Vancouver (photo from trekearth.com)
When I was a teenager I thought I might go into politics, perhaps as a Member of Parliament or more likely a political advisor. I am glad it never worked out, and that I never tried to work it out.
As I noted in thekingpin68 comments:
Liberal democrats often do not strike me as overly ideological philosophical politicians. In my mind, when liberal democrats do push forward an increasingly anti-God liberal agenda it is often not primarily overly philosophical, but because they are good at reading public mood and providing what will get them votes.
Many liberal democrats will likely primarily deny what I am stating, but I think the best of them are masters of political pragmatism and correctness. Some conservatives are quite pragmatic as well.
Biblical Christian theology on the other hand is not primarily concerned with pragmatism or telling the public how smart and good they are in order to receive votes.
As a theologian I am not primarily concerned with popularity and I am not looking for votes. Of course I would prefer to be liked, and I would like my theology blogs to be decently popular, but I am not looking to present blogs that appeal to the masses.
So many politicians indicate to the masses that the people are winners that need a break.
As a theologian I state that we are sinners that need grace (Ephesians 2: 8-10, Romans 6: 23).
So many politicians like to blame others for the problems of the masses, as in the corporations, the unions, the rich, the foreigners, and the other political party, and there is often some truth in these claims, but as a theologian I can state that we need to look at our own sin, first and foremost as the main problem. We are not righteous, we do not seek God, we do not do good (perfect goodness) (Romans 3). We are in need of God's grace through Christ.
Our new local Pitt River Bridge will have us ready for the late twentieth century.
The YouTube video clips were not formatting properly on Firefox, but were on Internet Explorer. So, because of the Firefox problem I present one as follows.
1964
Even with all the massive infrastructure programs going on, possibly with funding spurred by the upcoming Olympics, we are in such a sorry state that we will still be catching up with most of the western world in terms of adequate transportation systems.
ReplyDeleteFraser Institute gives B.C. bad marks
The other bridge across the Fraser should have been built in the 1970s.
Our "democracies" are really dictatorships of the squeakiest wheels. Unfortunately too often we don't speak up for ourselves and our values, and the overall philosophical leanings of society gradually but forcefully turn away from godly principles.
ReplyDeleteSadly software engineers are not considered a major power voting blog. Perhaps gay software engineers would be. Sorry Sir Chuckles and thank you kindly for your participation.
ReplyDeleteSo Chuck, you tried Rick B's hot spice. What did you think?
Hi Russ,
ReplyDeleteSure, but it's worth noting how US politics looks from the UK. For a start, there are big assumptions behind the idea that politics is divided into Liberal vs Conservative.
In different countries, particularly those in Europe the demarcation is different, but in the US liberal/conservative assumptions pervade all the way into, say facebook where even though my politics are mainstream Labour / New Labour, they don't even have a profile category for it. Surely, that's more than ignorance?
The real problem with politics is that, necessarily, pragmatism rules, because you have to get consensus from large groups of disparate people. And that applies (in the US) to both democrats and republicans - both of which look like extreme liberals from a UK perspective.
Consider the obsession with tax. In traditional British Labour politics the rationale is simple: rich people grab power and wealth and redistribute it to themselves at the expense of their workforce. And then, if it all goes belly-up: they sack the bottom-rung; make the rest work harder and if necessary, quit giving themselves a handsome reward.
Rich people do that (from a Christian perspective) because they're sinners. They are just as bad as the rest, except they have more power to inflict more damage and more pressure to do so.
That's why wealth needs to be redistributed so it can actually be good that taxes should be raised for those who are richer to benefit those who aren't. But of course, the people in government are also sinners and have selfish, sinful motives (mixed with principles and ethics) as do the recipients of their policies.
Yet the US is still fighting the war of independence: the echoes of the punitive 18th century British tax laws that kick-started the revolution haunt their politics to the core.
So, when both Obama (who I would support) and McCain talk about tax, they both sound desperately liberal from my perspective (because liberal policies aim to REDUCE tax from a British perspective). And when they both talk about being able to preemptively strike, say Pakistan or Syria, they both sound rabidly imperialist.
When McCain talks about his POW experience or Oil or security it really does sound like he's presenting simplistic policies to appeal to the poor and uneducated: It's all about Patriotism, Cheap travel, and Paranoia. But it's also entirely consistent with helping his big, rich friends build bigger, richer empires to control his own people and those abroad.
So, really at worst (or best), depending on your natural politics, there may be nothing to choose between the candidates on the grounds of populist vs pragmatist vs ethics vs sin. It's all weeds amongst the wheat; but somehow God will have a way of working it out!
-cheers from julz @p
First of all, I LOVE those chimp pics!!
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I agree. It's a subtle form of manipulation by flattery, or as you say appealing to the masses.
"As a theologian I am not primarily concerned with popularity and I am not looking for votes. Of course I would prefer to be liked, and I would like my theology blogs to be decently popular, but I am not looking to present blogs that appeal to the masses."
That is about the exact right balance of approach I think, to your blogging.
Thanks, Julz!
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your first time comments.
Julz is a Christian friend from Manchester.
Okay, you commenting brings up interesting thoughts for me. I know you are possibly going to be countered by likely Republican supporting Christians from the USA that support my blogs as well.
So stay tuned.
The UK, Western Europe and Canada are more liberal politically by the classic definition than the United States in general terms. There are of course degrees of liberal and conservative.
I consider myself a moderate conservative politically and theologically. If I were American, I would often vote Republican, but could vote Democrat at times. I could also vote independent. Perhaps I would favour independent the most.
There are degrees of liberal and conservative in the USA as well. But, there is a divide, and I reason the liberal side is prevailing.
Pragmatism devoid of solid truth is very problematic and is my concern with much politics. This is my concern with much of what I hear from politicians, but especially North American liberal democrats.
The book of James certainly discusses the abusive rich (James 5).
How is redistribution done best? Through socialism? Or better by providing opportunity for people to succeed through hard and smart work while government monitors business and has the power to regulate? But, of course sin corrupts everywhere.
US foreign policy in my mind needs to change from the Bush era. They cannot afford in many ways more questionable wars.
I am not a fan of Obama as to me he is a cold, calculating liberal democrat. His views on abortion for example, as he claims to be a Christian and yet does not take a pro-life stance. Minimally a Christian should at least state that although he/she is personally pro-life he/she understands the will of the majority of people, if that is the case, as pro-choice, and so does not force his/her personal view in writing laws.
To me, so much of what Obama is stating is pragmatic in order to receive votes.
But of course, the Republicans have been in power in the US with the White House, Senate and Congress and have not succeeded in making abortion on demand illegal and so perhaps some of them are rather pragmatic in their approach too.
Not that I am a fan of McCain, but I think he is the more experienced of the two.
Obama sounds just as simplistic as McCain. He is appealing to the fact that most Americans do not like George Bush II and many of his policies and Obama will change things, but he really sounds a lot like the previous Democrats to run for President recently. He pushes all the right buttons that he needs to push to be elected at this time, and he has spent millions at it.
I see many British Christians as too supportive of the US Democratic party. I see some American Christians as often too supportive of the Republican party.
To me there needs to be change in society and change in government in the Western world that a mere change of parities will not provide.
But, so far, not so good.:)
Cheers!
Russ
Thanks, Deejay, that is much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Intro Russ!
ReplyDeleteOK, so I think we have some degree of agreement here. I'd be glad to hear from your other Republican friends so that'd be good.
I don't think there's any question that somehow God is either Republican or Democrat. The truth is that whatever our political leanings we are called to transform the world not co-opt God as partisan to one or the other (or a third or fourth as in European politics). So we have to rely on Christians being politically on the 'other side' yet spiritually part of the same Kingdom.
It seems to me there's two basic ways of fouling up truth. We can grey it out so we can't really tell what's going on. Or we can use truth to hide evil.
For example, we can say that we want to find common grounds and objectives on the issue of abortion - but it may just end up being a licence for national moral collapse.
Or we could be clear on being 'pro-life' with regard to abortion (so you have to vote for me) and use it to cover anyone of a number of incongruent or murderous policies: liberal gun ownership; capital punishment; senseless wars.
Logically of course we don't have to subscribe to any particular set. We could be adamantly pro-life, anti-gun; pro-capital punishment, yet diplomatic and economically redistributive imperialist peaceniks.
But the real problem is at the root - with us. We can't really solve issues of unwanted pregnancies; social disadvantage; racism or national or global violence simply by legislation, we have a personal responsibility to support the community.
For example, it wouldn't (pragmatically) matter if US abortion laws remained intact if the church was more effective in it's mandate for social concern; because society would be geared up to have healthier relationships; act more responsibly; and offer better support in difficult cases.
On the other hand, it wouldn't (pragmatically) matter if redistribution policies were applied if the social fabric were left to rot.
It's possible that Obama is a cold, calculating pragmatist and McCain is a hot-headed, impulsive traditionalist. At least neither of the candidates are boring!
It's also possible that the UK is too supportive of Obama, but maybe that's because his policies just sound more European; because British evangelicals have been historically more left-wing and because British media (like all media) plays a part in shaping our view of the election.
Still, it's better to be galvanised than comatised and US08 is anything but dull :-) !
-cheers from julz @P
That is interesting that you describe 'some' Republicans as pragmatic. I think the conservative approach would be more pragmatic because their thoughts are deliberate in attempting to think for what is best and safer for the community.
ReplyDeleteWhere as, the Democrats would think of what is beneficial for Government to opporate among the public. If the public is happy, then the Democrats get to stay in power longer. So, thinking along the lines of truth (pragmatism) I would have to say that the party that looks out for the best interest of society has the best truth.
Thanks, Julz.
ReplyDeleteAs Christians we need reformation/revival within the Church, first and foremost. Then we can begin to impact the world in a greater way.
By the way, I do think capital punishment is Biblical. Looking at Romans 13 it gives the state the right to use the sword. But, I am not stating that we should attempt to implement it in an Old Testament context of executing those that break commandments within the old covenant. I also recognize that with capital punishment there is a serious issue of a possible miscarriage of justice which cannot be corrected once a person is wrongly executed.
Thanks, Jim.
ReplyDeleteI understand your very good point, but I reason pragmatism does not necessarily equate with truth in every sense. I think it is mainly equated with the perception of truth as in practical consequences.
Pojman states in the text 'Philosophy: The quest for truth' that pragmatism was a theory set forth by Peirce and James that interprets the meaning of a statement in terms of its practical consequences. They state that a proposition is true or false as a result of its consequences. p. 598.
The practical consequences may appear to lead to truth because certain people are happy and at 'peace' with it, but there may be more than practical consequences at play, such as deeper theological and philosophical issues.
There can be a difference between practical consequences, and theological/philosophical consequences, and this is where many a politician takes advantage.
Liberal democrats are often more pragmatic in my view, by stating what the people want to hear. For example, even though abortion on demand is morally wrong as a human being in its initial stages is terminated, it is pragmatic for most liberal democrats to support it because the results in the short term benefit people involved practically. A woman, and/or couple does not want a baby, and the state allows the fetus to be terminated as it assists the people seeking the abortion pragmatically/practically in that they avoid the hassles, costs, and time wasted, as they see it, of having the baby. It also maintains as they see it, the persons involved fair and square right to choose, as it is the woman's body.
Now, ultimately, we can agree that if pragmatism was completely and solely equated with all truth, the sin and evil of having a child aborted would work against these people. At least we know that God judges all sin and therefore it is not worth it to be judged by God for any sin.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
O.k. Russ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reciprocating.
I guess that there is no way of knowing who is more pragmatic. Dems, or Repubs?
Thanks, Jim.
ReplyDeleteI reason that conservatives can be pragmatic as well, and I did mention that in the main text. But, conservatism, at least in a purer form in the West to me seems committed to concepts such as pro-life and no same-sex marriage which will often not be the popular opinions to hold. They also hold to less government intervention in affairs where as many Canadians and Europeans favour a more socialistic approach.
Pragmatism
ReplyDelete************
Firstly, I agree with your definition of pragmatism - it's got nothing to do with truth, it's concerned with what appears to work in practice. Ironically my opinion, one of the strengths of British culture is its degree of pragmatism; which you can see over the centuries and in the fact that we have no official constitution.
Consider the route towards the abolition of slavery in the UK. The anti-slavery movement began on both sides of the Atlantic during the mid-1700s but gathered enough momentum for it to become a national campaign by the 1780s in Britain. For example, the abolitionists managed to get 20% of Manchester's population (55K) to petition against slavery in 1787. That's despite Manchester being a rapidly growing industrial city dependent on slave products. So we can see the idealism there was high.
But pragmatically, the abolitionists knew they couldn't just get slavery banned. So instead they focussed on getting the slave trade banned - because it was easier to appeal to the inhuman treatment during transport than to the principle itself.
But the first anti-slavery law was even more pragmatic: James Stephen got a law passed that prevented trading slaves with foreigners in 1806 - in this case building on patriotism and friction between us and France / US to eliminate 50% of slave trading. (Slave trading was banned in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833, over 30 years before the US did, despite it having a constitution which is diametrically opposed to slavery).
Thus pragmatism isn't always opposed to truth (though often I suspect it is).
Polar Politics
************
In my first comment I tried to argue that the categories of liberal and conservative don't directly translate into British politics: the Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties include a mixture policies which would come from both sides of the American political scene.
In your reply you start with:
"The UK, Western Europe and Canada are more liberal politically by the classic definition than the United States in general terms. There are of course degrees of liberal and conservative."
I'm not really sure whether you're refuting my perspective by saying the same categories apply in the UK as the US, but the UK is more liberal or just trying to approximate what I said in US-centric terms?
Appealing To The Masses
**************************
Again, it's just an observation, but your description of the democrats as appealing to the masses by stating what the public want to hear, is how I would normally describe republican politics surely people do want to hear about lower taxes; moral certainties and national security?
I think that's interesting - it means that the other candidate (or should I say condidate ;-) ) tends to push all the wrong buttons for us: insincerity, populism etc. Curious isn't it - that is, I think it says more about us than them on that score.
-cheers from julz @P
Thanks, Julz.
ReplyDeleteWe basically agree on the academic textbook definition of pragmatism. I will occasionally disagree with a textbook definition if I can back it up.
Slave trading was banned in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833, over 30 years before the US did, despite it having a constitution which is diametrically opposed to slavery).
Excellent point.
Thus pragmatism isn't always opposed to truth (though often I suspect it is).
Interesting reasoning.
I'm not really sure whether you're refuting my perspective by saying the same categories apply in the UK as the US, but the UK is more liberal or just trying to approximate what I said in US-centric terms?
I recognize that you were using the term liberal differently. I was noting the common usage in North America, at least. I am not stating your take is wrong.:)
Again, it's just an observation, but your description of the democrats as appealing to the masses by stating what the public want to hear, is how I would normally describe republican politics surely people do want to hear about lower taxes; moral certainties and national security?
I will repeat what I stated in my comments to Jim which were not presented before you sent your comment.
I reason that conservatives can be pragmatic as well, and I did mention that in the main text. But, conservatism, at least in a purer form in the West to me seems committed to concepts such as pro-life and no same-sex marriage which will often not be the popular opinions to hold. They also hold to less government intervention in affairs where as many Canadians and Europeans favour a more socialistic approach.
With our present Western society which is primarily leaning liberal, I think the liberal democrat types have the edge as their appeal to a more middle of the road/moderate approach will often gain popularity over purer forms of conservatism, at least, which present ideas such as preserving traditional marriage and traditional family related laws and values.
Even Obama has promised lower taxes and better national security.
The liberal democrats certainly do not have a monopoly on pragmatism, however.
Cheers, Julz. Please comment again.
What's up with the center-aligned comments on the page where the article and comments show? It makes it hard to read. But at least on this page that only shows the comments, its easier to read the comments.
ReplyDeleteI remember when that first commercial with the little girl and the bomb originally came out.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Jeff. The Internet Explorer version, my standard version, is normal, but my secondary Firebox version is as you describe it. I changed nothing that I know of to cause this problem.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
I agree with 'SNIAL' that McCain is not a true Conservative. He was never my first choice when there were more candidates that were being shown in the media. Even my first choice, Huckabee, was not a strict Conservative, from what some were saying. So, we never had any great choices, even from the start. Actually, there was one, but he was so unknown, that I don't think he ever stood a chance.
ReplyDeleteHowever, one of the things I fear most about Obama is his ties with Muslims. He wants to make the U.S. weaker, and he supposedly has relatives who are radical terrorists. The Muslims in the Middle East want him to be elected, from what I understand. Some tend to think that he might be the forerunner of Muslim power entering the U.S. Some have said that his attending a Protestant church was merely a facade, and of course, it was anything but a God-honoring church. And, of course, he broke off from that church as soon as it interfered with his election.
Obama grew up in Africa, and I heard that his birth records were tempered with. Legally, a person cannot be a U.S. President unless they were born in the U.S. I've seen a bunch of family photos of him and his family as they grew up in Africa.
In addition, I think that if Obama is elected, there might also be much more persecution against Christians than the rare and incidental persecution that currently exists. Anyone who speaks out against abortion or homosexuality may find themselves in jail or prison, and it might possibly even get worse than that. And, with Obama's love for Islam, I'm wondering if speaking out against Islam may become illegal.
All this is of course conjecture and guessing based on what I've read and heard, but many, many people are fearing that very, very bad things will happen if Obama is elected. And I have never, ever heard anyone have this much fear over a Presidential candidate before. Clinton was the closest, I think, and there was nowhere near as much fear and apprehension over the possibility of his becoming President.
I have a friend in Africa that says that this election will affect the entire world. And, of course, it will.
At the same time, we will also be voting on gay marriage in Florida.
And, of course, he broke off from that church as soon as it interfered with his election.
ReplyDeletePragmatism.
Obama grew up in Africa, and I heard that his birth records were tempered with. Legally, a person cannot be a U.S. President unless they were born in the U.S. I've seen a bunch of family photos of him and his family as they grew up in Africa.
I have read this as well.
Thanks, Jeff.
That center-alignment is fixed now! Odd...
ReplyDeleteCuban-Americans 'allergic' to Obama-talk
ReplyDeleteChad Groening -
10/30/2008 8:00:00 AM
"Money 2A Cuban-born author and anti-Castro activist says Barack Obama won't make any inroads with voters in the Cuban-American community by pushing a wealth redistribution message. That community, he says, is all too familiar with the consequences of such a policy.
Humberto Fontova has written several books on the communist regime and believes Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is desperate to make inroads among the Cuban-American community in Florida, 76 percent of which favor John McCain in recent polls.
Humberto Fontova
Obama, according to Fontova, has said he wants to ease restrictions on family-related travel to Cuba and on the amount of money Cuban-Americans can send to their relatives in Cuba. However, Fontova contends Obama is not going to score many points with Cuban-Americans by touting his "redistribution of wealth" agenda.
"We have been there. When we hear these 'spread the wealth' sound bites, when we hear about the rich are bad, you know we say, 'Now where have we heard this before?' We heard it in Cuba, of course," he explains. "So that's why we're allergic to that type of talk because we have seen an extreme version of the Democratic platform taken to its logical conclusion. So, naturally we are concerned."
But Fontova believes there are still enough checks and balances in the American system to prevent what has happened in Cuba from happening in the United States."
No, I removed the three You Tube videos and placed a link for one of the clips.
ReplyDeleteFirefox screwed up. I fixed.
Russ;)
"The importance of this election to all Americans and the future of our country cannot be over stated. The United States has never had the possibility of a virtual Marxist in the oval office before. The Democrat Party has been taken over by the extreme left wing to the extent that earlier Democrats like Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey would not recognize it. The Wall Street Journal ran an article that should scare everyone about what will happen if Obama is elected and Democrats achieve a veto-proof majority in the Senate; it being a foregone conclusion that Democrats will have a majority in the House."
ReplyDelete(from "Obama, Alinsky and the Marxist Left," By Vincent Gioia, October 18, 2008)
Here's an insightful TV doc on all the ways government makes our lives so much better! :^P
ReplyDeleteWatch all 6 parts!
20/20 Politically Incorrect Guide To Politics
I promise, I promise, I promise.
ReplyDeleteRe: Rick's spice, I didn't taste it, just smelled it, and my sniffing ability is not all that great, so I can't really pass judgment as yet.
ReplyDeleteI do like spicy foods, though I can barely manage a bag of "Blair's Death Rain" Habanero flavour potato chips. I can tolerate the Hot Wings flavor chips though.
Hey Chucky,
ReplyDeleteIf you bring your digital camera over we can try Rick's dry spice and take a picture with the bottle in front of my Canadian flag for Rick.
Hello Jeff,
ReplyDeleteIt's worth looking at some of the issues you raise, and I'll try and do it without dissing McCain.
Of course Obama has ties with Muslims since his dad was a Muslim; lots of people are in Kenya and he spent some of his childhood in Indonesia (AFAIK). And most Muslim views in Kenya will be far more radical than you might desire - I suspect the US is not popular there. On the other hand Kenya is not known for it's Al-Qeida strongholds.
The simplest proof that Obama is a US citizen is the birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday August 13 1961: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4."
The full details can be found here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
The real problem is that if even a fairly small proportion of the smear tactics against McCain or Obama were true; you would be jumping on the next plane to leave the country! The truth is that both of the candidates will be convincing US citizens with strong credentials, because otherwise they would have chosen others.
Frankly, when it comes to fears about persecution I don't really think you have a leg to stand on. Recently I was chatting to an Iranian couple. Lovely people. The husband had become a Christian about 7 years previously, in Iran. As a result he had been imprisoned though he managed to escape; having had to walk across the mountains from Iran to Turkey before travelling to the UK where he's been given asylum. His wife joined him a few years later.
It's not that it's irrelevent, it's just that the Gospel response is love. So when I think about Islam (and I have read the Qur'an) I think "I Shall Love A Muslim." Love is the most powerful argument we have. Jesus died for us when we were still wicked, but Love raised him from the dead.
Finally, a word about the weakness and strength of the US. Although militarily the US has been strong since WW2, right now the US is weaker economically and politically than it has been for 60 years. That is, your economy is in shreds and your international standing is in ruins.
Let's look at the international standing. One good indicator is to consider the UK. Because of our support for you we've had two actual terrorist attacks and numerous terrorist cell raids (including one where a British (Christian) police officer was knifed to death). The UK is a softer target than the US because we're closer to the Middle-east and many Islamic countries are part of the Commonwealth.
Now, at one level that's something we're willing to put up with. We're not paranoid about terrorism (e.g. Manchester was bombed by terrorists in 1996); I'm sure there will be more and we'll get over it. But we've been so terribly dismayed by US policies post 9/11 your standing in the UK is at an all time low. And we're your *strongest* ally!
Economically, the US is already in a terribly weak state. But it's clear from Obama's speeches that he believes the hope for the US doesn't lie in him, but it's people: only they can dig themselves out of the hole and they can do it! Regardless of what you think of his particular policies you cannot fault him for his faith in the American people.
In conclusion:
**************
1. Smearing either Obama or McCain is a road that leads nowhere: we need to be super-critical of character assassination in elections.
2. Religious struggles are just part of the ebb-and-flow of life I'm afraid, though fear is not the way to handle it.
3. The strength of the US lies in the resourcefulness of its people, not its leaders and certainly not its foreign policy. It's what's embedded in the constitution which deliberately exalts its citizens and its concept of limited government.
Well, I'm off to do some more work on my Tax Returns. We have *so* *much* tax here, so there's a lot of work to do ;-)
-cheers from julz @P
Chuck said though I can barely manage a bag of "Blair's Death Rain" Habanero flavour potato chips.
ReplyDeleteThose chips are light weight, so I would guess you would find my spice a bit hot. rick b
Thanks, Julz.
ReplyDeleteYour comments are interesting and I appreciate the thought behind them.
I certainly agree with some of what you state, and the US does need to change its foreign policy. I reason they need to be more concerned with domestic defence and defending NATO countries and allies such as Australia, New Zealand, and Japan within agreements.
Russ
snial (julz),
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is that if even a fairly small proportion of the smear tactics against McCain or Obama were true; you would be jumping on the next plane to leave the country!
Nothing of the smear tactics against McCain scares me, if any of it were true. And I would not leave the country, as I cannot afford it, and there is no other country that I would desire to live in.
Frankly, when it comes to fears about persecution I don't really think you have a leg to stand on. Recently I was chatting to an Iranian couple. Lovely people. The husband had become a Christian about 7 years previously, in Iran. As a result he had been imprisoned though he managed to escape; having had to walk across the mountains from Iran to Turkey before travelling to the UK where he's been given asylum. His wife joined him a few years later.
I agree that even if Christians begin to be treated worse in the U.S. (which I believe they will), other countries (especially Muslim and Communist countries) are miles and miles and miles beyond the U.S. when it comes to persecution against Christians. Compared to them, it doesn't exist in the U.S.
So when I think about Islam (and I have read the Qur'an) I think "I Shall Love A Muslim." Love is the most powerful argument we have. Jesus died for us when we were still wicked, but Love raised him from the dead.
Obviously. But I'm talking about the possibility of having to go through the persecution, not the response towards Muslims.
Although militarily the US has been strong since WW2, right now the US is weaker economically and politically than it has been for 60 years. That is, your economy is in shreds and your international standing is in ruins.
The entire world is in trouble economically. The U.S. is the last remaining superpower, but Obama said that he will remove all nuclear weapons from the U.S. That would put us in a far more vulnerable position than we are now.
Let's look at the international standing. One good indicator is to consider the UK. Because of our support for you we've had two actual terrorist attacks and numerous terrorist cell raids (including one where a British (Christian) police officer was knifed to death). The UK is a softer target than the US because we're closer to the Middle-east and many Islamic countries are part of the Commonwealth.
Actually, virtually every country in the world has suffered from terrorist attacks in the past couple decades, so the UK does not stand out in that department. However, Islamic extremists have said that they want to destroy the U.S. and the UK, and all of the West.
But it's clear from Obama's speeches that he believes the hope for the US doesn't lie in him, but it's people: only they can dig themselves out of the hole and they can do it! Regardless of what you think of his particular policies you cannot fault him for his faith in the American people.
Obama is so much a chameleon that I don't believe anything he says. He has contradicted himself many times. I don't trust him at all.
Smearing either Obama or McCain is a road that leads nowhere: we need to be super-critical of character assassination in elections.
Well, in the research I've done, I've found only negative things about Obama, and some of it has scary potential.
Only time will tell what will truly happen. And neither candidate is a great choice, as I've said before. Also, neither candidate is worthy of putting our trust and hope in. In actuality, we should only put our hope and trust in Jesus. Prophecy will be fulfilled, and tribulation will come, whether now or later. So the only thing we can do is hold tightly to Jesus.
Only time will tell what will truly happen. And neither candidate is a great choice, as I've said before.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Jeff.
Within the domestic defence I mentioned in my last comment, defence against Islamic and all terrorism is extremely important for the USA, and Western nations.
Cheers,
Russ
snial (julz),
ReplyDelete...though fear is not the way to handle it.
I think that is probably the most important point you have made. As the Bible says, we should not fear those who can merely kill the body, but we should fear Him who can not only destroy the body, but can throw the soul into Hell, as well. And, those of us who are Christians have only eternal life to look forward to.
Also, though I have never experienced physical persecution, and I have no idea what it would be like, when someone once threatened to punch me if I mentioned the name of Jesus again, I felt joy. When a group of guys laughed at me because I told them I did not sleep around because I was a Christian, I felt joy. When a former boss took me into his office and angrily warned me never to send out an email again that talked about how God answered my prayer (he was a liberal Jew), I felt like I was walking in obedience to God. When someone commanded me not to witness to some Jehovah's Witnesses, the Lord gave me joy and peace through it all. When a lady official threatened me and commanded me not to hand out gospel tracts anymore (at a public festival), I felt like I was walking in obedience to God.
In summary, though I've never experienced physical persecution, the closest things that I have ever experienced to it brought me joy, as well as confirmation that I was doing God's will. So you are absolutely right, Julz, that we should not fear persecution.
In fact, in the past, Chinese Christians have asked us not to pray that the terrible persecution against them be stopped, because they know that it only makes them stronger. Some of them have even prayed that the U.S. would fall under persecution, because they know that many Christians in the U.S. are extremely weak spiritually (for example, when the U.S.S.R. still existed, someone said that the Christians in Communist Russia were like college students, spiritually-speaking, while the Christians in the U.S. were at the spiritual level of Elementary-school children, because they were spoiled and materialistic, and had never been refined by persecution).
Honestly, you could never be a politician, because you are too honest!! It seems that people say they want honesty, but do they really? I'm happy to read that you are not looking for the popularity vote when it comes to presenting Scripture truthfully...
ReplyDeleteGreat position, even though some people don't want to hear what God's Word truly says!
-Bible Thumper-
Thanks for the kind words, and please do not thump me.
ReplyDeleteJeff, thanks again.
Russ;)
Well, the U.S. will either end up with the first black President, or the first female Vice-President.
ReplyDelete"The 2008 presidential election has also proved to be the most expensive in history.
Obama repeatedly shattered fundraising records by soliciting donations over the Internet. As of Monday, Obama had raised more than $454 million, compared with the $230 million raised by McCain.
Obama -- who decided to forgo federal campaign financing, and thus spending limits -- used his financial advantage to outspend his opponent on television advertising by almost 2-to-1.
By the end of October, Obama's campaign had spent more than $292 million on advertising, compared to nearly $132 million spent by McCain, who accepted federal campaign financing.
Obama had enough left in the bank to buy time on several networks Thursday night for a muscle-flexing, 30-minute prime-time ad.
Tuesday also marks the end of one of the longest presidential campaign seasons -- nearly 21 months."
"Election will mark historic firsts," Tuesday, November 4, 2008 8:07 AM EST, CNN
Interestingly former Bill Clinton advisor James Carville during the CNN election coverage tonight stated (not exact words, I do not have a transcript) that the moderate centrist Democrats are not as ideologically orientated as many Republicans and implied they were therefore more electable in our present society.
ReplyDeleteThis is basically a major point in my article concerning pragmatism from the horse's mouth so to speak.
"Only time will tell what will truly happen. And neither candidate is a great choice, as I've said before."
ReplyDelete"I agree, Jeff.
Within the domestic defence I mentioned in my last comment, defence against Islamic and all terrorism is extremely important for the USA, and Western nations."
I suggest, as a Brit who sees the same things in my own country, that the very choice of candidates speaks of God's judgments coming upon our nations.
Thanks, Deejay.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I agree, and think some type of judgment is coming.
well now that Obama won, I am going to down load the song (it's the end of the world as we know it) by R.E.M and use it as a cell phone ring tone.
ReplyDeleteand if people ask about my choice of ring tone, I will tell them we are now living in an obamanation.
I really believe Obama will help bring Gods judgment upon our nation and we will get exactly what we desirve. so let me say this, if any one is scared, worried, or needs help, I just so happen to sell (happinss).
now you can you honestly say, money does by happiness and I bought it. LOL. Rick b
Happiness for sale at, www.coffehouse-journal.blogspot.com
Russ and Chuck have tried my happiness, I believe Russ's Mom had a hard time with my happiness, LOL.
Thanks, Rick.
ReplyDeleteI think judgment was on the way to America and the Western world, long before Obama.
All the best with sales!
Russ:)
I believe your correct about the judgment, I believe God will use Obama to bring it. check out my topic about Wes on my mormon blog. Wes is a liar. rick b
ReplyDeleteCrazyCalvinist said...
ReplyDeleteI suggest, as a Brit who sees the same things in my own country, that the very choice of candidates speaks of God's judgments coming upon our nations.
Someone told me basically the same thing this morning. Sadly, I suspect it is true.
rick b said...
well now that Obama won, I am going to down load the song (it's the end of the world as we know it) by R.E.M and use it as a cell phone ring tone.
and if people ask about my choice of ring tone, I will tell them we are now living in an obamanation.
LMHO!!! Hilarious!
so let me say this, if any one is scared, worried, or needs help, I just so happen to sell (happinss).
now you can you honestly say, money does by happiness and I bought it. LOL. Rick b
Happiness for sale at, www.coffehouse-journal.blogspot.com
Wow, using the plight of our nation as a plug. Some people have no shame! (j/k) Gotta admit, though, that is some plug.
Hey, Rick, if the Great Tribulation occurs in our lifetime, and if the Rapture has not occurred before then, are you going to say, "Get your happiness right here!" LOL
satire and theology said...
I think judgment was on the way to America and the Western world, long before Obama.
The amazing thing to me is how God has postponed His judgment and wrath thus far. Sure, I believe God has been slowly withdrawing His hand of blessing (from the U.S.) for years now, but when you think about the abortion, homosexuality, paganism and false religions, taking down the Ten Commandments, adultery, and a long list of other things, it's amazing that the U.S. has not been obliterated yet. And other countries are even more anti-God than the U.S. is.
I can't help but think that this newly-elected President marks a turning point, and that things are about to "CHANGE" radically, for the worst.
Thanks very much, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteTime will tell on the Obama Presidency, but I think the media expectations are too high. In the article I reason I have made very good points on the pragmatic nature of liberal democrats and sadly many moderate conservatives or so called conservatives are also too pragmatic.
An interesting thing is that I have some non-American friends that are embracing Obama, and I think that rather at this time we should as Christians be seeking careful reflection on politics and all political parties. Consider this, much of this is simply a reaction to Bush II and his foreign policy which is unacceptable to many Americans and most Canadians and Europeans.
I of course believe in the Second Coming of Christ and the fact that we shall in Christ meet the Lord in the air. As far as the rapture goes, I have not seen convincing evidence for a pre-tribulation rapture in my opinion. I have read through it with Thiessen. I am not stating that is your view, Jeff.
2 Thessalonians 2: 6-7 is not necessarily stating that the Church is going to be removed in order for the antichrist to be revealed. The Holy Spirit may simply be allowing the antichrist to take power, and therefore a restraint is removed.
1 Thessalonians 4:17
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
Revelation 13: 7
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.
Hey Russ! Thanks for stopping by Morning Coffee (www.renaebrumbaugh.com.) I like both of your blogs! Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteBlessings to you.
Renae
Thanks, Renae!
ReplyDeleteHere is a nice little blog site, which reflects what others have also said, calling Obama "the Savior," "the Messiah," and "the Anointed One." This blog site even calls Obama "God," "the Alpha and Omega," saying we will have to measure time by 'Before Obama' and 'After Obama,' and even crossing out Jesus' name and writing, about Obama, "This is my Beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
ReplyDeletehttp://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/