Caffeinated Thoughts |
- Republicans Encouraging GOP Voters to Vote Twice for Romney? (Why Once is One Too Many)
- Cult is the Wrong Word to Describe Mormonism.
- Why I Don’t Want A Strong Europe
- Catholic Georgetown University Invites Kathleen Sebelius to Speak
- Mitt, You Can’t Have Ayotte
- Why do You Believe?
| Republicans Encouraging GOP Voters to Vote Twice for Romney? (Why Once is One Too Many) Posted: 05 May 2012 03:07 AM PDT People say this to me all the time (well, not all the time):
Where do these people come up with these things? Let's turn it around a moment. Isn't it just as logical to say the following?
So, since not voting for one candidate is apparently (nay, actually!) voting for the other, by not voting for Obama I have already voted for Romney. So why do they insist, that I have to vote for him again, then? Isn't that voting twice?
 The Battle is Not to Those With the Strongest Horse in the War (or the Race) When I hear my fellow Christians lament in fear that we do not have a conservative Christian deliverer in the Republican party who will save the nation and that we must turn to Mitt Romney to save us–one who has neither a credible Christian testimony nor is he a conservative, I think of a passage in Scripture (Isaiah 31):
Do we not think God is able to keep his people safe during a second Obama term, without resorting to the arm of a sinner and human wisdom? Will not God see where the church has turned for help and will he not perhaps turn in chastisement against His people?
Would it not be much better to sit back, do no evil, and watch the deliverance of the Lord?! What He might do, would we turn to Him and not another pagan! We have been given such awful leaders because we deserve them or worse. My friend, Pastor Aaron Gunsaulus, has wisely applied David’s choice of judgments against his sin to the present case of facing only bad choices in the fall. When faced with three possible judgments, David chose the one that would be God choosing, because he did not want to fall directly into the hands of men (1Chronicles 21:9–13) And what may happen if we turn to the Lord (Isaiah 31:4-7)?
Link to this post! |
| Cult is the Wrong Word to Describe Mormonism. Posted: 05 May 2012 12:56 AM PDT  Latter Day Saints Temple in Washington DC, Where Romney Would Likely Attend if He Becomes President Mormonism is in the news like never before. The third biggest talker in the Land, Glenn Beck is a Mormon. The presumed GOP nominee for president, Mitt Romney is a Mormon. One of his potential running mates, Marco Rubio, used to be a Mormon, before converting to Catholicism. Many Christians through the years have designated "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (LDS) as a "cult." In the past, when used by evangelicals, the term had a fairly general meaning: any religion, which professed to be Christian, but which denied certain foundational doctrines of the church: Jesus Christ and his uniqueness as the only Son of God (fully divine and fully human), the Trinitarian Godhead, and the sufficiency of the Bible as our only Scriptural source of religious Truth. Of course, some of these cults were founded by individuals who raised themselves up as latter day prophets, such as Joseph Smith (Mormonism) , Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) and L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology), to name a few. These cults often believed that they were the only remnant left of the true Christian church. But thing changed after Jim Jones murdered or helped over 900 members of his personality cult to commit suicide in the fall of 1978 by drinking "Kool-Aid" laced with poison. About 40 members of another cult, Heavens' Gate, killed themselves in a similar manner in 1997. The word cult, therefore, took on a much narrower meaning, having little to do with religious beliefs, and everything to do with strangeness. The word cult then became associated with brainwashing, doomsday fears, blind devotion to a single leader, communal and cloistered living, and often suicidal and/or anti-government tendencies. Today this presents a problem, not because the Bible has changed, but because the connotation of the word has changed. The problem with using the word "cult" now is that Mormons currently have none of the latter characteristics associated with the word cult. They are not "strange" in the ways often associated with cults (in its new definition). And they make Evangelicals look silly when they use that word. So how should Christians identify Mormonism, if not as a cult? Instead, I suggest we should use phrases like "false religion" or "false doctrines" and call their leaders "false prophets". And indeed, in spite of the sleight of hand used by Mormonism's leaders and many of its followers in trying to portray Mormonism as the same in substance as historical or Biblical Christianity, it is indeed a false religion. They deny all of the essential doctrines of Scripture: the Trinity, the eternality and divinity of Christ, the Bible as the only Word of God (adding the Book of Mormon and other writings), the belief in One God (they believe every good person will become God), and salvation by Grace Alone. Just as a swindler can dress up in a three-piece suit to fool his victims (does anybody still wear those today?), we must not be misled. The Bible calls false apostles "angels of light" who are yet full of darkness. Link to this post! |
| Why I Don’t Want A Strong Europe Posted: 05 May 2012 12:48 AM PDT I’ve previously written about why I don’t support the Fiscal treaty/compact, and I’ve also written about why I’m overall pessimistic about the future of the Eurozone. Yet, there is one topic I haven’t touched before: The idea of a strong Europe. What I’ve noticed is that everyone takes for granted that a strong Europe is something positive. What we all debate is not whether a strong Europe is a good idea, but how to accomplish it. Some believe (and they may be right) that the Eurozone will actually weaken European unity in the long run, and that’s a reason for them to oppose it. However, why do we really want European unity? The short, realistic answer is this: To compete with the US and, ultimately, to take the top spot and become the world’s ultimate superpower. Other idealistic answers include “To prevent a world war III” – but let’s face it, the EU never had anything to do with preventing a possible third world war. A third world war was never going to happen, and if it was going to happen, it was going to be between the US and the soviet union (back when the EU was founded). We already had the UN to prevent that. And a third world war today would not be between the UK and Germany, but rather the US and Russia, China, Iran etc (I’m not saying that’s likely to happen, but the point remains). My question, and I really hope someone can answer this (no-one’s done it yet), is: Why would we want to overtake the US? What is so good about a strong Europe? Here below are my top reasons to oppose a strong Europe: 1) The US is a really good superpower. Unlike the Roman Empire, France, the UK and all the other superpowers of the past, the US doesn’t kill those who disagree with them. They don’t sail around the globe stealing natural resources or taking slaves and they don’t try to impose their culture wherever they go. There has never been a time in history when there hasn’t been at least one superpower, so trying to derail the first really good one does not make any sense. 2) American values – better than European First, it’s hard to say what European values are, as every country more or less has its own values. None the less, it is safe to say that the American values of entreprenurship, individual liberty and local government easily beats any European values in the world. Why would we want to overtake a country who’s values any conservatives could agree on are great? We don’t have it in us, it’s that simple. Of course, if you’re a socialist you may not agree with me on this – but then, this post is mostly directed to right-winged Europeans who for some reason still want a strong Europe. Even though European conservatism differs from American conservatism, it’s still got to be obvious for us European conservatives who’s got the advantage in the value department. 3) What would we do with our power? If Europe were to become a superpower, what would we do? What would be the purpose of our “reign”? The US promotes democracy and freedom all over the world – would a United States of Europe do that? And if so – what’s the point of taking over the US? They’re already doing that! Or, is it, as I suspect – that we want power for the sake of power? That would be very European indeed (looking at all the European countries whom historically have sought just that), but hardly desirable. 4) A superpower needs an army Currently, the US stands for over half the world’s total defense spending. Is Europe willing to compete? Probably not – we have enough trouble paying for our welfare states, we certainly can’t afford to become warfare states as well. Every superpower has to be able to use military force to enforce its will – otherwise, it’s not a superpower. The US can do that, Soviet could do that, China is on the way to becoming able to do that. But Europe? Yes, France intervened in Libya, but no-one seriously believes that the European Union would have ever gone to war against Iraq in a million years, no matter what they had done to us or were planning to do to us. If we’re not willing to build up a military defense necessary to become a superpower, then what’s the point with trying? No matter how integrated we become, without a big army you can’t be a superpower. 5) A strong Europe makes every European country weaker This is what I consider to be the strongest argument against a strong Europe. You see, I’m a European, and I love Europe. But a strong Europe just makes each member weaker – the opposite of what is supposed to be the effect of team work (in a well-functioning team, the team is stronger than all of its parts together). Look at Germany and France: Forced to become southern Europe’s sugar daddies. Germany is often seen as the winner as the one sole winner of the Eurozone, the only country which has benefitted from the common currency. Give it 5-10 years, and I don’t think that will be the case. Look at Southern Europe and Ireland: Had their economies overheated by the German-controlled European Central Bank in the early 00′s, and now have to battle national debts that are quickly getting out of control. Their whole lifestyles and cultures are threatened by the crisis – one might argue this is their own fault for joining the eurozone and that they should have known where things would end up, but none the less it’s a tragedy. There are no winners – everyone is weaker. 6) Racism has made a comeback because of the EU One of the worst thing about the EU project is the way it has inadvertently promoted racism. Racism should be dead by now – especially in Europe. But lo and behold, it’s back in full force. It is now absolutely acceptable to talk about the “lazy greeks”, the “stupid Irish blowing all their money on booze so they can’t afford their mortgages” and the “spanish morons fighting pinatas when they should be working”. And (in the PIIGS countries), it is now common and perfectly acceptable to speak of “German austerity-nazis”, “Vichy-french collaborators” etc. I don’t think fellow Europeans have hated each others so much since WWII. It’s just a matter of time before someone blames the jews for all this (oh wait, they already are). It’s not that we normally hate each other – if you’d asked a Swede 30 years ago what he thought of the Spanish he would have said they were a fascinating admirable people. Now, you’re more likely to hear some rant on how they’re a bunch of lazy never-do-well, siesta-addicted nutjobs. Being too close just isn’t healthy. If we’d have just allowed the spanish and the greek and the rest of them to keep their laidback lifestyles with high inflation etc, nothing would have changed. The germans (and the rest of us northern Europeans) would have kept their efficient-minded, hardworking culture and everyone would have been happy. The EU has set us up in an internal culture war where everyone bashes everyone else’s culture and way of life. The “stronger” Europe becomes, the more of this we will see. Soon I’m convinced we’ll hear about hate crimes against Greek and Spanish immigrants in Germany and France unless something changes. Every culture has its beauty, but countries with so radically different cultures as Germany and Spain simply can’t be in the same union. Conclusion I do not believe in a strong Europe. I believe in a strong Germany, a strong France, a strong Sweden, a strong Ireland and so on. But not a strong Europe. Every country, alone, is stronger than Europe will ever be. A counterargument is that a strong Europe could better support (for example in the war on terror), not replace, the US. But the problem is that 1) not every country would like to support the US (most wouldn’t as far as I know) and 2) not every country would be able to support the US in the same way. Germany and the UK may be big enough to send troops, but other countries won’t have the capacity to do that. Hence, each country should be able to decide for itself if or how it wants to support the US missions around the world. So what is my point? In the most simple terms, the European Union (but not the EEA) and with it the Eurozone ought to be dissolved as soon as possible. There. I said it. Thanks for reading. Please leave a comment and tell me what you think. Link to this post! |
| Catholic Georgetown University Invites Kathleen Sebelius to Speak Posted: 04 May 2012 07:15 PM PDT
It raises your eyebrows that the person who implemented and oversees what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called "an unwarranted government definition of religion" to speak at Georgetown. They go further than that, they also said the HHS mandate to force Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptives and sterilization is "alien both to our Catholic tradition and to federal law," "a violation of personal civil rights" and "a mandate to act against our teachings." Prior to Sebelius taking the helm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Stephen White notes at the National Review she was best known for her ties to the late infamous abortionist George Tiller. Not exactly glowing credentials. Who knows what the motivation for having Sebelius come speak at Georgetown Public Policy Institute's commencement service is, but it is certainly (justifiably so) raising a firestorm among Catholics. For instance the Cardinal Newman Society has begun a petition to protest the invitation at GeorgetownScandal.com. They also report that they have alerted alerted Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl and sent a letter to Georgetown President John DeGioia urging him to immediately withdraw the invitation. Pat Archibold at The National Catholic Register went as far to say in his opinion piece published there that "we cannot allow this to happen or we cannot allow Georgetown to carry the name Catholic." It will be interesting to see how Georgetown responds. Link to this post! |
| Posted: 04 May 2012 06:09 PM PDT
As a New Hampshire voter, I'm accustomed to being made much of by presidential candidates every four years. Dozens of them criss-cross the state, meeting us in diners and living rooms and on Main Streets all over our Granite State. After the primary, we're left in relative peace until the next go-'round. Here we are, though, abuzz with post-primary chatter as one of our own is rumored to be vice-presidential material. Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is searching for a running mate. More precisely, his staff is searching. Journalists covering the campaign are guessing as best they can who might be on The List. One name that keeps coming up is U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire's junior senator. We're flattered. Ayotte has reflected credit on our state ever since she was named N.H.'s Attorney General in 2004. She served under governors from both parties. She won her Senate seat after a breathtakingly close primary that could have brought out the worst in a lesser candidate. She has already distinguished herself in Washington. We're proud of her. And that's why Mitt Romney can't have her. Just tell the staff now: cross her off, wish her well, and let her finish the job to which her neighbors elected her. Kelly Ayotte has so much poise, intelligence, and common sense that one could forget she's in her first term in Washington. In fact, she's not even a third of the way through her term. We desperately need her voice in the Senate, especially with a senior senator (Jeanne Shaheen) who is one of President Obama's re-election campaign co-chairs. Ayotte has used her position to good effect for veteran's issues and pro-life policies. (I've heard pro-life activists go so far as to call Ayotte a rock star, which is pretty darn close to the truth.) Romney's team will probably decide that geographic balance rules out Ayotte, since Romney is a Massachusetts man despite his links to other states. Fine. Keep looking. Ayotte is not the only elected official in the "veepstakes" – an awkward but useful word. Media speculation includes names like Rubio, Christie, and Portman. It's a wonderful thing when a political party has a rich store of talent upon which to draw for the national election. But when a presidential nominee chooses an incumbent senator or member of Congress or governor for a running mate, that leaves a big hole somewhere. Mitt Romney needs to think hard about that. If he is elected president, he'll need every supportive senator he can get. Picking one to be a running mate may not be the smartest way to use political capital. All the recent attention has given Sen. Ayotte great opportunities, like Sunday morning talk shows, for talking about the political issues about which she cares the most. I hope she makes the best of these opportunities while they're being offered. If the call comes down from Romney HQ, though, I hope she says "no", graciously but firmly. New Hampshire needs her in the Senate. Just as importantly, Mitt Romney needs her in the Senate. Link to this post! |
| Posted: 04 May 2012 07:29 AM PDT I was just talking to a friend at breakfast. We are frequently on opposite sides of the fence, but enjoy the banter. At one point today, while on a different subject, he said that that there are many ways to God. “Then do you reject Jesus’ words as something someone made up?” He answered that if the Bible said that, he rejected it.
If you reject what Jesus says in the Gospels, then you have no reason (other than a philosophical agreement with Jesus’ teachings) to be a Christian. BUT, if you reject Jesus’ words about himself, you have no way to know what His philosophy was. The Sermon on the Mount? How do you know He ever said those things if you do not accept that He said other things? Your philosophical following of Jesus makes no sense. Christianity is not a buffett. “I think Jesus said this, but not that.” Or “I agree with Jesus on this, but not that.” Christianity is not even a philosophy–it is a Person. Eye witnesses recorded His bodily resurrection from the dead. If that is not true, as Paul said, then we are of all people to be most pitied. Eye witnesses tell us that He said, “No one comes to the Father except by Me.” His resurrection proves that he was telling the truth. This isn’t just about what many feel is Christian “exclusivism”. Ask an Islamic person, or a Jewish person if they believe that what their religion teaches is right and true; ask them if they accept the words of their holy writings? Christians seem to be among the few religions that has members who believe only what they feel like believing. If you disagree, sit down and do some study–make an informed decision on what you believe about the religion that you claim to follow. Denominational doctrine is not the question here. The question concerns whether you accept Jesus as He presented Himself. If not, then on what do you base your Christianity? Link to this post! |
Vox Populi
| You are subscribed to email updates from Caffeinated Thoughts To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Are you looking to earn cash from your traffic by using popunder ads?
RăspundețiȘtergereIn case you do, did you ever use EroAdvertising?