Frames of Reference - Morality

Can a Christian Support Abortion?

yeager — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:57:00 +0000

Abortion usually is one of those issues all Christians agree on. Since Obama’s healthcare plan contains loopholes for abortion (after he promised it wouldn’t), someone on Twitter contacted us with a reply we immediately found strange (you’ll soon see why):

@darrinyeager Interesting. Do you have any other sources, though? I don’t believe lifenews. http://twitter.com/KushielsMoon/status/18544169373

It’s one thing to state you need to further research a source (which is good), or they can be biased, or you want to find the other side to an argument. But denying facts because you don’t like where they came from? That’s the flip side (corollary) to the argument from authority fallacy; instead of accepting an argument because it comes from an authority (“trust me, I’m a doctor”), you reject it because you don’t like where it came from.

Because of this fact-denial-without-checking further research into this “pro-choice” Christian became interesting. First off, her view on the abortion-is-murder argument.

Abortion is clearly not murder, and it never has been murder. http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2009/11/we-think-same.html

The first part remains under current debate, while the second isn’t — abortion isn’t murder, at least in the legal sense after Row v Wade. Prior to Roe v Wade abortion was illegal, and the logical legal charge would be (drum-roll please) … murder (malice, intent, premeditated, and deliberated). Not off to a good start, Ms. pro-choice.

Of course, as President Clinton made famous, “it depends on what your definition of murder is”. If you mean legal definition, Roe v Wade made terminating babies legal; allowing for some terminations, while prosecuting others as murder leads to bizarre legal wrangling, as Texas’ supreme court displayed.

Texas law allows the killing of a fetus to be prosecuted as murder, regardless of the stage of development, but the laws do not apply to abortions, the states’ highest criminal court has ruled … The Texas court said abortion precedent was based on the premise that a woman wants the procedure. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/us/23texas.html

The court ruled killing a baby is murder, except (because of Roe v Wade) in abortion cases, because the woman wants to terminate (with extreme prejudice) the baby, and that’s what Roe v Wade legalized an exception for — the premeditated termination of babies (aka first degree murder). In this strange legal arena, if a woman drives to an abortion clinic, but gets involved in an accident on the way there, the other driver can be prosecuted for murder. But in the absence of a vehicular accident, a few minutes later when then “doctor” injects saltwater or sucks out the baby’s brain, that is totally allowable because she wants to eliminate the baby.

Answering two questions reveals much about theology and her strange interpretations of the Bible to arrive at the position. First, a famous passage in Jeremiah, and second, how did she become a Christian?

Q: The sanctity of life doesn’t depend on your religion. Think about it. When is a person a person? Abortion does kill a human, and these pictures aren’t fake. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…”- Jeremiah 1:5.

A: It doesn’t matter if the fetus is a person or a zebra - no one and nothing can use a woman’s body against her will. As for your bible verse, it’s completely irrelevant. Unless your name is Jeremiah and you lived centuries ago. http://www.formspring.me/KushielsMoon/q/706821752

Au contraire, mon ami (in other words, wrong again).

The verse maintains relevance as it lays out a principle — God knew you before you were born. Man exists as a three-fold creation, body, soul, and spirit. The body forms at conception and exists until death; the spirit remains eternally.

Naturally, this gets back to her previous opinion abortion isn’t murder. She has to deny Bible verses she doesn’t like to fit her world view — that of being anti-life. But a strange definition of murder also fits into the problem.

… the humanity (or personhood) of the fetus is really irrelevant. Even if we said the fetus was a person, it still wouldn’t be murder for a woman to have an abortion. http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2010/04/god-has-plan-for-all-fetuses.html?showComment=1274129103314#c4760886957394606568

We’ve not run into anyone holding this view (premeditated killing of an innocent isn’t murder) — it’s why pro-abortion people so desperately argue the baby isn’t really a person, or it’s just a mass of tissue (like a tumor). If it’s not a person it can be discarded as you wish.

Finally, we arrive at perhaps the reason for the strange opinions:

Q: How & when did you become a Christian?

A: My parents raised me Christian, so I’ve been Christian since I was baptized as an infant. As a teenager I choose to stay in the church I was raised in. http://www.formspring.me/KushielsMoon/q/292761122

Whoops — wrong again. Based on the Jeremiah passage and this comment, rather bizarre unorthodox theological views have been presented. Infant baptism does not save you. Paul spends most of his letters hammering the point salvation comes by faith in Jesus Christ alone, so the so-called pro-choice Christian theology begins on an incorrect foundation.

But it’s not just regular theology presenting a problem; love as well lacks understanding:

you said: “are women killing their fetuses because they love them?”

My answer: Yes. http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2010/04/god-has-plan-for-all-fetuses.html?showComment=1272597516317#c8236734152066306733

In case those views weren’t clear, we get an explanation (although perhaps a review of 1 Corinthians 13 is in order).

“Tell me. Is this the kind of love that causes a mother to kill her fetus?”

Yes.

“Is injecting chemicals into a fetus’ heart to stop its beating before instruments are introduced to dismember it kindness?”

Yes.

“Seeking the good of that fetus? Killing it is a selfless act?”

Yes. Yes. http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2010/04/god-has-plan-for-all-fetuses.html?showComment=1272659317306#c5982133330269071768

NOTE TO COMMENTERS: You might want to read our comment policy before replying. In short, keep it polite. Disagreement is fine (even if you’re wrong), but incivility or personal attacks aren’t. Abortion remains (and always will be) a hot-button topic; if you can’t discuss politely, don’t bother at all.

We’ve talked to many pro-abortion people, and read lots of arguments on both sides, but honestly never found someone claiming premeditated extermination of an innocent person isn’t murder, and a mother expresses love for her child by aborting it. Do these strange views now pass as mainstream in the pro-abortion camp? If so, what’s next, eugenics? Euthanasia? Would any sanctity of life remain if killing a baby (recognized as a human person) for any reason could be considered an application of love?

Many would say a Christian can’t be anti-life and support terminating babies; this person justifies it using some strange unorthodox (and incorrect) theology. Do better reasons exist in the pro-abortion camp? We’d like to hear them.

What do you think? Do other “Christian” abortion supporters express similar views? How many people believe killing a baby expresses love? If killing a baby isn’t murder as this “pro-choice Christian” claims, up to what age can the baby be terminated without it being murder? Six months? A year? Eighteen (sort of a retro-active abortion)?

The pro-life verses pro-abortion argument comes down to a simple question: when does a baby deserve legal protection from someone desiring to kill it?

More on Dawkins and Morality-No absolutes

yeager — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:51:29 +0000

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.

The interviewer noticed this, and when prompted to respond Dawkins replied “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”.

A bizarre place to find yourself in to be sure; Dawkins expresses such contempt for religion and God he finds himself in the strange place in justifying his atheism he can’t even say Hitler was evil. Our previous article pointed that problem out, and asked why Dawkins isn’t troubled by his strange conclusion.

After some discussion of this on Twitter, a person sent the following:

@darrinyeager Here is his response to that question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA I hope this clears it up for you https://twitter.com/GodlessAtheist/status/14930339818

That’s another interview with Dawkins when he was asked again the atheism and morality question. Would Dawkins offer a different view or clear up what he stated? Is it possible in his previous interview he simply didn’t express himself clearly?

Here’s part of the exchange:

Question: Considering that atheism cannot possibly have any sense of absolute morality, would it not then be an irrational leap of faith (which atheists themselves so harshly condemn), for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?

And Dawkins replied:

Dawkins: The absolute morality that the religious person might profess would include what, stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking the Sabbath; these are all things which are religiously based absolute moralities.

I don’t think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought-out, reasoned, argued, discussed—based upon, almost say—intelligent design. Can we not design our society which has the sort of morality, the sort of society we want to live in?

First off, his first idea contains the classic “Ignoratio elenchi” logical fallacy, more commonly known as Red Herring—it’s an attempt to change the question, or make yourself look good against a straw man which isn’t relevant to the question. “Look at how bad those religious people are, thus my solution must be better”.

If a God exists, and if He’s all-powerful, all-knowing, and so on, by definition His morality must be exactly what Dawkins wants—thought-out and reasoned. Since Dawkins recoils and the mere thought of God, this possibility doesn’t make sense to him.

Dawkins is so overwhelmed by God-denying he simply can’t help but commit logical errors in his response, involving religion even when the question had nothing to do with it. It’s surprising for a man who desperately wants to eliminate religion and God from all thought he injects it into a question which doesn’t involve religion and God at all; his first thoughts reveal much about his bias, lack of free-thinking, and poor logic.

But on to his response on morality, which doesn’t differ from his previous answer (“Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist”). Dawkins doesn’t want absolute morality, only a morality which shifts and changes as society desires. Thus, as Dawkins said previously, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”—it completely agrees with his moral view.

In other words, if a society wants to exterminate six million Jews, Dawkins can’t say it’s wrong, as if a policy was thought-out, reasoned (in a perverse way), argued, and discussed (it also was legal and popular), it must be acceptable to Dawkins, which is why Dawkins remains unable to state Hitler was wrong. After all, if a society wants to live without Jews, that’s fine using Dawkins moral process, as long as it’s thought-out and discussed.

That’s a bizarre world to live in, and unlike Dawkins, we’ll state Hitler was wrong and evil, and it’s unacceptable to exterminate six million people. Absolutely. Additionally, any view of morality unable to state evil as evil isn’t a system for morality at all—simply philosophical justification (i.e. handwaving) for mob rule (or has been said, without God, anything is possible—including justifying attempted genocide).

As we concluded before (and this interview didn’t offer anything different from the previous interview):

Naturally, Dawkins’ suggestion about Hitler likely repulses most (all?) people, but while many atheists might attempt verbal twister to avoid the conclusion, Dawkins gets credit for not denying the logical conclusion of his atheist position and the lack of standard morality it spawns.

Why this position doesn’t bother him remains troubling. http://www.dyeager.org/post/2009/12/problem-morality-where-does-it-come

Far from changing his view, this interview reinforced Dawkins’ previous statement nothing he views nothing in his atheist bubble as absolutely right or wrong, only “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist”, more commonly known as value relativism.

Why this doesn’t bother him still remains troubling.

Bill Maher Show and Intolerant Atheists

yeager — Sat, 22 May 2010 13:24:15 +0000

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.

That show generated the following response from one of S.E.’s fellow atheists.

Religious people are deluded, regardless of whether they’re good or bad people.

Religion is often bad in and of itself, even without people doing bad things in the name of it.

Teaching ignorance (via Creationism) is a form of child abuse, whether it’s done with the best of intentions or not.

Atheists generally hold themselves up as defenders of tolerance, masters of free-thinking and logic, free from all bias and dogma they associate with religion. Yet notice the assumptions from someone likely considering themselves a free-thinker:

God doesn’t exist (“Religious people are deluded”), in other words atheism is a fact by his personal fiat. Of course atheism is illogical, so this point by itself displays a lack of logic and critical thinking.
Religion is bad in and of itself, apart from any actions. That displays a clear bias and a lack of free-thinking as ideas are already assumed good or bad apart from any proof or logical analysis. Who gets to make these fiat rules? What makes this person the arbiter of things good and bad? As atheism has no basis for morality according to Dawkins, those kind of absolute moral statements are quite bizarre; without any absolute standards (as Dawkins noted), nothing can be stated as good or bad.
Evolution is true by fiat without any scientific base behind it. We’ve written much on evolution, and consider evolution’s case closed as it has no experimental scientific evidence for its foundations. It’s taken on faith, without proof. You’re free to believe in the philosophy of evolution and the beginnings of the universe if you wish (“first there was nothing, and then it exploded; from the goo to the zoo to you”), but it’s not science.

Another “tolerant free thinking atheist”—the very definition of oxymoron (self-contradicting phrase).

People are free to believe whatever they want, but it’s rather bizarre (and illogical) to hold yourself up as a beacon of free-thinking, tolerance, and logic, while promoting such absurdly illogical views that don’t stand the smallest scrutiny (atheism), displaying intolerance toward others (religion is bad in and of itself) and attempting to proclaim absolute morality while simultaneously denying it exists, and even attempting to silence and censor opposing views you don’t believe in (teaching alternative theories is child abuse).

That’s not very tolerant, free thinking, or logical—it’s too bad atheists miss the irony of their illogical position.

Abortion and the Healthcare Debate

yeager — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:53:25 +0000

With all the debate over health-care, what’s really going on behind the scenes? You sure won’t find out watching CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN. One of the sticking issues remains abortion — should the Federal government pay for it? The two sides have been arguing back and forth, but recently the mask has come off the pro-abortion side, revealing what they really want.

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

If that’s how Democrats view the life of the unborn, it’s not too much of a stretch to see what they’ll do for senior citizens who also require large amounts of health-care. The talk of “death-panels” and such has been over-hyped, but the principle remains — reduce the money spent by not providing care (“rationing”), increasing abortion (“don’t be punished with a baby”), substituting less-effective treatments (“take a pill instead of having the operation”), or other means.

Democrats health-care plans are no longer simply about taking over the system — it’s also about a huge increase in abortion to “keep costs down”. That’s their cost-control system in the bill — abort more babies so the government won’t have to pay either the cost of the mothers pregnancy, or the child’s health-care.

Democrats are now (as John Loeffler says) entering the final “naked runner” phase, where everyone sees what’s really going on, but Team RePO (Reid/Pelosi/Obama) hopes it’s too late for the awakening of the people to foil their diabolical plans as they sprint naked and unmasked for the finish line. Will it be too late?

Will the country get what it deserves? Or will God grant mercy one more time?

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

The bill (without a miracle) will likely pass. Team RePO has already stated they’ll do whatever it takes to pass it — and that includes bribes and payoffs, intimidation, and ignoring the will of the people — Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, intimidation, arm-twisting, bribes, and more are all fair game, and could soon be law of the land if the bill passes. Today the House is 5-10 votes short, but after some one-one-one, most of those Congressmen will fold like a cheap lawn chair and do the bidding of Team RePO over citizens, voting for unprecedented corruption.

And what’s on the mind of Team RePO? Increasing abortion (after all, Obama doesn’t want you to be “punished with a baby” — better to terminate the child instead) which puts $$$ to organizations like Planned Parenthood (it’s completely unrelated these groups can be large donors to Democrats).

That’s the legacy they’ll leave us, along with massive debt, from this health-care bill. Don’t be deceived, it doesn’t take 2,100 pages to make a few changes in insurance policy:

Remove Pre-existing condition exclusions.
Remove barrier to competition across state lines.
Improve coverage.
Reduce costs by tort reform.

That could be a 20-page bill. It’s all the payoffs, new government control, increased abortion, and other surprises awaiting in the bill which take the other 2,000 pages, most of which Congressional members haven’t read.

Don’t be fooled — this bill is most definitely not about health-care. You may like that or not, depending on which side you’re on.

The Problem of Morality - Where Does It Come From?

yeager — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:33:30 +0000

In the atheism verses God debate, one thorny issue always remains for the atheist — how does the atheist define morality (right and wrong)? Without absolute standards, where does right and wrong come from? Consider the atheist’s favorite spokesman Richard Dawkins speaking on the question of morality.

“What defines your morality?” I asked with genuine curiosity.

There was an extended pause as Dawkins considered the question carefully. “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” He looked off and then continued. “We live in a society in which, nowadays, slavery is abominated, women are respected, children can’t be abused—all of which is different from previous centuries.” He leaned forward as he warmed to his subject.

At this point, perhaps a word of explanation is necessary. Zeitgeist is a German word meaning “spirit of the age.” Dawkins here refers to the prevailing moral climate or mood of a given place or time. We may observe that what constitutes moral or ethical behavior differs from one culture to another; indeed, it may even differ within a given culture. This is not in dispute. The question, rather, is this: should moral standards be based on the societal zeitgeist or should they look beyond it to something else?

I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”

How do you obtain moral standards?

Human thinking by changing times (zeitgeist).
Outside human thought, i.e. God.

Atheists may think of morality as coming from instinct, majority of opinion, situationally up to each person, and so on, but as Dawkins admits any and all of those are subject to change. Thus it’s up to each individual to determine morality, and as Dawkins notes, by that logic who can say Hitler was wrong in exterminating six million Jews? No absolutes exist, so everything is moral … and immoral at the same time.

This does not imply atheists can’t be good people — they certainly can be. But it does mean they have no absolute standard for morality, and ultimately moral actions come down to situational ethics — what’s moral today could be immoral tomorrow, and vice versa — morality needs an absolute standard or it varies as each person or majority decide morality for themselves or the group. But in either case morality shifts.

Dawkins’ idea even suggesting Hitler could have been right displays the absurdity of the atheist position. Without an absolute moral compass, anything can be considered moral at one point, and not at another. In Dawkins’ atheist reality, it’s possible for Hitler’s actions to be correct, now or in the future. In other words, morals are not absolute at any time — the perfect storm of situational ethics.

Naturally, Dawkins’ suggestion about Hitler likely repulses most (all?) people, but while many atheists might attempt verbal twister to avoid the conclusion, Dawkins gets credit for not denying the logical conclusion of his atheist position and the lack of standard morality it spawns.

Why this position doesn’t bother him remains troubling.

The Real Financial and Political Crisis

yeager — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:04:27 +0000

It’s not AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even Enron and MCI. It’s not the national debt, budget deficits or politician’s plans for staggering tax increases which will surely damage the already fragile economy. Make no mistake, all those are bad, but they’re only symptoms of the real disease, the cancer eating away at our society — that cancer is as Zell Miller said “A Deficit of Decency” — more specifically, a lack of ethics.

First off, don’t confuse morality with ethics; morality being just an idea of right and wrong, generally coming from some absolute source (many people mistake the concept of morality for “good” morals — i.e. don’t cheat on your wife, but murderers have morality as well, it’s just bad), while ethics is “my word is my bond”. It’s possible to act ethically, but not morally.

For example, few would disagree a crime syndicate performing shake-downs of an innocent business lacks morality (“Gee, that’s a nice business you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it”); they’re acting immorally, however, the ethics surpass those of politicians and wall street — you can be sure they’ll do what they say and won’t change, if fact, you can count on it.

Ethics and morality aren’t the same, even though they share similarities.

Perhaps the confusion comes as younger people (30 or below) don’t remember a time when a handshake was enough to seal a deal (or a time when the Interweb thingy didn’t exist either, but we digress). Believe it or not, a time existed when your word was sufficient, and people (gasp) did what they promised. They many not have acted with good morals, but their ethics were unquestionable.

That was the prevailing attitude for many, many years. Most business circles were fairly small; you simply couldn’t get away with breaking your word. Perhaps not because people didn’t want to, but because the community simply didn’t tolerate it. Ethical behavior was demanded if you desired to stay in business.

But today, even if you have a contract, it’s who has the most lawyers and $$$ to fight. It’s not about holding up your promise, it’s about grabbing as much money as possible in the fastest way possible. Ethics is thrown under the bus, even as candidates promise “change”, but don’t want you to look behind the curtain to see it’s just business as usual and the ethics continue to disappear.

That’s the real problem in Washington — a lack of ethics. When double-talking politicians try to dodge real questions with slick-talking nuance instead of solutions, and then act differently when the teleprompter turns off, that’s a lack of ethics. The goal in politics becomes how to fool people with slick oratory, but then after election turn against the flowery rhetoric and act oppositely — in their own interests instead of serving the country.

Don’t be fooled by the man behind the curtain.

It’s easy to act one way while someone looks, the real measure of ethics is what you do when no one looks, or it’s not going your way. Do the actions change? For Christians, it’s easy — the ethical standards don’t change even when you can get away with it.

Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill? He who walks uprightly, And works righteousness, And speaks the truth in his heart; He who does not backbite with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, Nor does he take up a reproach against his friend; In whose eyes a vile person is despised, But he honors those who fear the Lord; He who swears to his own hurt and does not change; He who does not put out his money at usury, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved. (Psalm 15 NKJV)

Unfortunately, not many people acting in such a manner remain, and those few are ridiculed on TV talk shows and sitcoms — the guy working 40 hours for a weeks pay and who actually performs his commitments becomes the butt of jokes.

So what should a Christian do? First off, act ethically and morally. Morals (absolute right and wrong) come from God; you must learn them (which means studying God’s Word for yourself to see what He has to say). Then in every situation, apply morality and act ethically — your word is your bond. In other words, if you sign a contract and it turns out it’s not as beneficial to you as it could be, you honor the contract and fulfill it’s terms. Naturally, you’ll never be able to be perfect, but the goal becomes to always act properly, knowing you’ll never completely live up to the goal.

But acting morally during the election season raises a question — how involved should a Christian be in political matters? And how should they determine how to vote? Some Christians don’t want to be involved at all, others abandon Biblical principles in their quest for political utopia, becoming disciples of men and worshipers of Nebo, Baal, Mammon and others, instead of God. Both are wrong. But how should a Christian determine how/who/what to vote for? What criteria should be used to determine a vote? As we said before in our commentary on Daniel:

We will be held accountable as stewards; we hired the guys leading the county. If they be Godly men and men of integrity, it’s because the people demand it. If they be men without morals and choose to promote sin, it’s because the people allow it. The politicians aren’t the problem, they’re a symptom of the real problem — the attempt to exterminate God from all corners of society. And after the elimination of God, no absolutes remain and it’s a moral free for all; it’s back to the times of the Judges once again (read the book for yourself, and see what happens when a society becomes a moral free-for-all without the absolute standard of God’s Word).

The attempt at extermination of God from society includes education, science, and of course, politics. So what should we do? Fortunately Paul has the answer — in 1 Corinthians chapter four Paul notes it is required of stewards to be faithful. As a representative democracy, citizens of the United States vote as stewards of this country; you must be faithful and exercise your due diligence in your vote; God will hold you accountable for your stewardship of your vote — you are the employer of politicians.

The hardest task becomes finding out what a candidate actually believes for the simple reason they don’t want you to know, because no matter what stand they take some people won’t like it; to avoid taking any position at all means nobody is upset. It takes work to find out what exactly someone believes (cutting through the doublespeak), as many for political expediency will simply tell you what you want to hear (not necessarily what’s best for the country). You’ve got to do some homework to determine how the candidate will likely respond to certain issues.

So who to support? By what criteria should we cast our votes? We propose a simple idea, one which every Christian should agree on — find the candidate lining up best with Biblical principles, and support them. Nothing more is needed, nothing less meets your stewardship responsibility. It’s not about putting bumper stickers on your car or waving signs on the corner — just vote for the candidate or issue best aligning with God. If all Christians did that, the country would turn around.

Of course, all candidates are flawed in some way, but frequently when you consider two candidates one lines up with Biblical principles much better than the other. In November, either McCain or Obama will become president. Which one better agrees with Biblical principles? That’s the task before a Christian who wants to be (as Paul said) a faithful steward of their vote. Find out what they believe, find out what God says, and then support the guy who is closest with what God says.

We will be held accountable for the stewardship of this country. If the government be Godly, it’s because the people demand it. If it slouches toward Gomorrah, it’s because the people tolerate it. You’re a steward of your vote; do some homework and exercise your stewardship wisely. Be like the sons of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do (1 Chronicles 12:32). It takes work and dedication, but your stewardship demands no less.

And always pray we don’t get the leaders we deserve, but the leaders we need.

For more on this subject, read our Daniel commentary for chapter nine as Daniel prays for his country and people, and note it applies to us today as much as it did for Daniel’s people thousands of years ago.

Girls Gone Wild

yeager — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:02:24 +0000

By now everyone has seen the shocking video of the planned, premeditated, brutal beating of a school girl by her peers. As the bizarre video continues to play across the airwaves, the question remains, what was the motive behind this savage act? That’s the shocking revelation in this story — it appears the only reason for the beating was to get video on the Internet; their 15 minutes of fame we guess.

Bizarre. We can’t (and won’t) comment on this specific case as we don’t know more than anyone else but what we’ve seen on the news. However, this trend continues to grow; another story about kids attempting to induce another student into a severe allergic reaction by secretly using peanuts (peanut allergies being no laughing matter) — after the student ends up in the hospital for days, it’s not funny (or maybe it was to them, but then that’s the point).

We’re beginning to see more and more of this as people lose their moral and ethical compass and descend into an abyss of behavior which is not only sick and twisted, but completely random and unexplainable as well. Yet what caused these twisted events? Is it preventable? Could there be a relationship between current events and past actions by society?

The Christian Perspective

Is this a logical result from society’s previous actions? When you remove God from school, government, and society, and instead tell kids they’re the result of cosmic accidents and descended from animals, why are we shocked when they act without remorse as if nothing matters but their own desires?

This shouldn’t be construed as an argument against evolution — if the facts prove the theory, fine. Unfortunately, they don’t. So why is the theory continued to be pushed? Some continue to push God farther and farther away seeking a naturalistic, atheistic explanation for humans existence. But when you tell people they’re descended from animals, don’t be surprised when they exhibit animalistic behavior lacking cognitive and rational thought (to find scientific discussion, search our site for evolution).

Society created a group of sociopaths with malignant narcissist tendencies, and yet is shocked by the fact.

The Existence of Evil

It used to be popular to say “every day in every way we’re getting better and better” — but opening up a newspaper proves that simply isn’t true. You see, evil exists. Many don’t want to admit that, but if you’ve stared into the face of pure evil, you don’t doubt it.

Part of the problem lies in the denial of evil and the idea people are basically good — everyone can be “rehabilitated”; even after thousands of failures many refuse to acknowledge the basic fact — the Bible says man is sinful, self-serving and deceitfully wicked. That doesn’t mean your neighbor is an axe-murderer, just that in the end, mankind looks out for himself and what he wants above all else; selfish tendencies are natural and inborn (as anyone who has watched 2-year old kids play knows).

Value Relativism

Kids have been taught “if it feels good do it”, and combined with a lack of moral absolutes in government, law, education, and society causes unexplainable acts like random beatings for no other reason than to get the video on the Internet. “Value relativism” is popular because it means anything goes — any situation becomes acceptable, because your values may not be mine — it’s simply an excuse for everyone to do what is right in their own eyes and justify whatever heinous acts they desire.

But we no longer call it “value relativism” — it’s been renamed to “tolerance”. Be careful with that word, it’s not what you think. Most of us think of tolerance (for example in the religious sense) as a situation where if you wanted to believe one way, and I another, thats OK (of course, at most one is right, but that’s a subject for another time); tolerance is a free debate and exchange of ideas. It doesn’t mean you won’t be exposed to ideas you may not agree with, just that in a tolerant society all views are allowed to exist — if you want to believe the world is flat, go ahead — but don’t expect much agreement.

But that’s not what tolerance means anymore. It’s a denial of moral absolutes, and a demonetization of anyone who believes absolute right and wrong exists. It’s amazing how intolerant of other beliefs the tolerant crowd is.

Of course, the denial of moral absolutes is not only frightening in its results, it turns out nobody really believes it. All you have to do is tell someone believing in value relativism you want to steal their car — and you’ll quickly find out they actually do believe in the existence of moral absolutes. Nevertheless, value relativism continues to be taught, and we continue to be shocked by the results of that false philosophy.

A Revival and Return to Godly Leadership

It’s time for people to return to God; this country needs a revival, it needs to abandon the absurdity of value relativism, it needs leaders willing to follow after God, it needs to acknowledge the existence of evil, it needs to stop pushing God away and out of every possible corner — so much that it’s no longer “Easter vacation” and “Christmas vacation” but “spring break”, and “winter recess”. Absurd — as if changing the names might change the reason those holidays were created in the first place.

Government leaders continue to claim devotion to God while taking every opportunity to poke Him in the eye at every turn, driving God completely out of society. The Constitution requires freedom of religion, not freedom from religion (note to those who might misconstrue this as a call for theocracy — we aren’t).

Church pulpits no longer teach the Word of God, but politics and potlucks (and don’t mention sin and the need for a savior).

We’ve told kids they’re a cosmic accident and should do whatever feels good to them (as no moral absolutes exist).

We’ve extinguished the influence and guiding moral compass of God everywhere we can.

We’ve thrown morality and ethics off the cliff, and celebrated as it plunged to the rocky waters below.

Do we then have a right to complain about the logical results of those actions?

Without God, anything is possible (Bill Ritchie).