googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: July 2010

Thursday, July 15, 2010

What was the rush?

As we close in on the 2 year anniversary of Obama's election, most polls show the President's approval rating isn't so hot. The upcoming elections will no doubt be a referendum on his presidency and it's funny to see how the Democrats are starting to spin. They probably sense their impending doom and are trying to soften the blow when it comes. I could list the many failings of Obama thus far but why bother? Everyone knows the economy is still struggling, people are still out of work, the Bush tax cuts are about to expire, and Obama is at war with banks, insurance companies, and BP. Everyone has also heard his oft repeated excuse, “I didn't make this mess.”

What exactly has Obama done to help create jobs? One of the first acts of his new administration was to push through a $1.5 trillion “stimulus” package aimed at keeping the unemployment rate under 8%. Obviously that was a massive failure since the unemployment later went above 10%. The funny thing about the 2009 stimulus was that most of the money wasn't earmarked to be spent until 2010. Well, here we are midway through 2010 and most of the money STILL hasn't been spent. What are they waiting for? If this package could truly create jobs and help grow the economy, now would be a good time to execute it! I think they're saving it for things like liberal, pet projects and political kickbacks.

The President and Congress are still spending money, of course, as evidenced by the runaway deficit. The budget deficit for this year alone is greater than the combined deficits of all eight years of the Bush presidency. It's just that they're not spending it on things that will help grow the economy. I know I'm just a business major so can someone explain to me how demonizing “big” businesses creates jobs? Aren't businesses the ones who hire people? Oh yeah, the President also has stopped off-shore drilling and is trying to raise our energy bills via cap-and-trade. Again, remind me how that creates jobs?

Now after 18 months on inaction from President Obama, I just remembered something funny. Right after the 2008 election, in the midst of the mortgage banking meltdown, liberal reporters like those on CNN were lamenting that Obama had to wait until January to take office. The fear was that the country literally might not last that long and they were discussing ways Obama might take the reigns sooner. So, what was the rush guys? Do you feel a little foolish because you could not wait for him to take office and start changing things only to see him take office and do nothing?

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Mel Gibson versus Roman Polanski

Mel Gibson is a textbook example to the dangers of drinking. When this guy has had too many, he really has a way of putting his foot in his mouth. The Bible says that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34). Gibson obviously has some issues and, when he drinks, he makes them known. It's a happy coincidence that his most recent episode should occur about the same time Roman Polanski is again in the news because it gives me an opportunity to highlight the shallowness and hypocrisy of the liberal elite in Hollywood.

Gibson has been vilified by the Hollywood left ever since he produced the film, The Passion of Christ. In spite of his own moral turpitude, he really made a good film that has become a standard in the Christian film genre. Since then, he can do nothing right in the eyes of godless celebrities. His recent drunken rant, in which he made some vulgar (and racist) comments to his ex-girlfriend, is simply another log on the fire. He is now officially a misogynist. Certainly I can't defend anything Gibson did but I really can't see why it's become the big deal that it has. When couples argue, they sometimes say things they shouldn't – especially when they're drunk. Gibson is a jerk of the highest order but I don't see things the way the liberals do.

What I think is curious is Hollywood's treatment of Roman Polanski. Here is someone who has plead guilty to giving drugs and alcohol to a minor before sodomizing her. For some reason, the same crowd that decries Gibson adores Polanski. Why is that? I would think that a rapist would qualify as a misogynist more than a drunken jerk. Alas, no. Gibson's true crime is that he is a political conservative and a Christian (though you would hardly know that from his behavior) and, according to liberals, being a Christian is the worst crime of all. All Christians are women-hating, racist, homophobic, bigots. What about people who are truly racist bigots? What about someone like the late Senator Byrd? Again, no. Liberals who actually exhibit sexist and racist behavior are excused while conservatives on whom they can pin the label "racist" or "sexist" are condemned.

So let's get this straight:

A conservative makes some vulgar comments to his girlfriend while drunk and he's fired by his talent agent.
A liberal rapes a 13-year-old girl and gets a lifetime achievement award.
A conservative uses the “n-word” during a heated argument and he is shunned by his peers.
A liberal recruits for the KKK and is made the Senate Majority leader.

How strange.

Liberals are very forgiving of their own. Remember Bill Clinton? When he exposed himself to Paula Jones, somehow he became the victim and she the villain. While President, he admitted to a sexual relationship with a college-aged intern and somehow Monica Lewinski became the predator planted by Republicans. Even when the allegation of a violent rape surfaced, it was dismissed by the left because everyone knows Juanita Broaddrick was lying. That's funny because when Anita Hill claimed that Clarence Thomas made a comment about a pubic hair on his coke can, everyone on the left believed her and was aghast at the abuse she suffered.

That liberals are hypocrites is hardly news. I'm still surprised, though, by the extremes to which they go. For another liberal, no sin is so great that it can't be forgiven; for a conservative, no transgression is so small that it can be overlooked.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Dealing With Bible Difficulties

In past posts, I've written about specific verses in the Bible that some critics claim are “contradictions” or evidence against the Bible's inerrancy. However, lists of supposed errors in the Bible abound. With a little effort, one can find that all alleged errors have likely already been answered many times over. I'm sure that in future posts I will continue to deal with some specific ones but I thought it would be helpful to give a few pointers on a general approach in answering such criticisms.

First, always remember that the word of God is sure (Psalm 19:7). Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away but His words will never pass away (Matthew 24:35, et al). Are you fairly confident that the sun will rise tomorrow? You can be more confident that God's word will never fail. If someone raises a point that you cannot answer, do not despair. It does not mean that there is truly an error in the Bible; it only means you haven't yet learned the answer. Above all else, do not let doubt creep into your mind. Do not fall into the trap of biblical compromise where liberal Christians claim to believe Bible yet simultaneously claim it contains errors. Objections that you can't answer are not signs of defeat but challenges for you to study more.

Secondly, do not delude yourself into believing that you will change the mind of a true critic. Most people who have a long list of Bible criticisms have made up their minds first that they do not want to believe the Bible and then sought ways to attack it. Even if you are able to effectively answer every point raised by such a critic, you will not dissuade him from his unbelief. I have personally seen people with whom I have debated repeat the very same “contradictions” that I've already addressed as though I had said nothing. Such is often the case which is what makes their claims more like canards. Only by God will their hearts ever be turned. Even so, I continue to debate folks like this. The reason I do so, and the reason why I suggest you do as well, is so that uncommitted observers who hear the supposed contradictions will not be fooled by them. When the objective hearer sees these claims have no merit, perhaps he can be persuaded to accept the truth.

With these two things in mind, we are prepared to address the difficulty. You will first want to ask the critic for a specific chapter and verse for the supposed difficulty. Some people are merely repeating criticisms they've heard from someone else and have not ever bothered to read the passages for themselves. You might even ask the critic if he has read the Bible. It sometimes embarrasses a person to argue against something he has never read. Perhaps it might even prompt the person to actually read the Bible and thus give God the opportunity to convict him.

If the person is able to cite a specific passage, do not assume his characterization of the passage is correct. Always look up the passage and read it for yourself. Try reading it in different translations and always read the entire context of the passage. Many times, the context itself will resolve the difficulty.

Next, ask the critic, “why do you think these passages are contradictory” or “how is this an error?” Compel the person to think through his own objection. If he is forced to articulate his argument beyond just a one sentence objection, he might see how weak his position truly is.

If the person still maintains his objection, and if a resolution is not readily apparent after having read the passage yourself, seek out where these questions have been answered before. I don't believe there is any criticism left of the Bible that has not already been commented on it great detail. Try a Google search of the one sentence objection and you're sure to find many answers already written. I caution you though to not cut and paste an answer. Use online articles as references but take a moment to articulate an answer in your own words.

Hopefully, I've these tips will help you the next time someone raises an argument against the Bible. One more thing I might add is that it would be a good idea to read apologetic resources as a matter of routine. Some objections are raised far more often than others. It would be helpfully to have already practiced a response in advance. Remember the commandment we are given in 1 Peter 3:15, “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”