The events of this week led me to change what I was going to speak on Wednesday evening. I hope you will take the time to hear what God put on my heart.
As an added bonus, my sister plays the piano and sings an original piece to start things off.
Category Archives: Abortion
It’s Not a Platitude: God Is Still in Control
Filed under Abortion, America, Christianity, Countries, Culture Wars, current events, Preaching
Observations from a Middle-Georgia Pastorate: “The Critical Vote”
Who Would Have Guessed
Honestly, who would have thunk that by moving down here to Georgia I would play a part in American history? Well, after tomorrow my vote could determine the direction of this nation.
I mean, you know, just pastoring a church gives one the chance to impact lives for generations to come. But pastoring a church in Georgia right now, right on the cusp of one of the most important elections – EVER – makes me tremble.
But, like I’ve said before, “…for such a time as this.”
Don’t Tell Them
One of the more sensitive issues of ministry is that of politics. As you are surely aware, we pastors are not supposed to tell people how to vote. To do so could potentially result in a church losing its tax-exempt status.
Yet, as you have surely seen over the last few years, more and more pastors and religious leaders are making it clear where what boxes they want you to check. Without question – it’s not even an argument – African-American churches (which overwhelmingly support Democrat candidates) have long been known as being active politically, even to the point of specifically endorsing candidates from the pulpit. It’s even expected that the Democrat candidates make appearances in black churches.
Then, of course, there are the other churches that support more conservative candidates, most always Republican. In lots of cases, the candidates will go to those churches to speak, also. But the Republican church visits are nothing in comparison to the other party’s efforts.
And when it comes to what pastors are allowed to say; when it comes to how far a pastor should go in stating support for a particular candidate or party; when it comes to a pastor talking politics at all . . . the white churches and the Republicans barely hold a candle to rest. It’s not even a contest.
But that’s not how I’m going to roll this time.
Perdue and Loeffler
To be honest, if anyone in my congregation votes for Jon Ossoff or Raphael Warnock, I’d be terribly surprised. To the best of my knowledge, based on nothing more than objective observation, most of my congregation will vote Republican tomorrow. Yet, I still won’t get up behind the pulpit and say, “Go vote for so-and-so.”
But since this is my blog, I will say exactly what I think. It’s still my right and I’m free to exercise it.
If you live in Georgia, as I do, and you vote for either Jon Ossoff or Raphael Warnock, then the blood of America will be on your hands.
I will boldly beg of you to vote for either David Perdue or Kelly Loeffler.
The Agenda: Fundamental Change
Folks, if Ossoff and Warnock are elected and placed in the United States Senate, America will never be the same, and that’s their goal.
I don’t have to go through all their promises. All I have to do is to get you to understand that with a Democrat majority in the Senate, the House, and with a Democrat President, they will complete what Barak Obama said he wanted to do: “Fundamentally transform America.”
Stop and think about those three words for just a moment. What does one mean when he says he wants to “fundamentally change” or transform anything? If I were to stand before my congregation and exclaim, “This year we are going to fundamentally change Christianity”? Would it still be Christianity without its fundamentals?
What if you told your wife or husband, “Tonight’s date-night will fundamentally change our marriage”? What would that mean? Would that be a good thing? Maybe.
But when you propose, even promise to bring “fundamental change” to something, what you end up with is NOT what you started with. Consider what Wordhippo.com offered as synonyms to “fundamentally change.”
Then, from a legal standpoint, what is a proper definition? Consider the following from LawInsider.com:
“Fundamental Change means a dissolution or liquidation of the Company, a sale of substantially all of the assets of the Company, a merger or consolidation of the Company with or into any other corporation, regardless of whether the Company is the surviving corporation, or a statutory share exchange involving capital stock of the Company.”
Barak Obama promised it. Biden promised it. Ossoff and Warnock promise it (either directly or by association). And if they get elected to the Senate, then the Democrat party will have little to nothing stopping them from destroying this country.
Just keep in mind, these are the people of the party who now say “amen and a-woman.”
The Compatibility of Science and Faith
In my last post about the possibility of Biden listening to and acting upon questionable or sinister science, I might have given the wrong impression. I say that based on a comment I received from a friend, Joel Ziegenmier.
If Joel was correct, then I do apologize for the confusion or spurious impression. Please allow me to clarify my stance on science and faith.
I believe that science and faith are completely compatible and non-exclusionary. Both can exist side-by-side without conflict. Why do I believe that?
First of all, we must understand what faith and science are. Once we do that, everything will become a little more clear.
Science, unlike what it’s made out to be in the news media, is a process of acquiring knowledge. It is not dogma, doctrine, philosophy, or religion. All it is – or what it is supposed to be – is a process through which knowledge and understanding can be acquired through theorizing, testing, observing, repeating and replicating, and so on. The scientific method is not a Truth in itself, but a process by which we discover and make application.
Faith is trusting in something. Blind faith is putting one’s trust in something without any evidence that the thing is trustworthy. On the contrary, orthodox Christianity is not a religion or set of beliefs based on a blind faith, but on tangible, historical, and verifiable evidence and Truth claims.
Science and faith are not opposites, but complimentary. Where faith can be tested, it should welcome it. Where science yields information, faith is placed in the interpretation of the evidence obtained.
Certain things, however, are beyond the realm of the scientific method. Those things that are supernatural (outside of the realm of what is considered naturally possible) cannot be observed, tested, and repeated, especially if the supernatural event is beyond natural capability.
Science, too, is limited in its ability. A prime example is the question of the origin of the universe. Although observable and repeatable theories can be applied to current natural processes, science in and of itself cannot observe and test the origin of the universe, nor account for where natural law may have been broken. Ironically, it takes faith for both the Christian and the naturalist or atheist to make dogmatic claims about the origin of all that is.
But for the Christian, science is not an enemy; it is only a tool. Thanks to a quick Google search, I was easily able to find a list of famous scientist whose works contributed to the way we live today, and each one was a Christian. They include the likes of Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Arthur Compton, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, George Washington Carver, Francis Collins, and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine John Eccles.
So therefore, it’s not a matter of whether or not Joe Biden listens to the scientists, for that’s a fine and noble thing to do. The problem is which scientists he’s listening to. Every scientist has presuppositions and assumptions. Every scientist has a personal worldview. Are the scientists that Biden trusts knowledge seekers or agenda pushers? Are they rabid naturalists who deny their own presuppositions and assumptions, or simply honest men and women who simply go where the facts lead them?
I’m not trying to be hyperbolic, but just keep in mind that it was the “scientists” of the 1930s and 1940s who concluded that a perfect and superior race was achievable through the elimination of all who were sick, retarded, deformed, homosexual, and Jewish.
It’s when “science” determines that faith is a detriment to society, a scourge on humanity, or a drug from which society must be weened for its own sake, that we have a problem.
It’s happened before. It’s been observed. It can be repeated.
Filed under Abortion, America, Christianity, Culture Wars, current events, Faith, politics
“I Don’t Know How a Christian, Especially a Minister, Could Vote for Trump”
WARNING!
Welcome to “Controversial Tuesday“!
I have decided to devote Tuesdays each week to something controversial. If you remember, a couple of weeks ago I asked what you would like for me to write about.
From your responses I will craft my posts.
“I Don’t Know How a Christian…”
The title for today is a statement I have heard for the last 4 years in some form or another. And now that an election is just months away, it’s a statement or question that’s being repeated time and time again.
Why Trump?
As a Christian minister, my conscience will not allow me to vote for Joe Biden, or any Democrat (because of their support of abortion). But then you may ask, “Do you mean to tell us that you think Donald Trump is more of a Christian than Biden?” No, I don’t think that. All I can do is judge them by their actions and take them at their word.
Then, in a raised, indignant voice you might come back with, “Do you mean to tell me, as a Christian, a Baptist pastor, you would actually condone voting for a man who groped women’s privates, owned strip clubs, and has made millions off of questionable construction deals?”
I would say that’s a fair question, to which I would continue, “Do you mean to tell me it would be MORE Christian to vote for a man who constantly sniffs young girls and touches women, was known to walk around naked in the VP mansion, and helped his son make millions from Russian oil companies?”
The Video
You know what, I’m going to YouTube and I’m going to record a video. There’s more to say and I don’t want to type it.
On a final note, and something that I wish I had addressed in the video, is the claim that America is being destroyed by Trump, or the claim that Trump brought in an era of violence, meanness, hatred, etc. How can one suggest such things?
Was it Trump who marched in the streets the day after the election carrying signs reading “Not my president!”? Was it Trump who was attacking people wearing MAGA hats? Was it Trump who was forcing the race card into every conversation? Was it Trump who was falsely accusing anyone of colluding with the Russians to steal an election? Was it Trump who nothing, not one thing, not even a syllable spoken was positive?
No one cared about Trump until he shockingly got elected and defeated Hillary Clinton. So many serious left-wing voters were crushed when Hillary lost, and there was no way they could forgive the Orange Man.
Maybe next Tuesday I will talk about the Police. Any suggestions to the otherwise?
Filed under Abortion, America, Culture Wars, politics, voting
How Do You Treat Something Priceless?
Do you think of other people as valuable?
How valuable? Would you consider them priceless?
Just imagine, what if you could say you held in your hand a small item, a one-of-a-kind, totally unique, and personally made by God Himself? How would you treat it?
Would you hold it carefully, caress it, watch over it?
Would you toss it in the trash, make fun of it, or abuse it?
Are we not unique? Are we not “fearfully and wonderfully made” by God? Are we not valuable beyond compare? Did God not offer His own Son as a ransom for our souls?
For you know that you were redeemed from your empty way of life inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb. – 1 Peter 1:18-19 CSB
Then why do we treat each other the way we do?
We should treat each other as priceless because we are!
Filed under Abortion, abuse, Culture Wars, General Observations, ministry, World View
Nothing Says “I love you” Like Abortions
The following is in honor of Sanctity of Life Sunday.
Unbelievable
It’s now been 6 years ago that the former president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, was suggesting gifts for Valentine’s Day, and I feel the story is worth repeating.
I really appreciated it, too, because, as a guy who wants to impress his girl, every little suggestion for something new can help.
So, what did Ms. Richards suggest? What did she share on her Twitter account that we men needed to know? What, pray tell, are we supposed to go out and purchase this year?
Roses? Candy? Diamonds? A new car? Tickets to the opera? A new dress? A year’s supply of lipstick? Dinner at Tavern on the Green? A Ruth’s Chris gift certificate? A singing candy gram? A day at the most expensive beauty salon? An exotic vacation to Hawaii?
No. According to Cecile Richards, the one thing that EVERY woman REALLY needs for Valentine’s Day is…no joking…an ABORTION!
Interesting…don’t you think? I wonder how that would work? Maybe it would go like this…
“Sweetie, you’ll never guess what I got you this year for Valentines Day!”
“OH! I’m so excited! What is it my dearest?”
“Are you sitting down? I bought you an abortion! Isn’t it great?!”
“AAAHHH! You are SOOO sweet! You knew that little parasite that started growing inside of me after we had pre-marital, un-protected, lust-driven sex was going to hamper my hedonistic desire for consequence-free pleasure, didn’t you? I knew you cared.”
“Hey! Don’t mention it! There’s a lot more where that came from. So, once you survive having that blob of non-human cells ripped out of your uterus, let’s forget all about all that free contraception we’re being offered, and just go for it! What do you say?”
“You really know how to treat a woman, don’t you?”
God help us! Have mercy on us!
Lord in heaven, open Cecile Richards’ eyes to the murderous lunacy that is her idiotic suggestion!
Wouldn’t a box of chocolates and a dozen roses be a much better idea?
Filed under Abortion, Culture Wars, current events, General Observations
Let’s Get Controversial…Where Do the Babies Go?
Hanging Out
Right now I am sitting in the office of the Ringgold Wedding Chapel, just hanging out, so to speak.
I’m here, today, to officiate 3 weddings, but in one wedding that is about to take place the family brought their own minister.
I don’t feel like going and watching a wedding just for the fun of it, and I don’t want to sneak over and steal any food from the reception hall while the bride and groom are otherwise distracted. So, like I said, I’m just hanging out for a little while.
What a perfect time to stir up a theological stink, right?
Babies
We should be thanking God for the surging tide of pro-life sentiment sweeping much of our nation right now! I firmly believe that the killing of infants in the womb is murder, for I believe that each and every fetus is an actual human being, regardless whether or not they vote for Republicans or Democrats.
But all this talk about abortion, the right to life, and millions of babies has brought back to mind a conversation I read years ago on a Calvinistic website (Monergism.com). It was just one of several “conversations” that eventually pushed me from Calvinism and helped define my theological stance as that of “provisionist”
The conversation was between two pastors and the subject was the funeral for an infant.
The first pastor discussed how challenging it had been to preach the funeral for a child, just a baby of less than a year old. He went on to say that the only thing he could do to help the grieving parents cope with the loss was to reassure them that one day, some day, they would be reunited with their child in heaven (since both parents were believers).
The second pastor, however, brutally chastised the first pastor for giving the parents of the dead child a false hope! Yes, he rebuked the first pastor for telling the parents they would one day see their child again because – now get this – he had no way of knowing if the deceased baby was “one of the elect.”
The second pastor said a better thing to have told the parents would have been the truth…that if the baby had been one of the “elect” they would see him again, but there’s no way to know till we get to heaven.
I still remember the burning indignation that welled up within me as I read that. With my face flush, I hammered out on the keyboard something akin to the following: “If I had been one of those parents, and you had told me that about my child, I would have given you the opportunity to go see where my baby went.”
Where Do They Go?
But, let’s be honest, what else is the reasonable conclusion to the Calvinist position on this subject? Are all babies who die too early to have accepted Christ (including those murdered in the womb) members of the “elect,” or is there the possibility that some were predestined to salvation and others were predestined to damnation? Even though some of you Calvinist friends of mine might not believe in “double predestination,” what is your answer to this?
Are we going to accept the proposition that God, the one who said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” is the same God who would, for His own pleasure, doom any number of consciousless infants to an eternity in hell? Is that EVEN a possibility within your theological systematic?
You may use the comment section to calmly and kindly discuss.
Filed under Abortion
The Ivey League of Life
I’m just going to take a moment to address something that is top-tier controversial at the moment, even more so than the growing egalitarian/complimentarian debate that’s shaping up in the SBC because of Beth Moore.
Today the bravest woman in America is Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama.
From a sports perspective, I hate Alabama (the football team) with a white-hot passion, but today I stand beside the Governor of Alabama and her willingness to sign into law a bill that unashamedly acknowledges the “deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”
In passing this law, Alabama has courageously drawn a line in the sand that, up to this point, no other state has had the guts to do. Gov. Ivey surely must have known that the wrath of hell, along with all its infanticidal, pro-abortion propagandists and activists would want to come after her like a bunch of rabid piranhas.
By taking a clear and unequivocal stand for the sanctity of life in the womb. battle lines have been drawn, and by “battle” I’m positive the left will not suffice with hurling dirty looks and words. The right to murder a child for the sake of convenience and the promise of gain (or, rather, the right to worship Moloch) has become too delectable for the blood-thirsty who abhor consequences and idolize self.
People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God– – 2 Timothy 3:2-4 NIV
When you have as your core belief the idea that it is OK to rationalize away what is inherently human and kill a baby, whether in the womb or not, all because “self” is more inherently important and more worthy of life than the innocent “other,” you’re the coward and the deceived.
The Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), promising to sue, sent a tweet to Gov. Ivey that read, “You can’t say we didn’t warn you, @GovernorKayIvey. See you in court.” That’s just it, she heard your warning, and did what was right, anyway.
That’s why she is the brave one, and that’s why I will be listening to “Sweet Home Alabama” with a tad larger smile on my face.
Roll Tide.
Filed under Abortion, current events
Boycotting Georgia?
I, for one, regardless of Hollywood, support Georgia’s Governor, the new fetal heartbeat law, and the rights of the unborn.
The arguments from those boycotting Georgia are that this is an “attack on women,” or an attempt to “hold women hostage.” However, these and other similar protests do nothing but avoid and mislabel reality.
You see, it’s not about women’s rights; it’s about human rights, particularly the right to life – and more specifically, the right to not be torn apart limb from limb in your mother’s womb, or left to die on a stainless steel table while your “doctor” finishes a sandwich and paperwork.
Those who oppose this law and want to see it overturned must one day answer to their Creator for what they actually support: Infanticide, murder, and the torture of innocents.
Boycott Georgia? Not me! I fear a holy God more than Alysa Milano.
Filed under Abortion, America, Culture Wars, current events, Life/Death, politics
Jesus Memes and the Comma-Challenged
In a recent Facebook post, a friend of a friend posted a meme created by John Fugelsang, the actor, Huffington Post contributor, and former co-host of America’s Funniest Home Videos (1998-99). The meme was posted in an effort to show how that Jesus Christ if He were politically active in today’s America, would more likely be a liberal Democrat than a conservative Republican.
Mr. Fugelsang uses his meme (if he was actually the one who created it) to state ten assertions regarding who Jesus was and what He believed. For ease of reading and future commentary by me, I’ve listed them below (punctuation intact).
According to John Fugelsang (and, by extension, the friend of a friend on Facebook), Jesus was a:
- Radical nonviolent revolutionary
- Who hung around with lepers hookers and crooks;
- Wasn’t American and never spoke English;
- Was anti-wealth anti-death penalty anti-public prayer (M 6:5);
- But was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control,
- Never called the poor lazy,
- Never justified torture,
- Never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes,
- Never asked a leper for a copay;
- And was a long-haired brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anit-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.
Before I go any further, I must address Mr. Fugelsang’s punctuation. You see, I am not a grammar Nazi, nor am I a punctuation prodigy, but sometimes a point can better be made if one would pay attention to the proper use of commas. For example, without commas, it could be inferred that Jesus hung around with the hooks and crooks which belonged to lepers. As for “anti-gay anti-death penalty anti-public prayer,” that simply makes my head hurt.
Now, to the ten assertions . . .
Radical nonviolent revolutionary. First, how many radical non-violent revolutionaries are there? I guess they exist here and there but are they really that common? I mean, once you put radical and revolutionary together, specifically with the qualifier of “liberal,” how many are not violent? Jeez! However, that’s only based upon my own observations, so I’m happy to be proven wrong.
However, the question that ought to be asked first is: “Was Jesus really a revolutionary?” I don’t believe He was. For one thing, most revolutionaries are focused on bringing about change within a political system – Jesus’ purpose in coming had nothing to do with any political system. Then secondly, it is clear from Jesus’ own words that He did not come to change or do away with anything, only to fulfill it.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” – Matthew 5:17 KJV
[He] hung around with lepers, hookers, and crooks (punctuation added). One of the biggest misconceptions about Jesus is that because He chose not to stone anyone for things like adultery (John 8:11) He must have had no problem with their actions. The problem with that assertion is that it totally avoids his command to “go and sin no more.” Yes, Jesus ate with the sinners, but that’s not to be construed that He “hung around” with them. Jesus came for a purpose, to “seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10), not to condone their lifestyles and avoid confrontation. No, Jesus ate with sinners so that they might be saved!
And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. – Mark 2:16-17 KJV
[He] wasn’t American and never spoke English. Except for the most die-hard KJV-only-ist, and one who might never have had even the most basic of history lessons most would agree. This is pretty much a given. However, the assertion being made is that Jesus is thought of by conservatives as being pro-American and anti-everything else, and that is mostly untrue and unfair. Sure, there are some kooks who believe America is the New Jerusalem, but there are others out there, such as Louis Farrakhan, who believe aliens live in a spaceship and are circling Earth as we speak. Neither represents the majority, I hope.
Actually, the only thing that we must be concerned with is whether or not our nation (whichever nation that is) is on the side of the Lord, for His Kingdom is not of this world.
When Joshua was near the town of Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with sword in hand. Joshua went up to him and demanded, “Are you friend or foe?” “Neither one,” he replied. “I am the commander of the LORD’s army.” At this, Joshua fell with his face to the ground in reverence. “I am at your command,” Joshua said. “What do you want your servant to do?” – Joshua 5:13-14 NLT
[He] was anti-wealth anti-death penalty anti-public prayer (M 6:5). Oh boy. May I break this down into sub-points? I mean, really, commas would have been helpful.
- Anti-wealth. I’d really like to know where Fugalsang got this. My guess is that he got it from passages like Luke 12:15 or Matthew 6:19-21. In the first Jesus warns us to guard against greed, while the second advises us to store up treasure in heaven, not down here where it can corrupt and/or be stolen. Even more, Fugalsang may be thinking of how Jesus is described as one having no place to lay His head (Luke 9:58), or that passage where Jesus says it’s easier for a camel than a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle (Mark 10:25). However, the fact is that it wasn’t wealth that Jesus had a problem with; it was greed, envy, selfishness, and faith in one’s own money and not in God. The reason Jesus spent more time with the poor than the wealthy was because the wealthy more often had hard hearts (much like today). The rich tend to put their faith in their possessions and positions more than in God, so why would they respect the One who divested Himself of the riches of heaven and humbled Himself, even to the death of the Cross (Philippians 2:8)? You see, Jesus wasn’t anti-wealth; He was concerned only with what men do with it (Matthew 25) and the condition of their hearts: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). For crying out loud, the Church is forever in debt to Christians who used their wealth (while remaining wealthy) to feed, clothe, house, and instruct the poor of the world. It was even a rich woman in Thyatira named Lydia who used her wealth to house the early Church in her town (Acts 16:14-40).
- Anti-death penalty. Again, this must be one of those derivations from John 8:11, the passage where Jesus rescued a woman caught in the act of adultery. The only problem is that this passage does not assert that Jesus disagreed with the law, but rather the opposite. Jesus gave every opportunity for her accusers to carry out the death penalty which was prescribed by law, but none of them were able to stand without hypocrisy. Jesus knew they were trying to set Him up, not to mention the fact that there was an un-mentioned man involved. Jesus took the opportunity to take the Law beyond where it could go on its own and showed mercy and grace.
- Anti-public prayer (M 6:5). Seriously? First, you don’t abbreviate the book of Matthew with a capital “M”. I mean, there are other books in the Bible that start with “M,” such as Mark, Malachi, and Micah. I guess since we’re talking about Jesus we’re supposed to know the one to which he was referring. Secondly, to use Matthew 6:5 as a basis for condemning public prayer is to admit one has little understanding of context. The context in this passage of Scripture was one that dealt with pride and hypocrisy. Jesus was addressing those who did good deeds and prayed verbose prayers all for the purpose of being seen and praised by men. That is why He said of the hypocrites, “They have their reward.”
So, what is the assertion being made with this point? That people should not be allowed to pray in public? That freedom of speech should not include two Christian school football teams being allowed to use a public address system to say a prayer before a game? – Yes, that just happened.
But was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control. The whole “anti-gay” thing has been argued over and over and much has been devoted to it, yet liberals will only hear what they want to hear; therefore, I will devote very little time to it in this essay. However, saying that because Jesus never mentioned abortion or birth control means these are non-issues and would have been no concern to Him is ludicrous. It would be just as easy to say that governments shouldn’t restrict unnecessary use of antibiotics because Jesus never mentioned Penicillin.
Let’s save some time and get straight to the big theological issue in the room: Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word of God made flesh, Emmanuel (“God with us” – Matt. 1:23). What was said about homosexuality in the Old Testament is actually the same position Jesus took, for He and the Father are One (John 1:1-2, 14; 17:11). The only difference is that Jesus came to show that the strict requirements of the Law could only cause men to realize their own sinfulness in the light of Holy God, not save them. Jesus came to show God was merciful and wanted to graciously save men through putting their faith in Jesus. If you divest Jesus from His divinity then all you have is a crazy man who thought He was God and died for nothing.
As for birth control (speaking of contraception), there is no mention of it in the Bible, most likely because it was commonly understood that children were a gift from God (Gen. 4:1; 33:5) and the man with a “full quiver” was blessed (Psalm 127:5). With regard to abortion, it is God who gives life and considers us persons even before we are born (Psalm 139:13-14; Jeremiah 1:5), so I believe Jesus would have viewed elective abortion as murder. After all, it was Jesus’ own cousin, John the Baptist, who “leaped” in his mother’s womb when (Luke 1:41) when she greeted the pregnant Mary.
[He] never called the poor lazy. No, I don’t think He did. However, the Bible (the Word of God – See John 1) does say the following:
- By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” – Genesis 3:19 ESV
- For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. – 2 Thessalonians 3:10 KJV
[He] never justified torture. That’s probably true – can’t argue with that. Of course, Jesus wasn’t a military leader whose task it was to protect the lives of millions of his fellow citizens, either. Actually, Jesus was the One who gave His life so that others might live. Yet, He also said to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). We will all have to answer to God for our actions.
[He] never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes. This is actually correct! Jesus never did fight for tax cuts for the wealthy. However, it is equally true that Jesus never fought to reduce taxes, either – even for the poor. In Matthew 22:17-21 Jesus made it perfectly clear that we are to pay taxes when taxes are due, and that even goes for the least of us. He said, “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Later, speaking to average Christians, the Apostle Paul wrote:
And for this reason you pay taxes, since the authorities are God’s public servants, continually attending to these tasks. Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor. – Romans 13:6-7 HCSB
[He] never asked a leper for a copay. No, I don’t guess He ever did that, either; He just healed them. The last time I checked, neither Republicans nor Democrats are God (even though some think they are) and somebody has to pay somebody for adequate medical services (therefore, refer back to Romans 13:6-7…not just the rich should pay).
And finally, [Jesus] was a long-haired, brown-skinned, homeless, community-organizing, anti-slut-shaming middle eastern Jew. Well, at least Mr. Fugelsang got the brown-skinned, homeless (technically speaking), anti-slut-shaming middle eastern Jew parts right. The rest, along with the usual lack of commas, he stereotypically got wrong.
Nazarenes (sometimes called Nazarites) were from Nazareth; Nazarites were those who took a vow not to cut their hair, drink wine, etc. Jesus never took a Nazarite vow. But, then again, Mr. Fugalsang is not a Bible scholar, only a political comedian who writes for the Huffpo and creates comma-challenged memes.
Funny how all of this would have been unnecessary if Mr. Fugalsang had actually read the Bible . . . and a grammar handbook.
Filed under Abortion, America, Apologetics, Bible Study, Jesus, politics
The Recovering Legalist 