Caffeinated Thoughts |
- We Are Citizens and Ambassadors
- Richard Dawkins Says, “Read the Bible!”
- National Taxpayers Union Rates Congress
- What I Learned about Christian Ministry from the Navy SEALs
| We Are Citizens and Ambassadors Posted: 23 May 2012 04:00 AM PDT
Paul echoed this theme when he referred to believers as "ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor.5:20), and in Romans when he said, "Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God" (Romans 13:1). As human beings we are citizens of the United States. As born again believers bound for heaven we are pilgrims on a journey, merely passing through this world on our way to our eternal home. But as we pass through, we must be ambassadors for Christ. An ambassador is someone whose home is one country but they reside in another country. They are bound both by the laws of the country of their origin and by the country they are visiting. But an ambassador is more than just a visitor. He or she is a representative of the King. Jesus is our King and as long as we are passing through this world we must represent Him with honor. In his First Inaugural Address, George Washington made an extraordinary claim. He said that the foundation of United States public policy would be the individual morality of its citizens. Specifically, Washington said, "The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality." He went on to explain, "their exists in the economy and discourse of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." Washington, with these words, harkened back to the Declaration of Independence where life and liberty were laid as a foundation for those who longed to pursue happiness. In his new book, The Tyranny of Clichés Jonah Goldberg sites President Woodrow Wilson as an example of the opposite of Washington's sentiment about the place and consistency of American morality. Goldberg writes, "He was also the first president to hold that the president must have a vision for re-forming the United States. To that end, an enlightened Constitution must conform to those charged with imposing that vision, not the other way around. The pursuit of happiness was no longer an individual right but a state-driven agenda to be foisted upon a once free people." President Wilson argued that, "Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice." He also openly proclaimed that the Bill of Rights is a dead-letter relic and those who think otherwise are simply, "bound up in mere Fourth of July sentiments." Well pass me some firecrackers and call me a patriot because I still believe the principles revealed and applied in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Word of God are the right foundation for a free republic. God has blessed our country with a form of government known as a Constitutional Republic. If we were a pure democracy we would be at the mercy of the majority. But because we are a Republic we have a representative government that protects the rights of those who find their opinions in the minority. In Matthew 5, Jesus tells us our role as ambassadors. We are to be salt and light to all who are within our sphere of influence. That means we should know what is going on in our world and seek to influence the culture for good. In other words, we should be the best citizens of this world so that we can both shine as lights in the darkness and shout the goodness of God into eternity. In a few short months we will go to the polls to select our leader. May we be reminded that we should exercise our right to vote with both the values of heaven and the restoration of our culture in mind. Link to this post! |
| Richard Dawkins Says, “Read the Bible!” Posted: 22 May 2012 07:03 AM PDT
Dawkins then plunges into his primary point, a corrective rant of sorts, against which conservative Christianity will have much to say:
Throughout the remainder of his article, the evolutionary biologist proceeds to share his arguments against belief in the Bible as a legitimate moral guide, and thus to disprove the legitimacy of the Bible in its entirety. His underlying argument (which is obvious) is that there is no God, and thus no God-given revelation. Dawkins points out what he considers to obvious observations that undermine Christian claims, observations that mere theologians are unwilling to see. He addresses all forms of Christianity, including those forms that largely deny what the Bible says anyway. This is very broad swipe and ends up being a group of confusing swings in every direction. Dawkins' arguments can be summarized thus: (1) The Bible is not legitimate because of what it is; (2) the Bible is not legitimate because of what it says; (3) the Bible is not legitimate because of what Christians say or say about it; (4) the Bible is not legitimate because of its core claims. Argument #1: The Bible is not legitimate because of what it is Dawkins confidently directs his initial attack squarely at the 10 Commandments. Dawkins believes he lands an instant knockout blow by simply referring to the 10 Commandments: "Do you advocate the Ten Commandments as a guide to the good life?" Dawkins falters immediately. The 10 Commandments, though moral in nature, are not given as a guide to the "good life" as he suggests. They indeed are a measure of "good," giving a glimpse of God's perfect standard of living. However, the Bible is clearly teaches that these 10 Commandments (as representation of the entire Old Testament Law) are not given primarily as a moral guide. Instead the Bible shares that the Law (represented by these 10 Commandments) is given to show that mankind is not moral and does not measure up to God's holy standard:
In fact, the Bible is clear that no person can be "good" or "justified" by keeping the law (including the 10 Commandments). Instead, the law shows us that our only hope was to be rescued by God. And He God did make a way for us to be "saved" or rescued by allowing His Son, Jesus Christ, to take our penalty (for breaking God's law) for us!:
Argument #2: The Bible is not legitimate because of what it says Dawkins, building on this wrong premise of the Bible being a moral guide, continues to show his hand by attacking some of the 10 Commandments individually:
This simply is not true. This view comes from liberal Christian views that would reject what the Bible says, and who would impose an outside view on the Scriptures which is not contained in the Scriptures. Dawkins is fine applying this liberal evolutionary view to the Bible, but he misses three important facts:
Dawkins continues to hammer, in his mind, more of the 10 Commandments. He believes he undermines the veracity of the Fourth Commandment ("Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy") because of a harsh penalty that accompanied certain violations of that command (the death penalty). Here we need to point out that Dawkins assumes that no God exists, and so all these commands are conjured up by crazed men. However, the Bible declares the existence of God as the Creator of the Universe, a holy God who deserves recognition and worship as such. One cannot parse the Bible in pieces and create a context of one's choosing – Dawkins is doing just that. As God Himself reveals in the Bible, He created all the universe, including his highest creation, the human race. These highest of creators are logically expected by God to worship Him and honor Him as their Creator in the ways He communicates. What is so hard to understand about that? Though the Sabbath penalty is a harsh one (as it was given to the nation of Israel), it made the point: God deserved His day of attention each week, per His commandment and per His design. Worship of God was no small matter, and God wanted the Israelites to understand the consequences of not doing so. It was that big of a deal. From the Fourth Commandment Dawkins proceeds to the Fifth Commandment ("Honor thy father and thy mother"). He jumps backward in time (and in the Biblical text) to where God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Dawkins is convinced that this is a violation of the Sixth Commandment: "do not kill." Dawkins may not remember that God actually did not have Abraham kill Isaac (which then did not violate anything). To be fair, the Bible is also clear that Abraham did not know that God would prevent him from killing Isaac, but he was certain that God would raise up Isaac if he did go through with it (Hebrews 11:17-19). This may bend Dawkins the wrong way. However, God does reveal that He knows what He is doing whether we can understand it or not. God accomplished what He desired in Abraham's life. Further, Abraham was to the point that, having been called by God, having walked with God for years, and having been given a son in his old age, he was fully confident that God could be trusted. That is the greater context of the offering of Isaac. Dawkins further objects to the Sixth Commandment, stating that the command "do not kill" really meant, in practice, do not kill those of your own tribe. This is simply not true. Again, Dawkins assumes that God is a myth, that men made up this text, and that all killing is condemned. He errs on all counts. In the very beginning, in the Garden of Eden, God issued the warning of death for eating of the forbidden tree. Death is God's justice, not man's made-up choice. God, as the Creator of the Universe, is the One Who makes the rules based upon Who He is (His nature and character). He judges human beings and nations, and throughout the Bible, often dispenses His justice on some human beings through the hands of others. In fact, one only has to read to the ninth chapter of the Bible, Genesis 9, to see that God required men to hold other men accountable (the basis for human government). In Genesis 9:6 God commands Noah, "Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man." This is reflected all the way into the New Testament where the government is said not to carry the sword in vain. Government exists to protect those that obey the law and to punish those that do not (some crimes even requiring capital punishment). Therefore, "you shall not kill" in context means that you do not take matters into your own hands and murder someone. God holds the arm of justice, whether judging individuals or nations. We do not. Argument #3: The Bible is not legitimate because of what Christians say or say about it Dawkins mocks some Christians who make claims he rejects, and uses these to discard Christianity for yet another reason. It might be good for him to exercise reason. It would only be fair (and reasonable) to acknowledge that Christians do not claim to fully understand their Maker nor all of the commands given by Him any more than scientists claim to understand all that science involves. We both accept much on faith based upon what we do understand. It is fair to say that ridiculous statements and actions by Christians (of which Dawkins gives examples) may cause Bible believers to look foolish (as they often have). However, these examples no more invalidate Christianity than previously held views of a flat earth or a geo-centric universe invalidate Dawkins' pursuit of any field of science. Further, just because some "sophisticated" theologians, as Dawkins puts it, reject what the Bible says and seek to back-pedal and avoid obvious interpretations does not mean that all Christians have abandoned what the Bible says. Argument #4: The Bible is not legitimate because of its core claims Dawkins finally jumps to several central themes of the Bible, which he wholly rejects (and which all who reject God must reject). Dawkins rejects the historical Adam (by which sin entered the world), and thus he rejects the concept of sin. Logically, then, he rejects the payment for sin by Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, which He transacted by dying on the cross for the sins of mankind. Since Dawkins rejects God as an evolutionist, he cannot understand that God revealed this plan of rescue (salvation). Since He refuses to believe in anything supernatural, he is left with no good options, and scorns the idea of God revealing truth to mankind. Since Dawkins rejects sin, he offers no explanation for evil, but sees no reason for its resolution – he rejects the only possible Source for its resolution. Maybe to Dawkin’s own surprise, the Bible is not caught off guard by this:
Summary Dawkins accurately states that the Bible is not a "moral book." It is much more than that. It is true that the Bible is full of instructions in righteousness for those that believe in God and seek to obey Him. However, it also does not shy away from accurately recording the history rebellious actions of those who failed to do so or refused to do so. The Bible claims to be the revelation of the one true God, the Creator of the Universe, Who clearly and honestly presents the human race in all of its immoral and rebellious detail while declaring Himself to be the only solution to mankind's core problem – sin. God did so by sending His only begotten Son to bear the penalty for the pathetic and helpless human race. God accomplished this in such a way that He could remain holy while receiving the justice His holiness demanded, and yet forgive the sins of those that believe in His Solution. God sent His only begotten Son to suffer the sin penalty for the world by dying on the cross, that He might save those that believe in that Payment. It is not unreasonable to accept a Divine Creator Who has the sovereign reign of the universe, and Who is holy and metes justice as He sees fit according to that holiness. He is beyond our understanding, but has communicated with us at times directly, through His prophets, through the written Word, and through His Incarnate Son. God's communications truly make perfect sense, if you accept them at face value. We are all for people reading the Bible, even if they are encouraged to read it by enemies of the Bible. However, it is Dawkins that may need to read the Bible more, without the assumptions or explanations of men who reject it. It is then possible to gain what the Scriptures truly have to offer from God Who has everything to offer. Link to this post! |
| National Taxpayers Union Rates Congress Posted: 22 May 2012 05:30 AM PDT
Every month many Americans have to review their income and figure out how to pay the bills. Most of us know that you can't spend more than you have, but this concept has yet to be understood by many Members of the United States Congress. National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has released the 2011 Congressional Ratings. NTU President Duane Parde said, "For every single Taxpayers' Friend who bravely sought to conquer Washington's mound of fiscal woes, four Big Spenders worked to make the pile of problems even more difficult to climb." Iowa is no different. The purpose of the NTU score given to each Member of Congress is to "measure the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes." A Member can receive a score from 0 to 100. We as taxpayers want to see as high a score as possible, for this implies the Member is working hard to reduce the burden on the taxpayers. How does NTU arrive at the score for each Member of Congress? For 2011, they analyzed every roll call vote and "selected all votes that could significantly affect the amounts of federal taxes, spending, debt, or regulatory impact." NTU looked at a total of 337 House and 234 Senate roll call votes. So how does Iowa fare? As we look at the Senate, Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin have a HUGE difference in their scores. Grassley's average score for the last five years is 75 percent, whereas Harkin's average over the same period is 5.4 percent. It is easy to see that Grassley and Harkin are working against each other in the Senate and Senator Grassley is friendlier to the taxpayers of Iowa. The House is a little bit of a different story. For 2011, we see scores ranging from 76 percent to 20 percent, but as we look at the data from the past five years we see that the low scores have improved. For in 2009, we had scores ranging from 92 percent to 2 percent. Representative Steve King is friendlier to the taxpayers of Iowa in the House. Representative Tom Latham is next in line. At the bottom of the pile is Representative Dave Loebsack. This year we are going from five House seats to four House seats due to redistricting from the U.S. Census data. All five of our current elected House Members are running in an election this year, and it is time to get involved. If you are worried about the impact of the taxes you pay and how your tax dollars are being spent, then answer the call to get your candidate elected! Jennifer Crull is an IT Specialist with Public Interest Institute in Mount Pleasant, IA. This article is from rom Public Interest Institute's IOWA TRANSPARENCY NEWSLETTER is available at www.IowaTransparency.org. Republished with permission. Link to this post! |
| What I Learned about Christian Ministry from the Navy SEALs Posted: 22 May 2012 05:28 AM PDT
Having said that, those of us who were up for it had the opportunity to work out side by side with these guys, join in training exercises, and a few of us were invited to SCUBA school and other training that allowed us into the interworking of this elite unit. It was a tremendous opportunity and a time of growth in my life. And to top it off, I gave my life to Christ mid-tour in my duty there. That was a dramatic transformation. That's enough about me. At TEAM 1, our compound was separated from Basic Underwater Demolition School (BUDS) by only a chain link fence. I saw every class of young sailors aspiring to be SEALs from 1989 – 1994. Only 30% actually made it; 70% "rang out" and went back to the fleet (BUDS students rang a bell when they quit). They were still better men for trying, but they would not be SEALs. Of the 30% that made it, a small fraction of them were part of the "first time, every time" club. These were the guys that passed every test, every physical challenge, every everything the first go-around. Most of yesterday and todays SEALS didn't. Most of them failed something: got washed-back a week or more in training, got injured, or had some kind of setback. But those that persevered, even after failing once or more, still ended up wearing the Trident. When they HALOed into the drop zone with 7 of their squad mates, on a mission, their test scores didn't matter anymore, "we're the Navy SEALs and we're here to get you out" (a line from the cheesy Navy SEAL movie with Charlie Sheen). This reminds me of Christian ministry. The sad truth is that less than 30% of people who attend church ever get involved in the ministry of the Church. Now, I am not talking about church chores. I am not talking about ushering, parking lot duty, and the other things that must be done around the church. Those are a given. We are all part of this family and we all need to pull our weight to help make church happen. What I am talking about is the ministry of making disciples. Of the 30% who take the command seriously, a very small percentage of them are part of the "first time every time" fraternity. These are the ones who carry their passion to make disciples from their conversion through their entire Christian life. However, for the rest of us, we are usually washed-back a few times, like a would-be SEAL that fails a dive exam. The reasons we stop making disciples are many. Maybe we get busy with our lives. Kids and jobs and little league sap all of our time and energy, and somewhere along the way we stop seeing all of those activities as opportunities to connect with people who need Jesus. Maybe we are so busy doing church, we forget to be the church. Yes people need to be helped to their seat on Sunday morning, and yes people want coffee after service, but more than anything, people need to come to know Jesus; either for the first time or they need to grow in His grace and knowledge. This is not a condemnation. We are loved and accepted fully by God based purely on what Jesus did for us, not what we do for Him. This is not about that. This is about living the life that we were created for; a life that glorifies God and is used by Him to set men free. Whether you are gifted to be an evangelist and preaching the gospel and seeing people come to Christ is like breathing to you, or you are a Titus 2 woman teaching the next generation what it looks like to be a godly mother and wife; we are all called to make disciples (Matt 28:19). Like the SEALs, you don't have to be in the "first time every time" club to be a disciple-maker. If you have lost focus on your mission to make Jesus known; don't ring out, don't quit. Jump back in the surf-zone and be washed with the waves of His mercy. Look to Jesus, the author and finisher of your faith. Let His free-flowing grace towards you stir your heart to share it with someone else. HOOYA! Link to this post! |
| 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 | |
If you are looking into earning money from your visitors by popunder advertisments - you can embed one of the most reputable companies - Clickadu.
RăspundețiȘtergere