’s proclamation of the greatest love, there is no room for Newsweek’s attempts to fashion David’s friendship to their own perverse  liking.

Also, the article outright lies, saying lesbian sex is *never* condemned in the Bible. We need only look to the first chapter of Romans to prove this false:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(Romans 1:25-32)

This passage says that the men did the same thing as the women, burned in their lust towards each other. The article further goes on to claim that it may have been for condemnation for people who did everything on this list. (easily refuted again, because God hates each of those things individually, and any sin by itself  is worthy of God’s wrath).

They also proclaim my biggest pet peeve, so to speak, that choice of sex partner equals skin color:

If we are all God’s children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color…

This ought to make any African-American indignant. Their historical plight, that of slave ships and segregation, lynchings and a host of other horrible things– reduced to the plight of Bob Smoe, who is whining because, he can’t get the blessing of a particular church, or piece of paper, or a particular word on a piece of paper. Boo hoo! These people must have burning consciences, because they are going everywhere demanding state and church blessing on their unions. They need the blessings of everyone to squelch that little voice in the back of their head that tells them its wrong. They need to force sexual orientation, and “gender identity” into hate crimes laws so as to silence their opposition. they NEED to cling to the Civil Rights Movement and Dr. King, to place the veil of moral rightness over their perverted parade.

Why does it matter on a national or state level if same-sex unions are embraced on a legal level?

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)

In short, there is nothing of Biblical truth in this article. Every word, every paragraph is geared for two purposes, to undermine the authority of scripture, and to promote same-sex lifestyles.

As Christians we are to love and pray for these people, but we need never embrace or accept their lifestyle. While we were yet sinners, Christ loved us enough to die for us, though he hates sin. He reached out to a lost and sinful world, including myself.  Even as Christ prevented the stoning of the woman taken in adultery (and encouraged her to “go and sin no more”), let us bring the message of salvation and repentance to those around us. Let us stand up against those who would deceitfully twist or outright deny the clear words of scripture. Newsweek’s and Time’s many articles on Christ and the Bible are deceptive, drawing only on the perceived authority these two magazines derive from their long histories. They are devoid of any scriptural truth. Whatever you do, never let these magazines interpret God’s Holy Word!

.

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus, Racism, Spirituality, deception, intolerance, sexuality | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dr. Cone’s Black Liberation Theology: Love Redefined.

Posted by americana83 on June 30, 2008

Note: This is the beginning of a series of posts I hope to make regarding the Theology of Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama’s home church of ~20 years. TUCC’s pastor Jeremiah Wright based his theology and values system on Dr. Cone’s Work: Black Theology & Black Power. These are the values that Wright used when he mentored Barack Obama, and these are the underpinning of the beliefs and values that could influence the next President of the United States. I have and will expend considerable amounts of time both researching and writing these articles, not because I have a personal vendetta against any man, but because I believe that the truth must be known. Dr. Wright, when questioned on Fox News rigorously used Black Liberation Theology as a defense of his values system, and railed against his questioners for their ignorance of it. I wish that they had done their homework, because knowledge is power.

Dr. Cone’s Black Liberation Theology: Love, Redefined.

What is love? Love is the foundation of the Christian Gospel. Without Love, God would not have cared if His creation had no way to heaven, and thus would have had no reason to provide a way though Christ. According to Webster’s, Love is:

To regard with a strong feeling of affection; to have a devoted attachment to; to feel great tenderness for; as, to love one’s family. 2. To regard with the feelings of one sex towards the other; to be tenderly affected toward; to be in love with; to be passionately fond of. 3. To delight in; to have great pleasure or interest in…(Webster’s pg 1007)

What does the Bible say about love? There are many passages about love, and they reflect closely to how Webster’s defines love.

Is love based on precondition?

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:8-10)

We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. (1 John 4:19-21)

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? (Matthew 5:43-47)

It is because of verses like these that Dr. Cone must go through great efforts to redefine Love, and thus redefine Christian love. He rightly asserts that a “new way of doing theology” is needed, because without it “there will always be this barrier between Black Power and Christian love(Cone, 50). Thus  he seeks to reinterpret “the message of salvation(49)” so that it will be palatable to those within the Black Power movement, whom Cone has no desire to make Christians out of, nor to “twist their language or to make an alien interpretation of it.(Cone 48).” While he has no problem preserving and accurately interpreting the words of man, he apparently sees no problem with forcing an interpretation on the scriptures that, as he willingly admits is alien to the life of Christ, and thus to the Biblical interpretation of love.

Cone goes through the two parts of the Great Commandment:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)

He rightly says that when God’s love has gripped a someone that they should behave as if Christ is at the core of his being (Cone, 51). However, just a page later,  he says that, “because God is a God of power; of  majesty, of might, to love man means that he wills that the black man “reflect in the immediacies of life his power, his majesty and his might (Cone, 52).” He also erroneously says that “to respond to God’s love in faith means that he accepts as truth the new image of himself revealed in Jesus Christ (Cone, 52). The Bible teaches that our response to God’s love is to believe on Him:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:16-18)

That the man becomes a new Creature, and does not merely emulate an image of such is a Bible truth:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

We do not see an image in Christ, by accepting Christ in faith, we become a new creature, God’s spirit indwells us and empowers us to do  his will, to show his love and deliver his message to a world in need. As far as power we as individuals are called to:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

(Matthew 10:16-18)

It is not for us to attempt to emulate God’s power and might. Throughout the Bible, God does occasionally use people to show his power, as was the case with Moses and the plagues. However, the showing of power was related specifically to giving glory and honor to God, as Pharaoh was scoffing and rejecting God’s revealed will. It was not an act channeled through the unbelieving, or the worshippers of false gods. Since Dr Cone has “no desire to make Christians out of those who see no relationship between their understanding of truth and Jesus Christ (Cone, 48), he asserts that God’s power, majesty and might can be demonstrated though sinful unrepentant man by accepting a new image “revealed in Christ.” Many religions have images of Christ,

Cone asserts that the black man take Paul’s teaching of being a “new creature” literally by telling him to “glorify blackness” as an acceptance of the black self as a creature of God. (Cone, 53).” It is absolutely clear that Dr. Cone misses the concept of the “new creature” The new creature is a direct product of the new birth, which Jesus described in his discussion with Nicodemus:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

(John 3:1-7)

The new creature is spiritual in nature. Man was born once as flesh and blood. The birth of the “new creature” is a spiritual event, an event open to “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord.” It has nothing to do with the glorifying or uplifting of the physical self.

By combining these unbiblical distortions of the new creature and God’s love, Cone has set the stage for his radical redefining of the word Love.

Dr. Cone says that “to love the white man means that the black man confronts him.” He goes on to assert that whites see blacks as “its” and the black man must confront them as a “Thou” The emphasis is not on the person hood, but on the confrontation as the manifestation of love between the “races.”

Cone further asserts that,

The black man must, if he is not to lose sight of his new-found identity in Christ, be prepared for conflict, for a radical confrontation. As one black man put it: “Profound love can only exist between two equals. The new black man refuses to assume the It-role which whites expect, but addresses them as an equal. This I where the conflict arises(Cone, 53).

There is no grounds for a “radical confrontation” for one not to lose sight of his identify in Christ. In fact, the one time where it was attempted, Jesus himself rebuked Simon Peter:

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? (John 18:10-11).

Also, consider the actions of Stephen who’s preaching of righteousness resulted in severe injustice:

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

(Acts 7:51-60)

Probably one of the most damnable heresies which Cone proclaims is the assertion that “profound love” can only exist between equals. With how much the Bible talks about God’s love for man, this sets up two situations, each equally heretical. Either God does not truly love man, and the Bible lies regarding this, or man is equal with God, in which case man has no need of God, or his salvation. So the question arises, are we gods, or is God a liar? Man’s fall in Genesis was at the beckoning of the serpent to “become as gods.” Cone here introduces that man is equal with God again offering up the same temptation, the quick and fleshly way of a bloody confrontation to lift up the self, the flesh.

It is this heresy that allows him to encourage the carnal demonstration of “God’s power” by ungodly men. He continues by saying that the “christian” love of whites makes the black man a nonperson. Cone goes on to say:

The black man’s response to God’s act in Christ must be different from the white’s because his life experiences are different. Christian love is never fully embodied in an act(Cone, 55).

This is false. Christian love was fully embodied in one act: the selfless giving of Christ on the Cross. To willingly give one’s self for his friends is defined as the greatest love in the Bible:

This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:12-13)

From this the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice is magnified, for not only did he give his life, but he did so, “While we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8)!” Such an act, by God completely embodies Christian love! There is no greater love, or demonstration of love!

Now compare this to the example of love offered up by Dr. Cone:

The violence in the cities, which appears to contradict Christian love, is nothing but the black man’s attempt to say Yes to his being as defined by God…If the riots are the black man’s courage to say Yes to himself as a creature of God, and if in affirming self he affirms Yes to the neighbor, then violence may be the black man’s expression, sometimes the only possible expression, of Christian love to the white oppressor(Cone, P 55).

Where in the Bible does it say we are to affirm our selves? Where in the Scriptures does it say that violence is a legitimate expression of Christian love to the neighbor? Remember, that Dr. Cone subscribes to Malcolm X’s description that theologically, calling whites the devil is not far from the truth. All whites are oppressors in the eyes of Dr. Cone (Cone, P 24).

However, Cone also insists that

White people should not even expect blacks to love them, and to ask for it merely adds insult to injury. “For the white man,” writes Malcolm X, “to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped…’Do you hate me?’ (ellipses in original quote) The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate.” Whatever blacks feel towards whites or whatever their response to white racism, it cannot be submitted to the judgments of White society.

Basically Cone’s definition of the love offered up to whites from blacks is the same as the hatred which whites should expect from blacks. Based on Cone’s definitions:

Love = Hate

Hate = Love

Further, he has attempted to insulate his perspective from any criticism. However, despite his linguistic and mental gymnastics, Love, Christian love does not equal hate.

Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

(1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

It is clear from Dr. Cone’s radical redefining of Christian love, that his primary purpose is not to show how Christianity is compatible with Black Power, as he claims(cone, p48), but rather to conform the image of Christ and his love to that of a movement that is diametrically opposed to Christian Love and everything it stands for.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)

References:

Black Theology & Black Power, 8th Printing, Nov 2006. James H. Cone (c) 1997 James H. Cone.

Webster’s New 20th Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. (c) 1949 The World Publishing Co.

The Holy Bible, KJV

Posted in Barack Obama, Christianity, Election 2008, Obama, Presidential, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries