If you are going to attempt to blow up an abortion clinic, at least ensure that the clinic you are attempting to blow up actually performs abortions.
(Via reddit)
Archive for the 'Religion' Category
I don’t normally read Sharper Iron, but my mom sent me an insightful article on the commercialization of Jesus. I agree with most of what that the author says. Jesus Junk–like the “Armor of God PJ’s” and the infamous “Godweiser” T-Shirt and all the WWJD junk and the Christian mints (seriously!)–serves to devalue the Christian faith.
The article has a rational discussion of this trend and why it needs to stop. All I can add is this: You aren’t really speading the gospel this way. You’re just making Jesus into a brand name. Stop it.
Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, an evangelical pastor of a church in Maplewood, Minnesota, preached a series of messages entitled “The Cross and the Sword” in which he stated that the church should stay out of politics.
According to the New York Times, the pastor is not a liberal; he opposes both abortion and gay marriage. His message, although presented for his conservative church, is intended for all politically-motivated churches, whether Republican or Democrat.
From the article, Boyd in his own words:
“America wasn’t founded as a theocracy,” he said. “America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.
“I am sorry to tell you,” he continued, “that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.”
I have long maintained that separation of church and state is not the great evil that my Christian school teachers and pastors have made it out to be. In fact, separation of church and state is one of the things that makes this country great.
Think about it: Should you have to be a member of a certain church to vote? Should the government be collecting tithes in the same way they do the income tax? Should the government publish Bibles? What about Korans? Which church should the government promote?
Likewise, from the church’s side: Should your church promote the candidate that opposes abortion and gay marriage, or the one that supports feeding the poor and giving medicine to the sick?
Here is the primary reason that evangelical churches should not push politics from either side of the aisle: The goal of the church is to get as many people saved as possible and to get those people to follow Christ’s teachings to the best of their ability. But when the preacher starts, say, praising the war in Iraq, people who oppose the war are instantly turned off from the whole message. At best, it’s a distraction from the gospel. At worst, the people who oppose the war reject the gospel along with your politics. In other words, people are going to hell because you wouldn’t stop promoting your politics from the pulpit.
By all means, promote your politics with rallys, advertising, protests, and petitions. But for God’s sake–and I mean that literally–don’t try to affililate Christ with your political views. Stick to preaching about Christ and his teachings from the pulpits of your churches.
(Thanks to The Sycamore Tree for the link.)
In Isaiah chapter 7, it is written that Ahaz, the king of Judah, was under a joint attack from Pekah, the king of Israel, and Rezin, the king of Syria. His people were terrified; “the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind” (verse 2, ESV).
According to the passage, the prophet Isaiah then receives a message from the Lord for Ahaz, informing the king that “It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass.” Isaiah then offers Ahaz the chance to ask a sign from the Lord, any sign. “Let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven” (verse 10). Ahaz refuses this offer, saying, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.”
At this, Isaiah informs Ahaz that “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good” (14-15). The rest of the passage poetically describes how the attackers will be defeated and how their enemies’ land will be desolate.
So, in other words, this passage is saying that within two or three years–before the child can tell right from wrong–that the land of Judah will be in peace and prosperity, and that they will not suffer conquest at the hands of their neighbors. It cannot only refer to the birth of Christ, hundreds of years later, because it is specifically referring to the upcoming battle with Syria and Israel.
(In fact, if it were not for Matthew 1:23 which specifically states that the prophecy applied to Jesus, I would be hard pressed to draw any connection between the birth of Christ and this passage.)
So, we’ve established that for the prophecy to be true, that A) a virgin must give birth to a son in the near future to be a sign for King Ahaz and that B) the nation of Judah must win its conflict with Israel and Syria.
Now, take a look at II Chronicles 28, which describes these same events. We can see in verses 5-6 that “the LORD his God gave him into the hand of the king of Syria, who defeated him and took captive a great number of his people and brought them to Damascus. He was also given into the hand of the king of Israel, who struck him with great force. For Pekah the son of Remaliah killed 120,000 from Judah in one day, all of them men of valor, because they had forsaken the LORD, the God of their fathers.” The passage goes on to describe Israel and Syria’s exploits against the house of Judah.
…
Isn’t that exactly the opposite of what Isaiah said would happen? Is there some explanation for this contradiction that I’m missing? Or was Isaiah a false prophet?