Q & A: Dave Ramsey
Interview by Sarah Pulliam | posted 9/26/2008 11:13AM [Christianity Today]
What do you think of the bailout?
I think it's a disaster. It's the largest government department ever formed in the history of man, and they are doing it in five days, and they are doing it based on a spirit of fear.
There are other things we could be doing to calm markets. All of the Bush administration appears to be in a dead dog panic. I'm afraid it's going to pass, but that doesn't mean we're going to like it.
What do you recommend instead?
Change the market accounting rules. Do away with the capital gains tax, which will cause money to flood into the market instantaneously in 24 hours. Last, if we do need to do some insurance of some of these bonds, we can insure them rather than just buying them all. Only 7 percent of them are in foreclosure, while 93 percent of them are paying, so why are we buying them all—so we can make Paulson king?
Kent comments:
Many people find this whole mess very confusing, because it is. Many financial advisor people are saying that something like what Congress is now trying to do is essential. They are wrong, and Dave Ramsey is exactly right.
Those market accounting rules require that at the end of each day, securities that no one would buy that day be counted as worthless. But a mortgage that no one wants to purchase today is not necessarily worthless. It is worth at least what the property it is on could sell for on the market, which, while it might be lower that it once was, is never nothing.
Dave Ramsey’s prescription would work, and work much better than the proposed total government buyout. But, of course, Congress - especially one controlled by Democrats - is never going to pass any such prescription. Can you guess why?
Because it is a solution that removes power from government, rather than giving government more power. Once you put the words 'remove' next to the word 'tax' Congress is sure to balk. Government meddling in markets is what caused this mess. It can be solved by taking away that very meddling.
But expecting government to limit itself is a bit like expecting water to run uphill.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Don't Know Obama Is Christian
The headline of the Pew Research “daily number” reads:
46% - Don't Know Obama is Christian
Of course, the story that follows is all about the fact that a lot of people don’t know what “he whose middle name must not be spoken” says he is. But I’m not sure I know that Obama is a Christian. He is a politician, after all, and I tend not to believe them.
From every indication - his home church, his ministers, and everything that he says about Christianity - Obama is a follower of liberation theology. Not everything that has ‘theology’ in the name is Christian, and this one is a perfect example of that.
That is not to say that all the other politicians who claim to be Christians in fact are. And I realize that coming to the conclusion I just have is completely forbidden in our culture. Call me skeptical, but just because someone claims something, even - and especially - in religion does not require that I accept it at face value.
Is it not at least of passing interest that everyone wants to make sure we know that Obama is a ‘Christian.’ But whenever our buddy-ette Sarah Palin is connected in some way to Christianity, hands fly up in horror.
“Don’t know” can mean different things in common speech. Sometimes it means “I’m fairly certain this is not the case.” In that case, I’m one of the 46%.
46% - Don't Know Obama is Christian
Of course, the story that follows is all about the fact that a lot of people don’t know what “he whose middle name must not be spoken” says he is. But I’m not sure I know that Obama is a Christian. He is a politician, after all, and I tend not to believe them.
From every indication - his home church, his ministers, and everything that he says about Christianity - Obama is a follower of liberation theology. Not everything that has ‘theology’ in the name is Christian, and this one is a perfect example of that.
That is not to say that all the other politicians who claim to be Christians in fact are. And I realize that coming to the conclusion I just have is completely forbidden in our culture. Call me skeptical, but just because someone claims something, even - and especially - in religion does not require that I accept it at face value.
Is it not at least of passing interest that everyone wants to make sure we know that Obama is a ‘Christian.’ But whenever our buddy-ette Sarah Palin is connected in some way to Christianity, hands fly up in horror.
“Don’t know” can mean different things in common speech. Sometimes it means “I’m fairly certain this is not the case.” In that case, I’m one of the 46%.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Warming Up to John and Sarah
Since the days of Calvin and Hobbes, the “global warming” mania has largely gone without critical examination, at least in the outlets most people watch and read. This presidential election cycle, it has become an issue of some importance.
According to this report:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35009
the Republican presidential ticket is split on the matter of human-caused global warming. Palin thinks global temperature changes are not caused by human activity, McCain thinks it is the case and that we should get on with doing something about it. According to the CNS News report, McCain, in a May 12 speech, had this to say:
“The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise time-line of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."
As detestable as his Democratic opponents are, this point alone makes me shudder at the prospects of a McCain presidency. Part of the problem is the possible lack of homework on the part of the McCain campaign.
First, take a look at this report
http://wegetit.cmail3.com/l/46946/9l1d68t/j
where you can find this chart:
By all the normal measures, the earth has been cooling since 2001. Of course, in the history of the earth, this is not a trend. But in our “news culture” where it would normally be seen as a trend, not a word about it has been mentioned. But when you look at the longer trends, the whole debate becomes at least silly, and at worst sinister. In this article from NOVA
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
you can learn enough (and its not about the global warming debate) to see that the temperature of the earth has been up and down many times, most of it long, long before humans could have had any effect. That the world is warming right now, overall, should surprise no one who has examined earth’s temperature history. That those who love large and powerful governments pervert this into an excuse for more government is not surprising either. What is surprising is that Republicans - people we might expect to be somewhat conservative - should willingly acquiesce to this perversion.
Also, have a look at this collection of scientists:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
31,000 plus of whom will not only dispute McCain’s claim, but will also point out many beneficial results of global warming, should we get some more soon.
Again I say that claims of man-made, harmful global warming is the perfect political football for those who would like to dramatically increase the size and scope of government. These days, this is a given for Democrats. A couple of decades ago, when some Republicans thought “government is the problem, not the solution” you would not have expected this from the GOP.
Most people don’t realize how draconian and devastating to our economy the usually proposed “solutions” to the “problem” of global warming would be. It can be summed up like this: if you are poor, prepare to starve. If you are middle-class, prepare to become poor. If you are rich, prepare to spend a lot of your wealth buying your way around the “solutions” the rest of us will have to suffer.
When the alternative is Barry & Joe, those concerned about this matter might turn to John & Sarah. Even here, we have to wonder about John. If they are elected, perhaps Sarah will convince John - perhaps. Otherwise, prepare for poverty.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Trouble In Paradise
[See the article here.]
The Weekend's TV: There's going to be trouble in paradise
Make Me A Christian, Sun Channel 4; Britain From Above, Sun BBC1
By Gerard Gilbert
Monday, 11 August 2008
The Church of England has enough on its plate without worrying about a new television programme, but if the denizens of Lambeth Palace were watching Make Me a Christian yesterday evening, they should have been depressed by what they saw. The Channel 4 series invited a diverse group of sinners from the Leeds area to sample a Christian life for three weeks under the mentorship of a quartet of dog-collar wearers, and potential viewers would presumably be, if not exactly ripe for conversion, then at least intrigued by what modern Christianity had to offer. Ten minutes into last night's opener and most of them would have fled from this particular path to righteousness. The programme dived head-first into the sort of prescriptive, preachy and judgemental Christianity that puts people off in the first place.
Kent Comments:
I would like to complain, briefly, about these few complaints.
I can imagine the “quartet of dog-collar wearers” as typical “clergy” types who can sometimes be truly off-putting. But apart from that, several things here are worth a second look.
First, is it not typical of people today to think that anything meaningful about Christianity could be “sampled” in a three-week television show? Why take up so much of people’s valuable time? Just offer a few fifteen-second commercial-style spots. That should be enough to “sample” Christianity, shouldn’t it?
Also, is it not typical of recent attitudes to approach the whole matter as a way to see “what modern Christianity had to offer”? You might think we were shopping for socks or something of equal importance. While Christians do receive all sorts of amazing things from God through Jesus Christ, if you approach Christianity on the basis of what it has to offer YOU, you clearly are not yet ready for the Christian faith. Instead, you might want to visit your local discount department store.
Finally, take another look at that last sentence from the article excerpt above. There the writer complains that Christianity is “prescriptive, preachy and judgemental.” Those last two terms are carefully selected for negative connotation. But when you get at the substance of these three things, you find that they are an important part of what Christianity is.
Christianity is prescriptive. God does tells us what to do. If you don’t want to be told what to do, you don’t want to hang around with God. (Hint: that’s why we call Him Lord!)
Christianity does involve preaching. While it is a message of good news, it is not negotiable or customizable in any way. You can take it or leave it. But it is an “all or none” arrangement. If you don’t like that, you won’t like Christianity. (Hint: that is why we talk about repentance which is a very basic change of mind and attitude!)
Christianity does involve judgment. While everyone has heard of John 3:16, just after that comes that horrible declaration that whoever does not believe is condemned already. Which is followed up with “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19 ESV) If you don’t like judgment, you should stay away from the Christian faith.
There really is trouble in paradise. Sin got in when people refused to follow God’s prescriptions. Now we need to repent or face judgment. If all that bothers you terribly, you probably don’t want to be a Christian. Try the local country club instead.
The Weekend's TV: There's going to be trouble in paradise
Make Me A Christian, Sun Channel 4; Britain From Above, Sun BBC1
By Gerard Gilbert
Monday, 11 August 2008
The Church of England has enough on its plate without worrying about a new television programme, but if the denizens of Lambeth Palace were watching Make Me a Christian yesterday evening, they should have been depressed by what they saw. The Channel 4 series invited a diverse group of sinners from the Leeds area to sample a Christian life for three weeks under the mentorship of a quartet of dog-collar wearers, and potential viewers would presumably be, if not exactly ripe for conversion, then at least intrigued by what modern Christianity had to offer. Ten minutes into last night's opener and most of them would have fled from this particular path to righteousness. The programme dived head-first into the sort of prescriptive, preachy and judgemental Christianity that puts people off in the first place.
Kent Comments:
I would like to complain, briefly, about these few complaints.
I can imagine the “quartet of dog-collar wearers” as typical “clergy” types who can sometimes be truly off-putting. But apart from that, several things here are worth a second look.
First, is it not typical of people today to think that anything meaningful about Christianity could be “sampled” in a three-week television show? Why take up so much of people’s valuable time? Just offer a few fifteen-second commercial-style spots. That should be enough to “sample” Christianity, shouldn’t it?
Also, is it not typical of recent attitudes to approach the whole matter as a way to see “what modern Christianity had to offer”? You might think we were shopping for socks or something of equal importance. While Christians do receive all sorts of amazing things from God through Jesus Christ, if you approach Christianity on the basis of what it has to offer YOU, you clearly are not yet ready for the Christian faith. Instead, you might want to visit your local discount department store.
Finally, take another look at that last sentence from the article excerpt above. There the writer complains that Christianity is “prescriptive, preachy and judgemental.” Those last two terms are carefully selected for negative connotation. But when you get at the substance of these three things, you find that they are an important part of what Christianity is.
Christianity is prescriptive. God does tells us what to do. If you don’t want to be told what to do, you don’t want to hang around with God. (Hint: that’s why we call Him Lord!)
Christianity does involve preaching. While it is a message of good news, it is not negotiable or customizable in any way. You can take it or leave it. But it is an “all or none” arrangement. If you don’t like that, you won’t like Christianity. (Hint: that is why we talk about repentance which is a very basic change of mind and attitude!)
Christianity does involve judgment. While everyone has heard of John 3:16, just after that comes that horrible declaration that whoever does not believe is condemned already. Which is followed up with “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19 ESV) If you don’t like judgment, you should stay away from the Christian faith.
There really is trouble in paradise. Sin got in when people refused to follow God’s prescriptions. Now we need to repent or face judgment. If all that bothers you terribly, you probably don’t want to be a Christian. Try the local country club instead.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
I'm Sorry
House Issues An Apology For Slavery
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; Page A03
The House yesterday apologized to black Americans, more than 140 years after slavery was abolished, for the "fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow" segregation.
The resolution, which passed on a voice vote late in the day, was sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a white Jew who represents a majority-black district in Memphis. Cohen tried unsuccessfully to join the Congressional Black Caucus this year.
"I hope that this is part of the beginning of a dialogue that this country needs to engage in, concerning what the effects of slavery and Jim Crow have been," Cohen said. "I think we started it and we're going to continue."
. . . In recent years, black activists seeking reparations for slavery have gotten private companies, such as banks, insurers and railroads, to apologize for playing a role in bankrolling, insuring, capturing and transporting slaves.
In 2005, Wachovia Corp. revealed that one bank it acquired had put thousands of slaves to work on a railroad. That same year, JPMorgan Chase apologized for the role that a subsidiary had played in using 10,000 slaves as collateral and accepting more than 1,000 slaves as payments when owners defaulted on loans.
Kent Comments:
Sportscasters say a lot of really stupid things. One of their stupidities goes something like this: we expect college team A to win today because, over the last thirty years when team A played team B, team A has won 70% of the time.
The problem is that neither of these teams has anything near continuity in a thirty year period. Team A of today is a completely different team today than it was even ten years ago.
Now stupidity is not limited to sportscasters. It can be found in much greater concentrations in Congress. We might ask Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and his dim-witted colleagues a question: to whom are you apologizing? Except for taxpayers, there aren’t that many slaves around today in the U.S.
The weenies at Wachovia Corp. And JPMorgan Chase could be asked some of the same questions. I am just guessing here, but odds are no one connected to either of these companies today has ever owned a slave, or even approves of slave-owning. I could be wrong, but I’m going out on a limb here.
Here is another relevant question: for whom are you apologizing? As far as I know, there are no slave owners represented by Congress today. (Again, it could be argued that taxpayers are slaves to Congress.)
If Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) thinks he and the House of Representatives are apologizing on behalf of those slave owners of 140 years or more ago, perhaps he should not be so presumptuous. Does he think they would all say they are sorry, even if they could say?
Of course, the audacity of Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) should not be underestimated. The same sort of nut case who would have the House apologize to dead people probably thinks he knows what all the dead slave-holders of the past are thinking.
But perhaps this is not so far-fetched. After all, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) is one of the members of Congress. Aren't they seated on high, right next to God - on His left side, of course!
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; Page A03
The House yesterday apologized to black Americans, more than 140 years after slavery was abolished, for the "fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow" segregation.
The resolution, which passed on a voice vote late in the day, was sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a white Jew who represents a majority-black district in Memphis. Cohen tried unsuccessfully to join the Congressional Black Caucus this year.
"I hope that this is part of the beginning of a dialogue that this country needs to engage in, concerning what the effects of slavery and Jim Crow have been," Cohen said. "I think we started it and we're going to continue."
. . . In recent years, black activists seeking reparations for slavery have gotten private companies, such as banks, insurers and railroads, to apologize for playing a role in bankrolling, insuring, capturing and transporting slaves.
In 2005, Wachovia Corp. revealed that one bank it acquired had put thousands of slaves to work on a railroad. That same year, JPMorgan Chase apologized for the role that a subsidiary had played in using 10,000 slaves as collateral and accepting more than 1,000 slaves as payments when owners defaulted on loans.
Kent Comments:
Sportscasters say a lot of really stupid things. One of their stupidities goes something like this: we expect college team A to win today because, over the last thirty years when team A played team B, team A has won 70% of the time.
The problem is that neither of these teams has anything near continuity in a thirty year period. Team A of today is a completely different team today than it was even ten years ago.
Now stupidity is not limited to sportscasters. It can be found in much greater concentrations in Congress. We might ask Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and his dim-witted colleagues a question: to whom are you apologizing? Except for taxpayers, there aren’t that many slaves around today in the U.S.
The weenies at Wachovia Corp. And JPMorgan Chase could be asked some of the same questions. I am just guessing here, but odds are no one connected to either of these companies today has ever owned a slave, or even approves of slave-owning. I could be wrong, but I’m going out on a limb here.
Here is another relevant question: for whom are you apologizing? As far as I know, there are no slave owners represented by Congress today. (Again, it could be argued that taxpayers are slaves to Congress.)
If Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) thinks he and the House of Representatives are apologizing on behalf of those slave owners of 140 years or more ago, perhaps he should not be so presumptuous. Does he think they would all say they are sorry, even if they could say?
Of course, the audacity of Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) should not be underestimated. The same sort of nut case who would have the House apologize to dead people probably thinks he knows what all the dead slave-holders of the past are thinking.
But perhaps this is not so far-fetched. After all, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) is one of the members of Congress. Aren't they seated on high, right next to God - on His left side, of course!
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Homosexual Harassment
'Gay' man sues Bible publishers
$70 million for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sin
July 09, 2008
2008 WorldNetDaily
A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.
Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said.
He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.
Find this complete article at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69147
Kent comments:
You should read this whole article. It is clearly a case of a kook who has been taken seriously. I doubt that this lawsuit will go far, but the fact that can even be filed shows where matters are headed.
Christians are often accused of being hard-hearted and mean-spirited toward homosexuals. There no doubt are examples of that attitude scattered about Christendom. But there is every reason for Christians to react to the aggressive homosexual lobby.
There are probably many people who sin by practicing homosexuality, but do so without advertising that fact or lobbying in various ways to demand that the rest of us approve of their behavior. I can sympathize with anyone who struggles with any sin - don’t we all struggle with some sin or other? I can have a bit of pity for those who have suppressed the knowledge that homosexual practice is a sin.
But my compassion is quickly extinguished by those who not only practice homosexuality, but demand that the rest of us congratulate them for their sinful practice. Those demands are disgusting enough when they are made at a merely “social” level. My respect for free expression requires that I tolerate those demands.
But once those “social” demands are moved to the legal arena, they become an offense against civilization. Historic Christianity teaches, via the scripture, that homosexual practice is a sin. Homosexuals should be politically free to deny that, object to that, or even just ignore that.
But when some homosexuals try to use the government as a weapon against those who want to practice the Christian faith, it is time to give them a verbal and social “smack in the mouth” and simply demand that they mind their own business.
Perhaps it has happened, but I can’t locate any examples of adulterers or fornicators attempting to use the state against the Christian faith. In most cases, they are probably just too busy fornicating to care what anyone else thinks. But this points up the problem here. We have allowed homosexuality to position itself as some kind of special, category supposedly deserving protection from the state.
It is that positioning that Christians should vehemently oppose and condemn. That doesn’t make us mean-spirited. It makes us truthful. Advocates of the historic Christian faith can never approve of homosexual practice. Those homosexuals who can’t respect that need to reconsider the very nature of a free society - the very kind of society that allows them to practice their perversion without criminal or civil penalty.
Is it too much to ask that they reciprocate toward those who would like to try to practice righteousness?
$70 million for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sin
July 09, 2008
2008 WorldNetDaily
A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.
Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said.
He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.
Find this complete article at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69147
Kent comments:
You should read this whole article. It is clearly a case of a kook who has been taken seriously. I doubt that this lawsuit will go far, but the fact that can even be filed shows where matters are headed.
Christians are often accused of being hard-hearted and mean-spirited toward homosexuals. There no doubt are examples of that attitude scattered about Christendom. But there is every reason for Christians to react to the aggressive homosexual lobby.
There are probably many people who sin by practicing homosexuality, but do so without advertising that fact or lobbying in various ways to demand that the rest of us approve of their behavior. I can sympathize with anyone who struggles with any sin - don’t we all struggle with some sin or other? I can have a bit of pity for those who have suppressed the knowledge that homosexual practice is a sin.
But my compassion is quickly extinguished by those who not only practice homosexuality, but demand that the rest of us congratulate them for their sinful practice. Those demands are disgusting enough when they are made at a merely “social” level. My respect for free expression requires that I tolerate those demands.
But once those “social” demands are moved to the legal arena, they become an offense against civilization. Historic Christianity teaches, via the scripture, that homosexual practice is a sin. Homosexuals should be politically free to deny that, object to that, or even just ignore that.
But when some homosexuals try to use the government as a weapon against those who want to practice the Christian faith, it is time to give them a verbal and social “smack in the mouth” and simply demand that they mind their own business.
Perhaps it has happened, but I can’t locate any examples of adulterers or fornicators attempting to use the state against the Christian faith. In most cases, they are probably just too busy fornicating to care what anyone else thinks. But this points up the problem here. We have allowed homosexuality to position itself as some kind of special, category supposedly deserving protection from the state.
It is that positioning that Christians should vehemently oppose and condemn. That doesn’t make us mean-spirited. It makes us truthful. Advocates of the historic Christian faith can never approve of homosexual practice. Those homosexuals who can’t respect that need to reconsider the very nature of a free society - the very kind of society that allows them to practice their perversion without criminal or civil penalty.
Is it too much to ask that they reciprocate toward those who would like to try to practice righteousness?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Progressive?
"Less Political" Christian Colleges: Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia has begun calling itself a "socially progressive" Christian college with a heritage of addressing social justice issues. The school believes faith is best lived out by having a more global perspective, less nationalism, and care for creation. Emphasizing social as well as personal piety, they say they may be different from others schools in that they don't consider their institution a "bastion of social conservatism", but say they have not given up on the meaning of the gospel either. Messiah College, a member of the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), describes their teaching as "gracious Christianity," hoping to move beyond binary political labels" (Inside Higher Education June 30, 2008)
Kent comments:
Picture me sticking a finger down my throat and gagging myself. The motion of “Christian” institutions of all kinds toward wacky-left positions is enough to make anyone sick.
In addition to the general nauseousness evoked by the positions mentioned here, the constant repetition of the buzz phrases is perhaps even more sickening.
There is a reason for all these feelings of soul-shaking illness. Many of these buzz phrases - and the positions to which they are attached - are in fact a thin veneer which, when even slightly scratched, reveals muddled, even downright immoral, ideas and actions.
“Social justice issues” is usually a cover term for all kinds of programs that end up using the government to steal from some in order to create a government-dependent group in others. It is never just, and it is often very anti-social.
That “global perspective, less nationalism” is often a phrase describing the desire take those anti-social programs beyond one nation and impose them on the whole world.
“Care for creation” can’t be taken at face-value anymore. It has become the latest, greatest excuse to remove all individual political and economic liberty and impose fascist bureaucracy that would be pleased to see us all return to serfdom - except, of course, for the “feudal lords” of that bureaucracy.
What is “social piety” other than a pretext for socialism?
Are any of these things really “progressive”? That all depends upon what goal you are progressing toward. If your goal is some socialist utopia, than I suppose these folks are onto something. But if your goal is the fear of God and keeping His commandments, this isn’t progress, no matter how many times you attach the word “Christian” to your college.
Kent comments:
Picture me sticking a finger down my throat and gagging myself. The motion of “Christian” institutions of all kinds toward wacky-left positions is enough to make anyone sick.
In addition to the general nauseousness evoked by the positions mentioned here, the constant repetition of the buzz phrases is perhaps even more sickening.
There is a reason for all these feelings of soul-shaking illness. Many of these buzz phrases - and the positions to which they are attached - are in fact a thin veneer which, when even slightly scratched, reveals muddled, even downright immoral, ideas and actions.
“Social justice issues” is usually a cover term for all kinds of programs that end up using the government to steal from some in order to create a government-dependent group in others. It is never just, and it is often very anti-social.
That “global perspective, less nationalism” is often a phrase describing the desire take those anti-social programs beyond one nation and impose them on the whole world.
“Care for creation” can’t be taken at face-value anymore. It has become the latest, greatest excuse to remove all individual political and economic liberty and impose fascist bureaucracy that would be pleased to see us all return to serfdom - except, of course, for the “feudal lords” of that bureaucracy.
What is “social piety” other than a pretext for socialism?
Are any of these things really “progressive”? That all depends upon what goal you are progressing toward. If your goal is some socialist utopia, than I suppose these folks are onto something. But if your goal is the fear of God and keeping His commandments, this isn’t progress, no matter how many times you attach the word “Christian” to your college.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)