Chained to falsehood

PLUKEVDH SAID:

“That may be so, but tell me why your voice is not among theirs voting against Obama if you feel so strongly? Why do you rather sit here an criticize while not exercising the decision-making power you have?”

You don’t know the first thing about my voting habits. For the record, I voted in the SC primary. I voted in the GOP primary. And I voted for Huckabee.

Try not to raise foolhardy objections.

“You focused only on the divisive statement, not the fact that Obama agreed that they were wrong.”

That’s because I’m allowed to distinguish between my priorities and Obama’s. Obama and his supporters like to impute erroneous motives to his critics, then knock down the straw man they’ve erected. I reserve the right to clarify my own objections.

“This statement is incredibly judgemental and self-righteous. Who are you to make judgement of Obama's faith in this way?”

i) And it’s incredibly judgmental and self-righteous of your to pronounce a value-judgment on my statement. Who are you to judge me in this way?

ii) The Bible enjoins Christian believers to be wary of false teachers. So that’s what gives me the right to be “judgmental.”

iii) Obama belongs to a theologically far left denomination. And his social policies are contrary to Biblical ethics. So, yes, I’m entitled to compare his profession of faith with the rule of faith, and find that he doesn’t measure up.

The burden of proof is on a putative believer to offer a credible profession of faith.

“What does that even mean?”

To take an example: If a woman allows herself to be impregnated by her boyfriend du jour, she’ll be a single mom—assuming she carries the pregnancy to term. That’s a recipe for financial hardship.

In addition, the father of the boy won’t be around to advise him and correct him. And if she’s the sole breadwinner, then she won’t be around to monitor him either. That’s a recipe for juvenile delinquency.

“You seem to be opposing all of Obama's statements, but not arguing and real ideas for change. This doesn't do anything but create anger and division while not doing anything to help the problems Obama is at least calling for change in. Maybe Obama won't do what he says, but maybe his voice for a need for change is better than yelling at those who are calling for change.”

i) Oh, I do have my own ideas for change. We should raise boys according to the Book of Proverbs.

We should take a cue from OT penology. Those who commit property crimes should make restitution to their victims. Career criminals or heinous offenders should be executed.

We should replace welfare with workfare. Men and women should marry before they have kids. We should lower the tax burden so that families can afford to support themselves. I could go down the list.

ii) Change for the sake of change is no improvement. In Obama’s case (as well as Billary’s), it would be a change for the worse.

“What does your church look like on Sunday morning? Predominantly white? Isn't the statement Obama made true?”

i) Like a lot of illogical people, you don’t know what it means to answer someone on his own grounds. Obama made an issue of segregated churches. It’s therefore hypocritical of him to attend a racially homogenous church.

ii) I’m not the one who said that white churches or black churches are bad. Therefore, even if I attended a white church, it wouldn’t be inconsistent of me to answer Obama on his own grounds. I’m measuring him by his yardstick, not my own. Are you intellectually capable of absorbing that elementary distinction?

iii) There is also a difference between a black church and a black nationalist church, just as there’s a difference between a white church and a white supremacist church.

One might attend a white or black church for purely demographic reasons. Or one might attend a white or black church for purely stylistic reasons.

BTW, I agree with Gene about joint services.

iv) For the record, I attended a black church for a number of years back in the 80s. From time to time I also attended Ken Hutcherson’s multiethnic church (Antioch Bible Church). For a time I also attended a Messianic congregation. So my church attendance has been racially or ethnically diverse over the years.

Once again, try not to raise foolhardy objections.

“Your statement may be true, but it smacks of a very misinformed or ignorant position on the issues social movements of the early 1900's and its continuation into the current day.”

So a statement can both be true and very misinformed, all at the same time. You have a very flexible definition of truth.

“We can't be looking to politicians to correct all social ills, the answer to racism, poverty, homosexuality or abortion. That should be the church's job.”

Politicians like Obama (and Billary) help to create or exacerbate social ills by their immoral or misguided social policies.

To take one example: the church can’t very well correct the social ill of homosexuality if it becomes a hate crime to even criticize the homosexual lifestyle.

“And when the only thing that the church does (or the church's people do) is sit and criticize politicians for the things they say, thinking that their candidate will make more of a change than another one, while never looking to be the solution to any of the problems, they are just as hypocritical as any politician I've ever known.”

i) Actually, I pointed to individuals like John Perkins who has been offering a practical alternative for years.

ii) At the same time, *your* problem isn’t necessarily *my* problem. I’m not personally responsible for every social ill. And I’m not personally responsible for the solution to every social ill. There’s such a thing as individual accountability.

“Is it any wonder that the world thinks we hate everyone and are hypocritical and judgmental?”

i) Is it any wonder that they feel this way when folks like you contribute to that misperception by you sloppy and defamatory accusations?

ii) Not that you care about the Bible, but Jesus predicted that the world would look down on Christians precisely because we’re not of the world.