June 03, 2008
Faith in the NW
This book looks exceptionally interesting.
Alas, my reading list is already longer than I would like these days. Anyone care to do a book report?
Kidding...but I do want to read the book.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 03, 2008
07:07 AM | Email This
1. There are to many "Christians" marching off to socialism these days, especially here in the NW. Socialism equals tyrany, and tyrany equals christians being rounded up and used as torches as in Roman times, even up to this day in Africa. Those who say they are "Christians" and Liberals at the same time are socialist infiltrators within christian circles. These people are naive and foolish because they're real belief is to promote socialist ideas not biblical ones. I call these people "Marxist" christians, just as there were "Nazi" christians who voted for Hitler during WWII. They are the danger within our mists and we need to point them out. Most of them repeat the phrase "preemtive peace not preemtive war" are young stupid fools who rip pages from the bible only to suit their idea of christianity. Jesus stated that there will be wars and rumors of wars up until the very end. He also stated "Do you suppose that I came to grant PEACE on earth? I tell you, NO, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three.
They will be divided,father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." The truth is, if a christian seeks to be "liked" rather than tell the truth, then he really doesn't believe in anything but himself.
2. Once again, Jeffrey Hart's quote is appropriate:
"Like the Whig gentry who were the Founders, I loathe populism," Hart explains. "Most especially in the form of populist religion, i.e., the current pestiferous bible-banging evangelicals, whom I regard as organized ignorance, a menace to public health, to science, to medicine, to serious Western religion, to intellect and indeed to sanity. Evangelicalism, driven by emotion, and not creedal, is thoroughly erratic and by its nature cannot be conservative. My conservatism is aristocratic in spirit, anti-populist and rooted in the Northeast. It is Burke brought up to date. A 'social conservative' in my view is not a moral authoritarian Evangelical who wants to push people around, but an American gentleman, conservative in a social sense. He has gone to a good school, maybe shops at J. Press, maybe plays tennis or golf, and drinks either Bombay or Beefeater martinis, or maybe Dewar's on the rocks, or both."
3. The professor should expand his circle of acquaintances to be less self-selective and include some church goers. There are hundreds of thousands of them in the immediate Seattle area alone, many or most of them well enough educated. Every Sunday I am joined by at least 3,000 fellow worshipers at St. James Cathedral alone. There are Protestant mega churches here that also attract thousands every single week. I wonder how unbiased and/or insightful his research can be when he doesn't apparently share any of the values and beliefs undergiridng those church goers, of whichever persuasion.
4. The professor should expand his circle of acquaintances to be less self-selective and include some church goers. There are hundreds of thousands of them in the immediate Seattle area alone, many or most of them well enough educated. Every Sunday I am joined by at least 3,000 fellow worshipers at St. James Cathedral alone. There are Protestant mega churches here that also attract thousands every single week. I wonder how unbiased and/or insightful his research can be when he doesn't apparently share any of the values and beliefs undergiridng those church goers, of whichever persuasion.
5. It always strikes me as odd how somebody can say they're "Christian" yet endorse socialism via the liberal doctrine. The bible clearly teaches capitalism and voluntary charity. Not charity through government.
Liberal christianity is akin to the peacenik approach, but they ought to read the parts about defending the faith. (Ephesians 6 libs)
This "open minded faith" stuff is that modern day miracle of turning wine into water.
6. Eric,
Thanks for the link, and like you, I have so much other reading, I probably won't get to. What I am curious of, and can't find (via Google), is which churches the author profiled in the NW. I can assume a few, like (Casey and Wendy Treats, and Overlake). The others might be harder. For example, did he look at University Presbyterian and if so, which category did he place them (e.g., liberal, which they aren't, or growing evangelical). Did he just look at Kirkland/Redmond/King County churches, or did he look at the whole NW? Finally, I doubt my church (Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church) made his review, but it is a good demonstration of the cross-evangelical culture between mainline and the evangelical movement (like Univ Pres). It has blended and alternative services. It is probably top five (if not top two/three) in the NW for size (Univ. Pres being largest, I believe), but doesn't necessarily compare to the mega churches (e.g., around 3000 for three services vice the 5000-10000 that the other mega churches have). It is conservative and evangelical, but also has a very active missions department that supports both local (e.g., Tacoma Street ministries) and global (Burma, Mexico Build Teams, Guatemala, Romanio and mission workers that reach the former Soviet block countries, like Kahzistan). It has active "GO" team short term mission programs for congregational members to get involved. Therefore, it is what I would consider a "full" gospel church that not only is concerned about converts, but having those converts mature and live out their lives in service to their Lord.
An additional point: PC @5 and TruePatriot @1 seem to imply that American Politics and Ecnomics is biblical in nature, and socialism and liberalism is not. I am not sure if this is their point, but if it is, then it is not in accordance to the Bible I read. First off, when the Bible was written, the concepts of "socialism" and "capitalism" where extreme future concepts. The historical context for the old Testament was Ancient Egypt (Moses time period -- prior information was passed down via oral tradition, Moses has been historicallly credited with documenting the oral tradition) to post-Babolynian/pre-Greek (e.g., Old Testament ends after Isreal's return from Babolynian exile and around 300-500 years BC). The New Testament books are set in the first century, which the main political structure was the Roman City/State based Empire, that was modeled after the Greek political structure. To claim, 18th Century terms for these writings is simply ludicrious.
Second, if TruePatriot and PC would read the Old Testament, they would see that the "ideal" Isreal state passed down to Moses and outlined in Leviticus 25, they would notice that the "ideal" society was one that would celebrate the Year of Jubilee (49th or possibly 50th year, depending on interpretation). In the Year of Jubilee, property was to be returned to the orginal family that owned it. All debts were to be forgiven (wiped clean). Basically, everything is set back to zero. TruePatriot and PC would also be wise to read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. They may want to read Paul's words, written within 20-30 years after Christ's death, to the Church at Corinth (2 Cor 9:6-15) with regards to Sowing Generously. This isn't a gospel of capitalism, but a gospel most consitent with the "Jubilee" society described in Leviticus.
7. Didn't Jesus say we should give away all of our possessions and follow Him?
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?
It seems to me that the early Christian church was pretty socialistic.
While I think that Scottish Protestantism had a lot to do with the spreading of entrepreneurship and trade, I think that in general religion is usually opposed to the free market.
Protestantism adopted capitalism within the last 300 years, but the history of religion in general, and Christianity in particular has been, on balance against the free market and individual entrepreneurship.
For a real moral defense of capitalism, and fiscal conservatism, read the works of atheist Ayn Rand.
8. TC's post at 6 said it better. I should have read it first.
Oh, let me add another biblical reference worthy of discussion in this context:
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
That is from memory... I might have it a bit off. But the general point seems kind of anti-free market to me...
Almost anti-American Dream.
9. That eye of the camel quote is not a restriction but a warning. There's many more trappings one can fall to when you have unbridled wealth to finance your wanton urges.
That said, there's also many passages about working diligently and not being ashamed from the rewards for doing so.
And Bruce G, Jesus telling him to give away all his possessions was a test to the devotion of a would be follower. Jesus knew which the man valued more and proved it with putting him to that test.
The "render to Caesar" was a strike back at the people that were trying to trap him with blasphemy or not bowing to Caesar. Any more out of context quotes?
10. So the frantic little atheist Bruce is again trying to trick us into accepting his clumsily concealed quasi-libertarian manque/neoSoviet propaganda by misquoting the Scripture from the One he rejects. Pride, and cognitive dissonance, goeth before the fall.
11. Folks: Christianity does not equal Socialism. Everything we do as christians begins with a choice. We are not forced by God to do anything. However our faith brings us to the point where we give our possesions thru our love for Jesus. This does not equal Government Forcing us to give by pain of loosing all of our hard earned money, property or anything else. If some of you Maxist christians are voting for a third party, (Democrats)to come and take our money without our permission then that is theft. If you are concerned about someones plight then you get off your duff and start writing checks. The reason we give is to promote the message of Christ, (SALVATION) but if we as christians elect to let the government take the place of Christ then His message is lost. This means that the atheists and Sociallist get their message out but christians have lost there message since the government will take care of all of our needs. Socialism is Tyrany and God is not about Tyrany.
12. PC, It seems to me that the eye of the camel quote implies that only a minority of rich people will enter heaven.
Please tell me one of these quotations that purport to justify not being ashamed of enjoying what one has earned. I am curious to know.
It seems to me that if you want to be a follower of Jesus, i.e. a Christian, then Jesus' requirement is to give away all you have to the poor.
Render unto Caesar was a reference to money. I have heard that Jesus said this line while holding a roman coin, with an image of Caesar on it. This seems to be an instruction to not use money, or to trade with barter or not to trade at all.
These seem to point in an anti-free market direction.
And Pirate @ 10, I was trying to start a rational discussion. PC took it as intended. You responded with personal attacks. Not very Christian, by any definition.
Care to tell me exactly HOW I misquoted scripture?
And it makes no difference that I reject the idea that scripture is infallible. The point is that Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ as revealed in the bible. One does not need to subscribe to those teachings in order to point out when someone is not following them. No cognitive dissonance here. But perhaps you may have some if you attempt to be both a Christian and a fan of the free market.
A man may choose only one master. I am suggesting that fiscal and social conservatism may, at times, be in conflict.
13. Sorry, that should have been "a man may SERVE only one master."
I prefer what TruePatriot says @ 11.
It really amounts to advocacy for the separation of church and state. The state may not force people to give to charity, nor may mere morality be enforced by the law. By "mere morality" I mean those actions that we call good or moral, yet are not required for the preservation of the rights to life, liberty and property of others.
Not drinking on Sunday mornings might be a matter of morality to some, but prohibiting alcohol on Sundays is not the role of the state, because one can drink on Sundays without violating the rights of anyone else. Outlawing theft and murder makes sense for the state to do because in doing these things one violates rights. Drinking on Sunday is "merely moral." Murder and theft violate rights and are both moral and justly illegal.
If we follow TruePatriot's good advice, the social conservatives will tend to avoid attempts to legislate the "merely moral." This is the limited government that defends liberty that our founders tried to set up for us.
But Neocons are happy to tax people in order to provide charity. TruePatriot shows them to be the big-government liberals that they really are.
14. Bruce the atheist (demon?) must be WVH's son: Much deceptive rambling, and no substance. Atheists spouting Christian exegesis are pathetic, untrustworthy, and should never be responded to, regardless of their fiscal sugarcoating. We must never work with them. They have, ipso facto, no Godly moral code.
15. Right, Pirate, we have no Godly moral code. Our moral code is based on reason and the facts of human existence instead. One of the nice things about that is that no loss of faith causes us to lose our morals, as happens to those who lose their faith from time to time.
I find it amazing that there are still people out there who assume that atheists can have no morals. It is as if they can not conceive of any other foundation for morality other than their own faith.
I've no relation to WVH. Never even met her.
Again, much name-calling, but no specifics in Pirate's rant. You accused me of:
deception
rambling
lack of substance
You called me:
pathetic
untrustworthy
You suggested that I be shunned and ignored.
Yet for all of these, you give no substantiation. You state no specifics. You give no reason WHY.
And you ignore the fact that I made several specific points at 7,6, 12 and 13 above.
Ad hominem arguments and unsubstantiated attacks and insults. Not very Christian, my friend. Not even up to the moral standards of we atheists.
If "by their fruits ye shall know them" is true, then you don't reflect well on Christianity.
Eric's article is about Faith in the NW. I suspect you will have a very hard time reversing the trend away from religion in OR and WA.
But I hear religion is doing very well in Afghanistan.
Pity, that.
16. Bruce said..."Care to tell me exactly HOW I misquoted scripture?"
Well Bruce, you're quoting it but don't have a clue about context. Get it? I didn't think so.
And then you said this..."I have heard that Jesus said this line while holding a roman coin, with an image of Caesar on it. This seems to be an instruction to not use money, or to trade with barter or not to trade at all."
Context Bruce, not what you've heard. By saying "you heard" speaks volumes you've never checked it out yourself. It's in 3 of the Gospels but since you probably need directions...Mark 12 is an easy read.
Then tell me how you come to this stupid@$$ conclusion..."This seems to be an instruction to not use money, or to trade with barter or not to trade at all." Your lines buddy.
I don't know where you hear such dribble.
17. NeoPharisees/political atheists, e.g., Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ayn Rand, Clintons, and Obama, are not to be "reasoned with" by Christians because there is no reason in them. They are to be rebuked, damned, and disempowered. They must never be allowed to rule over God's people, literally or rhetorically. Christians must follow His natural law of self-defense against such "children of Satan."
18. Well pirate, I gotta try. Ephesians 6 says be ready for the likes of Bruce.
19. PC:
I've previously witnessed and urged salvation to the atheist neoPharisee, but he's of hardened heart, stiff neck, without eyes to see or ears to hear, and unrepentant. We must dust off our sandals, then follow Psalms 139:21-22, as necessary.
20. You guys are just hilarious! :)
Faith and reason are incompatible.
But good luck with your faith!
I hope it doesn't get you in to any trouble.