What's Hot | Search |

Get Your Personal
On-Air Report Here
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why is Obama's Evil in Rick Warren's Pulpit?
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 

Rick Warren, the best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life and senior teaching pastor at Saddleback Church in California, has invited Barack Obama to speak to the congregation of the faithful on December 1, 2006. In doing so he has joined himself with one of the smoothest politicians of our times, and also one whose wickedness in worldview contradicts nearly every tenant of the Christian faith that Warren professes.

So the question is, "why?"

Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit - a sacred place of honor in evangelical tradition - to the inhumane, sick, and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?

According to press reports, it is because of a mutual respect that each feels towards the other over the AIDS/HIV pandemic on the African continent. That rationale however is not only dishonest, but not even logical given the two distinct positions that the men come to on the matter. Because of this supposed shared concern, Warren is ready to turn over the spiritual mantle to a man who represents the views of Satan at worst or progressive anti-God liberals at best in most of his public positions on the greatest moral tests of our time.

Warren's stand on the matter in this instance is what is in doubt. Not Obama's!

Barack Obama has a long history of defying the intended morality of scripture. As a state legislator he actively worked to preserve availability of abortion in all nine months of pregnancy. He opposed parental notification. He opposed any and all bans on partial birth abortion (an act that includes delivery of the baby up to the head, the crushing of the baby's brain, the suctioning of the brain matter, and then completed delivery of the child's deflated cranium.) In his run for the U.S. Senate Obama even asked his wife to pen a letter to Illinois voters that reassured them of his commitment to fighting for the right to butcher children in the womb.

Barack Obama has long supported the advance of the radical homosexual activist lobby in their pursuit to destroy traditional marriage. He supported the creation of "special rights" for people who engage in homosexuality for the sole purpose of putting them at the front of the line on issues of employment, housing, and litigation. He has also solidly backed the advancement of all "hate crimes" legislation, which ultimately may be used to silence clergy who believe according to their own convictions that homosexual behavior is wrong and preach so from biblical texts. Barack Obama has a perfect voting record against the defense of marriage.

Barack Obama advocates continued funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in our nation's inner cities which are performing genocide against the populations of African Americans living there.

And most damnable of all, when a brave nurse named Jill Stanek brought about national awareness to a practice at a local hospital in suburban Chicago that allowed the starvation and neglect of newly born children who had survived abortion procedures - Obama opposed her. He opposed the right of those children to be given the chance to live and he advocated against a ban on such procedures - then known as "born alive abortions."

Even if they share a professed concern over the AIDS pandemic what difference would Warren and Obama's union actually make?

Barack Obama does not share a view with evangelicals in a belief of moral absolutes. Right and wrong are terms of humor to Obama. All issues are shades of gray.

So how does Rick Warren believe their efforts can legitimately be joined? And what does he have to give up to do so?

By scriptural standards Rick Warren is to be bound by the biblical text and its teaching on morality. Obama would pursue and has pursued mass distribution of condoms.

If you say to a society, as Uganda has, that the only way to be sure of not getting AIDS is through "abstinence until marriage" then they will be likely to believe you. (It's scientifically provable. And it explains Uganda's unique improvement on the African continent in numbers of people contracting the virus.) On the other hand if you say to a culture, as has happened in more than one African nation, "try abstinence - but if you can't remain abstinent then use a condom" what do you think the likely outcome will be?

Rick Warren's reasoning might be similar to other leaders of doctrinally weak seeker churches like Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois. Senior Pastor Bill Hybels first invited an unrepentant then President Bill Clinton to attend his pastor's conference, and proceeded to pitch him one softball after the next in an interview before the gathered masses. Hybels' idea was to allow Clinton to "teach pastors" ideas about what "true leadership" was all about? (At what? Adultery? Lying under oath? Oral Sex?) Clinton was at least smart enough to be able to play the game a bit and profess certain vagaries about a "life of belief in God." Obama doesn't let such non-sense get in his way.

Barack Obama is likely to run for president in 2008 and speaking from the pulpit of one of America's most well known evangelical churches is likely to be footage that could be used over and over in trying to dissuade Christians from thinking about moral issues that real Christians truly feel concern for.

It should also be noted that Rick Warren knows better. Both he and his wife Kay have appeared on my broadcast in days gone by. Through some of our combined efforts with World Vision, my radio listeners have raised literally millions of dollars towards the AIDS crisis in Africa. And the truth be told, evangelicals in North America contribute more monies towards the very issue Warren professes worry over than the whole of Barack Obama's liberal friends combined.

There is definitely something for Barack Obama to gain by appearing in Rick Warren's pulpit - the implied endorsement and blessing for the 2008 presidential race. There is definitely something for Rick Warren to gain in promoting Barack Obama and giving him time behind the altar of God's word - power and access to a future heavyweight contender for the highest office in the land.

There is also something definitively risky for me in drawing attention to the matter, but because I am compelled to do what is right -- and not what is expedient -- I can not refrain from asking the question.

My listeners feel the same way. They feel even more so that way when they are hung up on when dialing Warren's church at 949.609.8000 to express their concerns. (That was 949.609.8000.)

Whatever the forthcoming explanation is from Rick Warren, it will be impossible to counter-balance the rock solid truths about Obama and what he stands for.

And for the scripturally literate among us, Ephesians 5:11 says, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."

It may be too late to alter a stubborn heart or mind at Saddleback Church, but the effort should at least be made. So I am encouraging you to do what my listeners have done for the past several days call Rick Warren and ask him why Barack Obama's evil worldview will be given the high honor of addressing the faithful. (949.609.8000 or info@saddleback.com)

Then gently remind him - that it would be sin to let him do so!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

I did it! (Yata!)
Well, I read it all the way through to see if he actually went as far as calling Barack Obama the Anti-christ. Answer: he didn't, but he came very close. Still, an admirable show of restraint for Mr. McCullough!

Also, on this comment (referring to Uganda as a shining example of AIDS/HIV control),
"On the other hand if you say to a culture, as has happened in more than one African nation, "try abstinence - but if you can't remain abstinent then use a condom" what do you think the likely outcome will be?"

Actually, the likely outcome will be very positive, as evidenced by the shining example of ... Uganda! You see, a comphrehensive program is exactly what they have. They call it "ABC", Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms. Kudos to Mr. McCullough on an excellent argument for what he was trying to argue against.

Frey writes...
"Kudos to Mr. McCullough on an excellent argument for what he was trying to argue against."

Do you mean that all the things that Obama stands for is good because Mr. McCullough reasons against them? and that Mr. Warren is good to come over to the other side?

I'm getting a little bored
with people writing "tenant" when context indicates they meant "tenet". And vice versa, when people say "George Tenant". Just a pet peeve. I've seen it over and over lately.

Before You Call and Complain
Read this thinking.

I don't understand why anyone but an elder, deacon, or one-time speaker - all on spiritual or church matters - would speak before a church.

However, it seems apparent that Rick Warren's church has taken an interest in the AIDS ministry. Therefore, Barack Obama would be a speaker concerning a church matter. It's therefore appropriate that Senator Obama speak there.

As far as I know, the church isn't accepting Obama as a member of their family; rather, they are just letting him speak about an issue that both Obama and their church are pursuing.

I agree that the pulpit is a holy thing when the people of God are gathered in front of it. Obama apparently joins some of the ministry of Rick Warren's church. If the elders of that church think he should be able to speak there, I defer to their judgment.

------------

It is possible that this is just a publicity stunt for the church and for Obama. However, we cannot know their hearts in this matter.

Now that you've considered these things, call or don't call.

BeyondBabylon
Normally, I hate cut and pasted things, but I've read your stuff and it's pretty good.

However, I have no idea what it has to do with the American Senator Obama speaking in an American church about AIDS outreach. This has nothing to do with immigration.

Another proof
This is just another proof that my strongly held beliefs hold water. I believe that too much of the world has infiltrated and corrupted the church. That is why so many churches today are lukewarm. The church is supposed to infect the world with God’s purity, not the other way around.

I think it is a mistake for Rev. Warren or any pastor to have a self-worshiper in to speak from the pulpit in their church.

Obama and the church.
I think it would be a good idea if volunteers would hand out copies of this column outside the church,but not on church land.They could read it while waiting for Obama to speak.

Perhaps
Perhaps Warren hopes to use Obama as an example of a person gone astray, in one of his next sermons.

Perhaps he hopes to influence him to think in more positive ways.

On Mr. McCullough's clarity of vision
and the obtuseness of his detractors.

I should only need to cite Amos 6 but I am afraid it would go right over the heads of most of those professing faith and be meaningless and irrelevant.

It is interesting to note that of all the signs that Jesus warned about as evidence of the last days, He warned 4 times as much about false teachers and false teachings than about any other signs.

If you can't see through a snake oil salesman like Warren and a political opportunist like Obama, you will never see through the real thing when it comes.

I spoke too soon
A subsequent reading indicates that Mr. McCullough's vision is clear in only one eye.

His title reveals that he does not know the answer to the question himsef and is himself seduced by the snake oil salesman.

My apoologies for shooting from the hip.

Obama Ben Whatever
It occurs after reading the piece that this is one of the reasons the Republican cause was lost in the last election. The evangelical twits are frightening in their fervor and vitrol. No one who opposes their views can be simply "wrong." They are condemmed as "evil," "Satan Driven," or worse. What happened to a dialog of ideas? If the conservative cause is reduced to name calling.
, then it is doomed.

Obama
I've never trusted Obama as far as I can throw him. He contradicts himself constantly but he's even slicker at it than Slick Willy.
You know, he berates Wal-Mart all the time and yet he shops there.
People like him are only interested in power and everything that goes with it. They'll get into bed (figuratively) with whomever they need to in order to get what they want.
The things he stands for, like partial birth abortion, are devilish. They are destructive to life and society.

Obama is
known by his actions. I applaud McCullough for showing this man for what and who he is - one of the troops of the anti-Christ.

All across the spectrum of elected officials, there are many who believe like Obama. It is we, the people, who need to be told and shown what their immorality and godless agenda truly is, anti-religious. We have elected them, we have put them in power. Only with articles like McCullough's will the populace learn the truth.

On a daily basis I see through the various media the growing effort to demoralize this nation, with concerted efforts to reach our youth. The liberal, anti-moral, godless in academia are reaching and teaching our youth. Heaven help us if we haven't prepared our youth for this onslaught, as without a strong Christian basis, they will succumb. There are many ways to seduce and abuse our youth, our future, and the liberal agenda is utilizing every possible means. Lenin said he would have a Communist victory from within and, it is working.

As I've said before, pray!

HMichaelH
You seem to be recommending tolerance, restraint and to avoid judging your fellow man. Charity begins at home.

The pulpit
The pulpit is the place to share and speak the Word of God from the man God has placed in that position. Period.

HMichaelH
By your reasoning, if I decide I need money and my morality sees nothing wrong with stealing, I can break into your home? Hold you up on a streetcorner? If my morality tells me that the ends justify the means, I shouldn't be punished if I cheat on a test or my taxes? If my morality tells me that my convenience is paramount, I can allow my sick newborn to die?

Why?
I guess Mr. M answered his own question and I would agree. The fact that that he is making a judgement on Mr. Warrens behavior is correct. "He that is spiritual, judgeth all things" 1Cor.2:15. He (Warren) left the mission, focus on Christ, message, the gospel, the work, make disciples. To offer the pulpit to the ugodly and join hands for social purpose, hinders the message of the gospel!

Like Minds
Mr. Warren is not far removed from Mr. Obama in his thought. Both are pragmatists.

Mr. Warren wants to sell books and speaking engagements with smooth talk and pretty words on paper. This under the guise of being concerned for the soul.

Mr Obama in a similar fashion uses smooth talk and the lectern to promote his causes for his benefit of holding elected office and gaining more power. This under the guise of deep concern for the nation and her people.

Both men are freely marketing their own agendas and the evidence is people are buying it. The problem will arise when the warranty is found to be worthless, void, and nonexistent.

GEM



sterotypo
you call that "reason against"? frey is right. mccullough never met obama to question his faith. obama has been an active member in his church and born again for a long time. if you were to go to mr. warrens web site you would read the glowing remarks of his opinion of mr. obama. mr. warren actually spent some time with obama.
how about from the scriptures," judge not, lest ye be judged"

Is this a parody?
I've read nothing but hatred from K.McCullough. You may disagree with Obama, but if he is the anti-christ then hell is probably not that bad a place. Because someone does not agree with you on some issues does not make their opinion invalid on all matters. It is the vitriolic nature of the extreme right of America which makes you a figure of ridicule in the developed world. It is a shame that a country with a majority of sane normal people is drowned out by hatemongers (sp?). Does the bible not say "judge not lest you be judged"?

On the matter of abstinance and AIDS. Abstinance only programmes are often disasterous, while some may follow their pledges, many will not. The programme stigmatizes protection and birth control, making condoms seem much less efective than they actually are (double barrier method has a 99.96% success rate, while single barrier has a 98% rate, when you consider that not every contact leads to infection a succesful protection message is far more effective than a pledge that many will abandon). All one needs to do is compare the teenage pregnancy rates between the Netherlands where everything is explained in great detail from a very young age, with that of the red states where sexual education often only goes far enough to say that sex is evil so don't do it.

Obama is
just another politician using the church for personal gain...we see it all the time...the church as been poisioned, much like society.

voice of europe
that's all this guy know how to write. nothing ever uplifting. always things to make the divide wider. the sides more unflexable and fueling the hate. he doesn't represent the temperature of the u.s. currently.

Judge not
Isn't the judge not thing the same notion as juding by relativity, do your own thing, nothing is evil or bad? Isn't that the same thinking that has driven Europe into mushy hopelessness so much that they can't stand up for anything or anyone and have so little faith in the future that they are ceasing to reproduce? Also. I cannot in my wildess dreams imagine that anyone would support partial birth abortion, not if they know what it is. I would like Obama, from the pulpit, to tell me in moral terms, why he supports partial birth abortion. When he does, we might have a measure of the man. Aids control is an easy and politically correct cause to support.

grumbling and thanksgiving
This sounds like the kind of criticism Billy Graham got when he allowed Catholics to participate in his crusades. There is a difference between having wrong ideas and being evil. If there weren't, I guess I would have to call Kevin McCullough an ambassador of the anti-christ or something.

Have a great Thanksgiving everyone.

So should you, Matthew
The Jesus you and Rick Warren promote never existed.

The real Jesus spoke more of Hell than He did of Heaven. Remember, Jesus did not "discover" Judas would betray Him; He knew it from the beginning and allowed him to continue in his blindness.


Judge not?
I am tired of being lectured on hypocrisy of evangelicals by people using a Bible they find uninspired. For once and for all: the message is to not judge men by the standards of this world, but to be charitable in forgiveness. In that society, piety was assumed in the financially successful (blessed by God were they!), while sinfulness was assumed of the poor.

One passage in the same Luke 6 that they are slower to remark on is: blessed are you when you are hated because of Me. I doubt McCullough is held in lower esteem for being a defender of God's creation, and critical of those who warp the Word of God to be a success in this world. We are critical of worldly teachings leading people into sin, yet we work to heal those suffering from the effects of sin.

You can call me hateful and judgemental all you care to: the Lord knows I am trying to be true to His Word; all of it!


Steelhand
Just because I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, rather a work of the cultural and temporal setting, doesn't mean that I can't criticise the hypocrisy of those who follow it. In the same way that you are justified in criticising environmentalists who drive 4X4's.

To Jim of 7:02 AM
No, not all of us decided to "send a message" nor "punish the Republicans".

Some of us, having been active for decades and having observed the process, have finally read the handwriting on the wall and have decided to put our energies where they can actually make a difference instead of hoping in the political process to change men's hearts.

Understanding the Battle
It amuses me to read the comments of people who clearly reject Christianity, usually on the basis of non-belief, then throw around scripture as some kind of evidence of hypocracy. ("Judge not.....").

People who believe in the Word of God, aka, The Holy Bible, are instilled with clear visions of right and wrong, good and evil. To those who believe in moral relativism, such people are intolerant and close-minded. I understand the arguments of both sides.

But to those who reject Christianity, do you really think the teachings of the Bible command men to be tolerant to the point where there are to be no battles against "wrong" or "evil", as defined by the Scriptures?

Just how dangerous do you really think Christianity is? As I read Mr. McCullough's article, I see a suggestion to call or write Saddleback Church. Notice that he doesn't call for a "jihad" nor has he placed a bounty on the head of Obama.

Mr. McCullough clearly believes in his religion and its tenets... and is speaking out as his beliefs commands him. While I may not see the danger he sees in this instance, I applaud him for being a man of his convictions and willing to speak out despite the criticism his words create.

re:HMH/well written...for a third grader
HMichaelH writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 7:51 AM
MORALLITY OF BARACK OBAMA - OR ANYONE
"What a self righteous loudmouth Kevin McCullough is! Who made him the god of deciding what is ethical or moral? Everyone must decide for themselves the ethical standards by which they will live. Just because Obama's eithics differ from McCullough doesnt' necessarily make them immoral or criminal.

"Let Kevin McCullough live by his own morality, and stop playing god to decide what is right or wrong for someone else."

What is this infantile drivel doing in a forum such as this? HMichaelH should just push away from the keyboard and go back to playing with his teddy bear.

Obama and Warren
I don't think there would be much commentary if Pastor Warren invited Senator Obama to be a speaker at a seminar that was addressing the issue of HIV/AIDS. However, to have a secular humanist sermonize from the pulpit during a worship service should be of concern to the church members.


Compromiser
Would you expect anything less from Rick Warren?

When you've compromised the Word of God until there is little more room for compromise this is where you end up...embracing the world and its philosophies...

Chrisianity in America needs to walk up to the fact that compromising, separation from the world is eating our lunch. Until we are ready to face this fact there is little to no hope for America as a Nation.

OMG
I sent the following email to Rick Warren, as suggested in your column. The danger here is that Obama's views will appear to be acceptable by the main-stream Christians in this country, and that is patently false. Obama is just another ultra liberal secular Democrat...enough already!

"I am a born again Christian, as were my parents before me, and my grandparents before them...I know evil when I see it, and for you to promote Obama from your pulpit, and give him an "apparent approval" for his political beliefs which are overt and not negotiable, is against all Biblical principles as is explained in Ephesians, and "what consort does dark have with light?" Please use your national influence to cancel this invitation for Obama to speak from your pulpit...if you do not, your pulpit will be defiled! Strong words, for a very important event. I am in the middle of reading your book, but I will put it away, never to finish it as I now believe if you allow Obama in your pulpit, you are not genuine in your writings...I know this will not punish you, but it will satisfy my sense of right and wrong. Govern yourself accordingly. Please."


Obama
So, Barack wants to become the second black President? Well, he seems to be just as slick as the first one.

Absolutes v. Relativism
I would preface my comments with the fact that one can believe in ethical truth without those ethics being informed by the Bible. It is called ethical realism. It focuses on the ethical questions of the present and is informed by the pain and suffering of individuals. I would ask Mr. McCullough which is more ethical regarding the AIDs issue, adhering to a dogmatic religious view or saving African lives? In my opinion, it would be to saving African lives. This could be what Obama believes, but it is important to note that I am not sure where he stands on the ethics of the issue. The abstinence only focus of the Christian Right has simply led to the death of many Africans. This truth was pointed out in a post by Voice of Europe. It means that a more comprehensive approach to the AIDs question is in order, and must include the distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of disease.

The above point shows that Bilblical ethics are antiquated. For example, the Bible doesn't condemn polygamy. I have listened to the weak arguments of the Christian right who would say that "God" sanctioned marriage with the creation of Adam and Eve. But, God doesn't explicitly condemn the practice of polygamy. In fact, the practice was rampant throughout the old testament. The ethics of one man and one woman marriage is an improvement made by Western Culture. In my opinion, it is problematic to make the argument that this improvement was made due to Christian ethics because of the lack of condemnation in the Bible of polygamy.

I would also argue that moral absolutism, as believed by the Christian right, is relative in and of itself. It is relative because it is based on faith not on reason. My question to those on the Christian right is this, What makes your belief in God and Biblical ethics superior to the beliefs of Hindus, Muslims, etc. It is your faith that your belief is correct. This is as relative as any other relativist and should be rejected along with other morally relativistic claims. In my opinion, reason should inform our ethics. This doesn't make my ethical beliefs infallable. It only makes my ethics adaptable to evidence, which is lacking in Biblical ethics.

Biblical ethics has also led to many problems throughout our society. Many of our laws are predicated on this view. For example, we are paroling viscious criminals from prisons and replacing them with drug users who were only using in the privacy of their own home. I am not saying that I necessarily condone their conduct, but, I am saying that it is more ethical to keep criminals who have perpetrated crimes against other individuals (which I believe the law should do) in jail while maybe leaving the recreational users of drugs in the privacy of their home on the streets. The same could be said of other laws that were passed only to placate a Christian world view.

dlhutton
"I would ask Mr. McCullough which is more ethical regarding the AIDs issue, adhering to a dogmatic religious view or saving African lives?"

That may very well be a Christian question to ask.

hutton
"In my opinion, it is problematic to make the argument that this improvement was made due to Christian ethics because of the lack of condemnation in the Bible of polygamy."

I can't count a single instance of polygamy in the Bible turning out to be a good thing. It always caused all kinds of problems. Abraham and Sarah had a much more peaceful married life than Jacob and Rachel and Leah, for example.

Also, hutton
A polygamist would be disqualified from leadership in the church - another reason to be "the man of one wife", since even being a servant in the church requires not being a polygamist.

Jerubaal
My point is that this ethical improvement wasn't caused by Biblical ethics. I think that you are trying to reason your way to this conclusion. The fact that the Bible doen't explicitly condemn the practice along with its widespread use is evidence enough against that claim. I believe that my point still holds that this improvement was a consequence of western culture.

moral absolutes
Anyone who believes that there are moral absolutes does not understand the meaning of the word absolute.

Allow me to explain:

The meaning of the word "absolute", according to Webster's Third International Dictionary unabridged is as follows:

Absolute: free of relationship or relativity: not compared: not dependent on modified or affected by circumstances or by anything outside itself.

So, when someone says they believe in moral absolutes, they are saying that there are certain actions that are always right (or always wrong) and there are no cricumstances under which they are not right (or wrong).

In other words, they are saying that it is always wrong to kill, to steal, to commit adultery etc.

But of course, everyone can think of circumstances (however rare and improbable) in which any of these acts might be the right thing to do.

And if there are circumstances under which they are the right thing to do, then they cannot accurately be called "moral absolutes".

One person I've argued with over this subject has tried to say something along the lines of "It is always wrong to steal an old lady's purse just because you want the money for your own pleasure."

And indeed, it is impossible to justify such behavior, so it seems like this would be a moral absolute.

But it's not. And here's why:

The core of the moral admonition is "thou shalt not steal".

Now, since everyone knows that there are rare occasions when stealing might be the right thing to do, my opponent feels the need to set certain circumstantial boundaries or qualifiers under which there would be no room left for any exceptions.

The problem with this is that, as soon as you start to lay down certain circumstances you have left the realm of "absolute" because, if you recall from the definition above, a moral absolute is a moral admonition that is "not modified or affected by circumstances".

Therefore, anyone who believes that there are moral absolutes does not understand the meaning of the word "absolute".

Phylo out.

P.S. Nice post dlhutton. I had never heard anyone argue that God doesn't specifically condemn polygamy. Excellent point. What happened to the one woman, one man stuff? Did God forget to mention it?




edited version of previous comment
Anyone who believes that there are moral absolutes does not understand the meaning of the word absolute.

Allow me to explain:

The meaning of the word "absolute", according to Webster's Third International Dictionary unabridged is as follows:

Absolute: free of relationship or relativity: not compared: not dependent on modified or affected by circumstances or by anything outside itself.

So, when someone says they believe in moral absolutes, they are saying that there are certain actions that are always right (or always wrong) and there are no cricumstances under which they are not right (or wrong).

In other words, they are saying that it is always wrong to kill, to steal, to commit adultery etc.

But of course, everyone can think of circumstances (however rare and improbable) in which any of these acts might be the right thing to do.

And if there are circumstances under which they are the right thing to do, then they cannot accurately be called "moral absolutes".

One person I've argued with over this subject has tried to say something along the lines of "It is always wrong to steal an old lady's purse just because you want the money for your own pleasure."

And indeed, it is impossible to justify such behavior, so it seems like this would be a moral absolute.

But it's not. And here's why:

The core of the moral admonition is "thou shalt not steal".

Now, since everyone knows that there are rare occasions when stealing might be the right thing to do, my opponent feels the need to set certain circumstantial boundaries or qualifiers under which there would be no room left for any exceptions; Such as the fact that the lady is "old", and the fact that it is "for your own pleasure",

The problem with this is that, as soon as you start to lay down special circumstances you have left the realm of "absolute" because, if you recall from the definition above, a moral absolute is a moral admonition that is "not modified or affected by circumstances".

Therefore, anyone who believes that there are moral absolutes does not understand the meaning of the word "absolute".

Phylo out.

P.S. Nice post dlhutton. I had never heard anyone argue that God doesn't specifically condemn polygamy. Excellent point. What happened to the one woman, one man stuff? Did God forget to mention it?

hi there, jerubaal...
Hey, I'm with you on this "tenant" thing. Don't people know the difference between "tenant and "tenet"? I know this was an honest mistake...it's a pet peeve of mine also.

Yi yi yi!!!!

Warren's pulpit guest
Probably few would relate to the truthfulness of a quote, but it is clear that at least one of McCullough's points of emphasis would be ripples of "influence." This can be not only from watching habits of other people, but by words also. Wise people of every age have caught the secret. Menander, an Attic comic playwright poet who lived ca. 342-292 B.C. opined: "Bad company corrupts good morals" (Thais 218). It behoves every person to choose the standard well, by which he will order his life; influences can "kill" a good reputation. Recently, another Evangelical fell through wrong influences of a different sort-Ted Haggard.

stereotypo
Well, no, I was only talking about the point he made regarding Uganda, not the broader issue of Obama and Warren. The arguments that McCullough uses on the broader issue have the kind of logic you just can't argue against.

Although, you're right, if Kevin McCullough is against something, that makes me more likely to be for it. Although I'll research it first, of course.

MORE on OBAMA'S EVIL/WARREN'S PULPIT...
Look... it's a series now...

http://muscleheadrevolution.com

McCullough
is right. Warren is not a "fire and brimestone" preacher of the old school. Most pastors today are not. Baptists are supposed to have the highest divorce rate of any Christian group. It seems preaching against abortion and homosexuality has taken the place of condeming all other sins. The AIDS/HIV pandemic may well be caused by the refusal of African medical staff to use disposable needles for the purpose for which they were intended - one use then throw away. Western medical practice is based in part on hardworn experience and a cultural viewpoint (based in part on religion's view of the ultimate end and therefore present day importance of the person)which makes it possible for the West to learn from(use)experience. When religions create a cultural perspective in which the human person is placed in a dog eat dog environment and there is not pressure from authorities to soften certain harsh perspectives, there are people who would find it difficult to accept attitudes from other cultures even if those attitudes are seen to enhance patients' well-being.

KMC is a firebrand...
...who uses flamethrowing to make his points. It obviously works, given the often very long threads of comment following his columns. This particular column is actually mild compared to others I've read over the last few months.

I don't say this to criticize, only to remind people that this is his preferred style of getting the attention of his readers and listeners, and that it is quite effective.

Personally, as one who chooses not to attend any church, I find his argument interesting but not germane to me in my walk with Yahweh.

I appreciate Kevin's revelations about Obama's beliefs and actions as I had not been aware of them, although I wouldn't vote for Obama for dog-catcher, let alone president, because I detest the whole philosophy of the Democrat Jacka$$ party. Even if I know and like a person on a personal level, if he or she is stupid enough to run as a Democrat, I refuse to vote for him or her.

(I'm not really a dyed in the wool Republican, but unfortunately the Republican Party is the only party on my side of the aisle that has even a chance of winning elections.)

As I see it (and have said many times on my blog), what will be IS, and everyone is responsible for the consequences of his or her choices and actions. Ted Haggard found that out the hard way. It may be that Mr. Warren and Sen. Obama will, too.

I see no point in contacting Saddleback Church about this. I have more interesting things to do.

Later, all.

Lefties are False Christians
How can you be a Christian if you don't believe the Bible is the authentic, divinely inspired Word Of God?

How can you be a Christian if you don't believe that Jesus was God incarnate?

How can you be a Christian if you pick and choose which of His commandments you will follow.

How can you be a Christian if you think that Jesus was a good teacher, along with Buddah, Krishna and Mohammed, but not "the Way, the Truth and the Life?"

Those were Jesus's words not mine.

Oh yes, and He added: "No man comes to the Father but throught Me."

PS
This is a shameless plug for the new post in my blog entitled "Lefties Use Babies as Political Footballs…Again."

Drop over and visit.

Evil
The times I have seen Obama speak or be interviewed I did not get the sense of an evil person. When I watched Zarqawi speak or slice the head off of a victim I got a sense of evil or when I watched Charles Manson being interviewed I sensed extreme evil but not from Obama. Until now I have not seen the issues you have brought up in this article but from what I have seen he seems reasonable and pleasant. I think that you can sense exteme evil when it is before you like when the leader of Hezbollah was interviewed during the Lebanon war I sensed that evil also and when the late Basayev was intereviewed by Nightline and said he thought they would not kill anyone under ten years old, I again felt the presence of evil. I do agree that if an abortion is attempted and instead there is a viable child, it is wrong to kill that child at that point. But I don't feel that every person who supports abortion is evil and every person who opposes it is good. I have no strong opinions on this issue and can see where reasonable people can argue either side of the issue which is what I said when I was called on the phone on the issue by a pollster. I also don't feel that every homo-sexual has the purpose of trying to destroy marriage and again that is not an issue that I have strong opinions on except that I am not for Constitutional ammendments on any issue. I think a Constitutional Ammendment should be a last resort on really important issues and since Gays are only 5% of the male population and less of the female it is not an earthshaking issue. With Islamic Radicals trying to kill us and destroy our way of life, wasting time on emotional issues can endanger our very existence. We are under attack from a group who wants to wipe us from the face of the earth and they are not gays or feminists but the Fundamentalists followers of Mohammed. Therin lies the true face of evil.

Matthew 19:5
"And said,'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joinded to his wife,and the two shall become one flesh'?Good read 19:3-19:9

Scripture proven
This article only proves out the Scriptures which state that in the end times many will stray from the truth. There are so many times in these days that agendas are put forth with the Lord's name attached that are totally against the teaching of the Word of God given to us. It saddens me greatly to know of so many people that profess to follow the Lord, yet are so quick to defend those that blatantly defy the Word, using 'love your neighbor' and 'judge not' and other out of context statements from the Word. It is true that we all commit sins. It is true that there is forgiveness for our sins. It is also true that 'to whom much is given, much is required'. How is it that persons that sit in a pew every Sunday and Wednesday and are deacons in their churches, allow a child to be callously murdered without the benefit of a trial by jury, yet scream in outrage against the death of a convicted mass murderer! The churches in the US have changed in the last 40 years(considered one generation by many Biblical scholors)from preaching repentance and salvation to condoning most of the things that, according to the Word, are things that believers should run from like the plague and denounce at every turn. At this point in history the US has ceased to be a Christian nation and become what is very close to the pagan nations that God destroyed ages ago. What does that tell us? How do we fix it? Can it be fixed? Do we examine ourselves in a Biblical perspective? From my point of view the answers are: God will destroy this nation as He did the others for He is no respector of persons. Repent nationally as a whole before the Lord God Allmighty and pray He in His mercy will forgive our national sins. Only by turning back to God can it be fixed. No, we do not examine ourselves in a Biblical perspective, for if we did; Same sex marriage would not even be considered as acceptable; Abortion would not even be considered except in extremely critical situations; Israel would have our complete and total support to keep the land the Lord said is theirs and to fight off any terrorist that attacks her; the Denominations would cease to fuss and fight over every little thing and support each other in their efforts to carry the Gospel to the world; and last but definitely not least, a Moslem would NOT teach or preach in a Christian pulpit. Selah.

Almost as Bad as Ann Coulter
I think it's humourous when Christians use scriptures to conveniently justify their arguments (based mostly on fear and misunderstanding, in my experience), yet neglect other scriptures. We are not to judge. Christ hustled and bustled with society's dirtiest. Show me somewhere in the scripture where it says we're to have a pulpit from whence all godly and appropriate things will flow. Please. PLEASE.

If we'd all get off our moral high horses and love a little, we'd all be peachy keen. So, for example, you don't believe in gay marriage or abortion. Big deal. Do you have to paint homosexuals as family-haters/ruiners and intentional purveyors of filth? I suppose that every woman ever to have an abortion is now an abomination to God.

While we're all being righteous and quoting scripture, take a gander at 1 Cor. 13:13 or HEY! Even the ten commandments. I think love is pretty high up there? I don't know...but making homos feel like worthless sacks of sh*t didn't make the list.

P.S. "Non-sense" is not a word.

Matt 19:5
Jesus is speaking on the subject of divorce, not polygamy. I could take a lot of information out of its original context to prove a point, but, it actually proves nothing. Any book must be quoted in its context to get its original meaning. This would at best be a contradiction of the jewish people.

correction
a contradiction of the tradition of the jewish people in the old testament.

So simply stated and so very true...
"Harry writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 8:52 AM Obama is just another politician using the church for personal gain...we see it all the time...the church as been poisioned, much like society." no surpise really; it's all been foretold...

Phylo, moral absolutes
The subtopic of moral absolutes is more interesting than the original topic.

Phylo, you prove too much. Are you then saying there is no reality of right and wrong? Just circumstances which dictate such and such as being better than such and such? Like animals deciding everything strictly from within their own habitat.

Try these laws for a sense of the absolute:
How about the first commandment? "You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3) What circumstance can you find where that law can be changed due to circumstances?

And how about, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself." Or, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." When should I not obey that law?

And as for the other laws, such as murder, adultery and false witness, does it really negate the law if you find an extreme circumstance where it might be better to do a greater good than keep the letter of the law? Is not the law still there? It just yields to a greater one. Like speeding to a hospital. Such an act does not take the speeding laws off the books. And just as man is behind manmade laws like a speed limit, so God is behind the moral laws. And as such, they are absolute because God is absolute. Even according to Webster.

PS
If you reply, I will probably not be able to get right back, but I look forward to what you might say.







rick warren
OBAMA is detrimental to the American way of life.
Rick Warren is detrimental to Christianity .
Rick Warren seeks to bring Christ down to the world's level . True Christianity seeks to bring
a lost world up to Christ's level.
God help Rick Warren when he stands before God to answer for his damnable heresy that has
contributed so significantly to the
decimating of so many fundamental , Bible-
believing New Testament churches.

Moral relativism
Moral relativism is problematic for the reason that it is contradictory when it makes its original claim. By putting all ethical opinions on even footing, the relativist is making an absolute claim about the world, being there is absolutely no dominate ethical absolute. This is why moral relativism is problematic. Many scholars have posited that this treatment of ethics could spell the end of western culture. The lack of moral absolutes will make the West unwilling to fight for its own survival. Take the war on terror as an example. Relativists vacillate on fighting radical Islam. I think this is a direct result of relativism.

That being said, I also think that your approach to ethics is problematic. Your ethics are based on faith rendering them unassailable in your mind. The problem with this is that you can't come up with any solid evidence to back up your ethical claim. You only have your faith. That's what makes ethical realism an appealing choice to guide our nation's ethics. It is based on the present and focuses on the pain and suffering of individuals. I want to reiterate that this doesn't make my ethics infallible, but adaptable as the knowledge about our world increases. Unfortunately your ethics will remain entrenched in Biblical times.

The above was directed at dullhammer
See above.

Whatever
Perhaps a better example of the ethical antiquities of the Bible would be the punishments laid out in the Mosaic Law. Most violations of the Law were death. Do you honestly believe that people who commit adultery should be put to death? I don't think that is the ethical way to go.


response to dulhammer
Thanks for the substantive challenge––so much better than being called names.

dullhammer writes: "Phylo, you prove too much. Are you then saying there is no reality of right and wrong? Just circumstances which dictate such and such as being better than such and such? Like animals deciding everything strictly from within their own habitat."

Phylo: No. There is right and wrong. My point is that the word "absolute" is being misapplied. And yes, circumstances do determine the morality of an act. Where people often go wrong is when they try to apply a long-held principle in a circumstance in which it is inappropriate. And, yes, human morality is derived, largely from culture and from the application of some level of reasoning ability. Every culture has slightly different ideas of morality, but the basics such as "do not kill", "do not steal", etc. apply almost universally because otherwise human society could not function.

dulhammer: "Try these laws for a sense of the absolute:
How about the first commandment? "You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3) What circumstance can you find where that law can be changed due to circumstances? "And how about, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength.

Phylo: These would be convincing to someone who believes in the God of the bible, but not to athiests or Buddhists or Hindus, etc.

dullhammer: And love your neighbor as yourself." Or, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." When should I not obey that law?"

Phylo: If, unbeknownst to me, someone gave me psychadelic "acid" and I genuinely believed that it was a mind expanding experience, should I serupticiously drop acid into the drinks of everyone I know?

dullhammer: And as for the other laws, such as murder, adultery and false witness, does it really negate the law if you find an extreme circumstance where it might be better to do a greater good than keep the letter of the law? Is not the law still there? It just yields to a greater one. Like speeding to a hospital. Such an act does not take the speeding laws off the books.

Phylo: No, it doesn't have to negate the law altogether. I look at something like the Ten Commandments as moral guidelines. And, to a point, moral, guidelines can be helpful. The problem, again, is the word "absolute". It's fine to say this is right or that is wrong. It just doesn't make any sense to say they are "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong".

dullhammer: And just as man is behind manmade laws like a speed limit, so God is behind the moral laws. And as such, they are absolute because God is absolute. Even according to Webster.

Just because you believe in God doesn't make any particular moral admonition "absolute".

It's fine to talk about right and wrong. My only point is that the word "absolute" is being misapplied by those who think that they believe in moral absolutes.

Phylo out.

ProfGene
Unless you are a poodle I doubt you have the power to "sense" "evil".

When watching Manson you already knew he was a killer. Same thing with the terrorists.

You're using your feelings incorrectly. Feelings are to be enjoyed, not relied on.

dl
I didn't disprove your point. However, I do disagree. We each have ample justification. I don't think the single-wife idea is a consequence of Western culture because it pre-dates Western culture as an ideal within the Bible.

Also, lots of things we learn from the Bible through reason. For example, one reading of the Bible would say that it's a sin to pray in public. But that would have made Jesus a sinner. So you have to reason, okay, when is it okay to pray in public?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a part of Christianity. You can't fulfill that and have multiple wives, because no man worth the name would share his wife.

Rick Warren of Willow Creek Church

Rick Warren of Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois is the same who invited an Islamic Imam from one of the Western Suburbs to share the pulpit (I think it was November immediately after 9/11). It was an article in the Chicago Tribune. This Imam said to the people that he knew all about Jesus Christ probably better than they did themselves. This is the type of pastor at Willow Creek. This is the type of discernment in the churches today.

Fundamentalism; Rick Warren; Obama
I am saddened to hear that Warren has invited Obama to preach from the pulpit of his church. I do not believe, however, that it is wrong to try to physically minister to those in Africa who are dying. Jesus commanded us to meet not only spiritual needs, but physical ones as well ("when I was...sick...in prison, you visited me...")
But to give someone like Obama the forum of a pulpit is wrong. Mark my words: we will all see a clip of Obama speaking at that pulpit in one of his future political ads.
Obama's stance on partial birth abortion is enough to prevent his gaining a platform in a Christian church.
I was also shocked to hear that Warren likened fundamentalists to radical Muslims. I would like ot read those quotes myself, though. If anyone knows where they can be found, please forward them here.
It is true that some fundamentalists have added many "rules" to Christianity which are NOT Biblical (eg, Some Baptists saying one cannot dance or ever touch alcohol. Neither is Biblical.) I recall when my sons were in a Xhristian school, and I asked them if they wanted to attend the summer camp sponsored by the school. However, one of the rules was that no one could wear shorts during camp (in the middle of August in Virginia!!) They required all the kids to wera long pants. When my kids and I discussed this rule, my youngest son (who was 6 at the time) exclaimed "Wow! That really IS a Christian camp!" I had to spend several minutes teaching him that wearing long pants does NOT make one a Christian.
I for one am tired of all the added rules some fundamentalists have added to the Biblical teachings; reminds me of the Pharisees in Jesus' time who were puffed up w/ pride because they kept all the Jewish laws, yet their hearts were evil; they thought themselves to be so very holy that they did not even recognize the Messiah when he stood before them. We all need to remina true to what Scripture teaches, and stand up for that in the public arena, but also stay humble in our hearts.

Sorry - Retraction on Rick Warren

It was his good friend and fellow evangelical Bill Hybels

http://www.gospelgrace.com/falseprophets/billhybels/BillHybels.html

Read it here:

Willow Creek Church Welcomes Muslim Cleric's Perspective

Oct17, 2001 - Religion Today Summary

Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Pastor Bill Hybels, of the Willow Creek Community Church, was increasingly bothered by reports of hate crimes and misinformation about Islam. "I was so concerned by the gap between Muslims and Christians that I thought Willow could do something about that," he said, according to the Chicago Tribune.

That "something" was to have his church invite a local Muslim leader, Fisal Hammouda, to talk about Islam to a total of 17,000 churchgoers, spread out over four services. "There are some Christians spreading half-truths that the Koran encourages violence," Hybels told his congregation. "(When) you take some stuff out of context ... we've got major problems."

Hammouda, a U.S. citizen, an engineer and religious leader in the Islamic Center in Naperville, first visited Willow Creek as part of the church's world religions weekend in March. In one of his current appearances, Hammouda was questioned by Hybels, onstage in the 4,500-person auditorium. Hybels asked, "It appears that Osama bin Laden directed the attack (on Sept. 11) ... What do you think?" Hammouda said at first he thought "it couldn't be a Muslim," explaining that the Koran does not allow violence against innocent people ... "We believe in Jesus, more than you do, in fact," Hammouda said, drawing laughter when Hybels, smiling, ventured to disagree.

"Muslims consider Jesus and other biblical figures to be Islamic prophets -- though not as important as Muhammad -- and we have all the prophets from the Bible," Hammouda said.

Birdman here: The rest of my previous post remains unchanged.

We are in bad shape spirtually.

Funny how quick we are...
To point one finger, yet ignore the three fingers we have pointed right back at us, telling us to look in the mirror. I can't count the number of times I have heard Christian's quoting Paul. How many Christian's, including infants and children did he kill before his eyes were opened? We ourselves have not had such a picture perfect past; ourselves.

How many innocent children die each night from starvation because we same Christians in our Republican beliefs, believe they are not our responsibility? How many die of AIDS? How many animals are tortured because we refuse to stand up. What makes anyone think that God who gave us this perfect planet to live on wants us there to destroy heaven in the same manner we have this planet? Yes we have dominion over the animals, but a king has dominion over his people does that mean he has a right to do with them as he see's fit?

For everything you can point out to me the Democrats do and much of it I disagree with, as in abortions. The fact they are willing to die to protect a tree, an animal from extinction, yet could care less about a human life sickens me. I can point out things Republican's do that causes just as much death and add into that destruction. They don't want to protect anything other than themselves. I don't mean going nuts either, to the opposite extreme. But, we have to use a little common sense. We don't need fossil fuel, we are supposed to be the leaders into the future. We don't need to go around destroying the environment to survive. We don't need wolf hunts you can't feed your family wolf. We don't need to club to death baby seals for fur. We have other means to keep our bodies warm. We don't need to destroy the rain forest or Alaska for the betterment of mankind. There is a very good reason that rainforest is there. Believe it or not there is also a reason every animal we have on this planet is here.

We don't need to kill our food in barbaric ways and I am not talking about the hunter that makes a clean kill to feed his family and the animal isn't made to suffer. Go and see how the animals we feed our family are killed. Yet we say nothing. We don't need to feed animals food that is un-natural for them. We don't need to shoot them up with antibiotics or feed them antibiotics. We don't need to poison our food to make it safe for our children, when in fact we are doing the opposite.

"You" have to give people a reason to think you care. Want to know what I see as a line voter, although I am sure many of you could care less what I think, which is the biggest problem. Republican's care about protecting human life and that's it. Democrats care about Animals, the environment and could care less about human life. Which is where both sides fail.

I have given them the keys to the kingdom of heaven, they have chosen not to enter, nor to allow anyone else to enter...quote from Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I understand exactly what he was talking about...how easy it is for us to point out other's faults. To refuse to see the board that protrudes from our own eye.

Animal rights
To DianaS:
It is true that we should do more to protect this planet than we do. And it is wrong to kill animals for sport; to club to death baby seals. However, each of us has only a finite amount of time to spend on causes, unless we are independently wealthy. Each person has his/her issues to work in, give money towards, etc.
You said we do not need fossil fuels to survive. What source of energy do you favor? Not nuclear I assume. Do you feel we should all use public transportation and not cars? In northern VA, where I live, that will not work.

Wrong is wrong, Morality ain't relative.
Quote
HMichaelH writes:
MORALLITY OF BARACK OBAMA - OR ANYONE
What a self righteous loudmouth (another poster) is! Who made him the god of deciding what is ethical or moral? Everyone must decide for themselves the ethical standards by which they will live. Just because Obama's eithics differ from McCullough doesnt' necessarily make them immoral or criminal.

Let Kevin McCullough live by his own morality, and stop playing god to decide what is right or wrong for someone else.
End Quote

Cool! So if I feel that blowing Obamas's head off is morally OK for me, that means I can go do it. Thank you so much HMichaelH, now I can do anything I want.

Come to think of it I wonder where that babe with the nice butt and big boobs I saw earlier at Wally World went. It doesn't matter if she objects, now I can have sex with her, cause I have decided it is morally OK for me.

And there's all that money in that bank down the road.

HMichaelH you are a symptom of all that is wrong with the liberals. Wrong is wrong, right is right. It doesn't matter who you are.


http://www.givemetheinfo.com/blog/blogger.html

Differing opinions
I am a conservative. Not a Republican, although I usually vote that way, but a conservative. People like this Mccullough spouting off that opinion's different than thier own are therefore evil are doing no kindness to conservatives or Republicans. I have numerous friends who are fairly liberal, and they find conservatives scary for this reason. Mr Mccullough is free to believe that anyone that does not agree with him is evil and the devil-in-blue-jeans or whatever, but it does make conservatives look like nutcases.

Marla
"And it is wrong to kill animals for sport; to club to death baby seals."

Don't knock it till you've tried it!

Church of the Poisoned Mind
"Because of this supposed shared concern, Warren is ready to turn over the spiritual mantle to a man who represents the views of Satan at worst...."

Its true, Obama does represent the views of Satan. So does Kevin McCullough. Or any other flawed sinner on the planet. If you are looking for a Church that doesn't allow sinners, you are out of luck.

Besides, these childish hysterics have little to do with Obama, no matter his faults. This is just a little inter-denominational warfare that has been going on for quite awhile.

McCullough's problem with Warren is that Warren is not enthusiastic enough for his tastes when it comes Smiting Sin, and throwing the first Stone and all that. He just plain isn't mean enough to be considered a Man of God in McCullough's book. McCullough is a strict adherent to the Church of the Poisoned mind.

McCullough should put down the Bible and pick up the mirror for a change. As far as the typical rants about homosexuals go.... Well, if we were not around he would pull out some other kind of bogeyman to rally his fear and hate around.

Hear this McCullough. You are nothing special. Just another immature bully slouching across the playground. Boy George would kick your butt. So come get some.

dlhutton1s ethics and faith
Interesting point on the practical effect of moral relativism.

But you make faith out to be something detached from reality, or entrenched as you say, in a time not our own. This is quite unfair to the word ‘faith.’ It is not a thing only religious people employ. In fact, faith is employed by everyone who exchanges pieces of paper as if it were actually valuable for food, clothing and SUVs.

My ethics are not unassailable. The foundation of my ethics is. There is quite a difference. I simply work out my ethics from the position of the reality of God and my understanding of his best selling Book. And that brings us back to that word again. Both of us can have all the greatest ethical teaching in the world. But it amounts to precious little if we simply can not be faithful to what we know is right. The only way I know how to be ethically faithful is to know the forgiveness of God and to desire to be more and more like his Son, Jesus Christ.



Phlyo, moral absolutes and God
The weight of my examples is not upon my belief in the God of the Bible; it is in the reality (be it hypothetical in your case) of such a God. And you really are not addressing that. My whole point is this: if there is this God of the Bible in reality, then there are rational statements of morality which can be accurately described as absolute. The fact that atheist or Hindus don’t feel the convincing weight of this is irrelevant. You are saying that one should not refer to “absolute” morality. I could say, “That carries no weight to a Christian or a Jew.” But to say that does not deal with the real issue.

The reply about the acid drink also does not really address the issue for the one in question is in no position to answer any matters of right or wrong choices. He might as well be a cabbage.

I know it’s late, but I will check again to see if you reply— in case you’re interested.




completely off thread, but...
after threats, intimidation and the odd bribe or two, I have finally updated my blog. Many thanks to Jimmy Carter and Mountain Rose for the quick comments. For all of you just dying to learn more about the newest armoured vehicles about to join the fight in Iraq...just click on my name!

Mow, back to your regularly scheduled arguments, bitterness and recriminations....;)

I can't even remember the point
Kevin --

Your web site is so bad that it took me 5 tries to actually post a comment. Are you trying to make it impossible?

You are a fool, and as the comments to your site prove, there are a lot of other people who feel the same.

Why don't you just give it up?

Peter Schmitz

Politicians in the Pulpit
I have appreciated Rick Warren's ministry, but this does have me concerned. I don't think it is a good idea to have politicans in the pulpit period - regardless of their party affiliation. I don't want to judge Pastor Warren's motives, I believe he does want to see the Body of Christ rise up to address this pandemic. We need to be salt & light in our world.

I, however, am concerned about Senator Obama's motives. I do hope that he does not consider this as an "endorsement" as the IRS has made pretty clear churches are not allowed to do anyway.

The dreaded "a" word
I've read countless posts on TH similar to ones here earlier vilifying promoting abstinence. It's would appear that guttural hatred for Christians/Christianity is blinding many to sound medical advice.

The facts are that unwanted pregnancies and STD's continue to occur at alarming rates. Abstinence is the only preventive measure that is 100% successful at preventing both pregnancy and STD. Further, suicide rates are significantly higher among sexually active teens. Abstinence therefore significantly impacts this as well. We in the medical community recognise the benefits of abstinence. There are solid clinical trials that support the promotion of this therapy in preventing disease and pregnancy. It should be taught and promoted by all individuals and institutions that claim to be concerned about our young adults.

Sadly, despite the obvious benefits of abstinence over "safe sex," many in our society fight equal funding and promotion of abstinence mainly because abstinence is taught in the Christian religions. Worse, they try to block our young adults from hearing the benefits of this prevention under the guise of "separation of church and state." They applaud organizations like Planned Parenthood that come to schools and teach "safe sex" while handing out condoms with greater than an 80% failure rate (based on independent testing) We teach young adults that oral sex is not sex. The result has been huge increases in oral incidences of STD's, some of which have no cure. At the same time, we sneer at the wisdom of teaching abstinence.


It's past time to let common sense preside over our emotions. Abstinence is not a moral or religious issue, it is a medical issue.

The common ground…

Life should be the common ground for all freedom loving peoples.

‘I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for He is thy life, and the length of thy days…’ [Deuteronomy 30:19-20]

God is the giver and sustainer of life. Life and blessing are linked to loving God and obeying His commandments. The ways of death transgress the commandments.

The new culture thinks it can pick and choose from the 6th and 7th commandments. They both are to preserve life. Those who would embrace abortion have chosen death and are against the God of life. Those who would normalize sodomy and lie about its consequences have traded life for immorality.

Who is it that advocates abortion and sodomy? These things are the opposite of loving and obeying God; they are the ways of death. Mr. Obama is a spokesman for the new culture. He sympathizes with sodomites, but not with the victims of abortion.


As for Pastor Warren, the words of Jeremiah seem appropriate…

‘My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken Me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.’ [Jeremiah 2:13]

Is the word of the Lord exhausted so that the people of God require edification from a Worldly Wiseman? No, the ‘commandments of the Lord are exceedingly broad’. The Lord told Peter to feed My sheep.


As for Mr. McCullough, again from Jeremiah…

‘To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the Lord is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.’ [Jeremiah 6:10]

You can write against liberalism and the new culture and expect to get more liberal hypocrisy, but exposing this stuff will win you the same approval that Jeremiah enjoyed from the leadership and people of Israel.

There was a time that Moses asked, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side?’ Many on the other side thought they were on the right side until they came to a tragic end.

SIMPLE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53030

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52969

He is working for the CRF, and the plan is to put Hillary in in 2008. Maybe Obama and Hillary.

Rude truth.

Can you say wolf in sheeps clothing?

Politicians in Pulpits, AIDS Prevention
Personally, I don't think churches should let ANY politicians or unordained persons in the pulpit. That should be reserved for ministers of the Word imho.

On the AIDS crisis in Africa, I've heard that part of it is because the men refuse to wear condoms (let alone abstain). I don't know why many conservative Christians oppose condoms and many liberals oppose abstinence as complimentary approaches to fighting AIDS. Why does it have be one or the other? I guess it's because whatever policy one side advocates, the other side thinks it has to embrace the opposite. I believe it should be taught that the safest way to avoid STD's is abstinence or monogamy with a tested partner, and that condom use, while not completely safe, is much safer than unprotected sex.

Weak Pastors
I agree that it is wrong for Warren to bring a politician into the pulpit who supports everything that contradicts a Christian worldview. I am tired of it. I was driven away from inner-city churches by preachers who loved to bring liberal democrats into the pulpit like John Conyers and Carl Levin. I don’t care what Bible verses you quote to try to justify endorsing someone who is pushing an agenda that is hostile to God and his Church. If the pastor is dim enough to let someone like that into his pulpit to speak, why waste your time going to his church?

RedWhite and Blue
Shame on you for saying something sensible and practical! Don't you know that has no place here?

Truth of the Matter
is that Biblical literacy would give people descernment of what is right and wrong. That would save alot of ink, in this case computer memory.

celtic-dragon
Heh-heh! I try, even if I don't always get it right. Thanks!

What's really scary here
is what McCollough had to say about Obama and some of his political stands. This is the first I've heard where this guy is on these important issues, and since I didn't see anyone dispute it, perhaps they must be mostly true.

All I've got to say to that is -- TERRIFYING!!! Sheesh -- I'll take Hillary over this guy. I've never really thought that any left-wing dimwit could destroy this country (mess it up a lot, probably), but this guy sounds like he's got the potential.

Bad news.

response to dullhammer
Even if God sent down some moral admonitions from on high, it doesn't mean that those admonitions are absolute. They are still just admonitions. Unless you believe that God wants everyone to act like robots and follow the admonitions without regard to the circumstances.

In the case of "love God with all your heart and mind", it depends entirely on whether or not there is a God. I don't believe that the God of the bible exists. I think that is a bunch of foolish nonsense. So I don't accept this argument as evidence of a moral absolute. (If you think I'm wrong there is no point in arguing this any further.)

In any event, it seems to me that you are failing to understand the true meaning of the word absolute. If you take that word seriously, there is nothing we can think of that is absolute because everything we can think of has a boundary to it. And because it has a boundary, there is a relationship between what is inside the boundary and what is outside the boundary.

In order to concieve of something absolute you would have to concieve of something that has no boundary and therefore could not possibly be related to anything else. But this is impossible because to conceive of something is to draw a boundary; it is to say I mean "this" and not "that".

The only "thing" if you will, that can accurately be called absolute is This Moment (or Right Here, Right Now).

If you'll notice, there is no outside to This Moment. Try to step outside of it and you'll soon see what I mean. It's impossible.

This Moment is also inconceivable. It's not possible to wrap our minds around This Moment; it's far too big and complicated and dynamic to possibly squeeze into a singular static idea.

The word absolute is the single most important word in the English language. And, sadly, it is also the most misunderstood and misused word in the English language.

I'm doing my best to save it from being lost in a sea of confusion.

By the way, have you noticed that, nowhere in the bible does it say anything about moral absolutes? That's because "moral absolutes" are a modern invention based on a misunderstanding of the word "absolute".

Phylo out.








Phylo
No moral absolutes? Then you must really condemn those darned Buddhists, who state there is an absolute prohibition against killing. Are you going to start preaching against their absurd intollerance? (And, yes, they mean ABSOLUTE... Just read their teachings. So, they must be worthy of condemnation, right?)

Phylo
Nice attempt at semantic distortion, but just because something has a boundary, does not mean it is not absolute.

If, as you say, everything is bounded, then absolute would have to be absolute only within those boundaries. To say we can't have absolute because everything has "bounds" is an absurd sophism worthy of a sophmory philosophy major (or an existentialist... same thing.)

So, how do these "bounds" keep us from having absolutes? If nothing exists beyond whatever boundaries you contemplate, then what bearing does this void beyond have on absolutes? If I say "you cannot kill, ever, for any reason", how is this any less absolute by knowing there is a limit to my existence? Or that I live in a shifting framework that makes up the current moment?

In short, what do boundaries have to do with absolutes?


Typo
Sophmoe, not sophmory

A typo in my typo
One more try:

Sophmore

Not sophmoe or sophmory

A correction
Actually, my comment was incorrect, as I responded in your terms. I think the biggest problem here is that you are misusing the term bounds. For there to be a boundary, there must be something beyond it, and thus, a bounded absolute is impossible in your terms.

However, you use the term bound when you mean limit, meaning a range beyond which one cannot pass, but which does not imply anything beyond.

I can think of unbounded, but not unlimited objects and ideas. And I can also see a limited, but not bounded absolute. An absolute can exist with limits as, despite your implied contention, an absolute with limits is still absolute within its limited field.

For example, "no killing" is limited to the context of killing, limited to those who can act, limited to the living, etc. Yet it is still absolute.

Just because something has a limited context does not mean that it is not an absolute within thos limits.

Also, your contention that an absolute has to exist without any connection to anything else is absurd. All ideas are relational, all language is relational. Without any context or connection, we would be unable to even name the absolute. That is an absurd extreme you create to discredit absolute moral laws. And it is a strawman of your own devising.

To be absolute, a law need only have no exemptions, contextual or otherwise. And, yes, the wording of the absolute law can contain exemptions (eg. do not murder is absolute, but excludes lawful killing), but no additional contextual exclusions may be added outside of the explicit law itself.

There is no need to think of "boundaries" and the impossibility of absolutes. Within terms of a moral law, absolute means that it is true on the terms provided regardless of any other outside factors. It isn't that hard to grasp.

Dullhammer
My argument is that Biblical faith is detached from the present world. I fail to see how a 2000 year old document written by men is salient to present day ethics. In previous posts, I argue that there have been improvements in Biblical ethics by western culture. Should today's society hold the Biblical ethics of crime and punishment in high esteem today? In other words, should the crimes laid out in Mosaic law still be punishable by death? I don't think that is very ethical.

You say that your ethics aren't unassailable but the foundation is. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The only evidence you can point out that backs your evidence is the Bible, and it takes faith to believe it (this fact stems from the Bible itself Heb 1, even though I hate to use the Bible in arguing against it).

As far as your monetary example is concerned. I have evidence that money will be accepted in exchange for goods and services. The shopkeeper took my money the last time I tried it. Maybe you could argue that the first time I paid for something with money it was based on faith, but my parents before me used money to buy things too.

I believe in an absolute ethics, but that is not based on Biblical ethics. There are ethical truths to be found, but they should be based on evidence of the present world. I would also like to say that I appreciate the civility of those who have argued along this thread. It speaks well of the people who use townhall. We may have to agree to disagree on this one, but I hope that my arguements at least appear rational.

Thank you
All this talk about hate etc is exactly what helped us defeat Rick Santorum. Thank you so much for your support; it really was invaluable.

Phylo, beyond the point
"In the case of "love God with all your heart and mind", it depends entirely on whether or not there is a God. I don't believe that the God of the bible exists. I think that is a bunch of foolish nonsense. So I don't accept this argument as evidence of a moral absolute. (If you think I'm wrong there is no point in arguing this any further.)"


You at least have this correct: it does depend on whether or not there is a God. What you seem to be reluctant to acknowledge, though, is the reasonable connection between the existence of God and then the reality of morals which could expand your sense of the absolute.

Interesting that you have such a reverence for the word "absolute" and for the "Now" moment of time, and yet consider the God of the Bible, who identified himself as the God of the eternal now with, "I am that I am," as being foolish nonsense.

Such a pronouncement on your part strikes me as an overstatement of what you actually could know about God's existence, or lack thereof. Or at least it's a statement of "faith" on your part, with less supporting ground than someone who may actually know the God of whom he speaks.

I'm sure this is as far as we can go here. I'm glad you responded. Thank you for giving me some of you time.



Bring it on, Kevin!!
Reading through the posts here it almost appears Rick Warren awarded certain members of his congregation with tootsie rolls to do damage control.

Here's where the rubber meets the road: Would a truly Christian minister ever allow a public figure aiming for a presidential run - who supports the partial delivery of a fully developed child with the crushing of the child's brain and subsequent suctioning of the child's cranial matter - to speak before a Christian congregation in front of media cameras?

The answer is a resounding NO!

If I were a member of his congregation I'd turn in my departure notice immediately.

Judge not, some may say?

I Cor. 6:2 "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?"

Luke 6:43-44 "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit."

Spout all the rhetoric you want, but the fruits are very visible for all to see.

The video footage of this is going to be used by MSM to try and sway evangelicals to vote for Obama in '08. Let's pray Christians see through this manipulative effort by Rick Warren and his bud Osama Obama.

I've tried for a while to give Warren the benefit of the doubt, but this is the last straw. I wouldn't trust him with my dog.


dlhutton1s, evidence and faith
Your view of faith is too low; your view of evidence is too high.

Evidence goes nowhere of any importance without some employment of faith. Warren Buffett gets as much evidence as he can before he makes an investment of his paper. And that is wise. But in the end he employs faith when he spends it . . . or gives it away. Faith is faith. The only difference is the object (and evidence) it is based upon.

You dismiss biblical faith because you can not see any meaningful connection between then and now. I see an unending source of such connections from Genesis to Revelation. And a constant stream of evidence supporting the veracity and value of what it teaches. Not the least of which is: how to be forgiven for when we fail our own ethical standards, let alone God’s.

We disagree. And I, too, appreciate the civil tone. Appropriate, wouldn’t you say, given the subject?

Why do you paint Rick Warren as greedy?
A few comments here have painted Rick Warren as someone who is only out to fill his pockets - I believe that is patently false. He saw a need for spiritual teaching and leadership, and he was rewarded with money and notoriety. What did he do with these riches received? He prayed to God and studied the Bible to find out. This is in Rick's own words:

So I began to ask God what He wanted me to do with this money, notoriety and influence. He gave me two different passages that helped me decide what to do, II Corinthians 9 and Psalm 72.
First, in spite of all the money coming in, we would not change our lifestyle one bit. We made no major purchases.
Second, about midway through last year, I stopped taking a salary from the church.
Third, we set up foundations to fund an initiative we call The Peace Plan to plant churches, equip leaders, assist the poor, care for the sick, and educate the next generation.
Fourth, I added up all that the church had paid me in the 24 years since I started the church, and I gave it all back.
It was liberating to be able to serve God for free.
We need to ask ourselves: Am I going to live for possessions?
Popularity?
Am I going to be driven by pressures? Guilt?
Bitterness? Materialism?
Or am I going to be driven by God's purposes (for my life)?
When I get up in the morning, I sit on the side of my bed and say, God, if I don't get anything else done today, I want to know You more and love You better.
God didn't put me on earth just to fulfill a to-do list. He's more interested in what I am than what I do. That's why we're called human beings, not human doings.
Happy moments, PRAISE GOD.
Difficult moments, SEEK GOD.
Quiet moments, WORSHIP GOD.
Painful moments, TRUST GOD.
Every moment, THANK GOD.

There is no greed here for a man who gives 24 years of salary back to the church he founded. Do you ever hear a secular person doing this? Never -

I think he is wrong to invite Osama to speak at his pulpit though, for he doesn't share an evangelical view, and should not be raised up for his violent support of killing the innocent babies - God's children.

Rick Warran and Barak Osama Obama
It will never cease to amaze me how easily the citizenry is seduced by silver-tounged, slick politicians whose warm and fuzzy rhetoric is shallow and vapid.

Barak Obama not only has never discussed, in any depth worthy of a man seeking higher office, his position on vital public policy matters of our time, he is also mispositioned on social issues such as abortion rights (a misnomer because the baby does not have any "rights)and the rabid, radical homosexual lobby.

Shame on Rick Warren for pandering to this pathetic pol. Warren has shown a tremendous lack in judgment.

back to Rick
As for Rick Warren: I would at least like to hear from him on this matter before I launch into a dismissal or condemnation in public.



Democratic Party Leader activities
The more I learn of the beliefs and actions of those calling themselves 'Democrats', the more it makes one believe that 'Democrats' are actually closet atheists.

response to phylo
Response to Phylo

dullhammer: And love your neighbor as yourself." Or, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." When should I not obey that law?"

Phylo: If, unbeknownst to me, someone gave me psychadelic "acid" and I genuinely believed that it was a mind expanding experience, should I serupticiously drop acid into the drinks of everyone I know?

This statement, Phylo, indicates to me that you don’t have a clear understanding of the scriptures. The command to “Do unto others as you have them do unto you” isn’t about tricking someone into engaging in a behavior that you enjoy. It’s about treating people with respect. Which is the way that you, presumably, would want to be treated as well. Surreptitiously dropping acid into someone’s drink just because you enjoy the effect isn’t respectful, it’s selfish, the exact opposite of that which the scripture commands. Your logic in this particular case is flawed.

However, I believe that you’re on the right track with the statement that circumstances do determine the morality of an act. Sort of. For instance, the command, thou shalt not kill refers to murder, not to acts of self defense or defense of others. If you kill someone in defense of yourself or others the “absolute morality” of the law isn’t compromised. And you don’t have to believe in God to believe this. Murder is always absolutely wrong whether you believe in God or not. Adultery is always wrong. And I can’t for the life of me think of a situation when stealing would be considered acceptable.

I agree with dullhammer that there are absolutes when it comes to morality. I believe it all comes down to respect for others or, as scripture puts it, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

PP

Author is Correct in His Assessment
Franklin Graham of Samaritan's Purse is a far stronger advocate for the cause of HIV/AIDS in Africa than Obama (who sadly to say, is a Senator from my state). Graham has been speaking out on this strongly for years...as well as raising money and providing aid for Aids victims through his mission. He would be a fitting and far more qualified person in the pulpit of any evangelical church around the world on this subject as well as the subject of the Christian's proper view of this issue. If Warren is wanting to be grandeouse, to me Graham fits the bill. But if "edgy" is what Warren wants, go w/Bono. He at least professes to be and hold the values of a Christian. By having Obama in the pulpit, he is confusing the issue by appearing to condone Obama's politics. Perhaps Warren needs sound Biblical and practical counseling from some more learned and spiritual leaders. "Pride cometh before a fall."

A Little Dramatic
Shouldn't this guy be out on a ledge somewhere?

Rick Warren/Barak Obama
Boy, there sure are a lot of condemning, judgmental people posting comments here. Many of you sound like hate-filled, self-righteous, pompous asses with not an ounce of kindness in you. Doesn't sound the least bit Christian to me.

Obama
Someone posted that Obama is "born-again and attends church" and indicates that means he's a Christian. Saying you're born again does not mean you are. Attending church does not make you a Christian. What makes you a Christian is admitting that you're a sinner and outside of the will of God, believing that God through Christ can forgive your sin and make you right with Him, and confessing that you've undergone the first two requirements. It is followed by fruit of the Spirit. The Christian is called to obey God, first and foremost.

From Scripture we can see that abortion, sexual immorality and the starving of babies is immoral. That Obama has supported these activities with attempted legislation to permit them says he's outside of the will of God as described in Scripture. He can go to church as often as he wants and walk the aisle everytime, but if it doesn't reform his spirit, he's not a Christian.

That is not to say that he doesn't have worthwhile things to say about AIDS in Africa. I will have to check out Saddlebacks website to see the specifics. Our pastor has allowed non-Christians to come speak to our congregation for number of purposes. Sunday mornings are for evangelism, but during discipleship times, it would not be unheard of for us to hear from an outside speaker. If that is the case, this is a tempest in a teapot, although I would recommend Pastor Warren seriously consider the long-term propaganda fodder Obama might glean from this visit. Just a thought!

Rick and Obama
Thank you for your article. Thank you for bringing Obama's voting record. I have been researching Rick Warren and have been sorely disappointed in several areas. I believe that Rick Warren is sadly misguided in his attempt to battle this disease. I also believe that his tape recording is a "pat" response from someone who cares not for the opinions of others. It is a sad explanation of using someone whose heart is so hard they cannot see that abortion much less partial birth abortion is murder.

My opinion is that the pulpit should not be used to allow people that have voting records such as Obama to further their political ambitions. I am suspicious of his intent because he is not recommending that abstinence be advocated but to hand out condoms. As you say, in Ughanda abstinence until marriage is promoted as the best way in which to defeat AIDS/HIV. That has proven time and again to be the way.
I also do not approve of letting "Slick Willy" speak from any pulpit as his actions tell all.

Again, I appreciate your article and agree with you that this is very misguided. I also appreciate that you will take a lot of flak for this stance and am grateful that you published it anyway. We need to know these things so that we are aware of who we need to promote or demote.

I pass these along to all of my friends who pass them to their friends, etc., etc.

response to patsyp
Patsyp: The command to “Do unto others as you have them do unto you” isn’t about tricking someone into engaging in a behavior that you enjoy. It’s about treating people with respect. Which is the way that you, presumably, would want to be treated as well. Surreptitiously dropping acid into someone’s drink just because you enjoy the effect isn’t respectful, it’s selfish, the exact opposite of that which the scripture commands. Your logic in this particular case is flawed.

Phylo: I guess my point is that it isn't always possible to know how other people would like to be treated, and it's quite possible that in following this rule blindly one could make false assumptions about how another person would like to be treated, leading to a bad result.

Medivil (sp?) doctors are perhaps a better example. In many cases they were treating patients with what they presumed to be the best possible treatment (bloodletting for example) and yet they were doing harm to their patients.

And there are some grey areas with respect to the golden rule; whether or not a doctor should prescribe pain killers for example. What if the patient gets addicted to them?

So, under certain circumstances, even with the best of intentions, following the golden rule can lead to a bad result.

patsyp: However, I believe that you’re on the right track with the statement that circumstances do determine the morality of an act. Sort of. For instance, the command, thou shalt not kill refers to murder, not to acts of self defense or defense of others. If you kill someone in defense of yourself or others the “absolute morality” of the law isn’t compromised.

And you don’t have to believe in God to believe this. Murder is always absolutely wrong whether you believe in God or not. Adultery is always wrong. And I can’t for the life of me think of a situation when stealing would be considered acceptable.

Phylo: I'm not sure of what the difference is between killing and murder. I've heard Dennis Prager make this argument before, and he says that murder is "immoral killing". But that's stupid; it's a tautology: immoral killing is always immoral, duh. So you'll have to give me a clearer explanation of the difference.

Secondly, with a little imagination, it's easy to think of rare circumstances in which each of the acts you mentioned above could be considered the right thing to do. It's right to do them when doing them would result in a better outcome than not doing them.

For instance, what about a situation in which a baby with a cough might lead to the discovery of fifty jews hiding from the Nazi army. Is it right to smother the baby, or is right to let the baby cough resulting in the execution of fifty jews?

And if there are circumstances, however rare they might be, in which these acts could be considered right, then they are not absolute.

Phylo out.

Be methodical and gracious please!
THE METHODICAL DEBATOR

Christians often discredit their public assertions by (a.) presenting them in an emotionally-charged tone; and, (b.) making sweeping statements which without bothering to note possible caveats and exceptions.

The former provides secularists/leftists (my preferred term, as there is nothing "liberal" about most American liberals) opportunity to paint Christians as anti-intellectual. The latter allows debating opponents to raise exceptions to the generalities, or remotely-plausible alternative explanations, and thereby paint themselves as the more careful analysts and the Christians as sloppy thinkers.

In the case of Kevin McCullough and some of those posting comments above, I see all too many examples of a tendency to neglect these concerns. McCullough should note that St. Paul, when advising believers to "be ready to defend [by logical argument and skilled rhetoric] the hope that is within [them]" is careful to add, "with grace and reverence." Paul was, I expect, all too familiar with the tendency of those involved in a debate to lapse into what we now call "flamewars" and ad-hominem attacks. He is clearly advocating that the Christian debator be a calmer, more gracious type of competitor.

So: When you enter the arena, bring your well-sharpened sword (your best arguments). But don't forget your armor (techniques to pre-emptively undermine your opponent's most oft-used arguments). There is probably no more often-used debating technique against Christians, than to paint them as a crowd of mindless fascists, devoid of intellect or analysis, and whipped into a frenzy by propaganda. Therefore Christians should, as a part of their "armor", adopt a demeanor which proves this allegation false.

That deals with a methodical approach to argument in the public square...or, one small part of it.

Now, an even more important issue: Grace.


WITH GRACE AND REVERENCE

How to be gracious to Obama, while disagreeing with him thoroughly?

Well, one can start off by noting "there but for the grace of God go I": Were we raised differently, or did we have different experiences, we might not be aware of how inconsistent Obama's views are with Christian teaching. We might, in fact, support the same views: Many Christians support erroneous positions for years before some better-informed person brings their errors to their attention, or they discover the errors for themselves.

There are many men who supported Communism -- a system designed to reify hell on earth if ever there was one -- because of its superficial resemblance to the sharing of goods in the early Christian church. In retrospect, this is the pinnacle of idiocy, but hindsight is 20/20. Mightn't Obama be the modern equivalent thereof? A well-intentioned dope, rather than an evil man?

I imagine (I can't know) that Rick Warren is using exactly this approach with Obama. Perhaps Obama himself will be persuaded to a more sound doctrine over time?


NON-CHRISTIANS CAN'T BE EXPECTED TO ACT LIKE WHAT THEY'RE NOT

As a final note, let me deal with those who say Obama's not a believer: You may be correct. What then?

If he's not, then we must keep in mind that his moral center (that which, for lack of knowing THE best thing, is still the best thing he knows) is going to tell him that tolerance, especially of all sin related to sex and relationships, is the primary virtue.

Should we not then expect him, as a flawed human being lacking the empowering of the Holy Spirit, to try to live up to the standard which is "the best he knows" ...and even, mistaking it for a truly worthwhile standard, to preach that standard as if it were morality itself?

Christians are, as a general rule, entirely too forgiving of sin amongst their own ranks, and entirely too condemnatory of sin amongst non-believers. So, some non-believers are (practicing) gays: Small wonder! What else did you expect? So some are pagans: How else are the poor saps going to fill their longing for spirituality? So some are hedonistic slobs: You were expecting St. Francis?!

St. Paul advises a church where a man was sleeping with his stepmother to "expel him from among you; do not even associate with such a man." But he notes: "I am speaking, of course, of people who are believers -- who KNOW better, and yet disobey egregiously. I am NOT saying you should avoid all NON-believers who sin; to do that, you'd have to leave this world entirely!"

So, if truly Obama is a non-Christian, as some of you posters suggest, then he is NOT among that group of people whom Christians should shun and condemn. Instead, he is among the group whom Christians should woo by their graciousness and friendliness.

Along the same lines, Christ himself (who alone could condemn the sin of men without hypocrisy) was gracious and friendly to a hated tax-collector (Zaccheus). Christ adopted this attitude PRIOR to Zaccheus' belief and repentance: these were, in all likelihood, the RESULT of Christ's approach. Who are we to do any differently?

reading the comments
Reading the comments here it quickly becomes clear why the electorate voted away from you people in droves.

Try not to totally freak out and murder anyone, OK?

Satan is alive and well...
and using the frustration of Christians against them. We see such moral degeneration that we think we need to do something. Too many times we have a reaction instead of taking action in the same ways our Savior would do. I sure a lot of us, myself included, have said or done things we thought were in defense of our faith, only to have it backfire in our faces.

The sword we carry should be the Word of God. Only by knowing and carrying it in our hearts can we convince unbelievers that we are indeed blessed by our beliefs and not just "holier than thou, do-gooders".




I just wanted to say...
Well I have read what everyone has been saying about Obama speaking at Rick Warren's church. At my church the one thing that our Bishop would not allow is to let just anyone speak from the pulpit. In the past years at our church, especially around election time, people that were up to no good would speak from the pulpit and talk a little about God and how they could better the state of Maryland if they had our vote. Well for the past 10 years our church members and its leaders have grown a little wiser and we pray before we let just anyone gets behind the pulpit and speak.
I do not agree with Mr. Warren letting Obama speak. God can take any situation and use it for His glory. Let your voice be heard by calling the church and blogging and those who know how to pray and get in the presence of God please pray for Rick Warren and Obama.

For the record...
Obama is NOT speaking to the Saddleback Chruch Congregation during a church service, but to a mix of people passionate about eradicating HIV/AIDS during the Race Against Time Global Summit on HIV AIDS.

It is very dissapointing when people assume things and then go on to write a whole article based on those misconceptions.

Brigitte Gabriel
Brigitte Gabriel gives much information on Islam which is needed by the US at this time.

http://americancongressfortruth.com/

Maybe if enough people will read and digest this info, the influence of Islam on the US can be curtailed and stopped. If not, they will want us to give them land here for a nation, like they are doing in Israel:-)

Judgement
As I read the posts here on TH, I realize that the US is headed for severe judgement from the Lord. It is a sad time for what is supposed to be a Christian nation:-( Hate is a very strong emotion and causes humans to commit atrocities each and every day. Closer and closer we come to being 'as in the days of Noah, when every man's thoughts were evil all the time continually.' This just tells me that 'the end of the age' is soon to come. Also, helping the people that have Aid/Hiv is one thing, forcing pagan beliefs, homosexual agenda, and other immoral practices on our school children is another. God is very clear on His(not her or it) views on these things. He is also very clear about what He will do about a nation which condones these practices. Every single nation that have let these things become a part of every day life were destroyed. I do not hate homos, Moslems, Wiccans, Buddists, Hindus, etc..but I do not desire for their ways to be forced upon anyone.
Katrina wiped out one of the oldest sin capitals of this nation. God scattered the Jews to all ends of the earth for their disobedience about the seventh year sabbath for the land. Just how will He judge this nation? Selah

Prepare thyself!
Gird your loins, Evangel-nazis!

A Real President is on his way: smart, insightful, funny and.... oh, yeah.... BLACK!

And, with him, real Christians will reclaim our faith from you Fundamentalists, who have managed to make millions of people actually believe that God is a registered Republican.

It may not happen in '08, but Obama's on his way. You have plenty of time to get your sheets (or passports) ready!


steve
Real Christian = follower of Christ, not Obama or any other mortal

Warren was Wrong
As a pastors wife for over 25 years, I was shocked that Pastor Rick Warren would allow Obama to speak from the pulpit. It doesn't matter if anyone reading is Christian or non-Christian, liberal or conservative. What matters is that Rick Warren is a pastor, and as a pastor it is his responsibility to protect the people in his church by teaching them the Bible. Rick Warren is a new breed of pastor - part of the "emergent church" and "user-friendly" churches. They don't believe the Bible is the infallable Word of God. They tone it down so it will appeal to the masses. They try to make Jesus fit into the world's mold instead of the right way to do it - having Jesus fill that emptiness in the soul of every human being. Having a nice church building, a huge worship team that is professional, an espresso bar available after church and other ways to draw people to church are doing more harm to the Gospel than good.

Mr. Obama's convictions go against much of what the Bible teaches. He has no business in an evangelical, fundamentalist, Bible teaching church. Sadly to say, he seems to fit in fine at Saddleback....because the truth has been watered down in order to appeal to the masses. So what does it matter if someone of Obama's convictions speaks there?

What a shame. The Christian Church in America is giving in to political correctness and pleasing the masses instead of teaching the pure and peaceable Word of God. The church is in BIG trouble.

Steve
Well, Sir, you have proven my point for me without me doing a thing! God is fantastic(Jehovah not Allah)!
I do not consider color as the basis for any discussion of this matter! God cares not of the tone of a person's skin but looks to the heart!
I never mentioned Obama as a black man! I would not care if he were purple with green polkadots!
It is his agenda I am discussing. Your attitude in this proves that YOU are the racist! Also, you assume in your statement that I would not approve a BLACK president! On the contrary, I would vote for a BLACK man/woman (Dem.orRep.)for president if I knew he/she stood for the concepts and morals put forth by our Father of Lights!
Cry and whine as you will but Obama will not be elected in 2008 standing on his Moslem platform.
By the way, God is not Democrat or Republican or any other political party! He is above politics! He does not need politics! :-)
THANKS,LYDIA AND KATH:-)

ooPS.
STEVE,,
Another point,,Obama is not Christian, he is Islamic..In case you don't know;;they are not the same..Duh.

Diane S
I live in Alaska and I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. The clubbing of baby seals was outlawed on US soil in 1964 and to my knowledge you can't find a pup-seal coat for sale in this country. Oil drilling in Alaska is done in an environmentally safe way that leaves no discernable scars on the tundra within five years of the drilling pad being moved. I know this because I've been on the North Slope and seen it with my own eyes.

Caribou use the Alyeska Pipeline Corridor as a game trail and caribou population numbers actually increased after the supposedly herd-destroying pipeline was completed. Developing ANWAR in an environmentally safe way won't harm the caribou. That's merely an environmentalist's bugaboo to get people like you to bite and give them money and write letters as if you know what you're talking about.

There's a lot of country up here; most of it unusable because of permafrost or being mountainous, so if we developed the small percentage that is useable, we'd still have more undeveloped land than all the land in Texas and California combined. Alaska will not be destroyed by sensible development. It has been harmed aplenty by insensitive and uninformed environmentalists. It will continued to be harmed by uninformed Lower 48ers who think their opinion matters more than the real knowledge of the people who live here.

Obama's faith
FYI, Obama attends the Trinity United Church of Christ on the southside of Chicago. He is not Muslim. You need to dig deeper than the name. That is not to say he is a true follower of Jesus Christ. As someone has already pointed out; you can judge the tree by its fruit. Just considering his position on the issue of abortion, I believe he needs to examine his heart. I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone who defends the right to take the life of an unborn child truly knows Jesus.

Lydia
I'm almost certain that everyone at my church is a bleeding heart liberal and votes Democrat. Yet I'm sure they're against abortions. But they don't care one way or the other about the gay thing and they probably, in their bleeding hearts, think that the Democrats care more about the little guy and the downtrodden and like the feel of that party better.

I KNOW you can be a Christian and be a Democrat. In my view, it means you're not very thoughtful when it comes to economics, politics, and sociology.

Jack
You could possibly be a Christian and a pro-choicer if you didn't believe that a human was formed until some stage later than ferilization. After all, we take the fertilization perspective but have no problem with condoms, because we define human life as beginning at that point. Not everyone is so sure.

Biological arguments really do go over some people's heads. And even if they do understand it in some superficial way, they still aren't able to weigh the evidence for themselves to decide which of two biological perspectives is most compelling.

That doesn't mean they aren't Christians.

We know someone has a heart problem when they admit that abortion is murder and then think it should be legal anyway. That isn't a crazy hypothetical - wasn't it Senator Kerry that said as much? I think there are others, too.

Thank you Jack,Serious apology follows
I must apologise for the mistake which I have made on Senator Obama's religion. I am only human and wrongly stated he was Moslem when in fact he is United Church of Christ.
I do agree on the abortion issue.
Consider me reprimanded!

Christians and Science, Jeremiah 1:4-5
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

Question
Not that I expect anyone to answer this, but:

Why is it that so many "Christians" are up in arms about unborn children, but apparently don't care about all the thousands dying in Iraq? Or the plight of the poor in this country? I respect Christians, but not those that ignore 95% of Christ's teachings.

Frey
Christians do care about all those things. They are going about the business of helping people all over the world, without expecting anything in return. You never hear about all that Christians do because the MSM wouldn't consider it newsworthy. A church here locally recently brought an Iraqi child who had been run over during a terrorist bombing and his father here so the boy could have surgery so that he could walk again. All their expenses were paid by church members and the doctors who performed the surgery donated their services. Our soldiers in Iraq do humanitarian acts of kindness all the time, but we don't get to hear about it. Human kindness just doesn't play with MSM.

Spirit-Led or Purpose Driven?
Just google in, “Rick Warren and Berit Kjos” for exceptional, Christian insight about Rick Warren. After reading some of her very wise, well researched articles, including the lengthy ones, the Barack Obama invitation should come as no surprise! I began to question Warren’s modus operandi a few years ago, motivated by a Christian friend’s question: Why not the Spirit-Led vs. Purpose Driven Life? That article is one of Kjos'must reads to be examined about Warren in addition to others such as his P.E.A.C.E. Plan where Kjos concludes: “With management guru Peter Drucker as his mentor, Rick Warren's quest for reformation and transformation serves the UN vision very well. In fact, the two seem to march to the same drumbeat.”


exposure of evil
Thank God for you, Kevin, exposing evil, like you do!! You're right about anyone who courts evil.

Probably even more important, i didnt even know that obama is such garbage. Who the garbage are, desperately needs to be exposed, so that anyone who hates evil, and loves good, will try to keep the scum out of authority positions. Already, there are way too many scum in authority positions!!

And you're right that courting evil is a betrayal by someone who supposedly represents God. Apostle paul addressed it happening in his day, too, when he said the scripture to the effect that some dishonestly present the gospel, but at least, it's good that the gospel is presented, even by them. (better, of course, if presented from decent, honest disciples of Christ, such as yourself.)

Feminist Church
I am was a active member at Willow Creek Community Church. Bill Hybles, our pastor, was Former President Clinton's spiritual adviser during his eight years of presidential leadership.

http://www.willowcreek.org

I observe that Willow Creek condones/supports non-biblical teachings, such as, divorce, abortion, woman in leadership, and such.

After the church supported my wife's divorce from me and I noticed their sermons becoming "man bad, woman good" messages (read: feminist), I separated myself from them. I desire a biblically functioning church.

At the end of the day, a liberal church may be a place where people far from God start, not end up.

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/229

Barak Obama's strength.........
comes from being raised by his white mother! His African father deserted him and his mother(as many African men do)! Barak Obama is a White-American of mixed descent! Calling himself Afro-American is a sick joke!!!

Mark Ruffolo / Re: Willow Creek
Hi Mark, thanks for the post, it is always great to hear from someone who has recognized religious error, and who is willing to act on that knowledge, and seek the truth.

I noticed that you posted similar comments on at least two different articles/forums, and I didn’t see that anyone had responded to you yet.

I wanted to respond to a couple of your comments this evening, and I hope to follow up tomorrow with a few more. I have copied my replies to both articles/forums where I found your comments.


Mark Ruffolo writes: “http://www.willowcreek.org”


I checked out the link to the Willow Creek website you provided. Fairly slick at first glance. They even included some of the “language” on their “What We Believe” statement that was part of my own search a while back:

(from the website): “The sole basis of our belief is the Bible, which is uniquely God-inspired, without error, and the final authority on all matters on which it bears.” (http://www.willowcreek.org/what_we_believe.asp).
It is unfortunate that many try to trick people who are honestly seeking the truth of God’s word with such language by proclaiming their beliefs are based solely on the Bible, when in reality they only pay lip-service to that declaration.


Next, I checked their beliefs with regard to baptism:

Statement on Baptism Page (http://www.willowcreek.org/statementonbaptism.asp):

(from the website): “While recognizing for other churches the right to practice infant baptism if it conforms to their theologies, the congregation of Willow Creek Community Church understands the Scripture to teach that only professing believers qualify for baptism.”

What does that mean, exactly, “While recognizing for other churches the right to practice infant baptism if it conforms to their theologies,…”?

If they meant “While recognizing for other churches the right to practice error if it conforms to their own man-made doctrines”, why don’t they just say that? Why not be honest about it, instead of playing PC games with the truth?

And if they didn’t mean that, if they meant that they recognize, condone and seek fellowship with those who practice error, then they have contradicted their own “What We Believe” statement mentioned above.


Next we find the following statement on the same “Statement on Baptism” page:

(from the website): “Willow Creek Community Church offers the option of believers’ baptism in the modes of sprinkling and immersion on the basis of a sacramentarian view of the ordinances…”

If they actually meant what they said in their “What We Believe” statement, they wouldn’t be offering options that cannot be found in the Bible, options which contradict their assertion that “The sole basis of our belief is the Bible” and that the Bible is “the final authority on all matters on which it bears.”

Finally, they admit that the Willow Creek church position on God’s plan of salvation really isn’t based on the Bible OR their assertion of its inerrant nature OR their proclamation that it is the final authority on all things. Instead, the Willow Creek church supports its position on Baptism not from clear, simple and God-inspired scripture, but on a book written by a man in 1962:

(from the website): “The church’s position on baptism is well represented in G. R. Beasley-Murray’s, Baptism in the New Testament, Macmillan, 1962.”

A scripturally sound church would not be “mincing words” on any of these issues. It would be forthright and declarative about what God says on each issue, backed up by clear and unambiguous Book, chapter and verse, in proper context, for every one of the church’s practices.

Mark Ruffolo / non-Biblical teachings


Mark Ruffolo writes: “I observe that Willow Creek condones/supports non-biblical teachings, such as, divorce, abortion, woman in leadership, and such. After the church supported my wife's divorce from me and I noticed their sermons becoming ‘man bad, woman good’ messages (read: feminist), I separated myself from them.”

Such recognition of error is a critical step in seeking the truth. It would be proper to raise such concerns before simply leaving, unless you have reason to fear psychological manipulation (or worse) in an effort to prevent you from leaving.

If you are convinced that your church is at odds with the Bible position on such basic issues of divorce, abortion, women in leadership or any other Bible matter, you would be doing a great service to your brethren to point out to them what you see as clear error, and then let them speak.

If your church is unscriptural to its very core, it is not likely you will be able to change the minds of the church leadership by pointing out such errors, if for no other reason than it is difficult to believe they could be so far away from the truth of God’s word without knowing it already. If that is the case, they have effectively opted for human wisdom over God’s wisdom, and human authority over God’s authority.

However, it is probable that there are others in your congregation with honest hearts who will recognize the error, be grateful to you for pointing it out, repent, and change their beliefs and practices to be in accordance with God’s word. Those brethren would want to seek a scripturally sound church with you.

On the other hand, if your church is scripturally sound at its core, and the genuine desire of the leadership (deacons and elders) and the preacher is to understand and practice God’s will as it is revealed in His Book, they will indeed be grateful for being shown their error. They will be thorough and honest in examining your position. They will change their beliefs and practices to be in accordance with their new understanding of God’s word, if what you are showing them is found in the Bible, harmonizes with the other scriptures on the same subject, and you can demonstrate that you have divided the Word properly. Such a congregation of God’s people will be interested first and foremost in understanding and following the truth of God’s word, not in preserving traditions and practices which can be shown to be in error.

There is no profit in practicing error, error cannot be pleasing to God, so what reason can there be to continue in error once it becomes known and understood?


Unscriptural Churches Should Be Honored
with your absence.

Scott
I'm a little bit to the right of Willow Creek on baptism. While I would never baptise anyone without dunking them completely under water, I'm not so sure the quantity of water really matters.

But I'm sticking on the safe side.

yuzzy
"Calling himself Afro-American is a sick joke!!!"

I wonder what his mom thinks about that.

Mark Ruffolo / Biblical church Part 1


Mark Ruffolo writes: “I desire a biblically functioning church.”

Amen to that. Rather than simply looking for a “biblically functioning church”, why not seek out the Lord’s church itself?

Can a man be saved, unless he becomes a Christian? (John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 1 Timothy 2:5 - For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;).

Can a man become a Christian, unless he is added to the Lord’s church? (Colossians 1:18 - And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.)

The Lord’s church was established on the first day of Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 2:1, http://tinyurl.com/y8d882).

About 3,000 souls were added to the Lord’s church that first day (Acts 2:41, http://tinyurl.com/y6vrzl).

The Lord added to His church daily thereafter, such as should be saved (Acts 2:47, http://tinyurl.com/yxawvu).

To the best of my knowledge, these facts are not denied by any church that is serious about God’s word.

With hundreds of variations on Christianity, and hundreds of different churches and teachings, how can we know which one is the Lord’s church?

Is this not one of the most important questions we could ask?

After all, I don’t doubt the sincerity of many who believe all these different things, but they cannot all be right (Romans 10:2 - For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge). Thinking that every way is right is the wisdom of the world, the doctrine of relativism, the nonsense of “there is no truth” or “every man’s truth is his own”.


I contend that there is such a thing as truth; it is objective, it is absolute, it is knowable and it does not hide itself from those who seek it. It is meant to be understood by all, not just a select few:

(Psalm 19:7) The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.

(Psalm 119:130) The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

(James 1:5) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


The truth of God’s Word is a great and good thing, standing in stark contrast to all of the lies of this world. It is found in one place only; the inspired and inerrant word of God, given to us by revelation, collected together and contained within the book we call the Bible.

(Romans 3:4) God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

The truth is not found in the wisdom and words of men; how could it be?

(Jeremiah 10:23) O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

(Isaiah 55:8-9) For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.


If the words of men go further than what the Bible says, they are an addition to God’s word with no authority behind them; why would God be bound by the words of men?

If the words of men don’t go as far as what the Bible says, if they come up short, are they not insufficient to accomplish His plan of salvation?

If the words of men are the same as what the Bible says, then why are the words of men necessary? We already have the Bible.


Is the Word of God sufficient to accomplish His will, or does He require additions (or subtractions) by man?

(Isaiah 55:11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

(Psalms 118:8) [It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

(Luke 6:46) And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?


I understand that earnestly contending for the faith (Jude 1:3, http://tinyurl.com/y924db) is not simple or easy, particularly when there are so many different “faiths” competing to be heard. Any serious effort in contending for the faith is going to result in ruffling some feathers, certainly among those who reject God’s word outright (John 15:18, http://tinyurl.com/yn486u) but also among some who might otherwise be generally supportive.

God certainly knew of these problems; we are warned repeatedly of false prophets, false teachers, false doctrines, commandments of men, vain words and vain worship. We are admonished to “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” (1 Peter 5:8)


So what is a man to do? Does the Lord’s church, the one He founded in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, does it still exist?

But of course it does; the better question would be: How could it NOT still exist?

(Luke 21:33) Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

(Ephesians 3:21) Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

(Matthew 28:18-20) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

Surely it would be a mistake to think that either man OR time could undo that for which the Son of God gave His life? (Ephesians 5:25 - Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; John 15:13-14 - Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [14] Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 1 John 3:16 - Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.).


So how can a man find the Lord’s church, and those who teach the truth of His word, just as it is written?


Karaoke Sunday
Christian churches imitate the world by offering a Sunday service bursting with qualities only the world values (because it's tangible and a substitute for real fruit). Like God needs us to sing Him one more boring song. I'm sure He's yawning up in heaven. Maybe He would welcome a reprieve from Sunday entertainment...song and dance and Stars!!! Are they selling tickets to see Mr. Obama?

What did Jesus tell the Pharisees..He told them to produce good fruit.

What is good fruit? Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-control. These are hallmarks of a real Christian, not how big your church is, or the professional entertainment quality of your music... not even the preacher...or non-christian speakers.

It's us!! We're the church. We honor Him with our lives. We try to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle and self-controlled...which goes against our selfish, stubborn nature. We change because we love Jesus...and often He's the only one who knows we've chosen to honor Him with our behavior and choices. That's real fruit and it changes the world.

Today Christians honor God with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him.

The fact that Mr. Obama is speaking at a Christian church is just more evidence that Christians are very comfortable having the world inside the Church. Christians should only be comfortable taking the message of Christ into the world.

Scott
Well said!
The perversion of many denominations has led many astray and caused them to