I LIKE MIKE
Yes, I know Mike Huckabee is a tad thin on foreign policy…but I like him.
Yes, I know the Club for Growth thinks he is a liberal tax and spender….but I like him.
Yes, I know every major conservative establishment entity, from the Weekly Standard to Ann Coulter. From the National Review to Rush Limbaugh are against him…but I like him.
I like Mike and I trust him. I like the fact that he is a former pastor. Praise God for someone with some actual demonstrable religious conviction.
I like the fact that he has a little bite to go along with his bark when he gets riled.
I like the fact that he plays bass guitar
I like Mike.
Look at some of his, so called, negatives. Lack of foreign policy experience. Now I ask you, is there anybody running for president, Republican or Democrat, who really has presidential level foreign policy experience. No, of course not. By that measure, Hillary Clinton is probably closer than anybody. Certain John McCain has substantial experience. But no candidate, ever in the history of America, has ever had the kind of foreign policy experience they need to be president. There is only one place to get that…ON THE JOB! If elected, Huckabee will do what every other president has done. Find the best people he can to advise him and make decisions on the information he is provided and his guiding principles.
That is the key. No matter who sits in the White House in 2009, they will all have access to the same information. They’ll have to face the same problems. The only difference between them. The only difference, will be the principles that guide their decisions. Their core beliefs. Their personal integrity.
Look at his history as an executive. Huckabee demonstrated an uncanny ability as govenor, to work with Democrats. Much like George Bush. Huckabee was the first Republican govenor in Arkansas since Reconstruction and was faced wtih some big challenges.
The Club for Growth calls him a tax and spend liberal on tax issues, but consider the kinds of taxes and expenditures Huckabee made as govenor. He taxed gasoline and cigarettes. The gasoline tax went to improve what were the worst roads in the United States and what are now considered some of the best. They are vastly improved. I know. I drive them. The cigarette tax went straight back into health care in the state, including free smoking cessation programs. I know. I got a free stop smoking kit from the state.
He raised fees for sportsmen. Fees for hunting and fishing licenses provide the funds that sustain what is Arkansas second most valuable resource, the beautiful flora and fauna of “The Natural State.”
Education. The state was sued because it’s property tax based school funding system kept poor districts poor and rich districts rich. The Supreme Court compelled the state to abide by the constitution which stated that every child would have equal access to education. Huckabee worked with a Democratic legislature to consolidate districts and revamp funding in a way that has helped Arkansas schools climb up from the bottom in education. So the states most valuable resource, it’s children, are now getting better educations than they were before, with local home rule and authority still in tact.
There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Huckabee is not stupid. He may be ignorant to some of the things he must know to be an effective president, along with every other candidate, but he is not stupid.
What is he. A principled man of conviction, compassion and true understanding of wants and needs of the average every day people like me. He’s the true man from a place called Hope….and I like him.
Emory Says: January 9th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Politics, aside, Mike is the only candidate who makes me laugh consistently. He has a masterful sense of humor.
Dooz Says: January 9th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
If only I could get past the fact that he’s a former Arkansas governor and plays a musical instrument. We did that one.
If only I could get past the fact that he’s a former southern governor and a Baptist. We did that one, too.
You believe he’s “a principled man of conviction…”. I wish I could believe that; we’ve heard that before and it didn’t work out in practice and/or the one so described was also too naive to do the nation any good.
I won’t criticize “Mike”, because I don’t really know that much about him. I can’t say I distrust him. I just can’t overcome history enough to trust him. I guess if he gets elected we’ll find out. And in that case–or I guess in any case, I hope I’m wrong.
By the way, as an evangelical Christian, I intend to vote for the best possible candidate. I’m opposed to blacks pitching to “the black vote”, women pitching to the “female vote”, etc., and I’m opposed to Christians pitching to the “Christian vote”. May the best person win!
We NEED the best person possible to run this country, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, creed, etc.
buck Says: January 10th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Dooz,
Would you be freaked out if I told you Huckabee had a brother named Billy, loved peanuts and owned property in the WhiteWater development? (Just kidding.)
You sound pretty beat up and fairly cynical. I’m sure you’re not alone, but how can we determine “the best?” There is nothing, NOTHING, that can prepare an individual to become, perhaps, the most powerful person on earth. I always laugh when I hear people talk about a candidates experience. What experience could someone have that would guide their decision making process after an event like 9/11? That’s why all these arm-chair generals with perfect hindsight are laughable. It’s always easy to look back and say what should have been done. A president has to look forward and say what must be done now to affect the future. That decision can only be made based on current knowledge, which will be virtually the same for every president and core beliefs.
Jenn Says: January 10th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
It’s a sad day when your choices come down to who is the least “sucky”.
Huckabee could be worse, he could be a lot better. In fact he’s a lot like McCain only younger. Very lefty on many of his policies. (Like shamnesty.)
The only candidate I actually like was Duncan Hunter but we all know where he is right now.
sonny Says: January 11th, 2008 at 12:15 am
buck you said, ” What experience could someone have that would guide their decision making process after an event like 9/11? That’s why all these arm-chair generals with perfect hindsight are laughable. It’s always easy to look back and say what should have been done. A president has to look forward and say what must be done now to affect the future. That decision can only be made based on current knowledge, which will be virtually the same for every president and core beliefs. ”
Well it was the Presidents Lord and Savior that said, “resist not evil”. Maybe taking off throughout the world with guns blazing wasn’t the right decision. He said he believed in God and was a Christian prior to 9/11 but he doesn’t show it by using compassion. No you are all correct, none of these people have foreign policy experience. Anyone with foreign policy experience could have seen that it’s our foreign policy that would have foreigners attack us. Which they didn’t. There is not one shred of evidence, publicly available and verifiable, that 19 hijackers conspired to attack us on 9/11. However there are 29 missing pages from the 9/11 commission report, Bush and his entire administration refuse to answer questions under oath (imagine if billy clinton had tried to pull that one), and the bin laden andSaudi Royal Family are close friends to the presidents family.
Tyra Says: January 14th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I like Mike too! He spoke at our church this summer on marriage and was quite impressive. I have been following him ever since! Good luck, Mike!
The Other Side Says: January 16th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
he may be a nice and funny guy, but his devotion to religion is getting unnerving. he recently said that it is easier to amend the constitution than to amend the word of god (paraphrasing). he wants to define marriage and protect life by amending the constitution based on his religious ideologies. while its okay to have religious views, its not okay to base decisions soley on those beliefs; thats what seperation of church and state prevents. he also said a few weeks ago on meet the press that he won’t use his religious views to influence his policy. so he’s either forgetting about the separation of church and state or he will say anything to anyone.
Tyra Says: January 19th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
To the Other Side:
I think you are forgetting that our forefathers, who wrote and signed the Constitution, were practicing Christians. Whether or not you believe the Constitution was based on their religious, moral beliefs is to be debated; however,it is the foundation of America. Most Republicans, whether Christian or not, believe abortion is wrong and same-sex marriage is wrong. Not every Republican is a practicing Christian, yet most Republican have the same opinion on these issues. Taking out the religious aspect of abortion, one could say that it is murder, and since our laws state that murder is a crime, it therefore should be a crime to kill innocent fetuses. On the subject of gay marriage…again, taking out the religious aspect, our laws say pologamy is forbidden, marrying your brother or sister is forbidden, marrying your dog is forbidden, etc…Basically, the institution of marriage between one man and one woman isn’t necessarily a religious conviction, but a moral code of ethics that our society has chosen to embrace. Why? Because if America starts allowing two men to get married, in our letigious society, it could open the flood gates of where does the law draw the line on marriage. Before you know it, all kinds of crazy people could petition the court so they can legally marry their dog or their brother, or perhaps themselves.
Your argument that Mike Huckabee couldn’t separate church and state because he is a practicing Christian is not true. The separation of Church and State is basically there to protect freedom of religion. How one chooses to vote on a particular moral issue is based not only on ones faith, or lack thereof, but their culture, their moral code of ethics and their own personal judgment. Religion is only a fraction of what drives their decision.
Kolran Says: January 19th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Amazing post Tyra, to back up what you said “Separation of Church and State” was to keep the STATE from infringing on the beliefs of people, NOT to keep people’s beliefs out of the state. I am absolutely amazed that liberals use this phrase so… liberally…
-k.f.
The Other Side Says: January 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
looking at the wording in the constitution, i was wrong about separation of church and state. my bad.
but i still believe that his use of his religion is too pervasive. america is a democracy, not a theocracy (do you like how i exagerated huckabees statements and turned it into an extreme. its like tyra’s post about the slippery slope of same-sex marraige leading to beastiality and polygomy).
people can base their opinions on whatever they want. but through huckabee’s rhetoric it sounds like religion is his only rationale. and he’s not even trying to hide it. i know he’s pandering to the evangelical base. but his use of religion will destroy his campaign if he gets to the general election. people cannot be that extreme and expect to do well in an election. he’s beginning to sound like a loony religious zealot…kind of like tom cruise.
Tyra Says: January 20th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
How unfortunate it is that you are hearing only that Mike Huckabee is a man of faith. He is a masterful debator and has an interesting and thought provoking vision for America. Check out his blog to see that he is much more than just an ex-Baptist preacher. I’m not sure what religious rhetoric you are referring too since I haven’t heard any…at least not from his lips.
Furthermore, when I listen to the debates or other news interviews, it seems the only people who are bringing up the faith-card are the media or news comentators. Perhaps one should look inward and ask why a person of faith poses such a threat to a person who does not share the same faith. Also, why would someone hide the faith that defines them spiritually? If one is ashamed of their faith, then faith is not what they have but unbelief. I would rather someone be zealous in their beliefs than lukewarm; to me it shows true character. If Tom Cruise were running for President, he would get my vote based not only on his faith but what his vision for our country was, his political record, his moral and ethical opinions, whether or not I thought he was a man of integrity, who his advisors were, etc…To just focus on the faith-card, in my opinion, does not see the broad picture but a very narrow one.
nutslikebush Says: January 21st, 2008 at 4:14 am
It is to keep the state from imposing religion on people. Tyra’s position is one that has been popular lately. But it isn’t exactly the whole story. Our founding fathers knew that people would use any power leverage they could get, especially religion. And our founding fathers did not really trust Christianity in particular.
nutslikebush Says: January 21st, 2008 at 4:16 am
Many of the founding fathers were diests, not Christians. The form of Christianity that is practiced in the US today would have been very odd to the founding fathers. The evangelical version (though they think it is the original version) evolved in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about Christianity would shock you. Look them up for yourself and see.
Kolran Says: January 21st, 2008 at 6:54 am
Haha, they were rebels you know. They challenged everything, not just the british empire. It would make sense for them to challenge the church. Can we say what they really believed without asking them? Not really…
Tyra Says: January 21st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
My point was that if someone of faith (any faith) is running for office it becomes the focus; i.e. Kennedy’s Roman Catholism, Romney’s Mormanism, Huckabee’s Evanglicalism…especially to people that don’t share that faith or have no faith…instead of focusing on the big picture. To say that Huckabee is ONLY spewing out crazy religious rhetoric is just not true.
And Kolran is right, since our Founding Fathers are deceased, we can only go on what history tells us about them. In researching our Founding Fathers, the fact remains that they didn’t intend for America to be a secular society but a society that embraces the belief that God exists and is an intregal part of our moral and ethical decision making. The separation of Church and State was to protect religious beliefs so that EVERYONE can choose what to believe and what not to believe. The State was not to impose on religion but to let religion be what people choose. If they truly wanted us to be a secular and Godless society, then God would not have been mentioned in the Contitution, nor on our Money, nor in our Courts, etc…
nutslikebush Says: January 21st, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Tyra,
Many of our founding fathers wrote copiously about all sorts of matters, including religion. They left no doubt about some of their views. It is clear from his own writings that Thomas Jefferson would not be eligible to be president in the US today because of his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) would be unacceptable to the American voters. That is a shame and shows how far our country has fallen since its founding. I don’t think that the founding fathers could have anticipated that Christianity would have gone so viral in their country. Still they tried to build protections against it into the Constitution. Also take a look at the writings of Thomas Paine, a founding father whose writings played a key role in launching the revolutionary war and the founding ideas of our nation. If you haven’t read them, you should. His own words about Christianity would probably shock you. Here is an example from a letter he wrote to a friend who was trying to convince him that Christianity, and the Bible in particular, was good:
“When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.” Paine, like most of our founding fathers, was a deist, not a Christian, and saw the Bible and Christianity as a form of idolatry; the worship of images created by flawed human minds.
Our founding fathers’ religious views certainly would not fit in with today’s political climate; the idol worshipers have prevailed.
The Other Side Says: January 22nd, 2008 at 12:29 am
i find it ironic that in one breath tyra says that we don’t know what the founding fathers meant because we cannot ask them and then says “exactly” what they meant.
its just as important to protect the church from the state as it is to protect the state from the church. if the state imposes mandatory religion, then things get dangerous. if people are free to chose their own religion, then why should the state have any say in religoin?
if focusing on huckabee’s religion is so narrow minded, then describe his positions on foreign policy or the ecomony? he didn’t know that pakistan lifted its state of emergency. he is running purely on religion and is appealing to only one part of the gop. he’s fiscally liberalish (raised taxes as govenor) and populistish (speaks more to the people then to corporate america). look what happened to him in new hampshire, without the prominent evangelical base.
Tyra Says: January 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
John Adams wrote:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with passions unbridled by morality and religion.”
Thomas Jefferson, the man “blamed” for the wall of separation between church and state said:
“I have always said, and will always say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens.”
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
“No power over the freedom of religion . . .[is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
“I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.” Letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803
James Madison:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government…[but] upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
“Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”
John Quincy Adams:
“The greatest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
“No book in the world deserves to be so unceasingly studied, and so profoundly meditated upon as the Bible.”
“Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”
Abraham Lincoln:
“Unless the great God who assisted [President Washington], shall be with me and aid me, I must fail. But if the same omniscient mind, and Almighty arm, that directed and protected him, shall guide and support me, I shall not fail … Let us pray that the God of our fathers may not forsake us now.”
“Religion & virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.”
“Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.”
I found too many quotes to put on this post. As for what I like about Mike…like I said, he has a blog and he explains everything he stands for and what his vision for America is. Do I need to list them all? Some of them are: I like that he is a man of faith, but I also like that in Arkansas, whom hadn’t had a Republican Governor in many decades, brought about real change. I like that he’s willing to change our tax system, which is another debate in itself. No, he’s not perfect. He’s a flawed human being. If you find a perfect candidate, let me know.
Tyra Says: January 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I looked up Thomas Paine…not sure where you got your info…maybe leftest propaganda?
Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of…Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)
The only problem with the above statement as given is out of context. The Age of Reason was written to refute secular violence and terrorism of the French Revolution. But what did Paine really say? Here are some examples;
“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.”
“The moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral goodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation toward all his creatures. That seeing, as we daily do, the goodness of God to all men, it is an example calling upon all men to practice the same toward each other.”
“I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body” (Age of Reason).
“I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that he will dispose of me after this life consistently with his justice and goodness” (Private Thoughts on a Future State)
“We believe in the existence of a God, and in the immortality of the soul.”
“Were man impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of that belief; he would stand in awe of God and of himself, and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either. … This is Deism.”
Buck Says: January 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“I am a real Christian…sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.”
We’ll get to Thomas Paine in a minute, but the above is what Thomas Jefferson wrote to Benjamin Franklin. Sound like somebody who is anti-Christian to you?
Nuts, like all liberals, likes to cherry pick facts to prove their point. Take Jefferson for example. Jefferson had a devout beleif in the divine and insisted that our country could not prevail without God’s guidence. Jefferson’s problem was with the organized church and the powerful clergy. You have to remember that most of the populace was uneducated and clergy were usually the most educated people in town. Being fallable men, some, if not most of those clergy used their position to “rule” over their flock instead of guide them. Jefferson and others like him fled the mother country for the colonies precisely because the organized church was used more like a political institution and less like the divine body of Christ. Jefferson was a God-fearing man of Christ who prayed and read scripture daily.
As for Thomas Paine, he was a Quaker, a religious sect that makes Christianity look like playtime. Known as the Religious Society of Friends, Quakers beleive each member contains the “shining divine light.” Many Quakers now and at the time worshiped with no clergy because, like Jefferson, they beleived that the clergy, fallable man, stood between them and God as opposed to guiding them towards God.
Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were not anit-religious, they were anti-organized religion. They were also devout, devout believers in God and in Christ as the saviour. It is critical to understand their fundamental religious beliefs because it speaks to why they fought so hard to break free from English rule and establish a new country. A country where they were free worship without a powerful, government run church like the Anglican Church of England, lording over them in the name of God.
Kolran Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 am
“its just as important to protect the church from the state as it is to protect the state from the church. if the state imposes mandatory religion, then things get dangerous. if people are free to chose their own religion, then why should the state have any say in religoin?” - The Other Side
Can anyone tell me what the HECK this is saying? This has got to confuse even the guy who posted it. Read it. Yes, we need to “protect the state from the church and protect the church from the state”. We DON’T need to protect the state from religious beliefs. The “church” is referring to organized religion, not what we believe in our hearts and minds. Trying to keep “beliefs” out of the church is pure propaganda, it simply cannot be done. It is one of those liberal “hypotheticals” for a perfect world. In other words, this would work if everyone was devoid of desires, moral, and emotion. If we were robots it would work. Even Atheism, by it’s very nature is a belief. By putting Atheism in charge of the church we would effectively be putting a “Church” in charge of the state. The reason I can say this is because other “beliefs” would not be permitted. There for our government would be nothing more than an organized ‘anti- religion’ (which in itself is a religion) church. If this ever happens, the liberals have won.
So yes, beliefs will always dictate our choices, and the day they don’t is the day a single religion controls the state.
Hope you could follow that.
-Kolran Fett
nutslikebush Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 3:26 am
Buck and Tyra,
As you know, I personally agree with you that the Bible is a wonderful collection of interesting and insightful books. But what I said about the founders is true too. You probably know that Jefferson did not believe in miracles and deleted them all from the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson was a Deist Unitarian. His views intrigue me and appeal to me in certain ways (I am a Unitarian too, you might have guessed - after first training to be a Baptist minister). Thomas Paine, on the other hand, certainly thought that the Bible was a closer to the work of a devil than a god. His form of deism appeals to me too. I read his work pretty carefully as a college student (30 years ago).
nutslikebush Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 am
I wonder if atheism is the deepest, most profound religious experience that it is possible to have? I am not an atheist, by the classical definition. But I am solidly planted in the middle of agnosticism (I simply don’t know how you could ever say for sure what the God could be like or if there is one). Honesty forces me into this situation. I think that the founding fathers were right there with me too.
Tyra Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Again, the point that we are trying to make is not what sect of Christianity Jefferson (or any other founding father) was but that their spiritual life was obviously very important to them and helped to inspire the Constitution.
Also, the bible is not just a wonderful collection of interesting and insightful books, but the True Word of God. Why and how can we believe this? This is from one of my favorite websites called http://www.gotquestions.org:
Buck Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Nuts,
All Christians have struggled with those questions. Is there really a God? What is he like? Faith is the key. Athiesm and Agnostism don’t require faith. In fact they don’t require much of anything at all. How could something so easy to do be deep and profound?
I have never seen God. I have never seen Jesus, but I have faith. It took a long time of fighting with my intellect before I was able to allow faith into my heart and mind.
Let go of your reasoning. Reason cannot explain the universe. Reason cannot explain concepts like time and infinity. Why then should you demand that reason explain God? Let go of your reason, ask God to enter your heart and then through faith, you’ll see what a profound religious experience truly is.
tom Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
i don’t like mike
Kolran Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Right, nuts, so just because you can’t see it, you can’t believe in it.
nutslikebush Says: January 24th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Buck,
Christianity depicts God as such a strange, weird, imagined being. It seems exactly like the concept of god that one would expect of primitive, pastoral people and inherited from the tribal traditions of the pre-historic middle east.
As for atheistist/agnostics - I think they are the most sincerely religious people of all. They reject images of God, just like Abraham did (he was certainly the first atheist/agnostic to appear in the Bible). As I have come to understand thoughtful atheists and agnostics, it isn’t that they don’t believe that God doesn’t exist, they believe that ONLY God exists. That all of Being is God, including you and I and everything else in the universe.
The Judeo-Christian tale intrigued me since childhood and as I have said here before, I was first trained to as a minister and, if I do say so myself, I was quite a popular speaker and teacher at several churches. But as I matured and immersed myself examining the messages of the Bible, I became convinced that the images that we have in our mind of God suffer from precisely the same problems that Abraham complained about regarding graven images - they are products of the limited human imagination. The Bible is even a graven image, as is the cross. Even the concept of Jesus is, functionally, a graven image. These images limit our contemplation the divine. It is images, beliefs about God, that we have to let go of in order to contemplate the reality that Abraham contemplated. Jesus also had a key idea - I am the Son of Man. He wasn’t just talking about himself. The gospel (i.e., good news) is that to be human is to be divine. I am what I am. I will be what I will be: that is how Moses described God. The beauty of the initial Abrahamic insight was that God was un-nameable and indescribable (and then they commenced immediately to name their god Yahweh, obviously violating the founding principle of the religion). I have taken the Abrahamic leap. So I can no longer worship any image of God, whether it is generated in my own head or anyone else’s. Thus I dwell in God.
The Other Side Says: January 24th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
faith is the basis of religion. the bible sets out passages to further engrain the belief of god and moral living. but to say that its unequivicolly the word of god is faith, not fact.
tyra lays out “evidence” proving the bible’s predictive qualities relating to the life of jesus. but tyra used the passages from old testament of the bible to prove passages from the new testament of the bible. scientifically, you cannot use the subject you’re testing as evidence. furthermore, tyra uses the integraty of the authors to show the fact of the bible being the word of god. but many people are willing to die for what they believe in. if the issue strikes a person in a meaningful way, they will fight to the death for it. while that devotion is admirable, its not proof.
the amazing thing about the bible is that people can find a passage that they need to further their cause. for instance, people against homosexuality use the bible to demonize a section of our society. but the bible says that a homosexual act is a sin. as a result, homosexuals should be forgiven not scorned. this passage is found deep in the bible, not like the ten commandments. thou shalt not commit adultery seems to be more accepted today than homosexuality even though former is expressed in the ten commandments while the latter is found in obscurity. if you have a concise issue, you can find a vague passage to add to the argument.
if the evidence that tyra laid out proves, in tyra’s mind, that the bible is the word of god, then it shows how some people view science. no hypothesis can be proven, only disproven. you can find more and more evidence but that only means the probability of the hypothesis being correct increases. tyra’s “facts” are based on faith, which works for tyra. but some people don’t share that strong of belief. the words of the bible may have stayed the same, but people’s reading of the bible and society has changed. as a result, those who take the bible literally may need to change their expression of their beliefs to better display their message.
The Other Side Says: January 24th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
also, what do the religious beliefs of our founding fathers add to the discussion of current politics? the culture of america has changed in 250 years. therefore the debatable words of our founders mean differently when placed in today’s context than in 1776.
Buck Says: January 24th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
My father, a minister, used a great illustration in one of his sermons. He took all the parts of a watch and put them in a paper sack and had someone shake them over and over again. Checking after each shake, to see if the parts had somehow come together to form a working timepiece. They never did.
That watch illustrates the agnostic/athiestic belief that we are mere random creations from the cosmic soup. That somehow the this electron and that proton got “shook up” and led to the creation of life and then billions of years of evolution and random selection, led to me sitting at a computer writing about the meaning of man’s existence.
Right…and you think me “tribal and primative” for my belief in a creator?
You know what? No matter how many times the parts got shaken, they never fell together just right to form a watch. While I will certainly agree that man has clouded the image of God, that doesn’t mean God does not exist. Religion, i.e. man, has given God a bad name.
Nuts, you say that to be human is to be divine but isn’t that just mere self-worship with no acountability?
I will say again. Reason, logic and science cannot explain the universe or our existence. I do not pretend that we are capable of understanding all the mysteries of God but Christianity provides the pathway to true divinity in our lives. It is the path I have chosen.
You might think that your self-awarness is like the watch that finally fell together but isn’t it amazing that in your self-awarness, you still have to choose to believe or not to believe in a divine creator.
Joy Says: January 24th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Lefty, (aka nlb)
I respectfully differ as I see in the whole context of the Bible that God is an eternal, holy, righteous, merciful, just, loving Creator Who created us. Here are statements from the Bible, two of them made by Jesus, that clearly refute the mindset of us being God:
“I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me” (Jesus Christ)
“Before Abraham was, I AM” (Jesus Christ)
“Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world!” (John ‘the baptist’ referring to Jesus, who did not correct him as it was true)
In reference to the comment that everything is god…
“…men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” (the mindset that”all of ‘Being’ is God, including you and I and everything else in the universe” fits this category)
“…They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator…”
This includes calling ourselves and created things “God”.
Abraham did not worship himself, the trees, the creation in any form, or the universe. He worshipped and showed great reverence to a single God who was involved personally in Abrahams life. Abraham was not talking with himself when he prayed. He didn’t disobey himself when he took Hagar or gave Sarah away to the Pharoah of the time. No part of the universe came to pharoah in a dream and told him that he was a dead man if he touched Sarah.
It is a forked (knowingly or unkowingly) tongue that talks about Abraham’s leap, yet discounts the Bible itself as an ‘idol’. One who believes that everything is god wouldn’t give a rip about Abraham or claim to be like him, as Abraham obiviously was the antithesis of the agnostic/athiest that you describe.
One last thought,
“I am the vine, you are the branches. Apart from Me you can do nothing”
(Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Who was and is and is to come)
If there is no perfect and holy God, there is no divine.
Tyra Says: January 24th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Nuts,
Your view and interpretation of the bible, it seems, has nothing to do with a relationship with Jesus Christ, but what YOU want it to be; not what IT IS. My neighbors are Unitarians and I consider them very good friends. I have visited their church one time to hear another friend speak. The problem I have with this religion is that there is no direction. Whatever you want to believe or disbelieve is okay. Intollerance is about the only “forbidden” in the church. My assumption, from talking to other members, was that most of them came from conservative, christian upbringings. Since most of the individuals are liberal and couldn’t rationalize what the bible has to say about homosexuality or abortion, premarital sex, etc…they chose to find a religion that embraces their views. However, you can’t say you are Buddahists and Christian in the same breath. Either Jesus is the son of God or he isn’t. Either there is ONE God or their isn’t. As far as God being in everyone…When man creates the Universe and becomes infallable and immortal or when evil ceases to exits, then we can talk about that rationale.
Since faith cannot be proven, I suppose no one can truly know who’s right or wrong. My prayer for us all is in the end, we will find the truth.
nutslikebush Says: January 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Tyra,
The human authors, and later editors, of the bible got to pick and choose what they wrote and put it. The stories of the old testament were passed down orally for thousands of years (we know that many of them were Mesopotamian myths and Zoroastrian stories before they were adapted by the early tribes of Israel) and the new testament stories were not written until many decades after Jesus’s death. After a large body of texts were produced, many of which disagreed with each other considerably, more than a century after the authors and all witnesses to the events in question had died, the authorities of the church selected a subset of the texts that were circulating at the time to be part of the church doctrine and omitted other texts (e.g., the gnostic gospels). So there has always been a lot of picking and choosing going on. I do indeed that my mind is as well suited for selecting my religious beliefs as the authors of the stories in the bible was - they are my equals.
As for god being in everyone: according to the gospels, the people who wanted Jesus killed were outraged by the fact that Jesus believed that a human could be God. So you agree with Jesus’s killers and I agree with Jesus. Ironic isn’t it?
On the matter of faith - there are so many different religious beliefs that all make the same claim that they are the only one that is true. If a missionary for Islam, Scientology, Mormonism, the Unification Church, or Christianity shows up at my door which should I choose and why? They all would like for me to just have faith in their teachings. But they are in conflict with each other and I can’t believe them all, can I? Now if I have to choose between them I will have to apply some rational process and try to evaluate some facts that distinguish their probabilities of being true. At that point, faith is of little use and the rational mind is all you have to work with. Faith would be flipping a coin (or listening to the little voice in one’s head that has a lousy track record of making the right call). But once you pull on the thread of rationality the standard stories of religion unravel. The amazingly cool thing is that they become so much more interesting, enriching, and valuable once they are unraveled and you see the deeper human story within them. But you have to reweave the story for yourself from the threads of the old religion (that is exactly what Jesus did, by the way). I agree with Thomas Jefferson’s view that the magical thinking cheapens the moral teachings of the bible. If you need the miracles, heaven, and bullying threats that the human authors slipped into the bible then you don’t get it anyway.
As for the relationship with Jesus Christ that you said I omitted: He and I are One. No man can come to the father, except through me. That is what I believe.
nutslikebush Says: January 26th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Buck,
Who said I didn’t believe in a divine creator? I certainly didn’t say that. I just don’t believe in human created (including any I generate on my own) images of that God. I believe that most astonishing thing that we can contemplate is the fact that there is something and not nothing. That is enough for me. I am perfectly comfortable living within that mystery and don’t require any contrived solutions to it. Why not believe that to be conscious is to be dwelling within the mind of God?
As for accountability, I don’t think morality has one single thing to do with religious beliefs. The most moral and responsible people I know don’t believe any traditional religions and the most immoral people that I know do believe traditional religions. Religion doesn’t really help on the accountability/morality front. Morality is a social/cultural construct and your society and culture will hold you accountable for your actions in their own ways.
nutslikebush Says: January 26th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Tyra,
Jesus, after more than 4 decades contemplating it, I sincerely do believe that Jesus was more like a Buddhist (a al the Dali Lama) than he was like a modern Christian. The sort of christianity that is practiced in mainstream churches is precisely what Jesus would be (is) against today. It is the mainstream christians (especially the evangelicals) that would be his primary adversary, just as the Jews were bothered by his beliefs 2000 years ago. Remember the story of the good Samaritan? The story is the essence of his teaching - always put mercy and compassion above religion. Always put your fellow man before yourself, your group, your country. In other words, Jesus would have been the object of much ridicule on conservative talk radio. The Rush Limbaugh types and their followers have no chance of ever understanding the best messages of Jesus.
nutslikebush Says: January 26th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Buck,
I have always thought that the blind watchmaker argument was sophomoric. It was a weak argument even when William Paley used it in the 1800s. It was silly then and even sillier now that we have an understanding of how species evolved.
The Other Side Says: January 26th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
the unfortunate thing about this post is that it trivializes huckabee’s lack of foreign policy experience. saying that no other candidate has enough experience or saying that the candidate needs to learn on the job denies the importance of foreign policy.
we have two wars, iraq and afghanistan, political unrest in pakistan, the growth of russia, humanitarian needs in gaza, china, north korea, etc. in general, america needs knowledge while dealing with the world.
bush seems to care more about photo-ops and legacy than substinative deplomacy, just look at his recent trip to the middle east. how could he support saudi arabia, who has far worse human rights than iran, with an arms deal? oh yeah, the oil and personal history trumps america’s needs. bush has alienated allies and pissed off the middle east, al-qaeda is more emboldened than ever. as a result, the next president will need to do damage control with allies while trying to stabilize the middle east.
in the last debate, huckabee used the frequently debunked notion of wmds to rationalize the invasion of iraq. that couple with other miss-steps, not knowing about pakistan, should be important while looking at each candidate. foreign policy experience should be near the top of the list of credentials for the next president, with the economy. both of those issues aren’t huckabee’s strong suit. voting for him based on his personality isn’t good. we can’t have someone learn on the job because there is too much to do from the very beginning.
buck Says: January 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Nuts, the one scientific theory or concept that deeply intrigued me the first time I heard it was the Heisenberg Uncertainty Theory and it’s cousin the obsever effect. I’m sure you’re familiar with the idea that we can’t really measure, observe or even contemplate anything, without altering it by those same acts. You seem to be implying the same thing about God. That even you can’t contemplate God or the divine within you, without altering it’s true essence, meaning there can never be truth. You’re good with that? You’re good with knowing that there’s something divine?
I don’t know your friends, but I know, unequivicably, the finest, most moral people I have ever known are Christians. Christians, who like me, are not perfect and often make mistakes.
Modern society’s morality is, as a point of fact, derived from religious traditions. In every culture on earth, in all of recorded history,belief in God or “the gods” has guided the cultural moral compass of the people. Those religious beliefs have evolved into laws but their derivation cannot be disputed.
Good Lord, how did this string of discussion start anyway?
The Other Side Says: January 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
because religion is based on faith and science is based on fact, the two cannot be used together. science cannot be implanted into religion, e.g. intelligent design. there is nothing scientific about religion. no hypothesis or any way to tangibly measure data. and thats okay. but people still use science, pretty poorly, to further their religious beliefs. and thats miss-leading.
buck Says: January 26th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Nuts,
Of course YOU would think the blind watchmaker theory sophmoric. It would be impossible for you not to, looking down your nose as you do.
Intellectuals find their comfort in rational and reasonable explinations for everything. Being better educated and smarter is how snobby elitists justify the need to direct the lowly masses.
As a Christian I look upon the bible as the divine word of God, delivered through man. The cannonization process, the addition or exclusion of certain books and writings, the translations, all these processes were directed by God and divinely inspired in order to deliver the book God wanted us to have as a blueprint for life.
It is THE ultimate guide on how to live, proven by it’s longevity, popularity and imitation by others. It is the perversion of the Word, by man, that Jesus would object to today.
Tyra Says: January 27th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Nuts and the Other Side,
WHEW! Your mind’s are made up and only the Holy Spirit can change them. I sincerely pray blessings over you and that the eyes of your hearts will be opened. Your words have only increased my faith but my heart aches for your foolishness. Please understand, I do not say this out of self-righteousness, for I am nothing without my Heavenly Father, but out of sadness for your utter ignorance of what Jesus is all about. Unfortunately, we’ve all been ignorant at times, and thankfully, He meets us where we are.
I am proud we can live in a country where we are free to choose what spiritual path to choose. I am proud that we can have this discussion without fear of Government interference. I am thankful I live in America.
Kolran Says: January 27th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Wasn’t it Shakespear or somebody like him who said something like “I am smarter than you because I can admit that I know practically nothing.” Sorry, I couldn’t find it. I heard it like three years ago and now can’t remember who said it. Was it Galileo?
Emory Says: January 27th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Kolran, maybe you are thinking of Socrates who Plato quoted as saying:
“I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.”
nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
The watchmaker theory is sophomoric in the classic sense of the term. People who use it think it is wise and cleaver, but they haven’t thought it through. Even the watch evolved in gradual steps. Watches weren’t invented by intelligent beings in a single move but developed very gradually in a step-by-step fashion. When you take a watch apart now and expect it to fall back together and say “look this thing could never have evolved because it didn’t when I put it in a bag and shook it up.” But if you go back and look at the history of the evolution of time pieces, certain designs propagated and others went extinct. There was a selection process going on. Now in nature the selection process is not random at all - alleles that are carried by the most successful reproducers are more widely represented in the gene pool over each generation. And the history of our evolution, and our relationship with all other species, is plainly recorded in the genome. Our ability to read the genome has erased all rational doubt about the origin of species. That is the most powerful discovery in human history.
nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Buck,
I wasn’t trying to change anyones mind about their religion. I do think it is interesting though how upset you guys get about my religious views and seem so determined to convince me that I am wrong. But without the tools of reason and solid rules of evidence, you have no means to accomplish your aim. Traditionally, Christianity has confronted such problems by bullying the rational people. Like Tyra, I celebrate the fact that those days are over (at least for now - but we must fight to defend our ground on this issues) in some parts of the USA.
nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Anyhow, what I really came here today to do, though, was to post links to a podcast (Common Sense) and a videocast (Fact Check) that I hope some of you find interesting. The last segment of the Common Sense podcast is particularly interesting today.
factcheck.org/just-the-facts/episode_1.html
cdn.libsyn.com/dancarlin/cswdcb17.mp3
nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Buck,
You are right, the strings here are wild. But its fun to shoot the s*** with people I don’t know.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that we cannot simultaneously determine the position and velocity of a particle. Strange as it seems, that basic principle (or the math behind it) led to Schrodenger’s thought experiment - the Dead/Alive cat - whose fate is not determined until the observation is made, which led to the infinite parallel universes notion etc. In other words, the math of Quantum mechanics produces some strange and nonintuitive predictions about the behavior of matter at the sub-atomic level. If empirical tests of the predictions of QM weren’t accurate out to the ninth decimal place I would think these people were crazy. But they make extemely accurate predictions about sub-atomic phenomena.
All of that having been said, QM physicists tell us that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle only applies at the sub-atomic level - so the universe is probably here whether or not it is observed by your or me.
From the perspective of a neuroscientist, however, it seems that our perceptions of our world are only partial representations of the physical universe that we live in and that our brains CREATE all of the perceptual properties (color, shape, motion, odor, texture, temperature, etc) in the networks of the 100 billion neurons within our skulls. Our experiences are symbolic representations of aspects of the physical world that we need to know about in order to survive. Our brains are continuously managing and reducing information by categorizing and abstracting. That is why religion appeals to people, in my opinion. It gives them an interpretive framework on which to hang all of the information that they encounter in everyday life. If there is no good place on one’s framework for certain facts, they are discarded (forgotten or overlooked). For me, as an educator/scientist, the goal of education is to help people build frameworks that are complex enough to construct ever more detailed pictures of reality. No doubt, that makes traditionalist uncomfortable because the tacit assumption is that our traditions are yesterday’s news and they are no longer satisfactory. I am never happier than when I encounter knowledge that shatters my current belief system and demands that I rebuild a better one. In that respect, the authors of Genesis were right, once you eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge “your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.” Sorry if I am freaking you guys out. I am sure your think I am some sort of evil spirit or maybe even SATAN. Shalom.
nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
position and momentum. I should proof read before hitting the post button.
nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Buck,
If you are really interested in some of the fun things that physicists are teaching us about reality, check out the last half of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast (this week’s episode). I listened to it while I did some chores around my property this morning and thought you might like it.
cdn.libsyn.com/skepticsguide/skepticast2008-01-23.mp3
nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Emory: You nailed it.
Socrates said that during his defense trial (Kolran, you might enjoy reading Socrates Apology by Plato - it is fantastic). The Oracle at Delphi had told Socrates that he was the wisest of all mortals. He didn’t believe her and he spent his life (after some heroics as an Athenian soldier) trying to prove the Oracle wrong. He would discuss topics with experts on politics and religion in the hopes that they would prove wiser than he. After a life spent challenging authority, he said, he realized that the Oracle was right. He plead ignorance about many issues (I think he was faking it) and he said that as an agnostic at least he knew that he did not know and did not claim to know what he could not know. Remember what the Athenian court convicted him of? Impiety. The first martyr for wisdom and knowledge that history recorded. In fairness to the Athenians, they probably wouldn’t have sentenced him to death had he not continued to taunt them after his conviction. During his sentencing hearing he told them that his sentence should be free dinners for life and that they owed him a great debt for annoying them by challenging their fundamental beliefs. In fact, he said that his job was to be a gad fly and not let them be comfortable with their beliefs - to poke them when they seemed settled into a dogma. People hate it when folks like Socrates and Jesus show up because they want to just drift deeper and deeper into their dogmatic dream worlds.
where the hell did you get a name like that? Says: January 27th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Thank you for that quote Emory. I’ll remember that. nutslikebush, that’s alot of posts… You should be a politician. You effectively brought up several invalid points to confuse a reader into thinking your reasoning is valid. And then backing up those invalid points with invalid information. Your 1:58 P.M. post looked as if you’d had too much to drink, because you were wandering all over the topic. I’m not sure you meant to sound as radical as you did. As for the last line in your post, have you ever heard of blissfully ignorant? And if we’re quoting the bible (I’m not extremely biblical) I believe there is a line that says something like “only the innocent children shall inherit gods kingdom”. So, is knowledge always better? Sure it could fuel scientific advancement, but ultimately we all live and die (no added amount of years will change that). Do we need to expierience what it’s like to do some things? Fight in a war? Kill people? Do we HAVE to have power and knowledge? It’s dangerous. Ask Albert Einstein. If he would have known the Germans would have no way of inventing such a weapon, would have he have given his data to the American government? Would there even have been a war on such a massive scale had it not been for globalization? Can anyone answer any of these questions? I’m going the radical opposite of nutslikebush and sounding Omish, almost, but somebody has to. Technology in itself isn’t evil. But the fact that it gives people power is evil.
You made one very clear point. “your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods” Liberals have taken that to heart. They serve no creator. The earth is warming, trust someone who created us? NO, we must freeze all the water at the poles. The very Idea that we could affect the planet is preposterous. I suppose next thing we know we will be affecting the earths orbit…
The Other Side Says: January 28th, 2008 at 7:26 am
where the hell did you get a name like that, its like you’re trying to fuel a debate on global warming with the ending of your last post.
if relying purely on information is dangerous, then so too is the opposite. do you actually put your trust into someone who created us? so no matter what humans do, in the end a higher power will save our asses? i suppose the next thing we know the higher power will reconcile sunnis and shia in iraq so we can get the hell out…
nutslikebush Says: January 29th, 2008 at 4:28 am
where the hell did you get a name like that?,
And you consider me incoherent? Now that is the pot calling the kettle black.
Buck Says: January 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Hey, nobody should get high and post on this site! We should make a law against B.U.I., Blogging Under the Influence. Instead of blowing into a breath-a-lyzer you would have to conjugate a verb.
Tyra Says: January 30th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Buck…Ha…ha..I’m soooo laughing at your last post! As I’ve been reading these last few posts, I’ve been wondering what drug this person is on. Thanks for making me laugh.
Nuts:
“do you actually put your trust into someone who created us? so no matter what humans do, in the end a higher power will save our asses? i suppose the next thing we know the higher power will reconcile sunnis and shia in iraq so we can get the hell out…”
Actually, it’s our choice whether or not we want to save ourselves, Jesus already did that for us. All we have to do is receive it. Since God created us to have free will, ultimately it is up to us, not Him. He already did the work for us by sending us a Savior. Whether or not we choose Him is our decision. As far as Iraq is concerned…well, it’s biblical…they are worshiping a false God, for starters…they are enemies of Israel…they are choosing their own will instead of following God’s will. Unfortunately, if America allows the secular mindset to reign over us…well…God helps us!
Kolran Says: January 30th, 2008 at 12:54 am
I like that Idea so far I know how to conjugate to past, present, and future…
nutslikebush Says: February 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 am
Buck,
Just checked in for the first time in a while (I’ve been insanely busy trying to stoke the US economy and help Big Pharma make a breakthrough). Your comment was truly funny.
Tyra,
Most liberals in the US are Christians and believe that Jesus is their Savior just as strongly as any conservative does. I would think that that fact alone would make conservative Christians see liberal Christians as their brothers and sisters in Christ (in fact, Jesus was a liberal - no doubt about that if you know anything at all about the Bible.).
I am different though. I know the Christian story inside out. In fact, when I get into conversations about religion with believers I inevitably know more about their religion than they do, perhaps because I majored in religious studies and then went to seminary and then served as a Baptist pastor for several years. But currently, I can’t take the notion of a personal god seriously or a higher power etc.
To jump to a topic that you seem plainly confused about - Muslims worship the god of Abraham my friend, as you supposedly do as a Christian. They believe that Allah (aka, Jehovah or Yahweh) is one god. The degree to which Americans are ignorant about the world never ceases to amaze me. It is so easy to get an education this day and age and yet you let yourself live in the dark ages. Tyra, you have to at least try a little. Lift yourself up and put some effort into learning about this world that we live in. If more people do this, I am convinced that we won’t make the same sort of ignorant mistake we made in the last presidential election. The unfortunate fact is we got the government that we (collectively) deserve. I want us to deserve a better one.
Tyra Says: February 8th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Nuts,
You may think you know the whole Christian story because you went to seminary and were a preacher; however, your words do not reflect the Jesus or the Holy Bible that God inspired. It doesn’t matter how educated you think you are, if the Holy Spirit didn’t reveal it’s truth to you, it doesn’t matter if you are Einstein or Rain Man.
In liberal Christian teaching, man’s reason is stressed and is treated as the final judge. Liberal Christian theologians sought to reconcile Christianity with secular science and “modern thinking.” In doing so, they treat science as “all-knowing” and the Bible as fable-laden and false. Genesis’ early chapters are reduced to poetry or fantasy, having a message, but not to be taken literally (in spite of Jesus’ having spoken of those early chapters in literal terms). Mankind is not seen as totally depraved, and thus liberal theologians had an optimistic view of the future of mankind. The “social gospel” is also emphasized. Whether a person is saved from their sin and its penalty in hell was no longer the issue; the main thing was how man treated his fellow man. “Love” of our fellow man became the defining issue. As a result of this “reasoning” by liberal theologians, the following doctrines are taught by liberal Christianity:
There are many pronouncements of Scripture against those who would deny the deity of Christ (2 Peter 2:1) (which liberal Christianity does); who would preach another gospel than that which was preached by the apostles (Galatians 1:8) (which is what the liberal theologians do in denying the necessity of Christ’s atoning death and preach a social gospel in its place). The Bible condemns those who call good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20) (which some liberal churches do by embracing homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle while the Bible repeatedly condemns its practice).
Scripture speaks against those who would cry “peace, peace” when there is no peace (Jeremiah 6:14) (which liberal theologians do by saying that man can attain peace with God apart from Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and that man need not worry about a future judgment before God). The Word of God speaks of a time when men will have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof (2 Timothy 3:5) (which is what liberal theology does in that is says that there is some inner goodness in man that does not require a rebirth by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ). And it speaks against those who would serve idols instead of the one true God (1 Chronicles 16:26) (which liberal Christianity does in that it creates a false god according to its own liking rather than worshiping the God as He is described in the whole of the Bible).
Believing that Muslims and Christians serve the same is God is just not true. There is no other religion in the world besides Christianity that has a savior whom died for the sins of mankind, and through faith alone, not on works, but grace, can come to know our Heavenly Father. Muslims reject God the Father who sent His Son to die for sinners. While Muslims honor Jesus as a noble prophet, they depend on Islamic works and faith – submission to one Allah, belief in Muhammad, and obedience to the Qur’an – for entrance to paradise. Many Muslims believe that Christians worship three gods, deify a man (Jesus), and tamper with the biblical text. Most of them deny both the necessity and historicity of Christ’s death.
As for Jesus being a liberal…well, you are correct that he was for the underdog, for peace, for love, etc…if this is your view of Liberalism; however, Jesus knew to whom He belonged to and to whom He answered. He absolutely said to “love our neighbors as ourselves” but He also said to turn away from sin. The modern Democrats of today appear to get their answers and values from their own intellect, judgments and reasoning and reject the teachings of the bible as the “dark-ages” or “fables”. This is vastly different from Jesus’ teachings in the bible. Jesus does not approve of abortion because it is murder. Jesus does not approve of homosexuality because it is sin. Although Jesus very much sought out the “underdog” He also wanted them to “die” of themselves and be a “new” creation in Him. The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). I believe this should apply to political leaders as well. If a politician is going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, he or she must have a basic morality on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make.
My hope is that I have somehow made you realize that I’m not against you, my brother, but against the lies that are feeding our world, our politics and our lives. Blessings…
ccbhomes Says: February 13th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Still waiting on NLB’s retort……:-)
nutslikebush Says: February 14th, 2008 at 3:25 am
ccbhomes, I can’t follow the conversations at this site any more. what exactly were you waiting for a rebuttal to?
Tyra, why should I not believe that your understanding of Christianity (and even Christianity itself) is not pure nonsense and fantasy? I would love to be convinced, it would simplify life greatly if it what you believed was true. I just honestly don’t think it is. Of course, everyone thinks that their religion is the one true religion (even though most people just fell into their religion by the accident of being born into a particular culture). In the end, discussions about the truth of any particular religion is just a dead end. I love thinking about what you might call religious questions and some people have beautiful interpretations of religions that deeply fascinate me.
Here’s one.
speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/
check out “Remembering Forward” it is beautiful and really speaks to me. This week’s episode was fascinating too - they all are.
nutslikebush Says: February 14th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Tyra,
Show me where Jesus mentions homosexuality or abortion. That was a rhetorical request. According to the New Testament, which is undoubtedly and incomplete and flawed story about his teachings, he never mentions either abortion or homosexuality. You have to get that non-sense from the Old Testament - which also teaches much other insane stuff - like stoning adulterer’s, like the host of this site, and killing your children for disobeying their parents. I’m thinking that book is not such a good moral guide and the pathetically jealous God depicted represents the immature minds and imaginations of the authors who used tyrants as their model for the divine.
ccbhomes Says: February 14th, 2008 at 4:58 am
NLB- Whether or not I agree with Tyra is beside the point. I did, however, glean a fresh perspective from one who is seemingly open mindedly presenting facts as she has garnered them. In other words, I was awaiting a thoughtful, eloquent response to Tyra’s last entry from you. Instead I found your comments to be vague and somewhat over simplified.
Perhaps you failed to notice, but she did say, and I quote “In liberal Christian teaching, man’s reason is stressed and is treated as the final judge.” She obviously did not use this as an argument to support her belief’s, but it is certainly a basis to support yours.
Personally, I am still trying to figure out the “ultimate question:. I appreciate everyone’s comments.
nutslikebush Says: February 14th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
CCBhomes.
I would say that man’s reason is not to be stressed and treated as the final judge. Rather, I would say that we should stand before existence in a state of humility and acknowledge that we do not understand it. I see it as an act of arrogance to claim that a particular religion has a special understanding of truth and reality. It is that arrogance that I reject. I embrace the unknown instead and stand before it humbled, claiming no special knowledge.
ccbhomes Says: February 15th, 2008 at 4:41 am
NLB,
That was concise and direct. Thanks.
I can appreciate the seeming arrogance in the belief that a particular religion “knows” the absolute truth. I also understand that that is where faith takes over in knowing what I think can not be known until one passes.
Just a point I ponder….. I have found many people of faith who have not seemed to be arrogant. I have had some great conversations with door to door evangelists who, while obviously claiming they have the “special understanding”, seemed more interested in a polite discourse sharing views and questions. (or maybe I’ve just been lucky !)
Also—Contained within different religions are their own particular rules for living. i.e. Christians have the 10 commandments, Buddists, the sanctity of life etc…. Question to all, In the absence of a faith-based belief, then can “man’s reason be stressed and is treated as the final judge” as would pertain to the issue of right vs. wrong here within these earthly bounds?
Emory Says: February 15th, 2008 at 5:44 am
nutslikebush, in my opinion, if someone knows something to be true, it does not in itself make the person arrogant.
Tyra Says: February 15th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Nuts,
It’s interesting that you view me as arrognant when you yourself depend soley on your own understanding or lack thereof. Again, having an encounter with the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with your education (or lack thereof), your ethnic background, your culture, etc…but has EVERYTHING to do with just an overwheliming realization about the supernatural world revealed by the Holy Spirit. I am nobody special. Before I decided to stay home with our children, I was a court reporter, which may not be a rocket scientist, but nevertheless does require educational training and a fair amount of intelligence. However, on my spiritual journey, I have discovered that I do not want to be judged by the world’s standards but only by God’s standards. I do not have the answers, but depend soley on the Word of God, prayer and worship to guide me and influence my understanding of the Supernatural world.
In the book of Romans, Paul is planning a mission trip to Spain and writes a letter to introduce himself to the church at Rome. In it he summarizes what he has been preaching about sin, Christ, and the way to salvation. Everything you need to know about God’s great plan for redemption lies in these sixteen chapters. Homosexuality is mentioned in Romans 1:24-27: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abondoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themsleves the due penalty for their perversion.”
The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of abortion. However, there are numerous teachings in Scripture that make it abundantly clear what God’s view of abortion is. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He knits us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as the penalty for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb as just as much of a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6).
The Old Testament is full of barbaric and cruel laws; however, they were the result of man’s law, not Gods…this is why the Ten Commandments was written. Since Christ died for the sin’s of mankind, we are not bound by the law but by grace. However, sin is still sin. Lying is no worse a sin than murder. Murder is no worse a sin than adultry, etc… I chose to write about homosexuality and abortion because these are just two examples of the very different view points that the liberals and conservatives have concerning our laws or what direction America should take.
I am currently studying the book of Daniel in a bible group. Even though that time period happened around 605 B.C. it’s amazing how much those times resemble the very times we are living. Babylon was very much like our own self-absorped, self-indulgent, selfish culture. “I Am and There Is No Other” attitude. The highest theme of the Book of Daniel is undoubtedly the sovereignty of God. God’s sovreignty means that He has supremacy over all things and does whatever He desires with whomever or whatever He pleases. He is no less in charge when the world seems in chaos and history is not a cyclical process of endless repetition; history is being moved toward the predetermined end. That being said, only God knows what direction our country will ultimately take. My purpose in this world is to ultimately bring glory to my creator so I will stand firm in my convictions and resolve to leave it to His will.
Blessings to you all!
nutslikebush Says: February 15th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
ccbhomes: One certainly can be humble on the surface and still harbor the ultimate arrogance of believing they have access to revealed truth. Arrogance is not necessarily an overt attitude. I want to rid myself of the arrogance of the true believer (which I once was).
As for the Buddhist notion that you mentioned - indeed, Buddhism’s fundamental tenet is that our fundamental grasp of reality, as humans, is a distortion. The goal is to become awakened.
Emory: Belief and faith are fundamentally different. Faith is the acceptance of things as they are, no matter how things turn out in the end. Belief is commitment to the proposition that things will turn out in a certain way. I think belief in religion is arrogant, whereas faith is humble.
ccbhomes Says: February 17th, 2008 at 7:42 am
NLB— After re-reading my entry to you, I realized that that would be your answer.
I notice that much of the disputed matter, in this discourse, hinges upon semantics and definition.
Perhaps the “ultimate arrogance of believing they have access to revealed truth” is an issue significant to you because of your experiences. As I mentioned before, and shall now amend….So what if a person is humble on the surface yet maintains the premise (you define arrogance) that they have access to the revealed truth. Providing, of course, that the revealed truth in which they believe does not promote or endorse actions that are not conducive to living cordially with one’s environment. Would it then not be an issue? Is it not possible for multiple “truths” to coexist?
Tyra Says: February 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
ccbhomes: Thank you for that last comment, which I think brings a good insight on the conversation. To me, self-righteousness (or arrogance) comes from a person thinking they are more spiritual b/c of their works, rituals, good deeds, etc…instead of just humbly admitting that they can never be “good enough” on their own, but only through the mercy and grace of Christ can they be redeemed. I find this very comforting that even though I’m full of faults, sin, etc…that Jesus loves me anyway.
Thankfully, we live in a free society that lets everyone worship however they deem fit unless their religion is harmful to others. I definitely don’t want to harm anyone; I just want to spread the good news that Jesus does love them, can heal their hurts, can change their cold hearts, etc…
Thank you for letting me share…:)
nutslikebush Says: February 20th, 2008 at 2:47 am
Homes, I don’t think that there can be multiple, conflicting truths (if truth means what I think it means). I do think that there are many different, conflicting religious beliefs, all of which claim to be true, assure us that they were divinely revealed, and that if we don’t believe them we will be in BIG trouble. What is most difficult for me to believe is that any god that could create a universe could be full of the all-too-human weaknesses (anger, jealousy, rage, confusion, guilt, bad judgment) that the god of the bible is portrayed as suffering from. I believe that the creator must be much more interesting and impressive than the Christian god is (I think Jesus thought that too. He wouldn’t fit in well with the American mutation of Christianity). Christianity continuously changes and morphs into versions that support various human delusions.