Many in this society, but especially our kids, have stopped asking questions. And when they do, they don’t seem to listen to the answers. And then, if they do, they have a tendency to dismiss the answers, even if the answer is true.
Especially if the truth conflicts with their feelings.
Feel good feelings are the new drug. They trump everything.
I think about politics a lot, but when I think about politics, I think about what’s happening from a Christian point of view. I think about the unintended consequences. Where do things lead? Sometimes it may be a slippery slope, but I’ve seen too many things slide down the slope. It’s better to stop bad ideas before they get on the slide. I don’t believe in the separation of Church and State; at least not the version non-Christians try to push. I don’t separate the two. Jesus doesn’t wait outside the voting booth. He’s a smart guy, but c’mon, He doesn’t get it when you tell Him you need to keep politics and religion separate. Actually, I’m sure He does, but I can’t imagine it makes Him happy.
I hear the arguments: Jesus would have been a Democrat! Jesus would have been a Republican! I’ll be honest. I think it’s all speculation, and I’m going to speculate as well.
I don’t think Jesus wouldn’t have belonged to any party. I think he would have been an independent–small i intentional–in the truest sense of the word. Would He have voted? I don’t know. I think He would have. When Jesus walked the earth as a man, certain things were hidden from Him by the Father, but I think He would have known exactly what each politician would have done in office. What if He knew each would bring Israel to further sin? Would He abstain, or would He vote for a third-party? Would He vote for a third-party candidate He knew–as a matter of fact–wouldn’t win? Would He throw His vote away by voting His conscience? Would He skip the vote knowing His vote "wouldn’t count anyway" allowing the greater-of-two-evils a victory? Would He vote for the lesser-of-two-evils? Think about that for a minute. Knowing that all men fall short of the glory of God, and all candidates have some amount of evil in them, isn’t that what we’re always doing? Voting for the lesser-of-two-evils? Jesus would certainly be in the best position to know who the lesser-of-two-evils actually is.
So, I’ve written this political platform for a fictional party called the Voice in the Wilderness Party. I’m not saying I’m any John the Baptist, by any stretch. But I am, at the moment, a lone voice, yelling in the digital wilderness. If the number grows, the name will change. It won’t fit any more.
But the goal is to get down, in writing, an idea of what I think a Christian’s political platform would/should look like. It’s not done. It’s a first draft, but with elections looming, I thought that a draft is better than nothing. It’s supposed to make you think. Eventually it will contain links supporting every position I’ve staked out.
If you read it, you may get the impression that I’m anti-Democrat. Don’t be afraid to say it. I’m not. I am stubbornly, proudly, anti-Democrat. That doesn’t mean I’m Republican though. I’m also stubbornly, proudly anti-Democrat and independent. If that means I have to vote for Republicans, then so be it. I’m still waiting for a third-party candidate I actually like that has a change of winning.
a picture, description, or imitation of a person or thing in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.
Some of the synonyms listed are: cartoon, parody, satire, and lampoon.
The bottom line is that a caricature is an inaccurate depiction of, usually, a person. Some parts are exaggerated, which means that some parts are understated, or sometimes deemphasized or ignored. It is, in reality, a false image.
People have different views of God, and many of them are exactly that; a caricature. They exaggerate and distort His image. They create their own image of God. Sometimes it’s intentional, and sometimes not, but everyone’s caricature is a little different:
One person inaccurately highlights God’s justice as genocide.
Another person inaccurately highlights the happiness God can bring, while forgetting persecution.
Another person inaccurately highlights God’s love for us, while ignoring the fact that He also calls us to repentance.
There are two different caricatures of God, but they are both negative. One shows God in a negative light, using false, negative descriptions, creating a false image. One famous example comes from Richard Dawkins1:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
The other shows God in a positive light, gushing about the great attributes, but ignoring the "uncomfortable," while still leaving a false image. An example of this comes from the "care for the poor" crowd. I’ve created a meme that highlights that:
Both are negative caricatures because they are both false. The thing about a caricature is that it’s close enough that you can you recognize who it’s supposed to be, while still remaining a false image. It’s the cliché: the most dangerous lie is the one closest to the truth.
What does your image of God look like? Is it a cartoon? A parody? A caricature? A false image is just that: false. It isn’t real. It’s man-made, and it’s no better than the images crafted by Demetrius2.
Or is your image Biblical? True? Both comfortable, and uncomfortable? Loving, but righteous? Do you conform to God, or does your god conform to you?
Do you worship God, or a parody?
Dawkins, Richard (2008). The God Delusion. New York: Mariner Books. (p. 51).↩
Stop using the word homophobia. It’s offensive. It implies an irrational fear, which very few people have. Most people who oppose homosexuality have good reasons for doing so; there’s nothing irrational about it. Calling someone a homophobe in response to someone’s argument is like responding by calling them ass hole. That’s not a counter-argument; it’s name-calling. And did I mention offensive?
Yeah, I know there are a few people that are actually homophobic, but they’re few and far between, and to use it for every person that is anti-gay is foolish and inaccurate. Did I mention offensive?
When one person calls another person a homophobe, I feel like the targeted person would be correct to respond with dumb ass.
Always the marriage equality argument. This is, of course, a big fat lie.
Marriage equality has always existed. The law never said gay people can’t get married. It said men had to marry women, and it applied equally to ALL men regardless of sexual orientation. That’s equality.
But, but, gay men couldn’t marry whoever they wanted!
Neither could straight men! Straight men couldn’t marry their mother, sister, brother, male neighbor, dog… whatever. The same restrictions that applied to gay men, applied to straight men. That’s equality.
The laws said a man has to marry a woman. Is a gay man a man? Is he different from a straight man? I imagine most gay men consider themselves to be men. And if a gay man is a man, like any other man, the laws will apply equally to him. That’s equality.
Changing the law to allow men to marry men, does not change the equality aspect unless the law is rewritten to say: gay men can only marry gay men, and straight men can only marry straight women. Obviously, it will/does not. So, new laws, or allowances, or rights, under the law will remain equal. If men are allowed to marry men, it will apply equally to straight men. Because that’s equality.
Why would a straight man want to marry another man? The only reason I can think of are economics, but the point is, they would be legally, and equally, be able to do so.
The equality issue is a false argument. It’s a myth. It’s a distraction from the real issue, and the real issue is that they want to redefine marriage.
He created them male and female, and he blessed them and called them "human." (Genesis 5:2 NLT)
Human beings come in two kinds: male and female. Human beings, reproduce, naturally, through sex. And it takes one of each kind. That is, it takes one male and one female to reproduce a human being. Even if you take the natural out of reproduction, you still require the sperm from one male, and the egg from one female. There is no other way, unless you count some sort of weird biological alchemy. This is a fact, and this fact alone, means that human beings are heterosexual. Every single one of them, er, us.
Human beings who have sex with other human beings of the same sex want to be treated different that other human beings, but in reality they’re not different. They’re heterosexuals like the rest of us. They may have homosexual sex, but they cannot reproduce except through heterosexual means. They must involve another human being, either through surrogate mothers or IVF. It is not something two human beings claiming to be homosexual can do.
I know. The claim is that sexuality has to be separated from sex, but in reality the two are inseparable. If you indulge your sexuality, you do it through sex. In other words, it’s indulged through an action that has been chosen; a sex act, that has nothing to do with making babies, even though that’s part of what sex is. Sex is not just the act of getting your rocks off. That way of thinking reduces it to an animal instinct, and we’re more than just animals. We can think about what we do. We can consider the results, although, nowadays, that seems to be out of fashion.
The bottom line is:
If you have male parts, you’re a male. You reproduce by interacting with a female, thus, you are heterosexual.
If you have female parts, you’re a female. You reproduce by interacting with a male, thus, you are heterosexual.
I don’t care if you’re attracted to members of the same sex. You’re still heterosexual. You’re a human being! Or are saying you’re something different? It doesn’t matter what you’re attracted too. It doesn’t matter what you’re turned on by. These do not change the fact that you’re a heterosexual. They may change your attraction, but that’s not physical, it’s mental.
Santos said, "Because [she] is not her daughter; [she] is our daughter."
Manuel Santos is patently wrong. When he refers to her, he is referring to the baby’s biological mother, Patidta Kusongsaang, and when he refers to our, he is referring to him and his husband, Gordon Lake.
Let me point out the obvious. Santos and his husband can not have children. It’s impossible, by nature1. Therefore, the baby, Carmen, is not biologically theirs. From a legal standpoint, she may be, but not biologically. No court decision can change that.
Children, by nature, have a biological mother and a biological father. Again, this is something that a court can’t change. A court decision doesn’t change the child’s DNA. The child will forever be the biological child of Manuel Santos and Patidta Kusongsaang, no matter how Santos and his partner feel about it. To think otherwise is a denial of reality; a delusion you might say.
But it seems to me, that this same-sex "marriage" is exactly that, a denial. While the argument is posed as an equality, and love, measure, it leaves out the family measure.
It’s at this point the unnaturalness of the union becomes apparent. A same-sex couple can’t procreate. They must receive assistance from an outside individual; an individual of the opposite sex.
And it’s here that reality must be confronted: In order to have biological children, at least one member of the same-sex couple must embrace heterosexually in order to procreate. And only one of them can be the biological parent.
There is no hate in that statement. There is no bigotry. Only truth.
The bottom line is this: homosexuality is a social construct, not a biological one, and they must choose to put homosexuality aside in order to create a family in which one parent is still left out biologically.
This seems to me to be the very definition of an unnatural relationship.↩
It’s amazing how many people quote Jesus when it comes to feeding the poor. And I’m sure you’ve seen the memes making fun of Republicans, Christians, and conservatives who supposedly don’t care about the poor.
But did you know that he said other things as well?
So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” (Matthew 19:17-19 NKJV)
Where’s the outcry against adultery?
Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, (Luke 14:12-13 NIV)
How many people do you know that throw parties and invite the homeless instead of their friends?
How about this one?
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20 NKJV)
Here’s my proposal:
Since so many people are more than happy to justify the use the government to do what Jesus said, i.e., feed the poor. I think it’s time to start another government program aimed at spreading the Gospel. We can shorten the saying to just “Save the Lost.” Quite honestly, there are probably more lost than there are hungry since Jesus also said, wide is the path to Hell, and narrow is the path to Heaven. And I would argue that this is true, because Jesus also said He is “the way, the truth and the life.” (emphasis mine).
Based on that, we should be able to earmark a truly massive amount of taxpayer money for this effort. We can establish a bureaucracy that is too big to be efficient, and fiscally irresponsible, just like most other government entities.
But what about Separation of Church and State, some may ask. Liberals and Democrats are already using Jesus’ commandment to further their agenda, so they don’t have a leg to stand on. They’re already pushing for more irresponsible spending in order to help the poor, in the name of Jesus, so precedent is set. We can set up more irresponsible spending to save the lost.
Um, no. When Jesus said to help the poor, He meant for YOU to help the poor. Not push your responsibility onto some nameless, faceless, government agency. He didn’t say set up a Robin Hood government to take from the rich, and give to the poor. He didn’t say redistribute wealth. And He didn’t say, demonize the rich.
He did say, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15 ESV). There is no Gospel in welfare, which means there’s no Christ in welfare, which means welfare is not a Christian program.