Post-modern philosophy may be the latest fad in “Christian” circles (emerging-this, post-that, beyond-whatever, neo-something, social justice, etc.), but when an author complains about what he calls “neo-fundamentalism”, he actually reveals why post-modern philosophy fails so spectacularly (although he probably didn’t mean to).
It’s no surprise Jim Wallis’ radical group Sojourners doesn’t like the Tea-Party (Wallis calls the Tea-Party un-Christian), but loves the “Occupy” protesters. On the blog the question arose, is the Occupy protest spiritual? The opinion from Wallis’ Sojourners certainly isn’t surprising.
Christians will soon have to make a choice: follow the phony reality of The Matrix, or stand on the rock of God’s Word. Unfortunately, those calling for Christians to accept man’s philosophy miss an important point: man’s best ideas continually change — remember when using leaches was considered good medicine?
It’s not the search for the Holy Grail man has obsessed with over the centuries, it’s the search for the free lunch — the idea you can have your cake and eat it too, weight loss without exercise or diet changes, get rich quick, and so on. This error infects politicians, science, economists, and now, even the church.
The politically correct crowd likes to boast about tolerance and acceptance of others, but if you’ve ever disagreed with them you’ll quickly discover how far their intolerance will go to defend their anti-definition of tolerance. Sound bizarre? Are you asking yourself who could be that illogical? Consider the following quote from a so-called “tolerant” person:
We’ve heard much about the Casey Anthony trial, but if you’ve read our about page you know we’re not interested in news per se, but how that news applies to you. In this incident, we’ll draw some conclusions about the legal system — good or bad — instead of continuing other discussion you’ll find elsewhere.
Dale Earnhardt was (is) the best driver of all time. Nobody could do what he did on the track. Period.
As has been said, “it’s not bragging if you can back it up”. And man could Dale back it up. Some loved him, some hated him, but everyone respected him, and most (if you were smart) feared him on the track — the worst thing a driver could see was a black hood closing up behind him.
Dale raced to win, not for points.
People wonder why the United States doesn’t play a role in end-times prophecy. Some believe after the rapture most of the country will be gone, thus the country essentially ceases to exist. Others have different theories; in the end they’re all guesses.
As always, after any tragedy like the assassination attempt of a US Congressman in Arizona, various people and groups always attempt to spin it for political advantage, as Rahm Emanuel proclaimed “Never let a crisis go to waste”.
It didn’t even take hours for the political spin and blame-game to begin.
Last week a tragic event occurred as a person was struck and killed by a train. As it turns out, video from the train (no, I don’t think—and hope—it’s not public) revealed the person walked to the middle of the tracks, closed their eyes, and waited to be hit.
Recently a storm erupted regarding the change in phrasing from “freedom of religion”, to “freedom to worship”. As the administration’s comments and speeches are vetted and approved in advance (and usually read from a prompter), it’s not simply a slip of the tongue but an intended policy change; it’s a conscious change in language, and since the phrase has been used by the President himself, it’s reasonable to conclude he is not only aware of the shift, but approves of it.
Captain, we’re drifting into dangerous waters! All hands on deck! Sound the alarm!
Perhaps nothing differentiates “modern” (read that: liberal) and traditional Christianity more than the role of men and women. Those promoting a modern social justice version discard parts of the Bible not fitting their position, frequently by arguing those parts have historical meaning only. Does that make sense? Can we pick and choose what is God’s Word and what isn’t? If so, how can that be done, and who gets to make the rules (since it isn’t God)?
Previously we noted in an interview with Richard Dawkins, when asked for his definition of morality he responded “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” In short, society defines whatever it believes is right and wrong. That is, of course, value relativism where nothing is right or wrong—absolute morality doesn’t exist according to Dawkins.
Bill Maher may hold strange views, but one thing we admire him for—he’ll state his views straight out, without any attempt to sugar coat it or show tact (at least he’s honest and proudly proclaims his views, in contrast to others who attempt to hide it. He’s consistent in his atheist far-left elitist views). Recently on his show atheist S.E. Cupp appeared, whose latest book titled “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity” created some interesting discussion, and displayed the paradox of atheism.
The “separation of church and state” phrase gets thrown around frequently as a first amendment issue, but you’d be surprised to see the phrase doesn’t appear where it’s frequently credited—in the first amendment to the Constitution.
President’s Day adds to the vast lack of historical knowledge of the average person, as well as general historical confusion.
In Justice by Alan Sears describes a story similar to Orwell’s “1984”, but relating to first amendment freedoms, specifically religious freedoms. This issue remains at the forefront today, whether it’s speaking on your beliefs, religious displays, so-called “hate speech”, and more. The book considers what might happen if today’s politically correct movement continues to grow.
The church founded by Robert Schuller canceled it’s famous “Glory of Easter” production due to rough economic times. Seeing the production many years ago showed it was an impressive event. It’s sad to see it go, but in tough times it’s certainly not the most important activity for the church to engage in.
Previously we discussed Dawkins’ view of shifting atheist zeitgeist morality — the idea culture shapes morals, and who can say anything is right or wrong? Dawkins even goes so far as to claim nobody can state Hitler was wrong — after all, morality comes from shifting society, not an absolute standard. Dawkins’ idea of morality is absurd, of course, but more absurd when atheists don’t even believe or follow what they say — consider the following Rasmussen poll:
We’re both like Simon we still live in a state of denial. Although we’d both like to go to heaven we feel surprised about the trial. But the suffering Christ did accomplished something and the worst all turned out right. Go and find out in Hebrews chapter 5 — verses 7 through 9. (Every Crown has It’s thorn” Apologetix CD “Spoofernatural”)
Life is hard. I tend to write about trials because that’s real life; life stinks sometimes (honest, I don’t make this stuff up). Many times we face a situation and must decide which way to go — the easy way or the hard way? It’s easier to take the wide path than stand your ground. Yet how would Jesus handle the same situation? Would He bail out? Or stay the course? Would He think of others? Or Himself?
As the federal deficit passes the trillion dollar mark (quadrupling since last year), and expected to go higher before the end of the year as Congress and the administration ponder yet more spending, how much is a trillion dollars?
We’ve referred to doublethink several times, but many have asked what exactly it consists of. Surely it doesn’t really exist, as Orwell wrote a fictionalized account of a future government in “1984”. No, it really exists — consider an editorial by the Register-Guard, noting the Oregon Legislature just provided a wonderful example of Doublethink. But first, allow Orwell himself to provide the definition.
We’ve discussed in the past pseudo-scholarship — those with Ph’d’s and other titles claiming to be knowledgeable, yet making basic errors in deduction, reason and logic. Many of those “scholars” make absurd errors, all while sounding scholarly. One reason for those errors stems from didactic verses dialectic thought. Stay with us for a bit as we discuss some terms, but you’ll quickly see how these conflicting ideas cause considerable problems for the church, as well as the world at large.
Periodically you’ll find surveys which attempt to determine just how many people follow each religion in the United States, guessing about trends. A recent survey appeared in Newsweek, with some interesting results:
According to the American Religious Identification Survey that got Mohler’s attention, the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent. The Jewish population is 1.2 percent; the Muslim, 0.6 percent … Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.) Newsweek
What defines tolerance? Is the following what you have in mind when you’re told to be “tolerant” of other beliefs?
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry. 2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own. 3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint. Dictionary.com
Want new posts delivered to your inbox? Enter your email address to get FREE emailed updates!
Other ways to stay current:
