I wrote the following response:

Come on over and join the discussion (but be nice!). I am “ThirstyJon” in the comments. — UPDATE 5/14/2012 — Perhaps it would be better to NOT go over and join the discussion. The author doesn’t seem to like my comment or the fact that I posted it here. Bummer.

I think the confusion is caused by a faulty understanding of how God views all of life. In contemporary Christianity we have so emphasized “spiritual things” while ignoring the fact that both Jesus and the whole Bible address all of life. We have decided that some areas of our lives and societies are “spiritual” and “holy” while other areas are somehow evil and unworthy of attention in Christian Discipleship; yet both Old and the New Testaments spend considerable amounts of time teaching us how to live our lives in every area!

Could it be that when we follow Jesus we begin to redeem everything?

Notice in the Matthew 28 passage that “all authority” has been given to Jesus and therefore…  [Read More]

Homeschooling families will soon be forbidden from teaching that homosexual sex is sinful as part of their schooling program, according to the government of Alberta, Canada.

Under the province’s Education Act, homeschoolers and religious schools will be banned from “disrespecting” people’s differences, Alberta Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk’s office told LifeSiteNews just last week.

“Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate disrespect for differences,” said Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications. “You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction.”  [Read More]

Click here to view the embedded video.

So what do you think, should we as Christians vote for a Mormon over Barack Obama if Mitt Romney is the Republican Nominee?

Your thoughts?

Honestly, religion and politics should never mix. Government is there to provide services for the people not to convert people to Christianity. I hope politicians will never be voted into office based on their faith rather than their morals or goals.

Here is my response:

Hello Austin, welcome to The Thirst for Freedom!

You made a pretty strong, dogmatic, and absolute statement (or series of statements) without providing any reasoning. I would like to hear your reasons for your assertions.

Your currently undefended statements (with my responses/questions):

1. “Religion and Politics should never mix.” Why do you say that? What do you mean by “religion” and what do you mean by “politics?”
2. “Government is there to provide services for people.” What do you base that assertion on?
3. “Government is there … not to convert people to Christianity.” Well, I agree with that one. I don’t know anyone and haven’t heard of anyone in contemporary times who believes that “government” is for the purpose of converting people to anything.
4. [By Implication] “politicians [should not be] voted into office based on their faith rather than their morals or goals.” How is it possible to have morals outside of a religious worldview? Where do the morals come from? Is it possible to NOT have a religious worldview of some kind? Even atheists choose a religious worldview. They sometimes choose a system of beliefs based on naturalism that is in every way “religious” and then don’t allow their worldview to be analyzed “religiously” by insisting that their religious belief system is not “religious” because they do not believe in God.

Some thoughts: When you say “religion and politics should never mix” you imply that any ideas about God/Truth/Worldview/Etc. should not be included in our reasonings about how to implement a civil government. This is IMPOSSIBLE. I think if you say “government does not exist to force people to believe in a certain religious system” we can agree, but it is impossible for a religious worldview to not influence what principles of civil government we live out.

One reason that we do NOT want your view of government but instead would prefer a Christian system of government is this: In a Biblical Christian Worldview civil government exists to defend life, liberty and property by punishing those who would violate these things. The result is a system where men are free to pursue there own destinies. Ironically, an Atheist or a Muslim or a Jew, or any other kind of belief would be more free under a Christian system of government!

Now just to clarify, by “Christian system of government” I do NOT mean a system of government run by a church organization or by “religious authorities.” I mean a system of government based on Christian principles as revealed in the Bible.

Finally, your attempt to separate “faith” from “morals and goals” is futile. Everyone derives their morals and goals based on their core worldview beliefs. Everyone’s core worldview beliefs are derived from “religion” or whatever it is they choose to believe about God. While I would agree with the idea that it is an over simplification to decide who to vote for based on what faith they profess or what religion they identify with, to deny those things as real factors in “what makes the man” would be unwise.

So, hopefully Austin, you will come back and offer some reasons for your bold and dogmatic assertions. They are very empty without some explanation.

I once heard R.C. Sproul give this definition: “That which corresponds to reality.”

One of the interesting things about a Biblical Christian Worldview is that it assumes the existence of an absolute objective truth that is external to mankind.

We are not the source of truth. Our opinions or preferences do not decide what is true. There is a real truth that is really real and it proceeds from God, not from us.

Jesus said that He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Jesus is the truth! There is no truth outside of Him.

So why does this matter?

Because it has huge implications on the way people think today. A common thought today is the absurd notion that truth is a matter of personal preference.

I remember someone that I knew back in the late 1980s. I used to speak to this person about the reality of the One True God. This person, however, insisted that “that’s what’s true for you, but that’s not what’s true for me!”

The world wants there to be “tolerance,” yet the one thing nobody wants to tolerate is that which is Really Real – Real Live Truth.

How do we know truth?

1. Nature – The Bible says in Romans 1:20 that all of creation testifies to God. Nature is a source of truth.
2. Conscience/Intuition – The Bible also says in Romans 2:14 that man has the law written on His conscience. God has put something in us that knows His Truth on some level!
3. The Holy Spirit – John 16:13 says the the Holy Spirit guides believers into all truth.
4. The Written Word of God (The Bible) – We have only one external, objective and authoritative source of truth – The 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

I suspect that we as human beings were designed to know Truth primarily through relating to God, but because of sin our perception of nature, our conscience, and our sensing of the Holy Spirit is all prone to deception. Thus God brought into the world an external objective source of truth in the Bible. Although we can even deceive ourselves about what that says!

Eastern Worldview denies any real objective truth. Naturalistic worldviews say that real reality only consists of nature itself.

But the Christian Worldview holds that God Himself is the Truth, and therefore the source of all truth.

So when you are trying to analyze the world around you and make applicaton of truth, remember that your nature and your conscience are sources of truth, the Holy Spirit will lead you into truth, but the Revealed Written word of God trumps an other perception of truth!

Here is one of my responses:

(Article Continues Below)

Hello again Chris!

Thanks for your reply.

I am not sure how to respond to what you have said about the dating of the book not mattering. Understanding the context is one of the key and most basic elements of interpreting any scripture. I noticed that you said “It seems to me that what John wrote about were future, end-times events.” Are you sure you want to base your interpretation based on “it seems” which is basically an impression?

In case there is confusion about what I meant by “dating” I am referring to WHEN the book was written. I am pretty sure that if you go to any Bible College or read any book on scripture interpretation there will be an almost universal support in all of Christendom for considering the context (include To Whom a book is written and WHEN) when finding an interpretation!

I am guessing that somehow there is a misunderstanding of what I mean by “dating” here. I doubt that you actually mean that when the book was written doesn’t effect it’s interpretation!

Your thoughts?

Is the End of the World in Your Future?

On another topic: I’m not sure that what-people-want-to-talk-about (i.e. “people are interested in the end of the world”) has any bearing on what is or is not true. One of the great things about the Bible is that it starts out with a clear defining of “what is the basic nature of reality” which could also be stated as “what is truth.” Genesis begins by describing a world that is real and comes from a source external to our perception (“In the beginning, GOD created!”). In other words, what is true is REALLY true whether or not you or I or anybody else believes it or wants to know about it or not!

I bring this up because “this is what people want to know about” may have some relevance to evangelism strategy, but it has no relevance to “what is truth” and can be a very slippery slope into making truth fuzzy for the purpose of “reaching” people. The problem is, if you reach people with “what they are looking for” instead of with what actually IS you end up with people converted to a false view of God!

Having said that, I have actually observed that many of the people that I talk to and interact with are not very interested in the end-of-the-world Christianity that has been so popular in the United States. Human beings seem to intuitively know that there is a right way to live and a right way to order life and society. They don’t know what it is and come up with some pretty scary counterfeits, but even atheists try to claim an “ethic” in life!

The end-of-the-world obsessed brand of Christianity has happened to result in a Christianity that doesn’t offer enough principle to guide us in how to live our lives and order our societies. As the saying goes “you don’t polish the brass on a sinking ship!”

Of course, if an apocalyptic focused Christianity is what God intended than it doesn’t really matter. We must believe, live, and preach the truth whether or not it is what people want or not!

Fortunately, the end-of-the-world obsessed version of Christianity is not really what the Bible presents. The Bible presents a comprehensive view of how to live all of life (including everything from eternal salvation to marriage to economics and to civil government)!

God created people to live all-of-life. This fact, ironically, seems to make it so that a comprehensive all-of-life “Gospel of the Kingdom of God” seems to have a much more powerful converting effect than a “get ready for the end of the world” focus. It produces better results in the long term development of Christian Society as well.

Blessings!

An obvious parallel to the upcoming trial in Guantanamo is the Nuremburg trial conducted after the defeat of the Third Reich. There, while the whole world watched, the Allies conducted a very dignified and responsible trial of the Nazi war criminals. It’s one of the most remarkable chapters in the history of Western civilization.

Unfortunately, a global audience is all the two events will have in common. In 1945, people really believed there was a knowable universal moral law that reflected the consensus and judgment of every civilized nation through human history.

Today, there is hardly a campus in America today where relativism is not taught: it is a matter of, well, faith that all ideas are equal, that truth claims are mere preferences, and that there is no objective moral order.

[Read More]

From Breakpoint.org:

“Christians believe that everyone is welcome at the foot of the cross — but we also believe with German martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer that ‘When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.’

“That’s why Stanley Fish is right in saying that a crucifix can never be what the court called ‘an essentially passive symbol.’

“On that point, I wholeheartedly agree with him. Religious symbols matter because they convey meaning, and that’s why we Christians support the right to display them. Without that meaning, without Christ’s death and resurrection, the cross doesn’t matter — and neither does our faith.

“This is the liberal cause: strip all sacred symbols and words of their meaning….”

[Read More]

From AmericanVision.org:

The reservation Indian is becoming less self-sufficient and more dependent upon what he calls “the Great White Father in Washington.” Instead of freedom, the Indian has government-guaranteed “security.” Instead of individual responsibility, he has a government bureau to handle his personal affairs. There are special laws governing his right to own land and to spend tribal money. Under that system of bondage it would surprise no one to find that many thousands of Indians have remained uneducated, hungry, diseased, and mismanaged.

[Read More]