Dangerous Love

There is much being said about the issue of legalizing gay marriage in the United States.  Although I have come to expect support of gay marriage among those with liberal political, and/or non-religious views, I am deeply saddened by the number of confessed Christians who claim to support gay marriage on the basis of "Christian love" towards everyone.  Please, Please learn about biblical love.

A few years ago, my pastor started an evangelism campaign titled "House On Fire". He wanted us to consider how we would act if we saw our next door neighbor's house burning. Would we walk away, afraid to wake him from a blissful sleep, or would we sound an alarm, maybe even go into the house and pull him out? If we would be willing to risk our lives to save the earthly life of our neighbor, why are we not willing to risk our emotional comfort to help save the eternal lives of those same neighbors.

Supporting the legalization of gay marriage leaves those who are living homosexual lives sleeping soundly in their beds until they burn to death. We must sound the alarm for them, we must wake them from the lies they have been told. Only when they know they are in danger can they seek salvation. This is real love, forgetting my own comfort in this world, facing the ridicule and anger of many in order that even one might recognize their sin and be saved.

It wasn't until I knew that my own sin damned me that I accepted Christ's sacrifice to atone for my sin. I am eternally thankful for those who loved me enough to tell me I was wrong, even when I didn't like what they had to say.

Do I Offend?

What I wish our leaders would say about the violence in the Middle East:

The violence in the Middle East is deplorable and expresses all that is wrong in that region of the world.  America stands firmly behind the right to free speech, even when that speech is offensive to others.  Blaming the film is either an act of extreme cowardice, obfuscating true motives; or illustrates the ridiculous childishness of these riots, analogous to a third-grader hitting someone for calling her a "doody-head".
 
Furthermore, we demand the charges filed by the Egyptian general prosecutor against those associated with the film be dropped immediately.  No government should seek to appease the populace by joining those who shift blame. Rather, a just government would hold responsible those who truly ignited and fanned the flames of strife.  Additionally, the persons named are either United States citizens, or reside and acted in the United States, therefore, their actions are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and not subject to the laws of Egypt or any other country.

The United States will not now, nor ever, bow to any action that threatens the legitimate exercise of free speech by persons acting within the sovereignty of the United States of America.

I fully expect that none of our political personalities will express such a strong opinion.  Now is the time to be clear, stand firm and avoid diplomatic "double speak".

If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.

-Winston Churchill

For more information about the fallout from these riots, please check out these articles from BBC News: "Egypt orders arrest of US-based Copts over film" and "Film Protests: What explains the anger?"

UPDATE (19-Sep-2012 20:53 EDT):
Surprisingly (to me at least), Hillary Clinton has expressed a similar opinion, though a bit more watered down and definitely much less confrontational.  You can find a video of her speech on the BBC News, Hillary Clinton: Anti-Islam film 'reprehensible'

I Believe

I believe in justice not fairness.
I believe in charity not entitlement.
I believe in responsibility not blame.
I believe in what's right not what's legal.
I believe in freedom not license.
I believe in consequence not circumstance.
I believe in righteousness, not judgment.
I believe in stewardship not environmentalism.
I believe in forgiveness not tolerance.
I believe in peace, not appeasement
I believe in meekness, not weakness
I believe in humility, not self-esteem

Healthcare Rant

I want to rant about the Supreme Court's decision today and the overall impact of the Obamacare law.

First, although I don't like it, I think that the decision was constitutionally correct (unfortunately). The individual mandate IS a tax, no matter what the people who fought to get the law passed claimed, and Congress does have the constitutional authority to levy taxes. Secondly, striking down the portion requiring states to implement the new provisions in order to keep old funding is a victory for states' rights over coercive federal government policies.

The government's role is to protect life, liberty and property from unlawful deprivation.  There is no reason that the government should provide social programs of any type.  That should be the work of Christ's church.  We are called to care for the widow and orphan, not to relinquish our responsibility to faceless, amorphous "Society".  Too long the church has abrogated its responsibility in this area and the vacuum was filled first by profit making companies and now by government.  I am not opposed to lawfully profiting from any service, even healthcare, but insurance companies and providers were only able to make a profit because they fulfilled a need.  Let them continue to make a profit by serving those who can afford to pay for the service or the premiums for insurance.  Support your church so it can be the one providing healthcare support to those who cannot afford it, either directly, or indirectly through financial support.

Supposedly, Obamacare will lower the costs of healthcare.  This is a false canard.  The overall amount of money going into healthcare will increase.  This is because the law relies on those who don't need healthcare to pay for it.  So, the average premium might (and that's a big "might") go down, but the number of premiums paid will certainly rise.

Secondly, economic analysts are predicting that healthcare insurance premiums will rise.  I assume because when you have a captive customer, you are freer to raise the prices.  However, I think this would be a disastrous mistake by the private healthcare companies.  Raising the rates of private healthcare will create an environment perfect for those who argue for socialized medicine.  They have already demonized companies that make a profit on healthcare.  It will be even easier if income to the insurance companies rises, much less if profit margins rise.  Then the federal government can step in on its "white" horse and promise to "reduce the cost of healthcare for all Americans, especially the less fortunate."

But is socialized medicine better than our current system?  Emphatically NO!  Europe and Canada have waiting lists for routine procedures.  Their tax burdens are high, some in the 60% range and many nations in Europe can't afford to continue running the government because of overburdened social programs.

But there are people who do not have access to healthcare.  What do we do about them?  I've already said, the church needs to step up.  Charity is the function of the church, not of government.  And do not be mistaken, providing healthcare for those who can't afford it is charity, not a right.

What do we do now?
Now is the time to find out who will overturn Obamacare if they are in Congress.  Do what you can to support those candidates.  If you have the funds, contribute to their campaigns.  If you have the time volunteer for their campaigns.  Educate yourself on what the candidate believes and how they will act.  Don't just trust the news or the candidates' stump speeches.  Look into their voting records, send emails, make phone calls.

At a minimum, vote in the upcoming election.  I don't care which side of the aisle a candidate sits.  We just need representatives who will truly represent our interests.  Lower federal government intrusion into our lives, and you lower the cost of government.  Lower the costs of government and you lower your tax burden.

A != ( !A ) (Philosophy of Knowledge Series, #2)

Sixth postulate: True cannot be false.
If something is true, then it's opposite is necessarily false.  A thing and that which is exactly not that thing cannot be the same.

It never ceases to amaze me when I find someone who honestly believes that two contradictory statements can both be true.  Usually, it starts when I express my firmly held belief in Heaven and Hell and the need for a Savior to escape Hell.  Rather than attack my faith in support of their own belief system, they fall back into "Well that's true for you, but not for me."

I could proceed in the discussion if the individual wanted to discuss the "All paths lead to Heaven philosophy." But they sincerely believe that my opinion that, without Christ, they are going to hell and their firmly held belief that they are not going to hell can both be true.

Typically, I try to demonstrate the impossibility of both of these statements to be true by using some sort of simple, mutually exclusive statements, like "It is day" and "It is not day".  The most common type of response I get is these statements both could be true, if the details of the circumstances are slightly different.  I have fought this logic battle so often, that I have come to the realization that people are unwilling to accept basic logic when acceptance puts them on uncomfortable philosophical footing.  Essentially, if one does not want to deal with the issues presented by Christianity, no amount of logic will change that.

I have become so frustrated with the entrenched status of this illogical relativism, that I must resort to the simple statement that a thing and its opposite cannot be the same.

Sixth postulate - Extension: Possible solutions to mutually exclusive statements
An extension of this postulate is that for two statements, a and b where a and be cannot both be true (i.e., mutually exclusive), then there are three possible solutions, thus:
(1) a is true and b is false
(2) a is false and b is true
(3) both a and b are false

Foundations (Philosophy of Knowledge Series, #1)

Any philosophy must begin by laying a foundation of postulates from which proofs may proceed.

First postulate: I exist.
The sine qua non.  Eons have been spent proving that one's self exists.  Of all the self-evident propositions, none seems more obvious than this.

Second postulate: I perceive.
I able to collect information about things that appear around me.

Third postulate: I imagine
I can create mental concepts ("thoughts") internally and independent of what I perceive.

Fourth postulate: I think
I am able to process and interpret that which I perceive and imagine.

Fifth postulate: I reason.
I am able to combine my thoughts to establish a conclusion, belief or knowledge.

What's with all the "I"s?

Some of you may have noticed that this post is full of "I" statements.  My choice to use the first person is intentional and is not meant to imply "only I", but rather that "I" is the logical starting point for a philosophy of knowledge.

Comments on Prayer in Schools

The recent decision of Public school superintendent, Jim Scales to bar prayer prior to football games in his Tennessee school district has become the latest touch point in the ongoing debate on the interaction of government and religion.  So much of the debate is rancorous name calling by both sides.  I'd like to provide some thoughtful commentary on the subject.

The Constitutional Question
The Constitution bars three things:

• The establishment of a Federal Religion;
• The infringement of any person's free practice of religion by any government within the US; and 
• The use of a "religious test" as qualification for public office.

Individual states had established state religions prior to the establishment of the Constitution and even afterward.  It wasn't until 1833 (44 years after the ratification of the Constitution) that Massachusetts became the last state to disestablish religion from its official links to the state, ending the practice of providing tax revenues to churches.  And, though Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "separation of church and state" in 1802, it wasn't until the mid 1900's that this became an actual part of US law, through the decisions of the Supreme Court in various cases.


Superintendent Jim Scales' Prohibition on Prayer: Right or Wrong?
Were the Superintendent's actions right or wrong?  Legally, I think the case law is on the side of Mr. Scales and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Personally, I believe the recitation of a prayer prior to any school activity is a good idea.  I also think that it should be led by religious leaders from the local community, rotating through any number of religions, including representatives of the atheist community.  Religion is a valuable part of our American culture and history and should be recognized as such, not suppressed.  Suppression of any idea is detrimental.  Instead, we should allow differing opinions the opportunity to be voiced and debated, with as much civility and respect as is possible.  I may believe you are completely wrong in your beliefs.  No matter how much I might try and convince you of this fact, I will never deny you the right to believe and even evangelize your belief in the public discourse.  In the end (either after both our deaths, or the end of time), we will both know who was right and who was wrong.



Name Calling
Among the frequent complaints I encounter from atheists is that Christians are judgmental and only nice to other Christians, while mean-spirited towards everyone else.  Unfortunately, this is too often the case, by which, these same atheists assign the same characteristics to the God we profess.  To all Christians, don't insult non-Christians, don't throw Christ in their face.  There is a time and place to discuss damnation, hellfire and brimstone, but not on comment forums.  You are very unlikely to connect to someone you don't know in such a confrontational manner.  The best we can do is present the facts of wrong-doing, judgment and forgiveness as gently and matter of fact as possible and pray that the Holy Spirit moves in someone's heart to understand.  The "You are going to hell" mentality seems, to me, the same mentality as Jonah had towards Nineveh.  "You are evil and I am glad that God will judge you."  We should be hoping and praying for an outcome like Nineveh, where we can rejoice at God's forgiveness towards a sinful person.  Weren't you also once consigned to damnation in your own sin?


For the non-Christians who have learned bad lessons from Christians, let me provide some Biblical History concerning the nature of the God we worship.  The God of the Bible is a just and merciful God.  Many point to the genocide of Canaanite tribes by the Israelites Under the leadership of Joshua.  Did this happen?  According to the Bible, absolutely.  Why?  The sins against God of these people had reached a level that a just and righteous God could no longer tolerate and had lasted long enough to demonstrate that the people were not going to change.  Therefore, God executed his judgment against these nations through the Israelite army under Joshua.  God had earlier disseminated a similar judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah using fire from heaven.  However, God's mercy has always been available to all, not just members of the "in group".  When the city of Nineveh had reached the point of incurring God's wrath, He sent Jonah to the city to warn them of its imminent destruction.  When the people of Nineveh repented, God forgave them and spared them his destruction.  Nineveh was a decidedly non-Jewish state, yet God provided the opportunity for forgiveness to these "non-believers".

In every case, God judges peoples and nations for their acts.  If you are found guilty in a court, you must face the consequences of your actions.  Likewise, God judges and metes out punishment to those who are deserving.  (By the way, all of mankind is deserving of judgment.)  The wonderful news is that God also provided a means of paying the penalty without suffering yourself.  Imagine, that after you have been pronounced guilty, the judge steps down and offers to pay the fine out of his own wealth.  This is the forgiveness offered in Christ.

My sincere hope is that every person who does not accept that Jesus is who the Bible claims will encounter a Christian who lovingly provides an example of Christ and gentle instruction in the Bible's truth.


A Final Note On My Reason for Believing
In over 20 years as a Christian, I have spent countless hours reconciling my nearly 20 years of understanding of the world prior to my salvation.  After all this time, my faith in Christ hinges on a single historical fact.  All but one of the apostles and a number of other disciples of Christ were executed, not because they refused to recant what they believed, but because that belief was predicated on actually witnessing the resurrected Christ after his crucifixion.  If these men had concocted the story, then there is no way all of them would have died.  Men do not die for a lie.