• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    October 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Sep    
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    wearenegroes on Will Hillary Clinton Run Again…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    esgort on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    IB on Why Gun Ownership is Biblical…
    NEW White House Insi… on Hitler and the muslim bro…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

If you don’t want to own a gun, don’t own a gun.  No one should force you to own one.  But if you are a law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun, no one should be able to prevent you from doing so.  This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. 

The author of this article does a good job of debunking poor theology, and explaining why it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to arm and DEFEND themselves.  The gun in the hands of the righteous is NOT a tool of vengeance, but rather a tool of defense.


A Response to John Piper: Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

I named my daughter Piper, after John Piper. I regretted that terribly the moment John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak at the 2011 Desiring God conference, lending him his credibility and, I believe, metaphorically kissing his ring. That was too much for me. Since then, Piper has repeatedly partnered with the Mystichicks, Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, Christine Caine, and others. With Piper, enough has to be enough. Perhaps it’s the “charismatic” in him, but for all his commendably deep theology, Piper seems to lack virtually any and all discernment.

It seems that the growingly obvious lack of discernment in Piper’s life and ministry is evident in his latest article at Desiring God, Should Christians Be Encourged to Arm Themselves. With that title, you can bet that there would be plenty of Evangelical Intelligentsia nuance within the article. Pulpit & Pen will cut through that for you.

Piper begins his article, Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves, by providing a stark contrast to Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr, who recently encouraged his students to carry a weapon in case any terrorists came there.

My main concern in the [Liberty University] article is which appeal to students that stirs them up to have a mindset to “Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson of they come here. The concern is the forging of the disposition in Christians to use lethal force, no as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries. 

Piper’s concern is the disposition that ordinary Christian citizens use lethal force against harmful adversaries and not just as policemen or soldiers. This is an odd argument for Piper to make. First, he seems too reluctant to acknowledge himself a pacifist, per se, appealing to civil authority to use necessary force. Certainly, Piper would affirm Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as the texts giving the civil magistrate the right of the sword for punitive punishment of the wicked. And in 1 Peter 2, Christians are to submit ourselves to “every human ordinance.” Among those human ordinances we are bound to obey in our Christian duty are the concealed carry and firearm laws in our states or local municipalities. If the civil magistrate has given its citizens the right duty to use firearms for the purpose of self-reliance, then certainly carrying a firearm wouldn’t be sinful. One could more easily argue not having a firearm, in this case, would be sinful. Piper continues,

The issue is not primarily about when and if the Christian may ever use the use of force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are serious situational ambiguities to answer that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage that attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket so don’t mess with me?” My answer is, No.

I’m not sure where these “serious situational ambiguities” lie in relation to defending the lives of our family and friends. In Why Some People Need a Good Killing, I laid out the case from Christian ethics as to why a violent response to unprovoked violence is godly and necessary. It’s really not that complicated. If someone breaks into a home, God’s law states that killing the intruder is justified and necessary, and the defender would be free from legal retribution (Exodus 22:2). Where are these “serious situational ambiguities” regarding the legal use of deadly weapons in the defense of the lives of family and friends? Piper seems to be (A) unwilling to answer the question as to whether we can kill to protect innocent loved ones and (B) deflecting to subjective, feeling-based, tone and “tenor” poppycock rather than providing clear, non-ambiguous answers from the Scriptures.

Next, Piper questions whether the New Testament encourages a particular “attitude” of  self-defense. This demonstrates a theological failure in understanding the abiding nature of the general equity within the Old Testament civil code. The foundation for Christian ethics rests in the Old Testament civil code. We apply the “general equity” (what is eternal and moral) of those laws to our own circumstances today. There’s absolutely no indication that the right (and duty) of Biblical self-defense has been abrogated or that somehow men are no longer required to protect their wives and children because you can call 911 and hope for the best.

Piper then presents nine considerations as to why he believes Christians should not have a self-defense mindset:

The Apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and to instead return good for evil. And, he said to return the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world. 

One wonders what Piper’s malfunction is that he doesn’t understand the difference between self-defense (or keeping your child from being sodomized and your wife kidnapped) and vengeance. Vengeance is expo facto while self-defense is in the moment. No one in their right mind would accuse someone who was stopping a rapist in the act, dead in his tracks, of enacting vengeance. No, he was stopping a crime in progress. That is more than just the job of the magistrate. That’s what anyone who truly loves their neighbor would do. If one would not stop a rape-in-progress using deadly force (if necessary), they do not love their neighbor as their own self.

Piper also overlooks the reality that our emperor (which in our case is the Constitution) has specifically entrusted his citizens with the privilege and duty of the ownership and use of firearms. But of this, Piper writes…

For example, any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, “The ruler does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.

First, Piper needs to understand that stopping a crime in progress is not bearing the sword in a Romans 13 fashion. Romans 13 deals with trial and penology. The man stopping his wife from being kidnapped and raped by a Muslim man in a gas station restroom (like what happened in North Dakota a few weeks ago) is not “bearing the sword” Romans 13 style. He’s not enacting vengeance. He’s stopping a crime in progress. Throughout this article, Piper repeatedly cites verses that speak against vengeance, misapplying them to his position on self-defense. Any serious Bible student or teacher should know better than this simple but subtle difference-turned-distraction.

2. The Apostle Peter teaches us that as Christians we will often find ourselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.

Piper then cites 1 Peter 2:19, 2:20, 3:19, 4:13, 4:16, 4:19 and so on, all stating in one way or another that we are blessed if we are persecuted, that we should rejoice if we suffer with Christ, and if we suffer according to God’s will we are doing well.

A plethora of verses aside, none – and I’ll write it again for the affect, none – of  Piper’s proof-texts disavow the right to self-preservation nor do they abrogate the Bible’s clear teaching on self-defense. What they do, however, is point out that we’re blessed if we’re persecuted. Amen and amen. And I point out in Why Some People Need a Good Killing that being killed for Christ, even if you’re defending yourself, still earns you the honorary title of martyr. At no point does “martyrdom” equate to “surrendered victim.”

If Christian refugees in Syria pick up rocks to fight back at their attackers in a desperate attempt to save their children and are captured and subsequently beheaded, they are still martyrs, thank you very much. And if, for whatever reason, in whatever dystopic future you contrive that allows Christians in this country to be rounded up like Jews in 1939 Germany and the 3% fought back, we would still be Christian martyrs.

3. Jesus taught that violent hostility would come; and the whole tenor of his council was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not armed defense.

Piper then cites Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, and Matthew 10:16-20. All of these passages deal with Jesus’ End Time prophecy (unless you’re of a different eschatological persuasion and they’ve already been fulfilled) concerning the state of the world prior to the return of Christ. In short, it’s going to be brutal. Being brought before governors, taken before kings, delivered up by mothers and brothers–rough stuff. So then, Piper’s logic deduces that if we are to “die for Jesus” then we need not carry a weapon or practice self-defense.

Here’s where Piper’s theology fails, and why I implore him to get outside of his academic bubble once in a while. George Zimmerman wasn’t almost killed by thug, Trayvon Martin, because of Jesus. Zimmerman almost died because Martin was using the pavement as a deadly weapon against Zimmerman’s head. It had nothing to do with Jesus. It was senseless violence. When the pastor’s wife, Amanda Blackburn, was raped and died along with her unborn child, it had nothing to do with Jesus. She didn’t give her life for Jesus (perhaps I should say she didn’t give her death for Jesus). Although Piper references Jim Elliot getting stabbed with a spear, George Zimmerman and Amanda Blackburn and 99.99999% of the murder victims in this country aren’t dying for Jesus. They’re dying for the clothes they’re wearing, the money in their pocket, or their flesh to be abused. This render’s Piper’s point completely null and void.

4. Jesus sat the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and is not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian Cause with the sword. 

This is the most absurd and disappointing of any of Piper’s points. Who on earth – WHO, I ASK YOU – is suggesting we advance our Christian cause with the sword? This is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. I’ve literally never met a Christian, not even a theonomist, who would make the argument that we should be advancing Christianity at gun point. Does Piper not know this? Is he just trying to score cheap points with the HuffPo crowd? Or is Piper so insulated in his little glass bubble in the inner city, and knows so few firearm owners, that he’s somehow under the impression that there are Christians trying to advance the kingdom by force. Seeing this section of Piper’s diatribe is surreal, just on account of how out-of-place it is in reality.

[Editor’s Note: This is Part A in addressing Piper’s errors. Part B will come shortly after Christmas. This post was contributed by JD Hall]

*Update: JD was intending to write Part B to address Piper’s errors. Because of his holiday schedule, he will instead be on the Bible Thumping Wingnut Program to discuss the rest of his concerns, this Christmas evening. You can listen here.

Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/12/23/a-response-to-john-piper-why-gun-ownership-is-biblical-and-good-part-a/


Australia Gets it. Why Don’t We???

Are the Australians really that much smarter than we are? Or are we simply choosing to be this stupid?

This quote sums up the entire affair: 


America was formed over more than 200 years by trial and error, having learned from thousands of years of history prior to our founding.  We created a nation unlike any other on earth, better and more free than any on earth.  We created a Constitution and form of government to protect the liberties for which we struggled so mightily.  If you wish to live in America, or even become an American, then you must assimilate and adapt to America.  We don’t have to adapt to you. 

‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE.   We didn’t force you to come here.   You asked to be here.   So accept the country  YOU accepted.’

The Constitution and our way of life are diametrically opposed to sharia law.  Sharia can not coexist with our Constitution. If you despise liberty and feel the need to live under sharia law, or any other code of conduct that violates out Constitution, then leave.  There are plenty of 3rd world hell-hole sewers in the world who practice such lifestyles and will gladly allow you to submit to the subjugation of sharia law.



Posted on January 1, 2011

(Prime Minister Julia Gillard –  Australia )

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the  government targeted radicals in a bid to head off  potential terror attacks.

Separately, Gillard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying she supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques.


Continue reading

Air Force Suspends Christian-Themed Ethics Training Program Over Bible Passages

If you say that Christianity is not under attack in this country, you are either an idiot, or one of the attackers. There’s just too much evidence that it’s happening.


Air Force Suspends Christian-Themed Ethics Training Program Over Bible Passages

By Todd Starnes | Published August 03, 2011 | FoxNews.com

The Air Force has suspended a course that was taught by chaplains for more than 20 years because the material included Bible passages.

The course, called “Christian Just War Theory” was taught by chaplains at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and used Scripture from both the Old and New Testaments to show missile launch officers that it can be moral to go to war.

Continue reading

Liberals Launch Christian Witch Trials

Christians knew it was coming. It was only a matter of when. The direction of the attack was only slightly a surprise, as many thought the crusade against Christianity was going to me lead by muslims. They are complicit agents in the assault, but it is liberal/progressive “thinkers” who have placed themselves above God, and decreed themselves to be supreme beings.

I have news for these liberal/progressives. They should look at history of ALLLLL the times God has put people like you in their place. Remember the “great” liberal Voltaire, who thought that he was living in the “twilight of Christianity,” and that the Bible would disappear from the earth within 100 years? Kind of ironic that after Voltaire’s death his house was used to print, or at least store Bibles. Time and time again throughout history, those who mock God are proven to be nothing but deceived, and deceivers.


Return to the Article

July 21, 2011

Liberals Launch Christian Witch Trials

By Peter Heck

Break out the pitchforks and light the torches!  The leftist media is in the midst of launching a modern day version of the Salem Witch Trials.  Except this time the target isn’t those who blaspheme against the Christian religion, but rather those who practice it.  The inquisition began almost two weeks ago when Diane Sawyer and her ABC World News Tonight team christened a very provocative and alarming “investigation” into the beliefs of Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann.

Huma Abedin Weiner – More than just a victim?

What do we really know about Mrs. Weiner? No question, Anthony was, well, a real wiener. Got it. But as the old saying goes, it takes two to Tango. What do we know about her? Why is someone with family members that have ties to terrorist organizations in a high level government position with access to classified information, and the ear to our public officials?

Curious, don’t you think?


Huma Abedin Weiner

Through all the talk about Anthony Weiner we have mostly listened to jokes about his private parts and his name. His wife was often mentioned as a victim to his online tomfoolery. Today I want to talk about his wife, Huma Abedin Weiner.

In 1996, while Bill Clinton was president, he and Hillary met Huma while on a trip to Saudi Arabia. It’s unclear what transpired, but she ended up in Washington DC with close ties to the Clintons. We now know she is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy Chief of Staff. This is a very sensitive position so we would think Huma was well vetted.

Huma Abedin Weiner is a devout Muslim. Her brother, Hassan, works at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies (OCIS) at Oxford University. He has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian Al-Azhar University, is well known for a curriculum that encourages extremism and terrorism, and is active in establishing links with OCIS.

Continue reading

If You Disagree With Me, Don’t Hate Me, Debate Me!

Here is a lively exchange I had with a visitor to this blog that I thought was worth sharing.  He and I obviously have differing views on many subjects, but this visitor was courageous enough to be willing to discuss and support his beliefs in a civil, open manner.  BRAVO!  This is what freedom of speech is all about.  It’s not just about saying what you believe, but about listening to what others believe and then discussing WHY.

I’ve highlighted my comments below in crimson for clarity of who is saying what.

The original post and comments can be found here (https://texan2driver.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/obama-admin-using-bernie-madoff-accounting-pyramid-scheme/)

I am all over the web, so I can’t honestly say I remember leaving a comment on the Lone Star Times site. Regardless, I’m glad you stopped by to take part in the Great Debate. We may not always agree, and that’s OK. As I always tell people, “If you disagree with me, don’t hate me, debate me.

Wow, the post on LST must have really struck a chord. Lots of good stuff in your commentary to discuss. I’ll hit the highlights with some commentary of my own.

In fact, I consider the Bill or Rights (and particularly the 1st Amendment) the single most important document ever adopted in this Country’s history and the one thing that distinguishes us from all other nations.

We must also remember that it is the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the 1st. Our founding fathers had seen what would happen when a populace was unable to defend itself against a tyrannical government. In the founding or our country, when they spelled out in the Declaration of Independence “…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”, they knew that this would be impossible unless they had the power to protect themselves not only from external enemies, but from a government gaining too much control over their lives.

This makes me very, very concerned by the people who talk about making sure that America “is a Christian nation”….and who do not seem to understand that as Jefferson expressed it and as Madison wrote it—the 1st Amendment establishes a “wall between church and state.”

I will not assert that we are a Christian nation in the sense that some form of Christianity is the official religion or that it is required for citizenship. I will assert that America was founded on a Christian foundation. Many try to deny that, but it is an obvious truth. When a “wall between church and state” is spoken of, the modern (mis)interpretation of that is that there can be no religion or any display of religion in government. Hogwash. It means that the government can’t “establish,” or force you to be part of any one religion, as some countries have done by having an official state religion. Greece with the Orthodox Church is an example. What’s worse is that the modern interpretation of “separation of church and state” is applied in a very anti-Christian way. The “wallers” I’ll call them, attack Christian prayer in school, but provide prayer rooms for muslims. “Wallers” attack nativity scenes or menorahs, but force schools and government offices to display hateful “God is a fag,” or “There is no God” signs and displays. The so called separation of church and state is being used to attack Christianity and Judaism.

I see “defense” as being more than just the military might—it also includes our economic might and our moral position in the world—which, unfortunately, George W. and Chaney did much to damage.

Defense and military might? Yes. Defense and economic might? Definitely. Defense and our “moral position” in the world? Now the waters get muddy. Defense is just that. It’s our ability to prevent others from harming us. Economic might directly ties into defense as it allows us to pay for the things necessary to defend ourselves. Our moral position in the world is not tied to defending ourselves. Our interactions with other nations and our reasons for those interactions define our moral position. However, two different people could view the same action in completely different “moral” lights. Was it “moral” to drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Some look at the instantaneous loss of life and scream “immoral!” However, when one understands that killing several thousand people with the A-bomb likely saved nearly 2 million lives, it’s not so immoral anymore. One must also consider who started that fight in the first place with their deception in Washington covering their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Many liberals view “might” as wrong. They feel that because we are (were?) wealthy and powerful, or a super-power, that this somehow makes us villains around the world. Were we taking over lands for the purposes of conquest and gain, then that would make us the bad guys. However, this is not the case. We ended two wars in Europe and one in the Pacific with multiple “invasions,” and all we asked for in return was a place to bury our dead. We didn’t enslave anyone. We protected, and still protect most of Europe and Japan (our former enemies) while they run their own lives. As for G.W. Bush and Mr. Cheney, their biggest mistake was not controlling our borders or our spending.

“Richard Nixon made me a Democrat” because of his abuse of the American system, his disregard for the Bill or Rights and his criminal activities.

To this I must ask how you feel about Barack Obama. As illustrated in the post I’m linking to here (https://texan2driver.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/obamas-secret-power-grabs/), Obama has done the end-around on every part of the constitution that he has been able to get away with so far. Cut and paste Obama’s actions into the Nixon presidency, and there would have been an execution, not just an impeachment. The progressives have gained a lot of ground since the 1970’s in eroding the foundation of our nation, as evidenced by the weak response to the abuse to our laws and constitution.

(Don’t tell me “everybody does it’. That is partially true…but few have done it to the level Nixon did.)

Many do it, and there is no excuse for it. As to the level of corruption and law breaking, again I beg you to compare Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. While Nixon was wrong and deserved punishment, what he did was child’s play compared to what Obama is doing now. Campaign fraud, voter intimidation, breaking or ignoring house/senate rules, on and on.

I also found myself unwilling to continue to argue with people who opposed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and every other program designed to improve the life of the less fortunate of our population.

As is always the case, we were much better off before government took over control of ____ (fill in the blank). Before we had Social Security, yes there were homeless people and people who otherwise needed help, but there were a lot fewer of them. When people kept most of what they earned, they were more charitable. Through local organizations and direct giving, communities helped people by giving them a hand UP, and taking care of those UNABLE to take care of themselves. Now the government takes a dollar away from our community and gives us back 50 cents. How does that help? They have promised all these benefits that they can’t pay for. How does that help (except to buy votes)? In an attempt to pay for the benefits, they raise our taxes to the point we can’t afford to be charitable anymore. How does that help? And to top it all off, there are a WHOLE LOT MORE of the so called “less fortunate” now than there were then. Many are able, but unwilling to work because they can get enough benefits for nothing to make a minimum wage job just too “inconvenient.” Sounds like a success to me.

Then we move on to Medicare/Medicaid. Supposed to provide insurance and lower health care costs. Hasn’t done either. Before we had Medicare/Medicaid and other government interference in the medical system (as well as other confiscation of my wealth like Social Security and other taxes), I could AFFORD to go to the doctor and pay cash for a visit. If I needed a procedure that was too expensive for me to pay for outright, I worked out a payment plan with the doctor himself. Now because of government interference, forcing doctors and hospitals to provide health care to those who can’t pay for it, they have to pass the cost along to those who can. We’re not just talking legitimate emergency care here. Many illegal aliens and others, who can no longer afford insurance or medical bills BECAUSE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND INTERFERENCE CAUSED THEM TO SKYROCKET, are using the emergency room for primary care. Those who actually pay their bills get pissed off about paying the tab for those who abuse the system, laws are passed saying that doctors and hospitals can’t pass along the cost, and then the hospitals and doctors simply go out of business. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE. The border states are the worst hit by this phenomena due to the unchecked influx of illegal aliens.

Health care is not a right. It is a service or commodity just like anything else we EARN the money to pay for. Calling it a right is akin to saying “slavery is OK.” Calling it a right means that you are able to force a person to become a doctor at his own expense, and then force him to provide medical service to you without compensation. That is slavery. If you say “of course he has a right to compensation,” then you are saying it’s OK to take money from me against my will to pay your medical costs. That’s robbery and theft. Rights are given from God, not from man. Having people in our government call something a “right” doesn’t make it so. A right does not come at the expense of another.

So, to sum this up, helping the “less fortunate” is a good and admirable goal. But it is a goal best accomplished by allowing the citizens of the most charitable nation on earth to decide for themselves to help those people out. The government is at best inefficient at the task, and typically fails miserably.

One last thing on this topic. Don’t confuse “lack of success” with being “unfortunate.” If you worked to EARN what you have, and you have more than the next person, you have no reason to feel guilty about that.

(Plus you may remember that Southern Republicans—like John Tower—opposed the Civil Rights Act just as strongly as did most Southern Democrats—except the same Ralph Yarborough we both admire for his courage.)

Just remember that it was republicans, even southern republicans that gave blacks the right to vote, and it was democrats that took that right away with things like “poll taxes.” It was democrats who founded such organizations as the KKK, and it is liberal/progressive/democrat policies that have encouraged the black community to largely sit around feeling like victims with their hands out to the democrats. When a black person makes something of him/herself, the democrats and the blacks who support them immediately turn on that person and call them “Uncle Tom,” or “a sellout to the black community.” What a bunch of crap. Bill Cosby is right. Unless people take responsibility for their own actions, their own family, and their own community, they will always be oppressed victims.

(Unlike you I can not call myself a “Carter Democrat” because, although I wound up voting for him, as a Southern Catholic who had been told one two many times by “good ole Southern Baptists” that I was doomed to hell while living in a small Texas town in the 50s, I was worried about his Southern Baptist background.

I am a Christian who associates with Southern Baptists, as long as they preach and teach what is in the Bible. I have seen many Southern Baptist churches (and those of many denominations) that do not. Just because someone is a “good ole Southern Baptist” doesn’t make them good or bad. I’m registered republican, but am really a conservative. Barack Obama sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 some years. Does that make him a Christian? No. Just because Jeremiah Wright calls himself a preacher, does make his church a Christian church? No. As a “former” muslim who preaches a radical black-nationalist message which is not supported by the Bible, many would say “definitely not.” In Jimmy Carter’s case, I would call him a liberal misguided Southern Baptist who is basically just an idiot.

However, I do believe that, if our system is to continue, we must attempt to help every American have an “equal opportunity” to succeed…..Unfortunately, I believe—as you probably do not—that that means that Government must take steps to “level the playing field”.

We are guaranteed “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We are not guaranteed anything beyond that. We are not guaranteed a job, a house, a specific level of income, or any such thing. We are only guaranteed the right to pursue them to the best of OUR abilities, not to pursue them on the backs of someone else. Our nation was founded on getting everyone to the starting line of the race. It doesn’t guarantee how anyone will run the race, or who will win it. But to have a chance of winning, you must run. Barack Obama and liberals are trying to distort this by picking winners and losers in life. They are choosing which companies succeed or fail. They are choosing which people succeed or fail. This is un-American. We can’t ALL win the race, and the prize can’t be the same either. When you allow those who can achieve more to do so, they are more able to help those who can’t. When you don’t allow them to succeed, and make them pull the wagon full of those who can’t or won’t run as fast, NO ONE gets to the finish line because the achievers see no benefit to excelling because the fruits of their labors are redistributed to those who did not earn them and do not deserve them. The “playing field” as you call it, is actually level. It’s the same for everyone. It’s just that some people are more able to navigate it. That’s just the way things are. Your and others attempts to “level the playing field” are in reality attempts to force an equal outcome. That’s communism. Let’s say your IQ is off the charts on the smart end. You go to school with a bunch of people who can barely write their own name. If we level the playing field in the classroom to bring these people up from failing grades, you receive a middle of the road grade instead of the “A” that you earned. Or, the teachers dumb down the level of instruction to the lowest common denominator where everyone gets an “A.” You are bored and learn nothing, while the rest learned little because they were unwilling or unable. Everyone finished the same, but what has that gained society? We graduate a bunch of people with high self esteem until they can’t get a job because they don’t know how to make change. Our society suffers for such misguided efforts to “level the playing field.”

I am also aware of the fact that all kinds of groups have “lobbyists” and that all kinds of groups, not just conservatives try to use government to advance their ends. However, unlike you I do not automatically label this bad…Instead they are part and parcel of our form of government and,…

A politician’s job is supposed to be to represent the people who elected them. Their job has morphed into getting re-elected. Politicians spend nearly 2/3 of each business day dealing with matters related to fund raising for their re-election campaign. Much of that has to do with lobbyists. I know several politicians, and the lobbyists who lobby them. It is a corrupt game. Just calling it “part and parcel of our form of government” is exactly the same justification that Nixon could have used (and probably did) for defending the break in to a rival political headquarters to gain a political advantage. Where do we draw the line? The politicians are beholden to the special interest groups and the money they donate to their campaign rather than to the constituents who elected them. This is where I throw out the hand grenade of term limits. Many will say that we have term limits called “elections.” I would say that this would be true if we still had a nation of CITIZENS. A citizen educates him/herself on the issues, on the candidates, on our system of government, on the constitution on which it is based, and casts a responsible vote. Today we have an increasing number of people who know nothing about the things listed above, and cast votes base on misinformation that they willingly believe because they have allowed themselves to be led astray largely due to their own laziness and ignorance. This is also where we see the rapid rise of the zero-liability voter who pays little or no tax yet has a voice in how TAXPAYERS dollars are spent, usually to give the zero-liability voter more “free” stuff. It’s a vicious political cycle centered around the acquisition and maintenance of POWER. The founding fathers never intended the words “career” and “politician” to be uttered in the same sentence. Elected officials were intended to REPRESENT their constituents for a season while the issues were fresh on their minds. Then they were to return home and go back to whatever life they had, or make a new one if they so chose. They were never intended to make a fat life in Washington at our expense.

“be very, very careful when you have a group that wants to be regulated.”

I’ve heard it said that “you don’t f*** with a man that sleeps next to a woman he never screws. They’re unpredictable.” The only groups I see that want regulation are the ones who are unable or unwilling to achieve success on their own. Refer back to the “level playing field discussion above.

Instead it makes me a realist.

I’ve also heard it said “No, I’m not a pessimist. At some point the world sh**s on everybody. Pretending it ain’t sh** makes you an idiot, not an optimist.” If you view your glass as half empty, you are called a pessimist. If you view your glass as half full, you are called an optimist. If it doesn’t matter to you whether you say your glass is half empty or half full, but you know you must guard against some idiot coming along and spilling it or drinking it, THEN you are a REALIST. That would be me.

B, thanks again for engaging in the debate and being willing to share WHY you believe what you believe. If we can’t defend our positions, why do we have them in the first place? I look forward to debating other issues with you in the future.

Comfort: Curse or Blessing?

Don’t misunderstand me, or Mr. Marinov.  We do indeed believe that God is in control.  However, if we as Christians stand back and do nothing while Christianity and, more importantly and to the point, Christ and God are attacked, what can we hope for? God doesn’t need my defense, but as Christians we either defend Him, or deny Him. If we sit back with our hands out and do nothing like the growing generations of ‘welfare babies’ our nation, and the socialist agenda are raising, can we hope for a better life while we await Christ’s return? (Before you speak up, no, being on welfare is not in and of itself bad.  Being on welfare when you have the ability to earn your own way, is bad.  In the Christian sense, it’s like a Christian who never gets past the initial salvation and never matures, always needing to be fed and led by others.)

Does Jesus instruct Christians to sit back idly and wait on Him to return?  I don’t think so.  Matt 16:24 says

“Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.

That implies to me an active existence.  That implies visibly “carrying” the “burden” of Christ as part of our labor.

He tells us in 1Pet 5:8-9

1Pe 5:8-9 NASB  Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.  (9)  But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world.

That says to me that we are to be vigilant, and that we are to resist evil and hold firmly to our faith (a part of which is to share it boldly).  There will be suffering, but I expect that it’s worse to suffer while doing nothing for your faith than to suffer while actively serving.

But let’s not just look at the easy verses that seem to support my position.  There are some that when taken out of context and without study would seem to say that we should simply roll over and let evil doers have their way.  Let’s take this well known passage from Matthew.

Mat 5:38-48 NASB  “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ (39)  “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (40)  “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. (41)  “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. (42)  “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. (43)  “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ (44)  “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (45)  so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (46)  “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (47)  “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (48)  “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

One commentary from biblegateway.com suggests that “… Jesus utilized hyperbole precisely to challenge his hearers, to force us to consider what we value.”  The commentator goes on to say “… we should be so unselfish and trust God so much that we leave our vindication with him.”  What I take away from this and other commentators, and my own reading is that we are to serve ACTIVELY, and share the Good News.  The retribution, or judgment for evil is ultimately not ours to give.

So, when laws are being written to take away our free speech, when we are being told we can’t talk about God, when things are being done that cause pain and hardship not only to us, but to our brothers, do we just sit by passively and say “God is in control?”  NO!  I agree with Mr. Marinov.

We are to speak the word and truth of God boldly, even at the risk of retribution.  We are to pray.  We are to seek out good, Godly men for offices of the land and work to get them elected.  We are to counter the world’s lies with God’s truth.  If we sit and do nothing, effectively denying God, then I believe we hasten his judgment.  We are lukewarm, and will be spit out of God’s mouth if we do not stand for and with Him.

Rev 3:15-16 NASB  ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. (16)  ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

So, do not allow yourself to be comforted when there is not comfort.  Do not allow yourself to become numb.  Stand up for what is right while you can still stand.


I Refuse to Be Comforted

by Bojidar Marinov, Feb 03, 2010

Come on.


I hear you’re feeling down.

I can ease your pain…

(Pink Floyd, “Comfortably Numb”)

I refuse to be comforted. I refuse to listen to sermons that assure me that “whatever happens, God is in control.” I refuse to read and listen to pastors, authors, and leaders that comfort me with God’s peace when everywhere around me I see God’s war.

When they banned prayer in schools, the Christians in this country were assured that in these “last days” that’s what was expected to happen. They were supposed to take comfort in the fact that Jesus was coming soon. He didn’t. And while Christians were learning to be comforted with this open attack against their faith, Roe v. Wade came. Again, words of comfort followed. Meanwhile, tens of millions of unborn children died in this government-sanctioned sacrifice of infants. Only a precious few brave men and women stood against it; the majority were comforted that “whatever happens, God is in control.”

The pulpits never gave a call for action.

Long before that the Federal government took over the control of our money supply. As a result, millions of fathers and mothers in this country saw their lifetime savings disappear in financial meltdowns where the value of their labor was offered in a massive burnt offering to the Mammon of the centralized state. Again, we were all comforted by our pastors and leaders that “God is in control,” and “He will provide for us.” Moral and industrious people worked more, made less, and the wicked kept devouring everything in a Keynesian orgy of debt and consumption. The pulpits again comforted but never gave a call for action.

They started cracking down on Christians by passing laws to silence Christianity: “Hate speech,” “separation of church and state” and all the other mantras. In a nation that was founded to proclaim the blessings of Christ, Christ was now pushed out of public life. Pastors and authors and theologians responded by . . . more comforting words. “See? He must be coming soon! 1968! No, 1988! 1989! 1996! Have comfort!”

No call for action.

Christian children were ridiculed and ostracized in schools and universities. Their faith was mocked by professors who knew nothing about their fields of study but knew everything about Marx’s Communist Manifesto. The churches started losing their young men and women by tens of thousands every year. Colleges and universities that were established to nourish and expand the Christian religion and knowledge were now openly enemies of Christ.

Again, the pulpits were silent. Except for a few comforting words. God surely must be in control.

We don’t even notice anymore when things like that happen. We are so comforted that we don’t even think of raising our voice in protest anymore. We surely value our peace and comfort—that’s what our leaders have taught us.

We have become comfortably numb.

But I refuse to be comforted. I refuse to believe in peace when I see God at war. I refuse to believe that God makes all these things happen only to teach me that He is in control and nothing else. I refuse to believe that these are blessings when I know very well they are curses. And I refuse to accept curses for comfort.

The Bible tells me that God teaches my hands to war. And my hands are itching for a fight. I don’t want to sit idly when the heathens are taking over God’s earth. I want to be out there defending it. I want my pastors and leaders to lead me, not comfort me. I want them to teach me to fight and overcome. There must be instructions for victory in the Bible. I mean, real victory, not abstract dreamy “victory” of being rescued in clouds. When we lose elections and a Communist, homosexual, or a Muslim gets elected, I want my pastor to tell me how we can elect a Biblically-qualified candidate next time. When they pass a law to ban preaching the truths of the Bible, I want my pastor to teach me how we can fight and repeal that law.

When they build an abortion clinic in my town, I want the pastors to lead their congregations in protest and teach them how to shut it down. When the liberal media attack my faith, I want my pastor to teach me how to reply and present Christ in such a way as to make them helplessly gnash their teeth in their inability to present a coherent answer. When my child is assaulted by Marxist professors in college, I want my pastor to equip me and my child with comprehensive Biblical worldview that brings down their vain imaginations.

Moses didn’t comfort the Hebrews in Egypt. He made them uncomfortable. He made them realize what they were missing: Liberty. He gave them a sense of urgency, not comfort: “Eat it with the shoes on your feet and with your staffs in your hands. No time for comfort!” He didn’t comfort them in the wilderness. He made them fight. No words of comfort came out of his mouth; no messages soothing their consciences. God is in control, he said in Deuteronomy 28, but that control isn’t necessarily good for you. It will be a curse on you and your children if you become comfortably numb. You better never become too comforted.

The Angel of the Lord didn’t comfort Gideon when he was threshing wheat. “What are you doing, mighty warrior? Hiding like a rat?” Elijah did not comfort his generation; he asked many uncomfortable questions: “Who are you going to serve, God or Baal?” The prophets did not deliver messages of comfort to Israel; they called Israel to war, to action, to repentance.

This great country, the United States of America, was not founded on sermons of comfort. The Pilgrims and the Puritans didn’t stay back in England and find comfort in the fact that “whatever happens, God is in control.” They took action. The political architect of the American Revolution, John Witherspoon, President of the College of New Jersey and signer of the Declaration of Independence, considered by most people of his time to be the “spiritual father” of the colonies, did not comfort his spiritual children; to the contrary, he worked tirelessly to instill a message of discomfort and urgency in them:

There is not a single instance in history, in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.

Had he comforted them, the USA could have never been founded. And we wouldn’t have the freedoms we have today.

I want to have the same spirit as the Founders. And therefore I want my pastor to be like John Witherspoon. Don’t comfort me; teach me to fight and win.

Many pastors I have talked to complain of the growing influence of “para-church” organizations. No wonder. If churches give no message of victory, someone else will. And they will gain influence. People follow leaders, not drug-traffickers. And messages of comfort and peace in times of discomfort and war are nothing more than anesthetic, a narcotic to escape reality; and those who preach comfort and peace when there is no comfort and peace are spiritual drug-traffickers, not spiritual leaders.

Therefore I refuse to be comforted.

I don’t find comfort in the fact that God is in control. It makes me shiver. If we as Christians are silent, passive, compromising, His control will bring down judgment. His control will make pagans rule our land, ban preaching, take our children, destroy our property. Exactly what is happening now! I can’t find comfort in God’s judgment, and a pastor who preaches comfort in the face of God’s judgment is not doing God’s will. I refuse to be comforted. I want to be taught to turn the tide; I don’t want another dose of anesthetic.

I refuse to be comforted.

%d bloggers like this: