WorldNetDaily posted an article today reminding us that the Fort Hood terrorist, Malik Nadal Hassan, was not the only Muslim military man charged or convicted of terrorism or espionage. WND lists almost a dozen other cases. Read the article in WorldNetDaily.
And yet the Army Chief of Staff and the Homeland Security Secretary both seem more concerned about a backlash against Muslims than they are about radical Muslims in the military.
Political correctness is now killing us...literally!
Monday, November 09, 2009
Hasan, Bush, Obama and Clouseau
The more we learn about Malik Nadal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, the more it becomes clear that he was not just mentally disturbed (though he certainly was!) but the massacre he committed was an act of jihadist terrorism--the worst terrorist act in America since 9/11 (in fact, the only terrorist attack since 9/11)!
A caller to a radio program today speculated that one reason the mainstream media may be struggling so hard to portray Hasan as anything but a Muslim terrorist, is because if this was a terrorist attack, it would be a significant a failure by the Obama administration.
George W. Bush kept America safe from terrorist attacks for seven years, but because of the Left's obsession with political correctness, America was attacked in the very first year of the Obama administration, even though Hasan left enough clues that even Insptector Jacques Clouseau could have followed!
I'd like to say that the caller was right and that Obama's policies are making us less safe (which is true), but candor forces me to admit that this political correctness nonsense was perpetrated by the Bush administration as well.
As I wrote in my last post, political correctness is now getting us killed...literally!
A caller to a radio program today speculated that one reason the mainstream media may be struggling so hard to portray Hasan as anything but a Muslim terrorist, is because if this was a terrorist attack, it would be a significant a failure by the Obama administration.
George W. Bush kept America safe from terrorist attacks for seven years, but because of the Left's obsession with political correctness, America was attacked in the very first year of the Obama administration, even though Hasan left enough clues that even Insptector Jacques Clouseau could have followed!
I'd like to say that the caller was right and that Obama's policies are making us less safe (which is true), but candor forces me to admit that this political correctness nonsense was perpetrated by the Bush administration as well.
As I wrote in my last post, political correctness is now getting us killed...literally!
Another misunderstanding of Islam
According to Jihad Watch, "Anwar al-Awlaki is the former imam of the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, which Hasan frequented -- as did three of the 9/11 hijackers."
On his website, Mr. al-Awlaki posted the following about Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood, terrorist:
On his website, Mr. al-Awlaki posted the following about Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood, terrorist:
Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn't exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.Apparently al-Awlaki is just another one of those unfortunate Muslim Imam's who doesn't understand Islam as well as the American Left.
Fort Hood shooter tried to contack al Qaeda
While even this morning talking heads seem to be desperately trying distance the Fort Hood shooter from his religion, ABC News is reporting,
U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, to American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.The Left's national obsession with political correctness is now killing us....literally!
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Politically correct generals and politicians
According to the New York Times,
Frankly, I'm even more concerned about politically correct generals and politicians than I am about radical Muslims.
General George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said on Sunday that he was concerned that speculation about the religious beliefs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian and wounding dozens of others in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”According to the Associated Press, the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano,
says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday's rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Let me get this straight. A radical Muslim soldier slaughters 13 fellow soldiers in cold blood and seriously wounds 31 others, and these people are apparently more concerned about the safety of Muslim soldiers than they about the possibility of other closet radicals in the military!?
Frankly, I'm even more concerned about politically correct generals and politicians than I am about radical Muslims.
One step closer to socialism
Thanks to our democratic socialists, we are one step closer to socialism this morning, not to mention being another trillion plus dollars in debt!
The Democrats rammed their nearly two thousand page health care bill--which I doubt that many, if any have actually read--through the House last night, over the objections of all but one RINO.
What was that about promising to be bi-partisan?
Now its on to the Senate.
The Democrats rammed their nearly two thousand page health care bill--which I doubt that many, if any have actually read--through the House last night, over the objections of all but one RINO.
What was that about promising to be bi-partisan?
Now its on to the Senate.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Breaking: Stupak Amendment
Tweet from Jordan Sekulow: "Stupak-Pits amend, preventing fed & taxpayer funding of abortion through HR 3962, passes 240 - a great victory for pro-life movement
Fort Hood shooter and 9/11 hijackers
It turns out that Major Nidal Malik Hasan attended the same mosque at the same time as two of the 9/11 terrorists, and was an admirer of the radical Imam who preached at that mosque.
I'm sure that is just a strange coincidence. Just because he attended a radical mosque and admired a radical Imam doesn't make him a terrorist, though it would make you wonder if he was a radical.
I am wondering, however: Is Major Hasan just an anomaly or are there others like him who have been overlooked by national our obsession with political correctness?
I am not suggesting, of course, that all Muslim's are radicals. Far from it. But I am wondering if political correctness has caused our government to overlook a few radicals who may have infiltrated our military and government.
Perhaps its time for a second look, for the sake of national security.
I'm sure that is just a strange coincidence. Just because he attended a radical mosque and admired a radical Imam doesn't make him a terrorist, though it would make you wonder if he was a radical.
I am wondering, however: Is Major Hasan just an anomaly or are there others like him who have been overlooked by national our obsession with political correctness?
I am not suggesting, of course, that all Muslim's are radicals. Far from it. But I am wondering if political correctness has caused our government to overlook a few radicals who may have infiltrated our military and government.
Perhaps its time for a second look, for the sake of national security.
On self-esteem
Perhaps we should re-think our society's emphasis on self-esteem with a bit more skepticism:
I don't think he is attacking the idea of self-esteem as much as he is attacking the cult of self-esteem which, in my opinion, took over our schools and brainwashed an entire generation into a mindset that has resulted in increasingly rude, crude, self-absorbed and even violent behavior. That was never the intention of the movement, of course, but it may well have been an unintended result.
Dr. Pearsall argues that we would do well to stop focusing so much on ourselves and start focusing more on our relationships with others.
"The psychologist Roy Baumeister has conducted more studies on self-esteem than any other researcher I know of. H wrote: 'The enthusiastic claims of the self-esteem movement mostly range from fantasy to hogwash.'Unlike many of the well-known self-help "experts" (you know the names), Dr. Pearsall is a clinical psychologist, a university professor and an "internationally recognized neuropsychologist. He explains self-esteem much better than this short quote, of course.
Baumeister found in his research that those with the highest self-esteem were often more likely to be obnoxious, to interrupt, and to lecture people instead of speaking to them with respect...Some of the world's worst villains have had 'high self-esteem." Violent gang leaders usually think highly of themselves, and some of the current rogues in the growing gallery of corporate corruption, who have been strong advocates of self-potentialism and personal power seminars, have recently demonstrated the perils of relentlessly high self-esteem.
The self-help answer to all this is that those who do wrong may appear to have high self esteem but they really suffer from latent low self esteem in need of more elevationg. Again, research does not support this 'fact" (Pearsall, Paul. The Last Self-Help Book You'll Ever Need." New York, Basic Books, 2006, 126-127).
I don't think he is attacking the idea of self-esteem as much as he is attacking the cult of self-esteem which, in my opinion, took over our schools and brainwashed an entire generation into a mindset that has resulted in increasingly rude, crude, self-absorbed and even violent behavior. That was never the intention of the movement, of course, but it may well have been an unintended result.
Dr. Pearsall argues that we would do well to stop focusing so much on ourselves and start focusing more on our relationships with others.
Kimberley Munley: a true American hero
You are looking at a true American hero.
After shouting Allah Akbar! Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers, seriously wounded 31 others, and would no doubt have continued his massacre were it not for the courageous actions of Kimberley Munley.
Ms. Munley, a police officer and mother, took down this very well armed jihadist perpetrator of the worst terrorist attack against America since 911, and she did it after being shot herself! I can't help thinking that she didn't have to do this. She could have hid behind a car and waited for backup--and paramedics.
I hope President Obama gives her a commendation.
Read the story at TimesOnline.
Anti-Muslim backlash from Fort Hood shooting
Very short, but excellent article by Robert Spencer on the anti-Muslim backlash from the Fort Hood shooting. Check it out.
Friday, November 06, 2009
But Judaism and Christianity are violent too!
As I listen to the talking heads in the media who are practically beside themselves trying to come up with a politically correct explanation for the Fort Hood shooting it becomes more and more painfully clear that they really don't get it!
In the Middle East Quarterly, Raymound Ibrahim asks, "Are Judaism and Christianity as violent as Islam?" Although this article was written before the shooting, it is clear that Mr. Ibrahim understands. He gets it! In light of Iran's nuclear weapon program, if America doesn't wake up and "get it" too, our future may be very bleak indeed.
If you only read one article this week, please, please read this one! In fact, send it to all your friends.
In the Middle East Quarterly, Raymound Ibrahim asks, "Are Judaism and Christianity as violent as Islam?" Although this article was written before the shooting, it is clear that Mr. Ibrahim understands. He gets it! In light of Iran's nuclear weapon program, if America doesn't wake up and "get it" too, our future may be very bleak indeed.
If you only read one article this week, please, please read this one! In fact, send it to all your friends.
Iran and advanced nuclear warhead design
Fox News reported tonight what Recliner Commentaries reported yesterday (we got it from the same source--UK's Guardian) that is, that Iran is working on advanced nuclear warhead design.
Congressman Peter Hoekstra is calling for a re-assessment of Iranian intelligence saying that the previous report by the IAEA which said that Iran had halted all nuclear activity was wrong.
Ya think?!
Congressman Peter Hoekstra is calling for a re-assessment of Iranian intelligence saying that the previous report by the IAEA which said that Iran had halted all nuclear activity was wrong.
Ya think?!
ACORN offices raided
According to the Associated Press, the Attorney General's office in Louisiana has raided ACORN offices in New Orleans.
Not ACORN! That bastion of ethics and integrity--and former employer of our President.
Not ACORN! That bastion of ethics and integrity--and former employer of our President.
Gold has never dropped to zero
I keep seeing these commercials for gold that emphasize that the value of gold has never dropped to zero. That is apparently supposed to inspire my confidence in gold.
I can't help thinking that even if the engine of my old car seized up, the car died in front of an on coming train, and that train smashed the car almost beyond recognition--the value of the car would still not drop to zero because some things would be undamaged and could be sold for parts (door handles? gas or break peddles, a hub cap or gear shift? etc.).
I have no idea whether gold is a good investment, but the assertion that the value of gold has never dropped to zero inspires my skepticism, not confidence.
I can't help thinking that even if the engine of my old car seized up, the car died in front of an on coming train, and that train smashed the car almost beyond recognition--the value of the car would still not drop to zero because some things would be undamaged and could be sold for parts (door handles? gas or break peddles, a hub cap or gear shift? etc.).
I have no idea whether gold is a good investment, but the assertion that the value of gold has never dropped to zero inspires my skepticism, not confidence.
Nidal Hasan and the Homeland Security Policy Institute
It appears that the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, had been "a participant in a Homeland Security Policy Institute's presidential transition task force last year." The Homeland Security Policy Institute is an independent thinktank that drafted "policy recommendations for the incoming Obama administration." See Jihad Watch for the story.
Fort Hood shooter: "Allah Akbar!"
While the news media--even on Fox!--was still talking about unknown motives of the Fort Hood shooter and speculating that he may have had PTSD, an article from the UK "Metro" says,
Can we suspect jihad yet?
The army major who went on a shooting rampage that left 13 people dead at Fort Hood military base shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' before opening fire.See also Jihad Watch for another report.
Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said that suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, yelled out the Arabic for "God is great!" before the rampage that also left 30 people wounded.
Can we suspect jihad yet?
Unemployment now over 10%
Breaking News from USA Today e-mail: "The unemployment rate has surpassed 10% for the first time since 1983 and is likely to go higher. Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended."
I wonder how high it has to go before Democrats recognize that the stimulus package just did not work.
I wonder how high it has to go before Democrats recognize that the stimulus package just did not work.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Pelosi goes back on her word
According to the Weekly Standard blog,
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the speaker will not allow the final language of the health care to be posted online for 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote on the House floor, despite her September 24 statement that she was "absolutely" committed to doing so.
Iran: advanced nuclear warhead design
According to the Guardian:
The UN's nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian has learned.
The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are apparently too busy destroying our health care system to worry about such trivialities as a country that wants to destroy the West and is developing missiles and nuclear warheads to do it. Besides, Iran says they just want nuclear power for energy.The very existence of the technology, known as a "two-point implosion" device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design. The development was today described by nuclear experts as "breathtaking" and has added urgency to the effort to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.
Fort Hood shooter: "Fight against the aggressor"
Fox News is now reporting that the Fort Hood shooter did not did as previously reported. He is also reported to have said, "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor."
Slaughter in Fort Hood Texas
12 soldiers have been shot and 30 wounded at Fort Hood Texas. The shooter has been identified as Major Malik Nadal Hasan (ABC News). There are two others in custody.
UPDATE: The shooter is from Virginia and is a convert to Islam.
UPDATE: I'm sure no one has ever accused Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) of beating around the bush. She leaves no doubt where she stands....and she may be right.
UPDATE: The shooter is from Virginia and is a convert to Islam.
UPDATE: I'm sure no one has ever accused Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) of beating around the bush. She leaves no doubt where she stands....and she may be right.
Finding God before its too late
This falls in the category of, "if you only read one article today, please read this one!"
According to Snopes.com (which verifies or debunks rumors) the article below is genuine (hat tip: WHR).
Remarks from CBS Sunday Morning - Ben Stein
Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
According to Snopes.com (which verifies or debunks rumors) the article below is genuine (hat tip: WHR).
Remarks from CBS Sunday Morning - Ben Stein
Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Hate crimes and right wing talk shows
The ink is barely dry on the Democrats' hate crimes legislation when the first shot against freedom of speech is already being fired.
The "So we might see coalition" of Leftists and apostate churches has launched a petition calling on the FCC to investigate the connection between media "hate speech" and violence, specifically citing Rush Limbaugh as an example.
After Rush Limbaugh said something about illegal immigrants, some thugs apparently beat up two Mexican men. It doesn't matter that Rush Limbaugh never advocated or incited violence and in fact, the petition doesn't even say whether the thugs had even listened to Rush Limbaugh. It was apparently enough for the "So we might see coalition" that Rush Limbaugh is against illegal immigration so he must be the reason for the violence!
This is precisely the kind of thing that has been used in Canada and Australia to squash free speech and shut down intellectual opposition to Left wing agendas. The very idea that Rush Limbaugh or anyone else should come under government investigation simply for expressing his opinion on the air is fundamentally un-American!
The "So we might see coalition" is appropriately named because they are truly blind.
The "So we might see coalition" of Leftists and apostate churches has launched a petition calling on the FCC to investigate the connection between media "hate speech" and violence, specifically citing Rush Limbaugh as an example.
After Rush Limbaugh said something about illegal immigrants, some thugs apparently beat up two Mexican men. It doesn't matter that Rush Limbaugh never advocated or incited violence and in fact, the petition doesn't even say whether the thugs had even listened to Rush Limbaugh. It was apparently enough for the "So we might see coalition" that Rush Limbaugh is against illegal immigration so he must be the reason for the violence!
This is precisely the kind of thing that has been used in Canada and Australia to squash free speech and shut down intellectual opposition to Left wing agendas. The very idea that Rush Limbaugh or anyone else should come under government investigation simply for expressing his opinion on the air is fundamentally un-American!
The "So we might see coalition" is appropriately named because they are truly blind.
More kids worshiping Obama
Some time ago Recliner Commentaries posted a YouTube video of elementary school children singing the praises of Barack Obama. As it turns out, that one was actually quite tame. In the video below grade school kids look like they are bowing in honor or worship as an Obama speech is being played (though I'm sure the school would say it was just for dramatic effect). Then the kids sing:
Barack Obama there is none higher
Other politicians should call me sire
To burn my kingdom you must use fire
I create change till I retire!
"There is none higher"? Are you kidding me? This sounds like something out of North Korea, Saddam's Iraq or Nazi Germany. But there's more. Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog has posted almost a dozen similar videos.
Can you imagine the absolute--and justifiable--outrage that would have irrupted by Hollywood and the media if public schools had been producing such propaganda in favor of George W. Bush?
Shouldn't all Americans be concerned when government brainwashes our children to sing the praises (literally) of a particular party or leader?
Barack Obama there is none higher
Other politicians should call me sire
To burn my kingdom you must use fire
I create change till I retire!
"There is none higher"? Are you kidding me? This sounds like something out of North Korea, Saddam's Iraq or Nazi Germany. But there's more. Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog has posted almost a dozen similar videos.
Can you imagine the absolute--and justifiable--outrage that would have irrupted by Hollywood and the media if public schools had been producing such propaganda in favor of George W. Bush?
Shouldn't all Americans be concerned when government brainwashes our children to sing the praises (literally) of a particular party or leader?
The future of the Web
Google's CEO gives his view of what the Web will look like in five years. Interesting stuff.
Government funding of healthcare prayer
According to the Los Angeles Times, "a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses."
Assuming that the LA Times didn't just make this up, if this provision was meant to prevent discrimination in health care funding to Catholic or other church operated hospitals and clinics, it would be a good thing.
If the bill was poorly worded to allow funding of Christian Science or other prayer healing, it would be disastrous! The bill would open the floodgates of religious cult prayer clinics that would leach off your insurance companies! Can you imagine what this would do to the cost of health care?
Critics, including atheists, are predictably opposed to the measure. It's not often I find myself on the same side as atheists but in this case I am--not on the basis of church/state separation--but because this is just one more case where the health care debate is much more about politics than health care, and where Democrats are significantly overstepping their Constitutional authority.
In the mean time, if you ever encounter any group that charges you to pray for them you may be in a cult so run, don't walk, to the nearest exit!
The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.I did a search of both the House and Senate versions of the healthcare bill and was unable to find the phrase "religious and spiritual healthcare" in either one.
The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments -- which substitute for or supplement medical treatments -- on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against "religious and spiritual healthcare."
Assuming that the LA Times didn't just make this up, if this provision was meant to prevent discrimination in health care funding to Catholic or other church operated hospitals and clinics, it would be a good thing.
If the bill was poorly worded to allow funding of Christian Science or other prayer healing, it would be disastrous! The bill would open the floodgates of religious cult prayer clinics that would leach off your insurance companies! Can you imagine what this would do to the cost of health care?
Critics, including atheists, are predictably opposed to the measure. It's not often I find myself on the same side as atheists but in this case I am--not on the basis of church/state separation--but because this is just one more case where the health care debate is much more about politics than health care, and where Democrats are significantly overstepping their Constitutional authority.
In the mean time, if you ever encounter any group that charges you to pray for them you may be in a cult so run, don't walk, to the nearest exit!
Gay marriage loses in Maine
According to the Associated Press via Big Government.com:
Gay marriage has now lost in every single state—31 in all—in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine—known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate—and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.No wonder gay activists want to force gay marriage on Americans by legal force. Americans do not want marriage re-defined.With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the votes.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Chris Christie projected to win New Jersey
Fox News is projecting that Republican Chris Christie will win the New Jersey Governor race.
Republican McDonnell projected to win Virginia
Fox News is projecting Republican Robert McDonnell as the next governor of Virginia.
Congressional ethics investigations: Racist?
According to Politico:
I have a suggestion. Rather than whining and playing the race card, I would suggest that if these outraged congresspersons know of any white, Asian or Hispanic members of congress who are violating ethics rules, then by all means, please do the country a big favor and turn them in!
Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus are outraged by this, apparently suspecting racism by the ethics committee (which, by the way, is controlled by the Democrats).The House ethics committee is currently investigating seven African-American lawmakers — more than 15 percent of the total in the House. And an eighth black member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), would be under investigation if the Justice Department hadn’t asked the committee to stand down.
Not a single white lawmaker is currently the subject of a full-scale ethics committee probe.
I have a suggestion. Rather than whining and playing the race card, I would suggest that if these outraged congresspersons know of any white, Asian or Hispanic members of congress who are violating ethics rules, then by all means, please do the country a big favor and turn them in!
The worst bill ever!
Read why the Democrats' health care bill may very well be "among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated" (Wall Street Journal).
On Thursday there is going to be a rally on the steps of the Capital in Washington DC in opposition to this worst bill ever. If you live within a few hundred miles of DC, please attend this rally! See American Solutions for more information.
On Thursday there is going to be a rally on the steps of the Capital in Washington DC in opposition to this worst bill ever. If you live within a few hundred miles of DC, please attend this rally! See American Solutions for more information.
Christmas: The war is on!
The war on Christmas has already begun under the absolutely false pretense of "separation of church and state." The idea that the Constitution prohibits government celebration of Christmas is nonsense! I will post again, what Michael Medved writes in his outstanding book, The 10 Big Lies about America,"
In fact, less than twenty-four hours after Congress approved the First Amendment, they clearly indicated the way they understood its language by passing the following resolution: "Resolved, that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almights God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution for their safety and happiness." In the proclamation duly announcing the "day of public thanksgiving and prayer" that Congress had requested, President Washington declared November 26 "to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent Author of all good that was, that is, or that will be."
It never occurred to this First Congress that their call for public prayer would conflict with the amendment they had adopted a day earlier prohibiting "an establishment of religion" (83-84).
Noor Faleh Almaleki dies
Twenty-year old Noor Faleh Almaleki died yesterday after having been deliberately run over by her father in an honor killing. He thought she was too westernized. This evil wasn't perpetrated by the Taliban or al Qaeda. It didn't happen in Iran, Syria or Saudia Arabia. It happened in Arizona.
"The United Nations estimates that every year, 5,000 people become victims of honor killings. Just last year, in Georgia, a father strangled his daughter to death because she was planning a divorce from her husband" (Jihad Watch).
Why is it that Muslims all over the world will go absolutely ballistic and riot over something as stupid as the publication of a few cartoons, but when Muslim fathers slaughter their own daughters the silence is deafening?
"The United Nations estimates that every year, 5,000 people become victims of honor killings. Just last year, in Georgia, a father strangled his daughter to death because she was planning a divorce from her husband" (Jihad Watch).
Why is it that Muslims all over the world will go absolutely ballistic and riot over something as stupid as the publication of a few cartoons, but when Muslim fathers slaughter their own daughters the silence is deafening?
Hamas missiles can now reach Tel Aviv
According to the Associated Press, "Israel's military intelligence chief says Gaza terrorists have successfully tested an Iranian rocket able to reach metropolitan Tel Aviv."
Monday, November 02, 2009
The Copenhagen agreement: Treason?
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Lord Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has issued pretty scary warnings about the "Copenhagen Agreement" on global warming. According to the article,
Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.I don't know if all this is true (please read the entire WSJ article), but I've written before that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, second only to God. Neither the President, nor the Congress, nor the Supreme Court has the Constitutional authority to sell out U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. or any other entity. Any attempts to do so should be considered treason.The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
Nuclear war games against Poland
According to the Telegraph in the U.K., Russia--on the 70th anniversary of its invasion of Poland-- conducted military war games simulating a nuclear attack on Poland.
It is certainly understandable that Russia would feel threatened being on the border of Poland, one of the most powerful and imperialist nuclear forces in the world.
Or maybe I have that backward.
It is certainly understandable that Russia would feel threatened being on the border of Poland, one of the most powerful and imperialist nuclear forces in the world.
Or maybe I have that backward.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Cash for clunkers and health care
You will remember how the cash for clunkers program provided up to $4,500 for qualified auto trade-ins. The figures are now in. It actually cost the tax payer $24,000 per car!
When the government can't even run the cash for clunkers program efficiently, what makes so many people think Uncle Sam can run the infinitly more complex health care system more efficiently?
When the government can't even run the cash for clunkers program efficiently, what makes so many people think Uncle Sam can run the infinitly more complex health care system more efficiently?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
National Geographic and the big bang
I just finished watching a National Geographic special on the universe. It explains how it is meaningless to ask what happened before the big bang because all of matter, and even time and space, began with the big bang.
So we are supposed to believe that there was absolutely nothing, and then out of absolutely nothing came something--a LOT of something.
This may be philosophy or theology but I wouldn't call it science. Anyway, I don't doubt that it happened. I just don't have enough faith to believe that it happened all by itself.
So we are supposed to believe that there was absolutely nothing, and then out of absolutely nothing came something--a LOT of something.
This may be philosophy or theology but I wouldn't call it science. Anyway, I don't doubt that it happened. I just don't have enough faith to believe that it happened all by itself.
Crucified and beheaded in Thailand
Islamic jihadists have killed over 3,900 people in Thailand since 2004. Their victims were slaughtered by shooting, bombing, beheading, and crucifixion.
Why crucifixion and beheading? As Robert Spencer points out, jihadists were just following the Qu'ran. Read the story at Jihad Watch.
Why crucifixion and beheading? As Robert Spencer points out, jihadists were just following the Qu'ran. Read the story at Jihad Watch.
Boeing sneezes. Seattle catches cold.
Boeing has a significant economic impact on the Pacific Northwest. When I lived in Washington State there was a saying, "When Boeing sneezes, Seattle catches cold."
Unfortunately for the Pacific Northwest, between Washington State's high taxes, excessive regulations, "costly workers compensation system," etc. the Boeing Company has decided to "place its second 787 line in South Carolina" (Big Government).
Something tells me the Pacific Northwest is about to catch another cold.
That's what happens when liberals decide to stick it to these "evil corporations." The corporations can just pick up their toys and play somewhere else, resulting in a significant loss of jobs and revenue for the people left behind to pick up the pieces.
But hey, look at the bright side--Thanks to Washington States' liberal tax-and-regulate Democrats, South Carolina will gain all those jobs and money!
When politicians play these tax-and-regulate games at the national level, eventually the big corporations can just pick up their toys and play in other countries more favorable to business. Then all of us are left picking up the pieces.
Don't be too hard on the corporations. If they don't stay competitive, they go out of business and we lose all those jobs and revenue anyway. Blame the tax-and-regulate Democrats who drove them out.
It may sound like a good idea to "stick it" to those evil corporations, but ultimately, we are the ones who lose.
Unfortunately for the Pacific Northwest, between Washington State's high taxes, excessive regulations, "costly workers compensation system," etc. the Boeing Company has decided to "place its second 787 line in South Carolina" (Big Government).
Something tells me the Pacific Northwest is about to catch another cold.
That's what happens when liberals decide to stick it to these "evil corporations." The corporations can just pick up their toys and play somewhere else, resulting in a significant loss of jobs and revenue for the people left behind to pick up the pieces.
But hey, look at the bright side--Thanks to Washington States' liberal tax-and-regulate Democrats, South Carolina will gain all those jobs and money!
When politicians play these tax-and-regulate games at the national level, eventually the big corporations can just pick up their toys and play in other countries more favorable to business. Then all of us are left picking up the pieces.
Don't be too hard on the corporations. If they don't stay competitive, they go out of business and we lose all those jobs and revenue anyway. Blame the tax-and-regulate Democrats who drove them out.
It may sound like a good idea to "stick it" to those evil corporations, but ultimately, we are the ones who lose.
Happy Halloween?
Someone e-mailed a great Halloween idea to me yesterday. It is designed to help children understand how our current government works.
Decorate your house to look like the U.S. Capital. Then, when the kids come, take away their candy and give it to your own "special interests."
Or maybe you could just take the candy from kids who have a lot of candy, to give to kids who don't have as much candy.
OK, maybe not such a good idea. No point scaring the kids. Democrats' plans are even more terrifying than some of us adults can handle!
Decorate your house to look like the U.S. Capital. Then, when the kids come, take away their candy and give it to your own "special interests."
Or maybe you could just take the candy from kids who have a lot of candy, to give to kids who don't have as much candy.
OK, maybe not such a good idea. No point scaring the kids. Democrats' plans are even more terrifying than some of us adults can handle!
Friday, October 30, 2009
$160,000 per stimulus job!
$160,000 per stimulus job? According to an article by ABC News:
The White House argues that the actual job number is actually larger than 640,000 -- closer to 1 million jobs when one factors in stimulus jobs added in October and, more importantly, jobs created indirectly, such as "the waitress who's still on the job," Vice President Biden said today.That's the same kind of "efficiency" they will bring to health care.
So let's see. Assuming their number is right -- 160 billion divided by 1 million. Does that mean the stimulus costs taxpayers $160,000 per job?
Education, health care and the government
"Even the most fervent believer in ambitious and expensive federal initiatives must concede that President Carter's much-ballyhooed 1979 creation of the Department of Education never produced the promised renaissance in public schools--despite its current employment of five thousand full-time Washington bureaucrats and annual expenditures of more than $70 billion of the people's money" (Medved, Michael. The 10 Big Lies About America, 140).
Just think how much education might be improved if we abolished the Department of Education and gave that money to the schools!
This is what happens when government takes over. It will happen to health care too. And yet, for reasons beyond comprehension, many Americas keep on thinking this time will be different!
Just think how much education might be improved if we abolished the Department of Education and gave that money to the schools!
This is what happens when government takes over. It will happen to health care too. And yet, for reasons beyond comprehension, many Americas keep on thinking this time will be different!
More on fudged stimulus numbers
Even CBS says the Obama administrations stimulus figures are not true. As Noel Sheppard says,
I suspect that the real fact is that the Democrats flushed our trillion dollars down the hopper and are desperately trying to cover up the fact that their stimulus didn't stimulate much of anything but the pockets of their special interest groups.
When Katie Couric and the folks at CBS start doubting what the Administration says about how effective February's economic stimulus package was, you know President Obama is in trouble.Read the story at NewsBusters.
I suspect that the real fact is that the Democrats flushed our trillion dollars down the hopper and are desperately trying to cover up the fact that their stimulus didn't stimulate much of anything but the pockets of their special interest groups.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The Democrats' health care bill
Here are ten things you should know about the Democrats health care bill.
Full text of the Health Care bill
For anyone who has trouble sleeping at night, Here is the Democrats' health care bill, all 1,990 pages! On second thought, I fear that this may actually either keep you up at night or give you nightmares!
White House overstates stimulus effect
According to the Associated Press, the White House has been overstating by thousands the number of actual jobs created or saved by the stimulus package.
What a shocker!
What a shocker!
U.N. defamation of religions
Since 1999 Islamic nations have attempted to foist anti-blasphemy laws on the world in the guise of U.N. resolutions against the "defamation of religion." In Islamic nations like Pakistan anti-blasphemy laws have been used to imprison, torture and kill those who are charged (often without basis) with desecrating the Koran or blaspheming Muhammad.
It appears that Europe is rapidly getting on the anti-blasphemy bandwagon. I was, therefore, encouraged recently when Hillary Clinton came out in opposition of such Islamic efforts.
In America our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, second only to God. Neither the President, nor the Congress nor the Supreme Court have the legal authority to deliberately violate the Constitution. More precisely, not even the President of the United States has the authority to sign a treaty ceding our rights under the Constitution over to the U.N. or international law.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that hypothetically, if any President were to sign a treaty that would limit our freedom of speech or religion under international law, the President would have violated his oath of office.
In that case the American people would be responsible to elect Congresspeople whose number one priority would be to immediately begin impeachment proceedings with the goal of removing the President from office, nullifying the treaty and possibly even charging the President with treason for attempting to aid our enemies in undermining the Constitution of the United States.
It appears that Europe is rapidly getting on the anti-blasphemy bandwagon. I was, therefore, encouraged recently when Hillary Clinton came out in opposition of such Islamic efforts.
In America our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, second only to God. Neither the President, nor the Congress nor the Supreme Court have the legal authority to deliberately violate the Constitution. More precisely, not even the President of the United States has the authority to sign a treaty ceding our rights under the Constitution over to the U.N. or international law.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that hypothetically, if any President were to sign a treaty that would limit our freedom of speech or religion under international law, the President would have violated his oath of office.
In that case the American people would be responsible to elect Congresspeople whose number one priority would be to immediately begin impeachment proceedings with the goal of removing the President from office, nullifying the treaty and possibly even charging the President with treason for attempting to aid our enemies in undermining the Constitution of the United States.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Churches and homosexuality
I've heard or read of a lot of "Christian" leaders who support same sex marriage on the grounds that the Bible supposedly affirms loving, monogamous, gay sexual relationships.
I've never heard of or read, however, about any of these churches preaching that sex before the committed relationship is sin, or that sex with someone outside of this relationship is sin.
This makes me suspect that such churches are not nearly as interested in what the Bible actually says as they are in trying desperately to be in line with contemporary social views.
I've never heard of or read, however, about any of these churches preaching that sex before the committed relationship is sin, or that sex with someone outside of this relationship is sin.
This makes me suspect that such churches are not nearly as interested in what the Bible actually says as they are in trying desperately to be in line with contemporary social views.
Sarah Palin and Trig
You may recall the pre-election controversy over Sarah Palin's daughter and her boyfriend, Levi Johnson who had a baby together. They later split up and now Levi Johnson is trashing the Palin's.
The latest came on an episode of the CBS Morning Show which interviewed Johnson and focused on his allegation that Sarah Palin called her son Trig, "retarded."
This is an unsubstantiated allegation by a guy who has an axe to grind but because it is about Sarah Palin, it makes national news! The allegation may or may not be true but it is the kind of rumor mongering I would expect to find in one of the rumor rags on display in grocery store check out aisles (or in a commentary blog like mine :-) but not from supposedly professional journalists of a national news organization! Is this really CBS's idea of national news?
Meanwhile the White House is attacking Fox for not being a legitimate news organization? Please!
The latest came on an episode of the CBS Morning Show which interviewed Johnson and focused on his allegation that Sarah Palin called her son Trig, "retarded."
This is an unsubstantiated allegation by a guy who has an axe to grind but because it is about Sarah Palin, it makes national news! The allegation may or may not be true but it is the kind of rumor mongering I would expect to find in one of the rumor rags on display in grocery store check out aisles (or in a commentary blog like mine :-) but not from supposedly professional journalists of a national news organization! Is this really CBS's idea of national news?
Meanwhile the White House is attacking Fox for not being a legitimate news organization? Please!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
New Yorkers fleeing the state
According to the New York Post:
That's the Democrats' plan for our economy.
This is what happens when taxes go up too much. Those who really can't afford it are stuck. Those who have enough money, just move elsewhere--in this case, just to another state, though if the Democrats keep it up, we may begin to see the same kind of flight to other nations. Then the overall tax revenue spirals downward leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab.New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.
More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.
The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.
That's the Democrats' plan for our economy.
Church of Scientology convicted of fraud
The Church of Scientology has been convicted of fraud in Paris and fined the equivalent of $900,000. See the Associated Press for the story.
Is Amtrak too big to fail?
This morning Andrew Napolitano mentioned this report by the Associated Press, which says that "Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008."
"Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states.
Perhaps Amtrak is too big to fail. Maybe the government needs to step in and take over.
Oh wait, the government already runs Amtrak!!!
This is the same government that runs the failing post office, the same government that now wants to take over all banks that "are too big to fail," the same government that thinks it can run your healthcare more efficiently!
"Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states.
Perhaps Amtrak is too big to fail. Maybe the government needs to step in and take over.
Oh wait, the government already runs Amtrak!!!
This is the same government that runs the failing post office, the same government that now wants to take over all banks that "are too big to fail," the same government that thinks it can run your healthcare more efficiently!
Monday, October 26, 2009
CNN falls to last place
According to the New York Times, CNN is now in last place among the cable news networks. Fox is number one. "Individually, the CNN shows were beaten resoundingly by all the Fox News programs."
"CNN executives acknowledge, viewers seem to be looking for partisan views more than objective coverage."
Some might argue that CNN executives are so absorbed in their own far left views they they honestly don't know how biased they really are.
"CNN executives acknowledge, viewers seem to be looking for partisan views more than objective coverage."
Some might argue that CNN executives are so absorbed in their own far left views they they honestly don't know how biased they really are.
Christians fleeing Iraq
According to UPI:
Is this what so many American sons and daughters died for? Is our government doing anything to protect or help those who are being persecuted?Imad Yuhanna Yaqo, a Christian member of the Assyrian Democratic Movement, tells the Iraqi analytical Web site Niqash that his group recorded nearly a dozen kidnappings or killings since April.
"The number of Christians in Kirkuk before the fall of the Baath regime was more than 20,000," he said. "This number has dropped to 10,000 and the number continues to decrease."
Islam and defamation of religions
I don't often agree with the Obama administration, but when they do something right, it deserves attention:
The Obama administration on Monday came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech. "Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters. "I strongly disagree.Read the rest at the Associated Press.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Giving pornography to children
Two librarians in Kentucky have apparently been fired for refusing to make pornographic material available to children. See the Safe Libraries blog for the story.
Assuming that the material in question is truly pornographic, aren't there laws against making such material available to minors and if so, shouldn't the library director be prosecuted for doing so?
Assuming that the material in question is truly pornographic, aren't there laws against making such material available to minors and if so, shouldn't the library director be prosecuted for doing so?
Freedom of Speech and the hate crimes bill
The American Center for Law and Justice has provided a "legislative alert" on the new hate crimes legislation. Thanks to Republican Senator Sam Brownback the bill in its final form contained a special provision protecting religious speech.
See the ACLJ legislative alert for the story.
See the ACLJ legislative alert for the story.
Terrorist bombs kill 136 in Baghdad
According to FoxNews, at least 136 are dead and more than 400 injured from terrorist bombs in Baghdad this morning.
I don't understand. Didn't Hollywood, Code Pink, and the Democrats pretty much assure us that the whole problem was George Bush?
Don't the terrorists know that America has had a new President for the last nine months?
Don't they know that he has a Muslim background?
Don't they know that he is planning to pull our troops out of Iraq?
Don't they know that he is closing Gitmo?
Don't they know that he has apologized for America's sins against Islam?
Don't they know that he is reaching out to Muslims and is even providing foreign aid to Muslim countries?
Hmm, I wonder if the real problem was not so much about America as it was about Islam.
I don't understand. Didn't Hollywood, Code Pink, and the Democrats pretty much assure us that the whole problem was George Bush?
Don't the terrorists know that America has had a new President for the last nine months?
Don't they know that he has a Muslim background?
Don't they know that he is planning to pull our troops out of Iraq?
Don't they know that he is closing Gitmo?
Don't they know that he has apologized for America's sins against Islam?
Don't they know that he is reaching out to Muslims and is even providing foreign aid to Muslim countries?
Hmm, I wonder if the real problem was not so much about America as it was about Islam.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Keith Ellision and CAIR
"Big Government" has a fascinating, though troubling, article on Minnesota's Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison and CAIR.
Pelosi: Stripping Fox News of Access
From HughHewitt.com:
The Democrats are beginning to sound more like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro than Americans!
UPDATE: Democrats spend astronomical amounts of money—without even reading the bills—under the guise of helping the economy. They have sought to regulate talk radio and call it the “fairness doctrine.” They passed CPSIA legislation that could have made it illegal for librarians to allow children into existing children’s book collections. They recently passed a bill that actually makes crimes against a particular group of people subject to more severe punishment than the exact same crimes against other people. Then they began a deliberate, orchestrated campaign to isolate, ostracize and demonize a particular news organization. So when I read on the Hugh Hewitt website that Pelosi was planning to introduce legislation stripping Fox News of their “journalistic access in the halls of Congress”—well, not much the Democrats do surprises me anymore and I posted it.
As readers have graciously—and some hatefully—pointed out, it was satire. I would have expected satire from someone like Glenn Beck who, like John Stewart, regularly engages in satire. I did not expect it from Hugh Hewitt, though if I had read farther down it was pretty clear. Bottom line: I screwed up! My sincere apologies to Nancy Pelosi and my readers for passing this satire on as fact.
In an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olberman last night, Nancy Pelosi announced that she would move to bring a vote to the floor of The House of Representatives as early as next week to ban Fox from covering Congress. "That Fox regularly grants access to Republican Congressman to spread their lies and propaganda on their airwaves is a violation of the public trust, and their continued desire to challenge such well documented facts as Global Warming, and the efficacy of single payer health insurance, proves that they are simply doing the work of the special interests. They should thus be stripped of their journalistic access in the halls of Congress," argued Pelosi.This is an unbelievably shocking abuse of power! In the Orwellian world of the Democrats, apparently Freedom of the Press only applies to news organizations that promote the Democrats' Leftist, socialist agendas.
The Democrats are beginning to sound more like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro than Americans!
UPDATE: Democrats spend astronomical amounts of money—without even reading the bills—under the guise of helping the economy. They have sought to regulate talk radio and call it the “fairness doctrine.” They passed CPSIA legislation that could have made it illegal for librarians to allow children into existing children’s book collections. They recently passed a bill that actually makes crimes against a particular group of people subject to more severe punishment than the exact same crimes against other people. Then they began a deliberate, orchestrated campaign to isolate, ostracize and demonize a particular news organization. So when I read on the Hugh Hewitt website that Pelosi was planning to introduce legislation stripping Fox News of their “journalistic access in the halls of Congress”—well, not much the Democrats do surprises me anymore and I posted it.
As readers have graciously—and some hatefully—pointed out, it was satire. I would have expected satire from someone like Glenn Beck who, like John Stewart, regularly engages in satire. I did not expect it from Hugh Hewitt, though if I had read farther down it was pretty clear. Bottom line: I screwed up! My sincere apologies to Nancy Pelosi and my readers for passing this satire on as fact.
Original intention of the First Amendment
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Somehow this has been twisted to mean that:
The Ten Commandments cannot be posted in court houses
Manger scenes cannot be placed in town squares.
High school football teams cannot begin their games with prayer
Students cannot mention the name Jesus in their valedictorian speeches
Teachers cannot explain the origin of Christmas to their students
Teachers are prohibited from teaching views of science that contradict naturalist philosophy.
The list could go on and on. In fact, Christians are increasingly being sued in attempts to force them to violate their most deeply held religious convictions and one of President Obama's recent appointees (a former law professor!) said that in areas where sexual freedom conflict with religious freedom, she could hardly imagine any time when freedom of religion should win!
In his absolutely outstanding book, The 10 Big Lies about America," lawyer and Yale history major Michael Medved writes,
How is this possible? How can the govenment get away with this?
Judges who treat the Constitution as a "living breathing document" no longer feel bound to interpret it in light of the intention of our founding fathers. They can twist it to mean anything they want and when this happens, the Constitution is no longer worth the paper on which it was written.
What is even more unbelievable, however, is that even Christians vote for people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democrats who think the Constitution should be interpreted as a living breathing document! Christians have voted for the very politicians who are systematically stripping freedom of religion from us and our children!
Somehow this has been twisted to mean that:
The Ten Commandments cannot be posted in court houses
Manger scenes cannot be placed in town squares.
High school football teams cannot begin their games with prayer
Students cannot mention the name Jesus in their valedictorian speeches
Teachers cannot explain the origin of Christmas to their students
Teachers are prohibited from teaching views of science that contradict naturalist philosophy.
The list could go on and on. In fact, Christians are increasingly being sued in attempts to force them to violate their most deeply held religious convictions and one of President Obama's recent appointees (a former law professor!) said that in areas where sexual freedom conflict with religious freedom, she could hardly imagine any time when freedom of religion should win!
In his absolutely outstanding book, The 10 Big Lies about America," lawyer and Yale history major Michael Medved writes,
In fact, less than twenty-four hours after Congress approved the First Amendment, they clearly indicated the way they understood its language by passing the following resolution: "Resolved, that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almights God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution for their safety and happiness." In the proclamation duly announcing the "day of public thanksgiving and prayer" that Congress had requested, President Washington declared November 26 "to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent Author of all good that was, that is, or that will be."As you can see, the abuses I listed above are clearly unconstitional when considered in light of the founding Fathers' original intentions. The First Amendment was never intended to restrict religious expression but to keep government from restricting religious expression. Yet our our freedom of religion is being systematically stripped away from us.
It never occurred to this First Congress that their call for public prayer would conflict with the amendment they had adopted a day earlier prohibiting "an establishment of religion" (83-84).
How is this possible? How can the govenment get away with this?
Judges who treat the Constitution as a "living breathing document" no longer feel bound to interpret it in light of the intention of our founding fathers. They can twist it to mean anything they want and when this happens, the Constitution is no longer worth the paper on which it was written.
What is even more unbelievable, however, is that even Christians vote for people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democrats who think the Constitution should be interpreted as a living breathing document! Christians have voted for the very politicians who are systematically stripping freedom of religion from us and our children!
Bolton, Iran and WMD
According to NewMajority, "Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton addressed a crowded room at the American Enterprise Institute today, saying that “the use of force is required” to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,"
I agree. I think a nuclear Iran would literally be more dangerous than Nazi Germany and I'm afraid that the West just doesn't have the guts to face up to the harsh reality of the truth.
I agree. I think a nuclear Iran would literally be more dangerous than Nazi Germany and I'm afraid that the West just doesn't have the guts to face up to the harsh reality of the truth.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Millions for technology to Muslim nations
According to AFP. "The White House Friday highlighted a new multi-million dollar technology fund for Muslim nations.
Wouldn't it be better if we used these multi-millions of dollars to pay down our own debt and asked Saudi-Arabia to fund this technology? Does the Obama administration honestly think that this money is going to buy us good will in the Arab world?
Could they possibly be any more out of touch?
Wouldn't it be better if we used these multi-millions of dollars to pay down our own debt and asked Saudi-Arabia to fund this technology? Does the Obama administration honestly think that this money is going to buy us good will in the Arab world?
Could they possibly be any more out of touch?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Trinity
This essay will attempt to provide a quick overview of the reasons why Christians believe in the Trinity—a word that never appears in the Bible. I make no claim to be exhaustive in the passages I cite and this is certainly not a scholarly treatise. It is just a quick overview of the topic.
The essay assumes the Judeo/Christian belief that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19). Upon that foundation, the paper will show that 1) The New Testament teaches the deity of Jesus. This is by far the longest section of the paper since the deity of Jesus is the aspect of the Trinity which comes under the strongest attack, 2) The New Testament teaches the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit (i.e. that the Holy Spirit is a sentient being and not just an impersonal force like gravity, magnetism, etc.) 3) That the New Testament distinguishes between Father, Son and Spirit. 4) That the theological doctrine of Trinity best accounts for the biblical data.
DEITY OF JESUS
The question we are addressing first is, what does the New Testament teach about Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke)
According to most scholars, Mark was the first biblical gospel to be written. The writer of Mark begins his gospel with quotes from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 about how a messenger would go before and prepare the way for Yahweh (God). In the verses that follow (Mark 1:4-9), Mark introduces John the Baptist who is preparing the way for Jesus. Mark sees John the Baptist and Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecies about the messenger (John) preparing the way for God (Jesus).
Messenger -------> Yahweh
| |
John the Baptist --> Jesus
Now in case that parallel was lost on some readers, Mark then immediately writes about how Jesus is baptized while the Spirit of God descends on him like a dove, and a voice comes from the heavens declaring that Jesus is “my beloved Son.” God the Spirit descends on God the Son while God the Father speaks from heaven. This declaration from God that Jesus is his Son is repeated later in Mark 9:7.
It is important to note that “Son of God” (as Jesus is called in most ancient texts of Mark 1:1) can mean different things depending on the context. In Job, “sons of God” is a reference to angels. Sometimes in the Old Testament Israel was said to be God’s son. Sometimes the king was said to be God’s son.
Mark, however, makes it clear that Jesus is the son of God is a much more significant sense. In Mark 2:1-12 Jesus heals a paralyzed man and tells him, “My son, your sins are forgiven (Mark 2:5). Note that Jesus is not saying that this man has personally offended Jesus therefore Jesus forgives him of this offense. Jesus was not even acting as a priest by assuring the man of God’s forgiveness. Mark wants readers to understand that Jesus was declaring that this man’s sins are forgiven. In a Jewish context—and Jesus was a Jew, living with Jews and ministering to Jews—only God could forgive sins!
According to Mark, the people understand exactly what Jesus was claiming because they complain saying, “He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone” (Mark 2:7). Jesus then confirms that they have not misunderstood him. He tells them that he said this so they would know that he has authority “on earth” to forgive sins.
Mark was clearly intending his readers to understand that Jesus was claiming to do something only God could do. But words are cheap. Anyone can claim to forgive sins, right?. According to Mark, the paralyzed man then got up an walked! (Mark 2:9-12).
To emphasize this point further--i.e the point that Jesus claimed to do what only God could do-- Mark then tells a story about how Jesus had a run-in with Pharisees about picking grain on the Sabbath day (Mark 2:23-28). Jesus claims that he is Lord over the Sabbath.
This would have been a truly shocking claim, something that would have made Jesus sound out of his mind. After all, God instituted the Sabbath day! Only God was above the Sabbath. Yet according to Mark, Jesus claimed to be Lord over the Sabbath. Mark clearly wants readers to understand that Jesus was placing himself in the position of God.
Mark later writes about how Jesus teaches people about Jewish dietary laws. Jesus says, “Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach and is expelled?” Mark then adds his own parenthetical, theological explanation, “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:18-19).
This is another shocking statement. According to the Jewish Bible (the Christian Old Testament) God had established those dietary laws. Only God could annul those laws. Mark clearly wants the reader to understand that Jesus was placing himself in the position of God.
But there is more. In the Jewish Bible, God alone was the source of salvation in a spiritual sense, but according to the Gospels, Jesus claims that prerogative. In Mark 10:17 a man asks Jesus how to have eternal life and Jesus final answer is “follow me” (Mark 10:21).
This is remarkable. No prophet—not Moses, not Elijah, not Isaiah—no prophet would have said that the way to have eternal life was to follow them. That is because eternal life is found only in God. The prophets all pointed people to God. Only Jesus says the way to eternal life is to follow him. Mark wants readers to understand that Jesus was putting himself in the place of God!
But Mark is not done yet. Just before his death Jesus has a last supper with his disciples. He takes the cup of wine and tells his disciples, “This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:22-25).
The covenant to which Jesus is referring is from Jeremiah 31:31 which specifically declares that it will be Yahweh (God) who makes this new covenant. Mark wants the reader to understand that Jesus is, once again, putting himself in the place of God. It is no wonder some thought he was out of his mind (Mark 3:21)!
Finally, some four hundred years before Jesus’ time, Zechariah prophesied to Israel, “Behold your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). Zechariah tells us exactly who the king is: “And Yahweh will be king over all the earth” (Zechariah 14:9, cf. 14:17). Mark presents Jesus as deliberately fulfilling a prophecy about God coming to visit his people (Mark 11:1-10).
These views were not just expressed in the Gospel of Mark, however. Luke (7:47-50) and John (8:24) also claim that Jesus could personally grant forgiveness of sins.
Matthew (12:8) and Luke 6:5 also claim that Jesus was Lord over the Sabbath.
Matthew (25:21-46) and Luke (19:11-27) claim that people’s eternal destiny would be dependent on Jesus (cf. John 3:15, 10:19).
According to Matthew (13:24-30; 36-43; 25:31-46) and Luke (3:16-17; 17:23-37) Jesus claimed that he would personally judge the world claimed that he would personally judge to world; a task that belonged to God alone.
And all four Gospels (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:28-44; John 12:12-19) tell of Jesus riding into Jerusalem in fulfillment of the prophecies about God visiting his people. It is clear what the synoptic Gospel writers want readers to understand about Jesus.
Gospel of John
There is really not much dispute among scholars that the Gospel of John intends to present Jesus as God incarnate. Even most theologically liberal biblical scholars understand that this is what John is intending to say. They just don't believe it. The only ones who think John was not presenting Jesus as God are usually those with a theological axe to grind, for example, cults like Jehovah’s witnesses.
John begins his gospel declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3).
Then John declares that this “Word” which was "with God and was God," became human and lived with us (John 1:14). He is the one to whom John the Baptist bore witness (John 1:15), the one who is specifically identified as Jesus in John 1:29. He is the one whom John's Gospels calls, “the only God who is at the Father’s side” (John 1:18).
Jehovah’s witnesses try to avoid this teaching by mistranslating John 1:1. Their New World Translation of John 1:1 reads, “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
Jehovah’s witnesses insist that since the second occurrence of God/god in John 1:1 is not preceded by the definite article (i.e. “the”) in Greek, it must (MUST) be translated as “a god” not God with a big G (Note: the Greek article is often not translated into English so it usually does not appear in English Bibles).
The translators of the Jehovah's Witness Bible are factually in error in this verse. It is an absolute fact that the absence of the Greek article does not always mean the subject is indefinite. There is a grammatical reason why John could not add the definite article to the second occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 (suffice it to say that adding the definite article before God would make it impossible in Greek to determine the subject of that clause).
Anyway, it is pretty hard to see how the translators of the New World Translation could be ignorant of the fact that the lack of a definite article does not always make the subject indefinite. This is because there are at least thirteen places in John's Gospel alone (John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:21; 8:54; 9:16; 9:33; 13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17 (twice!) where the Greek word for God (theos) appears without the Greek definite article and yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses translators translate the word with a big G (God) anyway! In fact, in John 6:45 the word Theos (God) appears without the definite article and yet the New World Translation translates it not as "a god" but as "Jehovah!" Apparently Jehovah's Witnesses only follow their own translation rules where it fits their doctrine.
The fact that John attributes deity to Jesus is not just seen in chapter one, however. According to John’s gospel, people’s eternal destiny would be dependent on Jesus:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40).
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever” (John 6:51).
“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54).
“I am the door, if anyone enters by me, he will be saved…” (John 10:9).
In a first century Jewish context only God could save in a spiritual sense. Only God could grant eternal life. The writer of John’s Gospel clearly wants readers to understand that Jesus is God.
There is more. According to John 8:58 Jesus claimed, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” No only was Jesus claiming to have existed before his own birth—a claim he also makes in John 17:5—many scholars note that the phrase “I AM” is the name of God, Yahweh. This claim may be why according to the text, Jesus enemies “picked up stones to throw at him” (John 8:58).
Some would argue that maybe Jesus’ critics misunderstood him. Even if that were true (it’s not) it is still quite clear that John wants us to understand why they were preparing to stone him.
According to John 10:30 Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Some have dismissed this as the same kind of oneness that Christians experience. The Jewish audience to whom Jesus was addressing, however, understood that Jesus was talking about being one with God in a much deeper sense which is why they prepared to stone him for blasphemy saying it was because "you being a man, make yourself God."
I once spoke to a Jehovah’s Witness about this passage and his response was to say that all Jews were liars so why would I believe what they said about Jesus? Aside from the fact that this was an incredibly racist and anti-Semitic statement, we must note that the writer of the Gospel of John was Jewish. I guess it didn’t occur to this "witness against Jehovah" that if all Jews are liars then we can’t trust the Gospel of John either because it was written by a Jew! But this Jehovah’s Witness was just trying to re-interpret (twist) the Gospel of John. He would never argue that we should tear it out of our Bible.
The writer of John clearly wants readers to understand that Jesus was claiming oneness with God in a way that Jesus’ Jewish audience considered blasphemous. In the words of Jesus’ enemies, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33).
John begins his gospel proclaiming the deity of Jesus and he ends it the same way. In 20:24-29 “doubting Thomas” sees the risen Jesus and exclaims “My Lord and My God (John 20:28)! It is important to note that Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for this worship but rather blesses him! There can be no serious doubt that the writer of John’s Gospel wants readers to understand that Jesus is the very incarnation of God!
Acts
In the Old Testament salvation, in a spiritual sense was found only in God, but Acts 4:12, speaking of Jesus, says, “and there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 16:31 reinforces this saying “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.”
In the Jewish Bible God was the final judge of the living and the dead but Acts 10:42 says that Jesus “is the One who has been appointed by God as judge of the living and dead.”
In Acts 2:21 Peter quotes from Joel 2:32 which says that “…everyone who calls upon the name to the Lord [Yahweh] will be saved.” Peter applies this directly to Jesus, i.e. everyone who calls on the name of Jesus will be saved.
Paul
Paul is actually our very earliest witness to Jesus. Paul takes the passage in Joel 2:32 which says that “…everyone who calls upon the name to the Lord [Yahweh] will be saved” and applies that directly to Jesus (Romans 10:13, 17), i.e that everyone who calls on the name of Jesus will be saved.
It is probable that Paul was also intending to directly attribute deity to Jesus in Romans 9:5 which could be translated, “from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever.” Or, as the New Living Translation puts it, “Christ himself was a Jew as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise” (NLT).
According to Paul it is through Jesus that all things exist (1 Cor. 8:6). Paul repeats this teaching in Colossians 1:16-17 where he says that it was by Jesus that “all things were created, both in heavens and on earth….”
As a good Rabbi, Paul knows full well that God is the only creator. No wonder Paul writes that Jesus “existed in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) and that “in Him the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).
In Titus 2:13 Paul writes, “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” There is a way, in Greek in which Paul could have distinguished between Father and Son in this passage, but the way he writes this makes it pretty clear that he intended to call Jesus “our great God and Savior.”
Hebrews and General Epistles
The Book of Hebrews refers to Jesus as the very “radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” and says that Jesus “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3).
According to Hebrews, quoting from Psalm 2:7, God himself called Jesus his Son (Hebrews 1:5). According to Hebrews God said to Jesus, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8). It is clear that the author of Hebrews intends to teach the deity of Jesus.
The deity of Jesus is also taught in First and Second Peter. Isaiah 8:13 says “The LORD [Yahweh] of Hosts, him you shall regard as holy…” First Peter 3:15 says Jesus is the one we should regard as holy!
Second Peter 1:1 speaks of “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” There is a way in Greek in which Peter could have made a distinction between our God, and our Savior Jesus Christ but Peter does not do this. He intends to call Jesus, “Our God.”
Revelation
According to Revelation 22:13 Jesus says, “I am the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end,” but Revelation 1:8 says it was the Lord God who was the alpha and omega.
What is particularly interesting about these passages is that they are also found in the Jehovah’s Witness’s New World Translation which goes to great lengths to remove any trace of Jesus’ deity. They missed one. The New World Translation translates Revelation 1:8 as “I am the alpha and omega, says Jehovah God.” But at the end of Revelation, the alpha and omega is the one who is coming quickly (Revelation 22:12-13), identified specifically as Jesus in Revelation 22:16. Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses own translation teaches the deity of Jesus!
It is no wonder, therefore, that Jesus was also the object of worship in the New Testament...and remember, in a Jewish context only God was the object of worship! Paul says that “at the name of Jesus every knee will bow (Philippians 2:10). Paul exclaims that to Jesus “be glory forever and ever” (2 Timothy 4:18). Second Peter 3:18 also says that to Jesus “be glory, both now and to the day of eternity.” Hebrews 1:6 says of Jesus, “let all the angels of God worship him.” Revelation says that to Jesus “be the glory and dominion forever and ever” (1:5-6) and “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb [Jesus], be blessing and honor and dominion forever and ever…and the elders fell down and worshiped” (5:11-14).
After the New Testament
Is it possible, however, that we have misunderstood what the New Testament teaches about Jesus’ deity?
Not a chance! Those who wrote shortly after the New Testament understood exactly what the New Testament taught about Jesus!
Clement of Rome (AD 97), for example, described Jesus as the “majestic scepter of God” and the radiance of God’s majesty (Clement to the Corinthians, 16, 36).
Ignatius (AD 110) wrote about “our God, Jesus Christ” (to the Romans, 3; to the Ephesians, 18) and “Jesus Christ, our God” (to the Ephesians, Intro), and “stirring up yourselves by the blood of God (to the Ephesians, 1), and “God Himself being manifested in human form” (to the Ephesians, 19) and “servants of Christ our God” (to the Smyrneans, 10).
The letter of Barnabas—not the Barnabas of the Bible but some other Christian named Barnabas (AD 70-135), says, “…the Son of God was the divine Lord, and the future Judge of living and dead alike” (Chapter 7). The letter of Barnabas calls Jesus “the Lord of all the earth,” a title used in Joshua 3:13 to refer to God (5:1).
Justin Martyr (d. 163) writes that “…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God (First Apology of Justin LXIII).
The idea that Jesus was God is also found in ancient books known as the New Testament Apocrypha (not to be confused with the Catholic apocrypha which was written before the time of Jesus). Most New Testament Apocrypha were written from the second to fourth or fifth centuries AD. One of these books is the Acts of Andrew (4th cent.) which ways, “Andrew prayed thus: ‘I pray you, my God, Lord Jesus Christ….”
The Apocalypse of Peter” says, “… my Lord and God Jesus Christ” (Apocalypse of Peter, Ethiopic 16, 135 AD).
The “Acts of John” says, “Glory be to thee, my Jesus, the only God of truth” (Acts of John 43, 2nd-3rd c.).
The Ascension of Isaiah says, “and he who gave permission is thy Lord, God, the Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus on earth” (Ascension of Isaiah 5, 2nd c.).
In the Acts of Paul and Thecla we find, “My God, Jesus Christ” (Acts of Paul and Thecla, 185-195 AD).
The fact that these early Christians believed Jesus was God is also confirmed in secular sources.
The anti-Christian satirist, Lucian also wrote of Christians saying that they “worship” Jesus (Lucian early 100’s)
The Roman governor, Pliny the Younger (AD 112), for example, conducted an investigation of Christians and reported to the Roman emperor that they “were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternative verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god” (Letter to Emperor Trajan). Of course Pliny would write “to a god” instead of “to God” because Pliny didn’t believe in just one God.
By the way, contrary to the popular DaVinci Code, even writers of the so-called “lost gospels” believed Jesus was some kind of divine being. The “Teachings of Silvanus,” for example, says, “Know who Christ is…He is also God and Teacher. This one, being God, became man for your sake” (Teachings of Silvanus 110).
The “Letter of Philip” says, “according to the orders of our God Jesus” (Letter of Peter to Philip 133).
The “Trimorphic Protennoia says, “They blessed Perfect Son, the Christ, the only-begotten God” (Trimorphic Protennoia 38).
These “lost gospels” are not Christian documents. Contrary to Christianity, they generally believe that Jesus was one of many divine beings. The point the Da Vinci Code is factually in error whn it says that “these documents speak of Christ’s ministry in very human terms” (Brown, 234). The fact is that one of the very earliest controversies about Jesus was not about whether he was divine or not, but whether he was actually human or not!
All of this evidence, of course, does not prove that Jesus was God, but it does demonstrate rather conclusively that early Christians believed that Jesus was God and that they believed it hundreds of years before any church councils got together to discuss the issue.
THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit of God is called God in the Bible. For example, Acts 28:25-26 says that “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet…” What follows is a quote from Isaiah 6:8-9 which was spoken by God.
Similarly Hebrews 10:15-17 says, “And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us…saying…” What follows are quotes from Jeremiah 31:31-34 which was spoken by God. The point is that the writers of Acts and Hebrews attribute to the Holy Spirit, words spoken in their original contexts by God.
The Deity of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by the fact that the Holy Spirit is said to have the attributes of God (Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; 1 Cor 2;9-11; Hebrews 9:14) and the Holy Spirit performs the works of God (Job 33:4; Ps 104:30; Luke 12:11-12; Acts 1:5; 20:28; 1 Cor 6:11; 2:8-11; 2 Peter 1:21).
The Holy Spirit is often called the “Spirit of God” (Genesis 1:2; Exodus 31:3; Numbers 42:2; First Samuel 10:10; 2 Chronicles 24:20; Job 33:4; Ezekiel 11:24; Romans 8:14, 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 4:30; Philippians 3:3; 1 John 4:2).
We might conclude that the Spirit of God is just another way of saying “God” except that many passages specifically distinguish between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. This will be covered in a separate section below.
In the mean time, it is also important to note that according to the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is not just some impersonal force like gravity or magnetism. The Holy Spirit is a being who, like any sentient being has intellect, emotion and will (theologians use the word "person" for lack of a better term).
According to the New Testament, the Holy Spirit admonishes (Jn 16:8), teaches, (Jn 14:26; 16:13-15; 1 Jn 2:27), guides (Jn 16:13) speaks (Gal 4:6), intercedes (Rom 8:26), leads (Gal 5:18), appoints for service (Acts 13:2), regenerates (Jn 3:6), baptizes (1 Cor 12:13), fills (Eph 5:18) and glorifies Jesus (Jn 16:14). He is called a Helper, Comforter/counselor or advocate (Jn 14:6-17; 26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1-2). He can be grieved (Eph 4:30), quenched (resisted; 1 Thess 5:19), blasphemed (Matt 2:31) and lied to (Acts 5:3).
The point is that no one would speak about lying to a force like gravity, or grieving magnetism or blaspheming nuclear forces!
Although the word "spirit" in Greek is grammatically neuter meaning that you would expect that a neuter pronoun would be used to refer to the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to with the masculine pronoun, "He." (e.g. John 14:16-17; 16:7-15).
In other words, the Bible usually refers to the Holy Spirit as a "He" rather than "it." The use of "He" does not mean the Holy Spirit is male (a spirit is neither male nor female), but the use of "He" does seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a personal being rather than an impersonal force.
So like any “person” the Holy Spirit has intellect (He can teach, guide, speak), emotion (He can be grieved), and will (He submits to the Father John 14:16-17; 26). The Holy Spirit is also God.
Distinction between Father, Son and Spirit
The Bible clearly make a distinction between God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit.
For example, Matthew 3:16 clearly makes this distinction as does Mark 1:9-11 and Luke 3:21-22 where Jesus is baptized while the Spirit of God descends on him and the Father speaks from heaven. A distinction between Father, Son and Spirit is also clear from John 14:26 where Jesus says his Father will send the Spirit to the disciples.
Matthew 1:18 makes a distinction between the Holy Spirit and the unborn Jesus who is still in his mother’s womb. Jesus makes a distinction between himself and the Spirit in Matthew 12:28 and in John 14:7, 12-14.
Jesus distinguishes between the Father, Spirit and himself when he speaks of blasphemy against the Spirit as worse than blasphemy of him or the Father (Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29), possibly because it is the Spirit who draws people to the Father and Son.
Luke 4:1 distinguishes between Jesus and the Holy Spirit saying that Jesus, being filled with the Spirit was led by the Spirit in the wilderness. Luke 11:13 is about how the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask.
Paul seems to distinguish between the Spirit of God and God in 1 Corinthians 2:11.
The New Testament also make a distinction between the tasks the Father, Son and Spirit perform. For example, the Holy Spirit glorifies Jesus (John 16:14). The Bible never says that Jesus "glorifies the Holy Spirit."
The Spirit is “sent” by the Father (John 14:16-17, 26) and by the Son (John 16:7). The Bible never says the Spirit sends the Father although the does say the Spirit “led” Jesus (Luke 4:1). Jesus was crucified.
The Father and Spirit were not crucified.
Finally, in the New Testament, the Father speaks to Jesus (Matthew 3:17, 17:5; Mark 1:11, 9:2; Luke 3:22; 9:35) and Jesus prays to the Father (e.g. Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:35; Luke 22:42; John 17). Jesus is not praying to himself!
Is it possible that we have misunderstood our New Testament on the distinction between Father, Son and Spirit?
Not a chance!
The earliest church “fathers” writing right after the New Testament was written understood completely what the New Testament was teaching. Although Ignatius calls Jesus God, he distinguishes between Father and Son: “by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God.” (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians).
So does Justin, “…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. (First Apology of Justin LXIII).
So does Irenaeus, “"and ‘the Word was with God…and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.” (Against Heresies 1.8.5).
We also find the distinction between Father and Son in the Epistle to Diognetus, “he sent him in gentleness and meekness, as a king might send his son who is a king; he sent him as God” (to Diognetus 7).
In fact, as early as the Didache, which could have been written any time between about AD 70 and 150, we find a full-blown statement of the Trinity, at least 300 years before any church councils met to discuss the issue: “baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water…But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit” (Didache 7)
Some in the early church argued that there is one God who appeared in three “modes”: Father in the Old Testament, Jesus in the early first century AD, and the Holy Spirit after the resurrection of Jesus. There is a modern version of this called “Jesus only” which denies the Trinity, and teaches that Jesus sometimes manifested himself as God, sometimes as Jesus and sometimes as the Spirit.
The ancient version of this became known as Modalism or Sabellianism. It was condemned as heresy because it just doesn’t account for the biblical data which not only presents Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time and place (e.g. the Baptism of Jesus), but does not preserve the Biblical distinctions between Father, Son and Spirit.
Conclusion:
Cultists and some critics will challenge this evidence, of course. They have to! They have an agenda to preserve. It would be relatively easy to pick apart individual pieces of the evidence above and entire books have been written which interact with all the arguments. One of the best places to start would be the book, entitled, Jesus as God; the New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray Harris (Baker, 1992). The book is an indepth, scholarly evaluation of the New Testament passages that attribute deity to Jesus. It argues from the original languages but even those who don’t know Hebrew or Greek can profit from the book.
Anyway, it is for all of the reasons above and more—this is by no means a scholarly or exhaustive study!—that orthodox Christians have concluded that the Bible teaches there is ONE and only ONE God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19) who exists eternally in three “persons,” Father, Son and Spirit. The Bible doesn't have a name for this phenomena so theologians chose to call it the Trinity (I think Tri-unity may have been a better term).
Whenever you hear the tired old argument that “the word Trinity” doesn’t even appear in the Bible” know and understand that the critic is grasping at straws in desperation. The argument is completely irrelevant. All orthodox Christians—Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox—understand that “trinity” is a word developed by later Christians to describe a phenomena found in the Bible. The fact that the word itself is not found in the Bible says absolutely nothing about whether the doctrine is found in the Bible or not.
It is true, of course, that the concept of Trinity is hard to understand and even harder to explain, but this is what the Bible teaches. Many analogies have been proposed, like for example, the egg which is one, and yet composed of egg whites, a shell and yoke. But a yoke is just part of an egg and Jesus is not just part of God.
All analogies break down. The best one I’ve come up with is from science fiction. Being a Star Trek Next Generation fan, I sometimes use the “Borg” as an analogy. In Star Trek Next Generation the Borg is an alien being that resides in a gigantic cube shaped object. The Borg consists of thousands of beings appearing like grotesque-looking people, but, the show is quick to explain, these are not thousands of Borgs. The Borg is one.
Each individual is distinct and yet intimately connected with every other individual. They can hear each others thoughts and function as one organism. If they conquered the Enterprise, for example, one might be on the bridge interacting with the captain, one might be in the engineering section controlling the engines and one might be in the transporter room controlling access to the Enterprise. Three individuals with different tasks but yet so intimately connected that they function, and in fact are, one organism.
But again, all analogies break down. Star Trek is science fiction. God is science fact. In Star Trek the Borg is evil whereas God is good. In Star Trek the Borg consists of thousands of individuals where as God exists in three persons. The Borg’s power is finite where as God is all powerful, etc. And yet, I think the analogy may help to understand the concept of One God who exists eternally as Father, Son, and Spirit.
The fact is that we worship a Creator who created a universe so indescribably huge and complex (from incredibly complex micro-organisms to unimaginably gigantic galaxies) that human beings do not even begin to comprehend a tiny part of this creation. This being the case, do you suppose there might be some things about our awesome Creator that our human minds just do comprehend?
Imagine, for example, trying to explain a long distance cell phone call to someone from the 1700’s. They wouldn’t even understand the concept of telephones, much less cell phones. If you tried to explain cell phones to them, they wouldn’t understand microscopic circuits, or frequencies, or satellites or electronics or liquid crystal displays (LCD) or even plastic! In other words, they wouldn’t even understand the concepts necessary to understand the principles behind cell phones!
How much less do we understand God! So when God reveals himself as ONE God eternally existing in Father, Son and Spirit, Christians believe it even if we can’t adequately explain it.
The essay assumes the Judeo/Christian belief that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19). Upon that foundation, the paper will show that 1) The New Testament teaches the deity of Jesus. This is by far the longest section of the paper since the deity of Jesus is the aspect of the Trinity which comes under the strongest attack, 2) The New Testament teaches the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit (i.e. that the Holy Spirit is a sentient being and not just an impersonal force like gravity, magnetism, etc.) 3) That the New Testament distinguishes between Father, Son and Spirit. 4) That the theological doctrine of Trinity best accounts for the biblical data.
DEITY OF JESUS
The question we are addressing first is, what does the New Testament teach about Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke)
According to most scholars, Mark was the first biblical gospel to be written. The writer of Mark begins his gospel with quotes from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 about how a messenger would go before and prepare the way for Yahweh (God). In the verses that follow (Mark 1:4-9), Mark introduces John the Baptist who is preparing the way for Jesus. Mark sees John the Baptist and Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecies about the messenger (John) preparing the way for God (Jesus).
Messenger -------> Yahweh
| |
John the Baptist --> Jesus
Now in case that parallel was lost on some readers, Mark then immediately writes about how Jesus is baptized while the Spirit of God descends on him like a dove, and a voice comes from the heavens declaring that Jesus is “my beloved Son.” God the Spirit descends on God the Son while God the Father speaks from heaven. This declaration from God that Jesus is his Son is repeated later in Mark 9:7.
It is important to note that “Son of God” (as Jesus is called in most ancient texts of Mark 1:1) can mean different things depending on the context. In Job, “sons of God” is a reference to angels. Sometimes in the Old Testament Israel was said to be God’s son. Sometimes the king was said to be God’s son.
Mark, however, makes it clear that Jesus is the son of God is a much more significant sense. In Mark 2:1-12 Jesus heals a paralyzed man and tells him, “My son, your sins are forgiven (Mark 2:5). Note that Jesus is not saying that this man has personally offended Jesus therefore Jesus forgives him of this offense. Jesus was not even acting as a priest by assuring the man of God’s forgiveness. Mark wants readers to understand that Jesus was declaring that this man’s sins are forgiven. In a Jewish context—and Jesus was a Jew, living with Jews and ministering to Jews—only God could forgive sins!
According to Mark, the people understand exactly what Jesus was claiming because they complain saying, “He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone” (Mark 2:7). Jesus then confirms that they have not misunderstood him. He tells them that he said this so they would know that he has authority “on earth” to forgive sins.
Mark was clearly intending his readers to understand that Jesus was claiming to do something only God could do. But words are cheap. Anyone can claim to forgive sins, right?. According to Mark, the paralyzed man then got up an walked! (Mark 2:9-12).
To emphasize this point further--i.e the point that Jesus claimed to do what only God could do-- Mark then tells a story about how Jesus had a run-in with Pharisees about picking grain on the Sabbath day (Mark 2:23-28). Jesus claims that he is Lord over the Sabbath.
This would have been a truly shocking claim, something that would have made Jesus sound out of his mind. After all, God instituted the Sabbath day! Only God was above the Sabbath. Yet according to Mark, Jesus claimed to be Lord over the Sabbath. Mark clearly wants readers to understand that Jesus was placing himself in the position of God.
Mark later writes about how Jesus teaches people about Jewish dietary laws. Jesus says, “Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach and is expelled?” Mark then adds his own parenthetical, theological explanation, “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:18-19).
This is another shocking statement. According to the Jewish Bible (the Christian Old Testament) God had established those dietary laws. Only God could annul those laws. Mark clearly wants the reader to understand that Jesus was placing himself in the position of God.
But there is more. In the Jewish Bible, God alone was the source of salvation in a spiritual sense, but according to the Gospels, Jesus claims that prerogative. In Mark 10:17 a man asks Jesus how to have eternal life and Jesus final answer is “follow me” (Mark 10:21).
This is remarkable. No prophet—not Moses, not Elijah, not Isaiah—no prophet would have said that the way to have eternal life was to follow them. That is because eternal life is found only in God. The prophets all pointed people to God. Only Jesus says the way to eternal life is to follow him. Mark wants readers to understand that Jesus was putting himself in the place of God!
But Mark is not done yet. Just before his death Jesus has a last supper with his disciples. He takes the cup of wine and tells his disciples, “This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:22-25).
The covenant to which Jesus is referring is from Jeremiah 31:31 which specifically declares that it will be Yahweh (God) who makes this new covenant. Mark wants the reader to understand that Jesus is, once again, putting himself in the place of God. It is no wonder some thought he was out of his mind (Mark 3:21)!
Finally, some four hundred years before Jesus’ time, Zechariah prophesied to Israel, “Behold your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). Zechariah tells us exactly who the king is: “And Yahweh will be king over all the earth” (Zechariah 14:9, cf. 14:17). Mark presents Jesus as deliberately fulfilling a prophecy about God coming to visit his people (Mark 11:1-10).
These views were not just expressed in the Gospel of Mark, however. Luke (7:47-50) and John (8:24) also claim that Jesus could personally grant forgiveness of sins.
Matthew (12:8) and Luke 6:5 also claim that Jesus was Lord over the Sabbath.
Matthew (25:21-46) and Luke (19:11-27) claim that people’s eternal destiny would be dependent on Jesus (cf. John 3:15, 10:19).
According to Matthew (13:24-30; 36-43; 25:31-46) and Luke (3:16-17; 17:23-37) Jesus claimed that he would personally judge the world claimed that he would personally judge to world; a task that belonged to God alone.
And all four Gospels (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:28-44; John 12:12-19) tell of Jesus riding into Jerusalem in fulfillment of the prophecies about God visiting his people. It is clear what the synoptic Gospel writers want readers to understand about Jesus.
Gospel of John
There is really not much dispute among scholars that the Gospel of John intends to present Jesus as God incarnate. Even most theologically liberal biblical scholars understand that this is what John is intending to say. They just don't believe it. The only ones who think John was not presenting Jesus as God are usually those with a theological axe to grind, for example, cults like Jehovah’s witnesses.
John begins his gospel declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3).
Then John declares that this “Word” which was "with God and was God," became human and lived with us (John 1:14). He is the one to whom John the Baptist bore witness (John 1:15), the one who is specifically identified as Jesus in John 1:29. He is the one whom John's Gospels calls, “the only God who is at the Father’s side” (John 1:18).
Jehovah’s witnesses try to avoid this teaching by mistranslating John 1:1. Their New World Translation of John 1:1 reads, “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
Jehovah’s witnesses insist that since the second occurrence of God/god in John 1:1 is not preceded by the definite article (i.e. “the”) in Greek, it must (MUST) be translated as “a god” not God with a big G (Note: the Greek article is often not translated into English so it usually does not appear in English Bibles).
The translators of the Jehovah's Witness Bible are factually in error in this verse. It is an absolute fact that the absence of the Greek article does not always mean the subject is indefinite. There is a grammatical reason why John could not add the definite article to the second occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 (suffice it to say that adding the definite article before God would make it impossible in Greek to determine the subject of that clause).
Anyway, it is pretty hard to see how the translators of the New World Translation could be ignorant of the fact that the lack of a definite article does not always make the subject indefinite. This is because there are at least thirteen places in John's Gospel alone (John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:21; 8:54; 9:16; 9:33; 13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17 (twice!) where the Greek word for God (theos) appears without the Greek definite article and yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses translators translate the word with a big G (God) anyway! In fact, in John 6:45 the word Theos (God) appears without the definite article and yet the New World Translation translates it not as "a god" but as "Jehovah!" Apparently Jehovah's Witnesses only follow their own translation rules where it fits their doctrine.
The fact that John attributes deity to Jesus is not just seen in chapter one, however. According to John’s gospel, people’s eternal destiny would be dependent on Jesus:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40).
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever” (John 6:51).
“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54).
“I am the door, if anyone enters by me, he will be saved…” (John 10:9).
In a first century Jewish context only God could save in a spiritual sense. Only God could grant eternal life. The writer of John’s Gospel clearly wants readers to understand that Jesus is God.
There is more. According to John 8:58 Jesus claimed, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” No only was Jesus claiming to have existed before his own birth—a claim he also makes in John 17:5—many scholars note that the phrase “I AM” is the name of God, Yahweh. This claim may be why according to the text, Jesus enemies “picked up stones to throw at him” (John 8:58).
Some would argue that maybe Jesus’ critics misunderstood him. Even if that were true (it’s not) it is still quite clear that John wants us to understand why they were preparing to stone him.
According to John 10:30 Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Some have dismissed this as the same kind of oneness that Christians experience. The Jewish audience to whom Jesus was addressing, however, understood that Jesus was talking about being one with God in a much deeper sense which is why they prepared to stone him for blasphemy saying it was because "you being a man, make yourself God."
I once spoke to a Jehovah’s Witness about this passage and his response was to say that all Jews were liars so why would I believe what they said about Jesus? Aside from the fact that this was an incredibly racist and anti-Semitic statement, we must note that the writer of the Gospel of John was Jewish. I guess it didn’t occur to this "witness against Jehovah" that if all Jews are liars then we can’t trust the Gospel of John either because it was written by a Jew! But this Jehovah’s Witness was just trying to re-interpret (twist) the Gospel of John. He would never argue that we should tear it out of our Bible.
The writer of John clearly wants readers to understand that Jesus was claiming oneness with God in a way that Jesus’ Jewish audience considered blasphemous. In the words of Jesus’ enemies, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33).
John begins his gospel proclaiming the deity of Jesus and he ends it the same way. In 20:24-29 “doubting Thomas” sees the risen Jesus and exclaims “My Lord and My God (John 20:28)! It is important to note that Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for this worship but rather blesses him! There can be no serious doubt that the writer of John’s Gospel wants readers to understand that Jesus is the very incarnation of God!
Acts
In the Old Testament salvation, in a spiritual sense was found only in God, but Acts 4:12, speaking of Jesus, says, “and there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 16:31 reinforces this saying “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.”
In the Jewish Bible God was the final judge of the living and the dead but Acts 10:42 says that Jesus “is the One who has been appointed by God as judge of the living and dead.”
In Acts 2:21 Peter quotes from Joel 2:32 which says that “…everyone who calls upon the name to the Lord [Yahweh] will be saved.” Peter applies this directly to Jesus, i.e. everyone who calls on the name of Jesus will be saved.
Paul
Paul is actually our very earliest witness to Jesus. Paul takes the passage in Joel 2:32 which says that “…everyone who calls upon the name to the Lord [Yahweh] will be saved” and applies that directly to Jesus (Romans 10:13, 17), i.e that everyone who calls on the name of Jesus will be saved.
It is probable that Paul was also intending to directly attribute deity to Jesus in Romans 9:5 which could be translated, “from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever.” Or, as the New Living Translation puts it, “Christ himself was a Jew as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise” (NLT).
According to Paul it is through Jesus that all things exist (1 Cor. 8:6). Paul repeats this teaching in Colossians 1:16-17 where he says that it was by Jesus that “all things were created, both in heavens and on earth….”
As a good Rabbi, Paul knows full well that God is the only creator. No wonder Paul writes that Jesus “existed in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) and that “in Him the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).
In Titus 2:13 Paul writes, “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” There is a way, in Greek in which Paul could have distinguished between Father and Son in this passage, but the way he writes this makes it pretty clear that he intended to call Jesus “our great God and Savior.”
Hebrews and General Epistles
The Book of Hebrews refers to Jesus as the very “radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” and says that Jesus “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3).
According to Hebrews, quoting from Psalm 2:7, God himself called Jesus his Son (Hebrews 1:5). According to Hebrews God said to Jesus, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8). It is clear that the author of Hebrews intends to teach the deity of Jesus.
The deity of Jesus is also taught in First and Second Peter. Isaiah 8:13 says “The LORD [Yahweh] of Hosts, him you shall regard as holy…” First Peter 3:15 says Jesus is the one we should regard as holy!
Second Peter 1:1 speaks of “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” There is a way in Greek in which Peter could have made a distinction between our God, and our Savior Jesus Christ but Peter does not do this. He intends to call Jesus, “Our God.”
Revelation
According to Revelation 22:13 Jesus says, “I am the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end,” but Revelation 1:8 says it was the Lord God who was the alpha and omega.
What is particularly interesting about these passages is that they are also found in the Jehovah’s Witness’s New World Translation which goes to great lengths to remove any trace of Jesus’ deity. They missed one. The New World Translation translates Revelation 1:8 as “I am the alpha and omega, says Jehovah God.” But at the end of Revelation, the alpha and omega is the one who is coming quickly (Revelation 22:12-13), identified specifically as Jesus in Revelation 22:16. Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses own translation teaches the deity of Jesus!
It is no wonder, therefore, that Jesus was also the object of worship in the New Testament...and remember, in a Jewish context only God was the object of worship! Paul says that “at the name of Jesus every knee will bow (Philippians 2:10). Paul exclaims that to Jesus “be glory forever and ever” (2 Timothy 4:18). Second Peter 3:18 also says that to Jesus “be glory, both now and to the day of eternity.” Hebrews 1:6 says of Jesus, “let all the angels of God worship him.” Revelation says that to Jesus “be the glory and dominion forever and ever” (1:5-6) and “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb [Jesus], be blessing and honor and dominion forever and ever…and the elders fell down and worshiped” (5:11-14).
After the New Testament
Is it possible, however, that we have misunderstood what the New Testament teaches about Jesus’ deity?
Not a chance! Those who wrote shortly after the New Testament understood exactly what the New Testament taught about Jesus!
Clement of Rome (AD 97), for example, described Jesus as the “majestic scepter of God” and the radiance of God’s majesty (Clement to the Corinthians, 16, 36).
Ignatius (AD 110) wrote about “our God, Jesus Christ” (to the Romans, 3; to the Ephesians, 18) and “Jesus Christ, our God” (to the Ephesians, Intro), and “stirring up yourselves by the blood of God (to the Ephesians, 1), and “God Himself being manifested in human form” (to the Ephesians, 19) and “servants of Christ our God” (to the Smyrneans, 10).
The letter of Barnabas—not the Barnabas of the Bible but some other Christian named Barnabas (AD 70-135), says, “…the Son of God was the divine Lord, and the future Judge of living and dead alike” (Chapter 7). The letter of Barnabas calls Jesus “the Lord of all the earth,” a title used in Joshua 3:13 to refer to God (5:1).
Justin Martyr (d. 163) writes that “…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God (First Apology of Justin LXIII).
The idea that Jesus was God is also found in ancient books known as the New Testament Apocrypha (not to be confused with the Catholic apocrypha which was written before the time of Jesus). Most New Testament Apocrypha were written from the second to fourth or fifth centuries AD. One of these books is the Acts of Andrew (4th cent.) which ways, “Andrew prayed thus: ‘I pray you, my God, Lord Jesus Christ….”
The Apocalypse of Peter” says, “… my Lord and God Jesus Christ” (Apocalypse of Peter, Ethiopic 16, 135 AD).
The “Acts of John” says, “Glory be to thee, my Jesus, the only God of truth” (Acts of John 43, 2nd-3rd c.).
The Ascension of Isaiah says, “and he who gave permission is thy Lord, God, the Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus on earth” (Ascension of Isaiah 5, 2nd c.).
In the Acts of Paul and Thecla we find, “My God, Jesus Christ” (Acts of Paul and Thecla, 185-195 AD).
The fact that these early Christians believed Jesus was God is also confirmed in secular sources.
The anti-Christian satirist, Lucian also wrote of Christians saying that they “worship” Jesus (Lucian early 100’s)
The Roman governor, Pliny the Younger (AD 112), for example, conducted an investigation of Christians and reported to the Roman emperor that they “were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternative verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god” (Letter to Emperor Trajan). Of course Pliny would write “to a god” instead of “to God” because Pliny didn’t believe in just one God.
By the way, contrary to the popular DaVinci Code, even writers of the so-called “lost gospels” believed Jesus was some kind of divine being. The “Teachings of Silvanus,” for example, says, “Know who Christ is…He is also God and Teacher. This one, being God, became man for your sake” (Teachings of Silvanus 110).
The “Letter of Philip” says, “according to the orders of our God Jesus” (Letter of Peter to Philip 133).
The “Trimorphic Protennoia says, “They blessed Perfect Son, the Christ, the only-begotten God” (Trimorphic Protennoia 38).
These “lost gospels” are not Christian documents. Contrary to Christianity, they generally believe that Jesus was one of many divine beings. The point the Da Vinci Code is factually in error whn it says that “these documents speak of Christ’s ministry in very human terms” (Brown, 234). The fact is that one of the very earliest controversies about Jesus was not about whether he was divine or not, but whether he was actually human or not!
All of this evidence, of course, does not prove that Jesus was God, but it does demonstrate rather conclusively that early Christians believed that Jesus was God and that they believed it hundreds of years before any church councils got together to discuss the issue.
THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit of God is called God in the Bible. For example, Acts 28:25-26 says that “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet…” What follows is a quote from Isaiah 6:8-9 which was spoken by God.
Similarly Hebrews 10:15-17 says, “And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us…saying…” What follows are quotes from Jeremiah 31:31-34 which was spoken by God. The point is that the writers of Acts and Hebrews attribute to the Holy Spirit, words spoken in their original contexts by God.
The Deity of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by the fact that the Holy Spirit is said to have the attributes of God (Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; 1 Cor 2;9-11; Hebrews 9:14) and the Holy Spirit performs the works of God (Job 33:4; Ps 104:30; Luke 12:11-12; Acts 1:5; 20:28; 1 Cor 6:11; 2:8-11; 2 Peter 1:21).
The Holy Spirit is often called the “Spirit of God” (Genesis 1:2; Exodus 31:3; Numbers 42:2; First Samuel 10:10; 2 Chronicles 24:20; Job 33:4; Ezekiel 11:24; Romans 8:14, 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 4:30; Philippians 3:3; 1 John 4:2).
We might conclude that the Spirit of God is just another way of saying “God” except that many passages specifically distinguish between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. This will be covered in a separate section below.
In the mean time, it is also important to note that according to the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is not just some impersonal force like gravity or magnetism. The Holy Spirit is a being who, like any sentient being has intellect, emotion and will (theologians use the word "person" for lack of a better term).
According to the New Testament, the Holy Spirit admonishes (Jn 16:8), teaches, (Jn 14:26; 16:13-15; 1 Jn 2:27), guides (Jn 16:13) speaks (Gal 4:6), intercedes (Rom 8:26), leads (Gal 5:18), appoints for service (Acts 13:2), regenerates (Jn 3:6), baptizes (1 Cor 12:13), fills (Eph 5:18) and glorifies Jesus (Jn 16:14). He is called a Helper, Comforter/counselor or advocate (Jn 14:6-17; 26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1-2). He can be grieved (Eph 4:30), quenched (resisted; 1 Thess 5:19), blasphemed (Matt 2:31) and lied to (Acts 5:3).
The point is that no one would speak about lying to a force like gravity, or grieving magnetism or blaspheming nuclear forces!
Although the word "spirit" in Greek is grammatically neuter meaning that you would expect that a neuter pronoun would be used to refer to the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to with the masculine pronoun, "He." (e.g. John 14:16-17; 16:7-15).
In other words, the Bible usually refers to the Holy Spirit as a "He" rather than "it." The use of "He" does not mean the Holy Spirit is male (a spirit is neither male nor female), but the use of "He" does seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a personal being rather than an impersonal force.
So like any “person” the Holy Spirit has intellect (He can teach, guide, speak), emotion (He can be grieved), and will (He submits to the Father John 14:16-17; 26). The Holy Spirit is also God.
Distinction between Father, Son and Spirit
The Bible clearly make a distinction between God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit.
For example, Matthew 3:16 clearly makes this distinction as does Mark 1:9-11 and Luke 3:21-22 where Jesus is baptized while the Spirit of God descends on him and the Father speaks from heaven. A distinction between Father, Son and Spirit is also clear from John 14:26 where Jesus says his Father will send the Spirit to the disciples.
Matthew 1:18 makes a distinction between the Holy Spirit and the unborn Jesus who is still in his mother’s womb. Jesus makes a distinction between himself and the Spirit in Matthew 12:28 and in John 14:7, 12-14.
Jesus distinguishes between the Father, Spirit and himself when he speaks of blasphemy against the Spirit as worse than blasphemy of him or the Father (Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29), possibly because it is the Spirit who draws people to the Father and Son.
Luke 4:1 distinguishes between Jesus and the Holy Spirit saying that Jesus, being filled with the Spirit was led by the Spirit in the wilderness. Luke 11:13 is about how the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask.
Paul seems to distinguish between the Spirit of God and God in 1 Corinthians 2:11.
The New Testament also make a distinction between the tasks the Father, Son and Spirit perform. For example, the Holy Spirit glorifies Jesus (John 16:14). The Bible never says that Jesus "glorifies the Holy Spirit."
The Spirit is “sent” by the Father (John 14:16-17, 26) and by the Son (John 16:7). The Bible never says the Spirit sends the Father although the does say the Spirit “led” Jesus (Luke 4:1). Jesus was crucified.
The Father and Spirit were not crucified.
Finally, in the New Testament, the Father speaks to Jesus (Matthew 3:17, 17:5; Mark 1:11, 9:2; Luke 3:22; 9:35) and Jesus prays to the Father (e.g. Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:35; Luke 22:42; John 17). Jesus is not praying to himself!
Is it possible that we have misunderstood our New Testament on the distinction between Father, Son and Spirit?
Not a chance!
The earliest church “fathers” writing right after the New Testament was written understood completely what the New Testament was teaching. Although Ignatius calls Jesus God, he distinguishes between Father and Son: “by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God.” (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians).
So does Justin, “…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. (First Apology of Justin LXIII).
So does Irenaeus, “"and ‘the Word was with God…and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.” (Against Heresies 1.8.5).
We also find the distinction between Father and Son in the Epistle to Diognetus, “he sent him in gentleness and meekness, as a king might send his son who is a king; he sent him as God” (to Diognetus 7).
In fact, as early as the Didache, which could have been written any time between about AD 70 and 150, we find a full-blown statement of the Trinity, at least 300 years before any church councils met to discuss the issue: “baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water…But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit” (Didache 7)
Some in the early church argued that there is one God who appeared in three “modes”: Father in the Old Testament, Jesus in the early first century AD, and the Holy Spirit after the resurrection of Jesus. There is a modern version of this called “Jesus only” which denies the Trinity, and teaches that Jesus sometimes manifested himself as God, sometimes as Jesus and sometimes as the Spirit.
The ancient version of this became known as Modalism or Sabellianism. It was condemned as heresy because it just doesn’t account for the biblical data which not only presents Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time and place (e.g. the Baptism of Jesus), but does not preserve the Biblical distinctions between Father, Son and Spirit.
Conclusion:
Cultists and some critics will challenge this evidence, of course. They have to! They have an agenda to preserve. It would be relatively easy to pick apart individual pieces of the evidence above and entire books have been written which interact with all the arguments. One of the best places to start would be the book, entitled, Jesus as God; the New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray Harris (Baker, 1992). The book is an indepth, scholarly evaluation of the New Testament passages that attribute deity to Jesus. It argues from the original languages but even those who don’t know Hebrew or Greek can profit from the book.
Anyway, it is for all of the reasons above and more—this is by no means a scholarly or exhaustive study!—that orthodox Christians have concluded that the Bible teaches there is ONE and only ONE God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19) who exists eternally in three “persons,” Father, Son and Spirit. The Bible doesn't have a name for this phenomena so theologians chose to call it the Trinity (I think Tri-unity may have been a better term).
Whenever you hear the tired old argument that “the word Trinity” doesn’t even appear in the Bible” know and understand that the critic is grasping at straws in desperation. The argument is completely irrelevant. All orthodox Christians—Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox—understand that “trinity” is a word developed by later Christians to describe a phenomena found in the Bible. The fact that the word itself is not found in the Bible says absolutely nothing about whether the doctrine is found in the Bible or not.
It is true, of course, that the concept of Trinity is hard to understand and even harder to explain, but this is what the Bible teaches. Many analogies have been proposed, like for example, the egg which is one, and yet composed of egg whites, a shell and yoke. But a yoke is just part of an egg and Jesus is not just part of God.
All analogies break down. The best one I’ve come up with is from science fiction. Being a Star Trek Next Generation fan, I sometimes use the “Borg” as an analogy. In Star Trek Next Generation the Borg is an alien being that resides in a gigantic cube shaped object. The Borg consists of thousands of beings appearing like grotesque-looking people, but, the show is quick to explain, these are not thousands of Borgs. The Borg is one.
Each individual is distinct and yet intimately connected with every other individual. They can hear each others thoughts and function as one organism. If they conquered the Enterprise, for example, one might be on the bridge interacting with the captain, one might be in the engineering section controlling the engines and one might be in the transporter room controlling access to the Enterprise. Three individuals with different tasks but yet so intimately connected that they function, and in fact are, one organism.
But again, all analogies break down. Star Trek is science fiction. God is science fact. In Star Trek the Borg is evil whereas God is good. In Star Trek the Borg consists of thousands of individuals where as God exists in three persons. The Borg’s power is finite where as God is all powerful, etc. And yet, I think the analogy may help to understand the concept of One God who exists eternally as Father, Son, and Spirit.
The fact is that we worship a Creator who created a universe so indescribably huge and complex (from incredibly complex micro-organisms to unimaginably gigantic galaxies) that human beings do not even begin to comprehend a tiny part of this creation. This being the case, do you suppose there might be some things about our awesome Creator that our human minds just do comprehend?
Imagine, for example, trying to explain a long distance cell phone call to someone from the 1700’s. They wouldn’t even understand the concept of telephones, much less cell phones. If you tried to explain cell phones to them, they wouldn’t understand microscopic circuits, or frequencies, or satellites or electronics or liquid crystal displays (LCD) or even plastic! In other words, they wouldn’t even understand the concepts necessary to understand the principles behind cell phones!
How much less do we understand God! So when God reveals himself as ONE God eternally existing in Father, Son and Spirit, Christians believe it even if we can’t adequately explain it.
The re-funding of ACORN?
You remember the ACORN videos in which ACORN representatives were caught on tape supporting what they thought were illegal activities including the shipping of foreign children into the United States as sex slaves?
That was too much even for our Congresspeople, many of whom are heavily funded by ACORN, so Congress voted to cut off funding for ACORN.
But wait! According to Minnesota Congresswoman Miclele Bachmann that suspension of funding was only temporary. If Congress does not specifically include re-include language de-funding ACORN in a continuing resolution, ACORN could again be receiving your tax dollars as soon as November 1st! This is certainly a story to watch.
Michele points out that this doesn't need an act of Congress. President Obama could put an end to this right now by simply barring ACORN from federal funds!
Read the entire story at Townhall.
(The more I hear about Michele Bachmann, the more I'm beginning to think that Sarah Palin should be Michele's Vice President)!
That was too much even for our Congresspeople, many of whom are heavily funded by ACORN, so Congress voted to cut off funding for ACORN.
But wait! According to Minnesota Congresswoman Miclele Bachmann that suspension of funding was only temporary. If Congress does not specifically include re-include language de-funding ACORN in a continuing resolution, ACORN could again be receiving your tax dollars as soon as November 1st! This is certainly a story to watch.
Michele points out that this doesn't need an act of Congress. President Obama could put an end to this right now by simply barring ACORN from federal funds!
Read the entire story at Townhall.
(The more I hear about Michele Bachmann, the more I'm beginning to think that Sarah Palin should be Michele's Vice President)!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
"If the Arabs put down their weapons..."
From my Facebook account: "If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel." Benjamin Netanyahu (hat tip, Ben H.).
It's not just a cute saying. Its a fact. Those who want to deny this fact might be more convincing if more Arab nations would simply recognize Israel's right to exist.
It's not just a cute saying. Its a fact. Those who want to deny this fact might be more convincing if more Arab nations would simply recognize Israel's right to exist.
Cutting executive salaries
According to the Wall Street Journal:
I have a better idea. How about if we cut by 90% the salaries of those who voted for the bailouts in the first place!The U.S. pay czar will cut in half the average compensation for 175 employees at firms receiving large sums of government aid, with the vast majority of salaries coming in under $500,000, according to people familiar with the government's plans.
As expected, the biggest cut will be to salaries, which will drop by 90% on average.
Cutting executives salaries
News is that the administration is planning to drastically cut the salaries of corporate executives who received bailout money.
I've got a better idea. How about if we drastically cut the salaries of those who voted for the bailouts in the first place!
I've got a better idea. How about if we drastically cut the salaries of those who voted for the bailouts in the first place!
Yet another ACORN video
Here is the latest ACORN video from "Big Government." They "muted the audio of the ACORN employees...due to ACORN's legal attack..." I am amazed (though I shouldn't be) at how often the mainstream media simply buys into ACORN's lies without checking on the facts.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Check out StopthePork.com
My congressman, John Kline, has a new website: StopthePork.com. Check it out!
The Islamic slave trade, part 3
This is getting depressing. It is hard to understand how people can be so satanically cruel to other human beings. From Jihad Watch:
The Islamic slave trade, part 1
Please try to find time out of your day to watch this 8 minute clip (via Jihad Watch).
Monday, October 19, 2009
White House campaign against Fox
There is something disturbing about a deliberate government smear campaign against a particular news organization. It smacks of the kind of thing dictatorships do just before they go into censorship mode.
The Obama administration's systematic efforts to discredit Fox News is ironic in light of the recent revelations by the White House Communication director about how the White House pretty much controls the news coming out of the main stream media. They apparently don't like any news they can't control.
If you're not a regular watcher of Fox News, it might be a good idea to find out what the White House is so afraid of.
The Obama administration's systematic efforts to discredit Fox News is ironic in light of the recent revelations by the White House Communication director about how the White House pretty much controls the news coming out of the main stream media. They apparently don't like any news they can't control.
If you're not a regular watcher of Fox News, it might be a good idea to find out what the White House is so afraid of.
Two million protest abortion
"Up to two million people took to the streets in Spain on Saturday to protest against Government plans to weaken the country’s abortion law" (Christian.org).
Iran threatenes a "crushing" strike
On Sunday there was a suicide attack against the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard which killed 42 people. Today, the commander of that military group claimed to have evidence that the United States, the UK and Pakistan were involved and he threatened "crushing" retaliation.
Surely the Obama administration wouldn't be behind a suicide bombing, would they? It is hard to imagine that the administration which so strongly condemned waterboarding would be behind a suicide terrorist attack that killed 42 people.
Surely the Obama administration wouldn't be behind a suicide bombing, would they? It is hard to imagine that the administration which so strongly condemned waterboarding would be behind a suicide terrorist attack that killed 42 people.
Reaction against the media
In light of yesterdays' post about the White House Communication Director admitting that they control the news, Rahm Emanuel's bashing of Fox News yesterday was ironic. I guess the White House doesn't like news they can't control, which is why they would undoubtedly love to see some version of the Fairness Doctrine imposed on talk radio.
Meanwhile, there may be (at long last) a bit of a reaction against lapdog media who are worshipers of Obama. Pamela Geller reports on nationwide rallies against mainstream media. Check out some of the protester's signs.
Meanwhile, there may be (at long last) a bit of a reaction against lapdog media who are worshipers of Obama. Pamela Geller reports on nationwide rallies against mainstream media. Check out some of the protester's signs.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Barack Obama and fascism
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics provides the following explanation of fascism:
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it....Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities.Isn't this pretty much what Barack Obama and the Democrats are trying to do to America?
U.S.--a banana republic?
According to Senator Judd Gregg, the "Ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee" and "one-time Obama cabinet pick," "we’re basically on the path to a banana-republic-type of financial situation in this country" (CNN).
A "banana republic" is a politically and economically unstable country that usually controlled by a dictator.
A "banana republic" is a politically and economically unstable country that usually controlled by a dictator.
Government controlled media
According to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, "Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control."
Some conservative pundits have half-joked about the mainstream media being the "government media." It sounds like these pundits were more accurate than I thought.
Some conservative pundits have half-joked about the mainstream media being the "government media." It sounds like these pundits were more accurate than I thought.
Defending terrorists with your money
This morning on Fox and Friends, Texas Representative John Culberson pointed out that because of a new law passed by Democrats, for the first time in U.S. history, enemy combatants captured on the field of battle can now "lawyer up" at taxpayer expense.
Question of the day: Would you rather spend your taxpayer dollars to educate our children, to help homeless Americans, to pay down our national debt, etc....or maybe you'd just like to keep more of those tax dollars to pay your own bills..........
OR
would you rather spend all those millions of tax dollars paying lawyers to defend terrorists captured on the battlefield after those terrorists have been working hard to kill your sons and daughters!?
Your Democrat congresspeople have chosen to use your tax dollars to defend our enemies! If Democrats absolutely must allow our enemies a legal defense, couldn't the Democrats at least make the very-well-funded terrorist organizations pay for their own lawyers?
Could the Democrats possibly be any more out of touch?!!!
Question of the day: Would you rather spend your taxpayer dollars to educate our children, to help homeless Americans, to pay down our national debt, etc....or maybe you'd just like to keep more of those tax dollars to pay your own bills..........
OR
would you rather spend all those millions of tax dollars paying lawyers to defend terrorists captured on the battlefield after those terrorists have been working hard to kill your sons and daughters!?
Your Democrat congresspeople have chosen to use your tax dollars to defend our enemies! If Democrats absolutely must allow our enemies a legal defense, couldn't the Democrats at least make the very-well-funded terrorist organizations pay for their own lawyers?
Could the Democrats possibly be any more out of touch?!!!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Libraries banning books
According to an article in OneNewsNow, librarians are banning books about homosexuality. No, not those advocating homosexuality, but books about those who have left homosexual lifestyles:
The American Library Association (ALA) is being asked to include books on coming out of the homosexual lifestyle.
The American Library Assocation annually celebrates Banned Books Week (BBW) the last week of September. The Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) plans to capitalize on what they see as an opportunity.When the American Library Association celebrates its annual "banned books week" they do not include the politically incorrect books librarians censor by deliberately excluding them from libraries. Read the entire article at OneNewsNow.
Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX, says, "Books about leaving homosexuality are censored in most high school libraries, although gay-affirming books for youth are readily available."
Anti-semitism and the Obama website
The Big Government post has a disturbing article about Barack Obama's official website:
The site was and is closely policed. The site moderators remove material that they consider to be “disrespectful to our other users” and to “detract from a welcoming community where all people can engage in positive discourse.” What they find disrespectful can be interesting: once during the campaign a conservative blogger, Bill Levinson, posted a blog on Obama’s website consisting entirely of a series of quotations from Obama’s own book, Dreams of my Father. Obama’s team did not approve of their standard-bearer’s words, and so Levinson’s blog and account were deleted from the Obama site in just under 36 hours. That’s right, Barack Obama’s website banned Obama’s own words. But the most disgusting anti-semitic ravings remained on the site, along with blogs advocating anarchy and the overthrow of the United States Congress.Read the entire post at Big Government.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Christian media and ACORN
Doug Giles wants to know where the Christian media was when two Christian kids cracked the ACORN nut? Giles writes,
Now . . . I get that the former MSM is the mouthpiece for the Amerika that embraces Eurosocialism and all its weirdness, but the question I have, as a goofy sinner who’s part of Christ’s church, is this: Who the heck is the Christian media in the tank for? Their reportage on this ACORN slop has been conspicuously inconspicuous.Giles continues,
No doubt some program directors and GMs are getting in a hissy right now and are saying, “Our shows only focus on Jesus!” Try to tell me with a straight face that the Christ of the Bible would be disinterested in two of His young followers devastating an organization that is on film aiding and abetting the sex trafficking of 13-year-olds. Go ahead. I’ll wait. (Insert the sound of crickets chirping here.)
Here’s a new motto I have for your networks: “Don’t Report. Don’t Complain.”
Excellent article. Read it here.Thursday, October 15, 2009
Only 54 billion dollars!
Democratic Senator Harry Reid admitted that the health care bill will actually cost two trillion dollars (yes, trillion, with a "t")! Furthermore, Reid rejected any effort on tort reform saying that it would only save 54 billion dollars (yes, billion, with a b). See Ed Morrissey for the story.
Apparently as long as it is your money, 54 billion dollars is not a lot of money to Mr. Reid and his Democrat friends!
Can these people possibly be any more out of touch? They are literally more dangerous to America's future than al Qaeda.
Apparently as long as it is your money, 54 billion dollars is not a lot of money to Mr. Reid and his Democrat friends!
Can these people possibly be any more out of touch? They are literally more dangerous to America's future than al Qaeda.
Are Taliban targeting Pakistan's nukes?
Are the Taliban targeting Pakistan's nukes? Sure sounds like it.
John Shelby Spong and paganism
From Don Phillips--New Paganism on the Crux blog:
A number of years ago Dr. Albert Mohler spoke at an EMNR conference and in his talk shared a story about Bishop John Shelby Spong. According to Mohler, at the Lambeth Conference, Spong had committed a cultural and political boo-boo. He had been pressing for the ordination of homosexuals but was unable to get the majority to agree at the time because the bishops from Africa held firmly against it. In a moment of frustration Spong lashed out with, “The reason the African bishops believe the Bible to literally is because they have been so recently converted from paganism.” To which the Bishop from Uganda responded, “The reason Spong doesn’t believe the Bible is because he has so recently been converted to paganism.”John Shelby Spong was once the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark. He calls himself Christian even though he has denied virtually ever fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. I find it amazing how quickly these "tolerant," multicultural, "open-minded," academic liberal elites can become so arrogant, closed-minded, and condescending when their views are challenged.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
CAIR spying on national security committees?
According to The Hill:
First, the issue is not anti-Muslim, it is anti-CAIR. There is a difference.
Second, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with racism since Muslims are from all races.
Third, rather than issuing an intelligent response by attempting to allay concerns, CAIR responded like a child who, when caught doing wrong, lashes out in anger blaming someone else.
In my opinion, CAIR's response alone is enough reason to proceed with the investigation.
CAIR has responded by accusing its accusers of being hate-filled anti-Muslim racists.Four House Republicans are accusing a Muslim advocacy group of trying to plant spies on Capitol Hill.
Republican members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus said the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have tried to plant “spies” within key national-security committees in order to shape legislative policy.
First, the issue is not anti-Muslim, it is anti-CAIR. There is a difference.
Second, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with racism since Muslims are from all races.
Third, rather than issuing an intelligent response by attempting to allay concerns, CAIR responded like a child who, when caught doing wrong, lashes out in anger blaming someone else.
In my opinion, CAIR's response alone is enough reason to proceed with the investigation.
"We don't kidnap Imams"
Please take time to read the very short but excellent post entitled, "We don't kidnap Imams."
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Senate Finance Committee approves health care bill
Breaking news from USA Today/AP:
The Senate Finance Committee has approved a sweeping remake of the country's health care system, delivering a long-sought boost to President Obama's goal of expanding coverage. The 14-9 vote by the key panel sets up a debate on the Senate floor and moves a health care remake closer to reality than it has been for decades.Our national socialist party has just moved us one more step on the road to socialism.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Voting on a bill that doesn't exist
According to an article on TownHall,
The Senate Finance Committee is poised to vote on a massive health care reform bill on Tuesday allegedly authored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). A glaring, outrageous, unreported fact is that the bill’s actual text has been kept secret. No one actually knows what’s in it – not even the senators who will be told to vote for it.I must say that I agree with Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann who, according to the Townhall article,
took to the floor of the House during the earlier spendathon and said the nation is in the grip of “gangster government,” in which powerful interests are raiding the treasury to ensure their own continued power.
Global warming in Austria
The Austrian Times is reporting that"Austria’s provincial capitals are expected to see their earliest snowfalls in history today (Mon) as Arctic air sweeps the country."
Just think how bad it might have been were it not for global warming ;-)
Just think how bad it might have been were it not for global warming ;-)
Pulpit freedom Sunday
Recently the Alliance Defense Fund held "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" which is a peaceful event of civil disobedience in which pastors preach in specific opposition to the 1954 Johnson Amendment:
Frankly, I was disappointed. Only 83 pastors in America were willing to take a stand for freedom of speech and freedom of religion!?
That's sad.
At the center of this free-speech issue is the 1954 Johnson Amendment initiated by then Sen. Lyndon Johnson. It was Johnson's move to halt pastors and conservative groups from opposing his election. Violators could lose their tax-exempt status (OneNewsNow).The ADF (which, by the way, is very worthy of your financial support) was excited that "Eighty-three pastors from 30 states and the District of Columbia participated." I was one of them. This was up from 33 pastors in 20 states last year.
Frankly, I was disappointed. Only 83 pastors in America were willing to take a stand for freedom of speech and freedom of religion!?
That's sad.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Join FreedomWorks
Do you believe in lower taxes and smaller government? If so, then please join me in joining FreedomWorks.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Insurgents break into Pakistani army headquarters
I saw a TV news report this morning saying that gunmen dressed in Pakistani army uniforms broke into a Pakistani army headquarters and have taken hostages.
Yawn.
What I did not learn from TV, however, was that "lodged in the HQ compound is the secret department in charge of securing Pakistan's nuclear weapons."
I'm not yawning anymore. Something tells me these insurgents did not break into army headquarters for the military food (though I must say that I actually enjoyed military food).
The crisis is still going on as I write.
UPDATE: The Associated Press has more of the story (minus the nuke part)
UPDATE: As of 5:06pm EST it has been over 15 hours since this attack began and there is still a standoff. Pakistani commandos are ready to go in when they get the order. The building which the insurgents have taken is the Pakistani equivalent of our Pentagon.
UPDATE: From Associated Press/OneNews Now: "Pakistani commandos freed dozens of hostages seized by militants at the army's own headquarters Sunday, ending a deadly, 22-hour drama that embarrassed the nation's military as it plans a new offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban."
Yawn.
What I did not learn from TV, however, was that "lodged in the HQ compound is the secret department in charge of securing Pakistan's nuclear weapons."
I'm not yawning anymore. Something tells me these insurgents did not break into army headquarters for the military food (though I must say that I actually enjoyed military food).
The crisis is still going on as I write.
UPDATE: The Associated Press has more of the story (minus the nuke part)
UPDATE: As of 5:06pm EST it has been over 15 hours since this attack began and there is still a standoff. Pakistani commandos are ready to go in when they get the order. The building which the insurgents have taken is the Pakistani equivalent of our Pentagon.
UPDATE: From Associated Press/OneNews Now: "Pakistani commandos freed dozens of hostages seized by militants at the army's own headquarters Sunday, ending a deadly, 22-hour drama that embarrassed the nation's military as it plans a new offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban."
Ellison's Hajj to Mecca
Minnesota's Muslim Congressman, Kieth Ellison, made a "Hajj" to Mecca which was paid for ($13,350) by a group whose goal is to destroy America from within.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Higher priority than nuclear defense
Yesterday Recliner Commentaries reported on how the government cut funding for defending New York City against nuclear attack. Here are some of the projects that apparently have higher priority.
Unprovoked U.S. missile attack
In a blatant and unprovoked act of shear military aggression and imperialism, the United States today attacked the moon in search of water. This is the first time in history that one planet has launched an unprovoked attack on another planet in this solar system.
No word yet on whether the United Nations will call for sanctions.
See the Associated Press for the real story.
No word yet on whether the United Nations will call for sanctions.
See the Associated Press for the real story.
Obama--Nobel Peace Prize
Today it was announced the President Obama has received the Nobel Peace Prize. The deadline for submitting the nominations was only twelve days after he took office.
Do you think the Nobel Peace Prize might be just a wee bit political?
Do you think the Nobel Peace Prize might be just a wee bit political?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
