Posts Tagged ‘Romans’

‘We’re Living In The Very Last Days Of The Church Age… This Is The Time For Every Christian To Learn How To Live By Faith’

January 7, 2013

“I’m not going to ask you if you’re a Christian or if you’re saved.  I just want to know one thing: can you explain to me how the Bible says that someone can go to heaven?  What does somebody need to do to go to heaven?  Can you explain that to me?”

If you can’t answer that question, if you can’t answer the question that Jesus asked His disciples in Mark 8:29, “But who do YOU say that I am?”  You need to drop everything you’re worrying about and learn the answers to those two questions.  Because your life depends on it.

This is an excellent presentation by Hal Lindsey of what it means to live by faith.  Please watch:

Here’s Hal Lindsey’s website. I try to watch his program as it appears on TBN every Friday at 5 pm PST.

Here’s the sad reality: a lot of people think they’re “Christians” because they believe garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with what the Bible teaches.  St. Paul wrote:

“But I fear that somehow your pure and undivided devotion to Christ will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the serpent.  You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.” — 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, NLT

There is a “different Jesus”; many different Jesuses, in fact.

Jesus stands completely unique in all of human history.  Because of the profound influence of Western Civilization upon the world, and because our very calender system revolves around the birth of the greatest and most influential person who ever lived, our very history literally revolves around Jesus.  The greatest problem true Christianity faces is not that no one has heard of Jesus; rather, the crisis is that every single religion has tried to hijack Jesus to their religion or worldview.  The Muslims have turned Jesus into a prophet of Islam; Buddhism has turned Jesus into an enlightened one like the Buddha who found true enlightenment but remained in our reality to help others.  Hindus have turned Jesus into an incarnation or avatar of Vishnu.  Secular humanists and liberals have amazingly turned Jesus into a modern-day Marxist who somehow wanted to give Caesar complete totalitarian power over the people via the vehicle of government economic redistributionism.

They’re all wrong.  Jesus said about Himself:

I  am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.” — John 14:6

It is critical that we come to salvation by our personal decision to trust in Jesus to deliver us from our sins and from the hell we deserve if we are judged according to our own merit.  And that is because Jesus said:

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” — Mark 10:45

Give His life?.

And:

Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” — John 15:13

But why does Jesus talk about giving up His life as a ransom for many?  Why does He talk about laying down His life for His friends?

Just before Jesus cited what is now the most famous Bible verse in the world, Jesus said:

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.  For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” — John 3:14-16

Jesus was teaching what true salvation was.  He compared Himself to the bronze serpent that Moses lifted up in the wilderness and taught that He also had to be lifted up in order for humanity to be saved.  According to the Bible, the Jews during the Exodus turned against God, and God judged them with a plague of deadly serpents.  But God also gave the people the opportunity to be saved:

And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.” — Numbers 21:9

Just as the bronze serpent hung on a pole, so Jesus would hang on the cross.  And just as anyone who looked at the bronze serpent would live, so also anyone who looked at Jesus dying on the cross would live.  Jesus taught that when He would be lifted up on the cross, anybody who looked upon Him and trusted that Jesus had sacrificed His life for theirs would be saved from the eternal death of hell.  God is holy.  There is no sin in Him at all.  And all who come to Him must be morally perfect without having ever committed one sin throughout their entire life.  And God gives us the opportunity to either trust in ourselves and our own righteousness for this coming judgment, or to trust in the righteousness of Jesus of Nazareth.  Because Jesus died in our place.  He took the blame for what we did.  And all He requires is for us to make that personal decision to trust in His death in our place and believe that when He rose bodily from the dead, He demonstrated His resurrection power to transform us both now and at the resurrection.  As Christ’s death in our place is activated by faith, God regards us with the righteousness of Jesus.  If we were to stand at the pearly gates, Jesus would appear and say, “This one’s with Me.”  And the gates would open.

That choice and the faith that makes that choice come to life in our hearts is such a simple way.  But there are many who pervert that message for their own agendas.

Now consider the words of John 1:1-3, 14, speaking about Christ:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being…  And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:1-3 makes it abundantantly clear that when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), He meant that they are one in deity, in sharing the divine nature.  There is a simple poem that goes:

He came to die on a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood.

Jesus Christ, the Word become flesh, was the Creator of the world as described by Genesis 1:1.  All things were created through HIM.  And apart from Him NOTHING was created that has ever come into being.  The Creator of man, who created man in His own image, did so knowing that He would one day assume that image of man so that He could show mankind what the Father was like and redeem humanity through His work as “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).  And that work was completed on the cross, such that everyone who looks at Him through faith could be saved.  Because, as Jesus said, “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Paul writes in Romans 5:12 that just as sin came into the world by one man (Adam), so also was the free gift of God offered by one Man, the Man Jesus Christ (Romans 5:15).

In that act on the cross, God died for us.  God took on a human nature so He could experience the full life of a man and die the full death of a man, to atone for the sin that every single member of the human race had committed.  He took the blame for us; He died in our place when it should have been we who died for our sins.  The Bible is abundantly clear: we are all sinners (Romans 3:23) and not even ONE of us isn’t guilty (Romans 3:10); we have all fallen far short of the glory that God created us for as His image bearers; and we are therefore all guilty of death (Romans 6:23).  How many of you can even say you’ve never violated your own conscience, let alone God’s perfect holiness?  But God gave man an opportunity to live and not die (Romans 5:8) by providing His Son for us to stand in our place if we would let Him.  Just as God gave the Jews in the Exodus a chance to live by providing them with the bronze serpent on the pole for Moses to lift up in the wilderness.  And all you have to do is look upon Jesus, upon the Son of God, and believe that He did that for you.  All you need to do is recognize that you are a sinner, deserving of death, but that God wants you to LIVE by putting your faith not in yourself, but in His beloved Son.  And you will be saved.

You need to meet the Jesus of the Gospels and then meet the apostles He entrusted to carry that Gospel message to the rest of the world.

Salvation through Jesus is so simple that small children can give their little hearts to Jesus; it is so amazingly deep that the most brilliant minds in history – earth-transforming minds such as Sir Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal – have marvelled at the unfathomable mysteries of the Cross of Christ.

But what happens after we’re saved?  How should we live?  How should we act?

J. Vernon McGee said, “Now, you might have a better plan than God, but what you don’t have is your own universe.”  The Cross is God’s way of addressing man in his most dire need in His state of bondage to sin and the spiritual and ultimately physical death that resulted from that sin.  You may not like it; but it IS God’s way and God offers only ONE way to be saved.

Let me ask you a question: if you were God, is this how you would have dealt with a wicked human race that was capable of uniting only to shake its fist at you?  It sure isn’t how I would have come if I were God.  Rather than taking on a lowly human nature and being born as a helpless baby in a stable lying in a food trough for animals, I would have appeared as a giant ready to stomp on all who defied me.  That’s man’s way.  It isn’t God’s.  Which is why I actually thank God I’m NOT God, because I myself need God’s love and mercy far more than I need His power and His wrath.

God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8).  You need to get that reality through your head every single day if you want to live a Christian life.  You will find that God has a radically different way of dealing with the world than human beings have devised.  Jesus described God’s ways to His disciples:

“But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.  It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” — Matthew 20:25-28

Jesus told us to love our enemies.  He told us to bless those who curse us.  He told us to do good to those who hate us.  He told us to pray for those who spitefully use us (Matthew 5:43-48).  How can you possibly live like that?  How could anybody?  By one thing and ONLY by one thing: by faith in Jesus Christ, who provided in His life and atoning death the ultimate example of what it means to live by faith.

This episode of Hal Lindsey is a great attempt to explain what living by true biblical Christian faith looks like.  I pray that you will watch it.  And then watch it again.

I also agree with Hal Lindsey that we are truly in the very last days before the Rapture of the Church and the coming Tribulation.  In my own experience, we have reached that point as a toxic culture such that America has crossed its moral Rubicon.  What I saw demonstrated in November, 2012 was that by the time America wakes up, it will be too late.  We are already over $225 trillion in debt as of now and we just decided in our vote for Obama and Democrats that we are determined to do absolutely nothing but recklessly increase that spending (our debt is increasing at nearly $1 trillion every single MONTH now) until we implode in the mother of all great depressions.  A complete global collapse is coming soon – and it will be out of this coming collapse that the Antichrist emerges.

The Bible tells us that greed and sexual immorality and self-gratification and every other sin that the world offers is an illusion.  It will never permanently satisfy – and we are just left wanting more and more until that addiction destroys us.  And given the fact that all of this is going to be taken away – first by economic collapse and later by death and judgment – we should live as if faith and only faith is real.  Christians need to be seeking that faith right now because it is the only thing that is ultimately truly valuable.

Obama’s Radical Misunderstanding of Bible Parallels Radical Misunderstanding of Constitution

June 26, 2008

Barack Obama demonstrated just how ignorant he is regarding the religion he claims to embrace in a bizarre exegesis of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount:

Obama said that while he does not believe in gay marriage, he does think the state should allow civil unions that allow a same-sex couples to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other.

“If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans,” Obama said.

You know, I’ve read the Sermon on the Mount many times (found in Matthew, chapter 5). Somehow I’ve always missed the part where Jesus called for Gay civil unions. (If you find that part, please let me know). On the other hand, I immediately found the “obscure” passage in Romans referring to homosexuality quite relevant.

You don’t even have to read very far to find it. St. Paul begins by revealing the fact that God’s wrath falls on the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their unrighteousness suppress the plainly revealed truth (Romans 1:18-20) and instead foolishly exchange the truth of God for a lie (v. 21-22). And St. Paul says that because they deliberately suppress the truth, that God therefore gave such people over to the impure lusts of their hearts (24-32); such that men who are aware of God’s decrees not only practice such sin, but encourage others to practice it also. St. Paul refers to the sin of homosexuality again in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. He’s really quite clear.

The only thing that is “obscure” is Barack Obama.

Frankly, it’s too bad Barack Obama doesn’t read the book of Romans, and so clearly has so little respect for the Apostle Paul. Maybe he’d have a clue about the Christian faith. Sadly, Obama believes that Jeremiah Wright, Jim cone, and Louis Farrakan understand Christianity better than the man who “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6) with his explaining and defending the faith that Jesus Christ brought to the world and commissioned His apostles to teach.

But let me return to the teachings of Jesus, since Barack Obama has so little regard for the teachings of St. Paul.

Going back to the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 5, it is interesting that in the very same chapter that Jesus gives the Sermon on the Mount, He says, “Do you think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I came not to abolish, but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:17-19).

And what does the Law say about homosexuality? “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

It is an abomination because homosexuality perverts God’s natural created order. He who created man and woman in His own image (Gen 1:27) created woman as a suitable companion for man, and man said of the woman, “This is the bone of my bone and the flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). And God said that a man should leave his parents and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh (Gen 2:24). And God said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28, Gen 8:17).

Many today (who fall under the judgment and wrath of God according to Romans 1:32), teach that the ordinances against homosexuality no longer apply to us today. But Leviticus 18:22 should serve as a clear rejoinder, being sandwiched as it is between offering your children for child sacrifice (Lev 18:21) and bestiality (Lev 18:23). Of course, our mass culture of abortion and “anything goes” morality no longer really much cares what God has to say, does it?

When it comes to gay couples visiting one another in the hospital, or transfer property to one another, in Barack Obama’s straw man, I have no problem with either. But we don’t have to have “civil unions” to do either, do we? In our society, where lawyers are as plentiful as cockroaches and twice as nasty, one can arrange darn near anything. Surely, a process can be obtained by which homosexuals, senior citizens, friends, and spinster siblings can take advantage of partnerships that enable them to do find support, companionship, and benefit from one another without making such relationships tantamount to marriage!

Some things should remain undefiled and sacred. Marriage – which is under enough difficulty in our pluralistic religion-dismissing society – ought to be one of them.

But Barack Obama is not done with his analysis of the Bible. He continues in what he calls a “Call to Renewal Address“:

“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.”

Now, I suppose Obama believes he made a point, but how many Christians do you see today questioning whether or not they should own slaves, or whether eating shellfish is a sin against God? I personally have yet to encounter a single person so confused – at least until Barack Obama.

The dietary laws given by God were principally ordained as a means of separating the people of God from the pagan nations. It had to do with the holiness of God and the holiness that God called Israel to (Lev 11:44-45). It had to do with living under God’s Old Testament Covenant, which discriminated between that which was sacred, and that which was profane (i.e. of defiling oneself).

The children of Israel were set apart by God, and were called to be holy according to God’s holy ways. In order to be saved, one had to become a Jew (be circumsized, put oneself under the Covenant system). Jews and Gentiles were separated from one another, and from God.

But the prophets said that God would ordain a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).

The Book of Hebrews says, “When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear (Heb 8:13); and says of Jesus, “And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb 9:15); and also, “and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:14).

Christians are familiar with God’s introducing this principle to St. Peter in Acts chapter 10. A devout Gentile Roman officer named Cornelius has a vision that calls upon him to seek St. Peter (vs 5). But God must prepare Peter to come to Cornelius’ house and welcome this Gentile into God’s family. And so Peter likewise has a vision, in which a sheet comes down from heaven filled with food declared unclean, and a voice says, “Kill and eat.” And when Peter piously refuses to defile himself according to the Old Covenant, the voice from heaven says, “What God has made clean, do not call ‘profane'” (v. 15). It takes Peter three times to get the message: God is bringing Gentiles into the New Covenant. You do not have to abide by the Jewish dietary system, or be circumsized, or offer animal sacrifices. Faith in the sacrifice of the Christ of the New Covenant is the sole requirement. And Peter tells Cornelius of his lesson in Acts 10:34. And Cornelius is saved as the prototypical example of the first Gentile convert to Christianity.

Hebrews 10:4 tells us that it was never the blood of bulls that took away sins, but that the blood of animals – offered in sacrifice – had ever pointed the way to the ultimate once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. And that all who have ever been saved have been saved by Christ.

As for the issue of slavery, it must first be understood that – while not specifically overturning slavery – the Mosaic system provided pagan slaves specific rights granted by no other people in the world at the time, and it specifically banned slavery among Jews. A Jew could be indentured in servitude, but could not be “owned,” and his service could not be permanent.

But again, we merely have to turn to the Paul – whom Obama spurned – to see what God has to say about slavery in the New Covenant era. Read the Book of Philemon (why not? It’s really short!). Paul appeals to a Christian slave owner named Philemon to accept a runaway slave-turned convert named Onesimus back into his household as a free man – and not as a slave.

When slavery was overturned in Great Britain – and finally in the United States – the movements were championed by Christians appealing to the writings of St. Paul.

So even the most simple-minded of Christians have for two thousand years known the answer to these issues that Barack Obama continues to misunderstand!

Note how Obama abandons clear passages that condemn his views in favor of a radically subjective understanding of a passage that nowhere re-enforces them.

The Bible is not some byzantine codebook which must be read while constantly bearing in mind that we must never believe too deeply or accept to much. Barack Obama tells us to read the Bible (except for St. Paul’s writings, apparently), but not to trust it, lest one fall into the trap of saying that we mustn’t eat shellfish, or that we should re-institute slavery.

The man reveals himself to be the same spiritually ignorant – and biblically illiterate – man who embraced a hateful Marxist pastor as his spiritual mentor for 23 years.

So James Dobson is right; Barack Obama is just one more spiritually blind leader of the blind, blithely practicing “a confused theology.

Having established this point, let me say that this issue does not just have to do with interpretations of the Bible, or with one’s (in Obama’s case terrible) choice of church. It has to do with worldview, and with decisions that would effect every single American for decades to come.

In terms of the choice of Justices for the Supreme Court, there are two sides: the originalist/strict constructionist judge, who is bound by the meaning and intent of the Constitution, and the judicial activist, who views the Constitution as “a living, breathing document subject to change.”

The problem is that the latter have imposed some of the worst legal decisions in American history, and America has had to pay terrible consequences for those decisions.

In the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, likely the worst decision ever, the Supreme Court ignored the overwhelmingly clear mandate of the Constitution in favor of a desired outcome. In writing his dissent to this despicable example of judicial tyranny, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote, “When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constituition is according to their own views of what it ought to mean” (Dred Scott 60 U.S. 621 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).

In the 1886 Plessy v. Fergusen decision, an activist Supreme Court mandated segregation and forced a private industry (the railroads) to separate individuals on account of race (“equal but separate”) in an abandonment of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. This terrible decision would be the law of the land for the next 58 years until finally reversed by the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. And even then, the Court failed to reject Plessy’s reasoning as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection, but instead – in still more activism – opened up a Pandora’s Box of sociological and psycho-analysis mumbo jumbo.

In the 1944 Korematsu v. United States decision, the activist Supreme Court upheld the executive orders of FDR requiring forced internment of some 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent in clear violation of the plain sense of the 5th Amendments prohibitions against deprivation of life liberty, or property without due process.

Activist judges have repeatedly justified slavery, segregation, and racism, abandoning the plain sense of the Constitution in order to impose their views upon the text.

This is the quintessential essence of the warning against judical activists and judicial activism, and liberals are ignoring it.

Justice Thurgood Marshall, who is the prototype of the liberal justice, said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

And Justice Marshall – precisely the sort of Justice that Barack Obama would affirm if elected president – said of the Constitution and of the men who framed it, “I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever “fixed” at the Philadelphia Convention… Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. to the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start… (Stuart Taylor, Jr., “Marshall Sounds Critical Note on Bicentenniel,” New York Times, May 7, 1987).

Mark Levin writes, “Marshall couldn’t have been more wrong, and couldn’t have had a weaker grasp of the Constitution. The Constitution established principles of governance. Discrimination, injustice, and inhumanity are not products of the Constitution. To the extent they exist, they result from man’s imperfection. Consequently, slavery exists today not in the United States, but in places like Sudan. Indeed, the evolution of American Society has only been possible because of the covenant the framers adopted, and the values, ideals, and rules that set forth that document” (Men in Black, p. 9).

In contrast, consider the view of Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

The gravest problem for America is that Barack Obama believes about the Constitution what he believes about the Bible. He despises the clear intent, and the clear meaning, and the strict interpreation according to fixed principles, in favor of the same sort of radical interpretation he gives to the Sermon on the Mount to justify gay civil unions – when such is nowhere in the Sermon, but only in Barack Obama’s warped mind.

Christians are people who have subjected themselves to the Person and character of God and His ways as revealed in His Word. They don’t usurp the authority of the Bible, such that they decide which parts to follow, and which parts to disregard. Whenever one does so, one places oneself as the ultimate authority over the Bible and the God whose Word it is. And in the same manner, Judges who do not place themselves under the abiding authority of the Constitution as framed and established by our founding fathers become guilty of imposing their will on the Constitution. And it is then that they become “black-robed masters.”

If the Constitution is not fixed and objective in its meaning, then by what principle do Justices decide? By their own subjective views, and nothing more.

Antonin Scalia has warned that if one is able to devise rights out of scratch, from such as the penumbras and emanations that liberal activist justices used to create the right of abortion, then one can literally impose anything one wants – just as Justice Curtis warned.

For example, Justice Anthony Kennedy relied upon his understanding of the European Convention on Human Rights – and not upon the Constitution – to rule in the 2003 Texas sodomy case Lawrence v. Texas. He wrote, “The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards [in a 1986 Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick] did not take into account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction” (Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2481 (2003)). Sandra Day O’Conner, John Paul Stephens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have also called for using international law to inform their conclusions. O’Conner said such should be “a persuasive authority in American courts.”

But why do they choose the “international laws” they do? Why not use Sharia law? Doesn’t that count as “other authorities pointing in an opposite direction”?

what would liberals do if some right-wing justice cited “the international law” of Sharia to limit and even completely overturn the rights of women (and I mean all their rights)? They would howl in outrage, even though they themselves established the precedent and have been arbitrarily imposing their will on the Constitution for over 60 years (in fact, for far longer), since President FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court in order to obtain the political decision he favored.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said “a too strict jurisprudence of the framers’ original intent seems too unworkable.” She takes the same view of the Constitution that Barack Obama takes of the Bible. But the reliance “of the framers’ original intent” seems plenty workable for justices such as William Rehnquist, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alitio; just as the “framers’ original intent” seems quite workable for millions of Christians regarding their Bible. It is only “unworkable” for someone who wants to impose their will upon the law rather than subject themselves under its authority and guidance.

Judicial activists are using international law as a salad bar, picking and choosing what they want and ignoring what they don’t care for. They are turning to international law because they do not wish to be limited or constrained by the Constitution – any more than Barack Obama doesn’t want to be constrained by Leviticus, or the Books of the Bible written by St. Paul, or any other authority that contradicts his subjective preferences.

Thus a Barack Obama will appoint federal judges who will – by the slimmest margin of a single vote – radically transform the morality and laws of a nation, such as they recently did in California, when four judges overturned the clear intent of over 60% of California voters in imposing their view of homosexual marriages upon society.

Barack Obama asked, “Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?”

It is Barack Obama – and not the Sermon on the Mount – that the Defense Department may not survive. The DoD has done fine with the latter; the real question at hand is whether it can survive the former. Barack Obama is a dangerous radical who has for years associated with dangerous radicals. His understanding of the world, of the faith he claims to profess, of the Bible he claims to honor, and of the Constitution he claims to seek to uphold, are dangerously flawed.

America can do better.

Jeremiah Wright Needs to Go Home And Read His Bible

April 29, 2008

Jeremiah Wright, speaking at the 53rd annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner sponsored by the NAACP, said, “One of your cities’ political analysts says in print that first just my appearance here in Detroit will be polarizing. Well, I’m not here for political reasons. I am not a politician. I know that fact will surprise many of you because many in the corporate-owned media have made it seem as if I had announced that I’m running to for the Oval Office. I am not running for the Oval Office. I’ve been running for Jesus a long, long time, and I’m not tired yet.”

Jeremiah Wright?  Not political?  Jeremiah Wright?  Running for Jesus?  Wrong and More Wrong. 

Jeremiah Wright claims to be speaking as a Christian pastor.  But let’s look at how Jesus spoke, or how Paul or Peter spoke, and see how radically different Jesus and the men who knew Him spoke about their government.  Jeremiah Wright is clearly NOT speaking in anything resembling their tradition.  Did Jesus rail against the evils of Rome, even once?  No.  Jesus didn’t launch hateful tirades against Pontius Pilate or Ceasar, even as He was being condemned to death by them and by their system of justice.  Did Paul and Peter rail against Rome?  No.  Did they castigate the Roman caesar who would have them both killed?  No.  Did they call upon Christians to become embittered against Roman oppression, or call upon Christians to become bitter and judgmental people because Rome had denied them this benefit or that?  No.  They didn’t.  Nothing of the sort. 

Interestingly, Jesus DID rail against religious leaders who, claiming to know God, in fact were bitter, hateful people who condemned and judged others around them and who greedily enriched themselves at their followers expense.

People rather like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in other  words.

Wright publicly corrected a local Republican politician who called him divisive.  “I am not divisive,” Wright said. “Tell him the word is ‘descriptive’ — I described the conditions in this country. Conditions divide, not my descriptions.”

“I describe the conditions in this country. Conditions divide, not my descriptions. Somebody say “Amen.” If you can’t say “Amen,” you’re too mad, just say “Ouch.””

The problem is that most of his “descriptions” are flat-out lies motivated by flat-out hatred for whites and for America.

When he labeled this country’s attempts to gain some handle on the rampant abuse of crack and the crime it generates as a scheme motivated to incarcerate black men, that was as malicious as it was false.  When he claimed that white America had created the AIDS virus as a genocide against people of color, that was as hateful as it was factually incorrect.  When he characterized America as AmeriKKKa, that was as racist and hateful as it was untrue.  

That aint “speaking truth to power.”  And it sure aint “running for Jesus.”

I am familiar with the “Tuskegee Experiment,” which provides Wright with his grounds for claiming that America created the AIDS virus to kill blacks.  And I realize that it was a medical experiment that was based on incredibly callous and racist attitudes.  Of the 400 black men used like laboratory animals, 128 died from syphillis or related complications, 40 wives had been infected, and 19 children were born with the disease.  But I also realize that this “experiment” – as vile as it was – does not and did not represent the values of the United States of America.  It should be taught as an object lesson in history.  It should not be presented as a depiction of the racist attitudes of Americans today, as Wright presents it.  If we were the sort of people who would favor treating black men in this manner today, I’m thinking we probably wouldn’t be considering a black man for President.

And mind you, the incredibly evil Japanese Unit 731 was directly responsible for 10,000 deaths due to such practices as vivisection of living humans, subjecting living humans to germ and chemical warfare, performing amputations on living humans, submitting living humans to die of slow exposure to cold, etcetera.  And they were responsible for 200,000 more deaths as their experiments bore fatal fruit.  But Jeremiah Wright has labeled America as a hateful warmonger who “nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye” for putting an end to Japan’s barbarity (which, by the way, extended way, way, way beyond Unit 731).  I simply don’t understand the implicit contradiction.   

Wright also attempts to separate himself from politics, but he is political to his very core, just as his black liberation theology is political (as well as Marxist) to its very core.

“It is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the black church,” he said, to applause.

Only a genuine politician – and a politician of the worst stripe at that – could be so arrogant and so vain as to wrap himself in an entire movement, such that any criticism of himself is tantamount to criticism of the movement.

The great mind of Booker T. Washington recognized that “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.”

I actually have come to believe that Jeremiah Wright does not want Barack Obama to become president.  If “white America” elects him, after all, it would serve as a disproof for all the anger and blame and hatred and charges of racism that Jeremiah Wright has based his career upon.  It would mean that he – and not the United States – is the real hater.