I am in a strait betwixt two

A political post that will likely be disliked by the majority of readers on either side. In Texas in November, we will make a choice for U. S. Senator, predicted to be either Ken Paxton or James Talarico.

Almost three years ago I wrote the following about Ken Paxton:

The Republican Party platform says, “We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization” (p. 29). For some members of the Republican party, this may only be a generic plank to show a reason for the opposition to the marriage of people of the same gender. It certainly is and should be that, but it is more than that. It affirms “God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior” – which Attorney General Ken Paxton has flaunted. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and we could forgive him for the sin of adultery. However, after this sin he multiplied sin upon sin. Attorney General Paxton lied to his wife, lied to his supporters, lied to Texas, continued to pursue the adultery he promised to put behind him, and used his position as Attorney General of the great State of Texas in his doing so! I do not and cannot trust liars.

Recently, I compiled the following about James Talarico:

As bad, and probably worse, is the religious ignorance—and deliberate misrepresentation—from an oleaginous seminarian aspiring to be a slick politician. James Talarico is a very liberal member of a very liberal PCUSA church in Austin, Texas. He does not accept the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible. The biblical positions he presents are biblical nonsense (though probably having wide appeal among those who like to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they like and don’t like). Talarico’s bizarre “biblical” claims include: God is nonbinary, there are six biological sexes, transgender men need abortion rights, Jesus was a feminist, Mary was a revolutionary and a poster child for “bodily autonomy” (demonically using the virgin birth to promote murdering babies), the teachings of Jesus do not cover homosexuality or abortion, the Gospel of Thomas was “later omitted from the Bible,” and salvation is not only through Jesus Christ, but all faith traditions lead to salvation (though we Bible believers know Jesus said, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins”).[i] James Talarico cloaks his political beliefs in spiritual rhetoric. The problem is that his spiritual rhetoric is of the worst kind, departing from two thousand years of general understanding about what is the orthodox teaching of the churches from Scripture. Over and over again, James Talarico’s views, judged by the Bible, are heretical! Summed up – like others he charges with being Christian nationalists, James Talarico also wants a “Christian nation” – just so long as it implements his version of “Christian.” It is a version of Christianity that many Bible-believing Christians will not recognize. I do not and cannot trust heretics. (And in this case, the religious heretics is also a liar, as can be seen in his attempts to rehabilitate his views for the statewide race.)

Paul said he was in a strait betwixt two – dying to be with Christ or living to serve for Christ. Literally, there were only two options. He would either live or die. However, in the race for the U. S. Senate in November, there actually are more than two options. In addition to Paxton and Talarico, the following people will apparently be on the ballot for U. S. Senator from Texas, November 3, 2026: Ted Brown (Libertarian), David B. Collins (Green Party), Joshua Cain, Ronald Evans, Camencia Ford, Jade Simmons, and Hans Truelson (Independents).

We have no reason to be in a strait betwixt two. There are choices, surely (possibly? hopefully?) at least one of whom would be more in line with Christian values and principles than immoral Paxton or ungodly Talarico. We do not have to choose the lesser of two evils, but rather can chose to vote for someone else. Until we grow a backbone, we will never change. I know the tired old line about only voting for either the Democrat or Republican, because one of them is bound to win. I hate the two-party control system, but that latter assessment is probably right. If so, is it not likely a sign that we are under God’s judgment, if he should raise up one of these two sorry rascals to represent us? Then again, regardless, maybe a rascal representing rascals is absolutely appropriate! Will we believe God, humble ourselves, and repent? The admonition to the people of Israel in 2 Chronicles 7:14 was not only to humble themselves, and pray, but also to seek God’s face, and turn from their wicked ways.

---

[i] I have documented all the statements by Talarico, in context, and will eventually get around to posting a fuller exposure of his heresies. If you want to see it sooner, let me know.

Science cannot tell you

"There is a creeping danger of equating science with rationality, but what is beyond science is not necessarily irrational. Science cannot tell us for instance whether a poem or work of literature or a work of art and music is good or beautiful. Science can tell us that if you put strychnine into your grandmother’s tea it will kill her, but science cannot tell you whether it is morally right to do so." -- John Lennox

TV Time

According to answers.com, John Logie Baird was the first to demonstrate a television system. He did so in London in 1925. The BBC began the world's first regular television broadcasts in January 1929. In 1939 RCA began the first commercial public television broadcasts in the United States. The growth from there has been tremendous. The Grolier Encyclopedia says that the number of U.S. homes with TVs was 6,000 in 1946, then rose to about 12 million by 1951. By 1955 half of all U.S. homes had a TV, and by the late 1990s, 98% of homes in the U.S. had at least one television. In 2010, Nielsen reported that the average American home had 2.93 TV sets. The number of people in homes with TVs averages 2.5, meaning the average home has more TVs than people. According to surveys reported by Grolier, Americans spend from 2-1/2 to 5 hours per day watching television. That's not that hard to do. Sit down at 8 p.m., watch a couple shows and then the 10 o'clock news, and you've got your 2-1/2 hours right there. In 2012, Nielsen reported that “The average American watches nearly five hours of video each day, 98 percent of which they watch on a traditional TV set.” This report does not include “consumption on computers, phones or tablets like the iPad.”

I'm not of the persuasion and owning a television or watching it is a sin. But I am persuaded that the overall effect of television is a detriment to our society, and generally at enmity with/to Christian principles. The combined mind-numbing drivel and graphic portrayals that bombard us with ?? eventually effects how we think.

The “idolatry of the star.” Famous & not-so-famous actors and actresses are exalted to heroes, idols, and “role-models.” Why does the internet follow every move the Kardashians make? Why do we care what some star’s political views are? What qualifications do they have to guide us down philosophical paths? Why do Christians ask for prayer for figments who are only characters in a TV show? (Yes, this has happened and is not just an urban myth.) Just because someone has fortune and fame does not mean they know anything about anything else, or are positioned to be a role model to our youth.

The rejection of moral principles. I would say that many of the producers of television fare are probably faithful to their own principles, whatever they are. But a steady diet of television will sometimes lead the viewer to compromise or reject his or her moral principles. Take a Christian who is convinced that personal revenge is wrong, and just retribution belongs to God. Sit him or her down in front of a well-written, well-directed and well-acted western in which the family of the protagonist meets an ill fate – say desperadoes rape his wife and kill his children. Nearing the end of the movie, the Christian is cheering the hero on to get his revenge! Take a Christian who is convinced that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Sit him or her down in front of a well-written, well-directed and well-acted “love story” in which against all odds the hero and heroine come together in the end – and before they are married! At the point, the Christian is has tears of joy because all has turned out all right. What is happening? A dramatic presentation – not necessarily conspiratorial, but reflective of the Hollywood culture – is slowly changing how we think and feel. Enough of that, and how long is it before we begin to act on it?

Watch what you choose wisely, and choose wisely what you watch.

Who's more righteous?

A recent study (published 12 Sept 2014) has found that Religion Doesn't Make People More Moral. This has been reported in various ways, often in words similar to the title of the article by Elizabeth Palermo at LiveScience, linked above.

I agree with  Macrina Cooper-White's conclusion "So much for religious people being more righteous than non-believers." Religious people are not more righteous, even though some religious people think so. But that doesn't tell the whole story (and Macrina tells the story with traditional Huff Post spin).

According to Palermo, the study was conducted in this manner: "Researchers asked 1,252 adults of different religious and political backgrounds in the United States and Canada to record the good and bad deeds they committed, witnessed, learned about or were the target of throughout the day." Further explaining, she writes, "For three days, participants received five text messages a day that included a link to the study's mobile website, where they could record any moral phenomena that they had experienced in the past hour via their smartphones."

Reports of the study state that religious or non-religious people committed both moral and immoral deeds with “comparable frequency.” The same held true of regardless of the participants' political viewpoints.

One benefit of the study is that it takes such study out of the "lab" and moves it into real life experience -- perhaps the first study to do so. "As far as I know, this is the first study that's used this kind of lived-experience approach to track morality as it's happening," said Dan Wisneski, a professor of psychology at Saint Peter's University in Jersey City, and one of the leaders of the study. Perhaps it will also have some benefit in combatting "Phariseeism", though Phariseeism usually seems to produce the fuel on which it runs.

But there are some problems I see (or think I see) with the study. Researchers used Craigslist, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to recruit over 1200 people with the incentive of winning an iPod Touch. By this method they apparently recruited a diversity of participants -- in some ways. But it seems like the not-so-social media savvy folks who aren't interested in an iPod Touch got left out! Could that skew the results? Though it is not clear who determined what was "moral" behaviour, it seems very likely that along with the self-reporting was a certain amount of "self-classification" -- that is, the reports by the individuals are skewed by their own views of their behaviour. One false conclusion that some will have is that religion does not have any direct effect on morality and is therefore not beneficial. (Or more likely, those who already have that view will point to this study as proving it.)

In the end it will be well that we all remind ourselves that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags."

The study can be found here:
* Morality in everyday life and can be read if you have a "sciencemag" account.

Does private behavior matter?

Does private behavior matter for public officials? A "call-girl scandal" related to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is big news today. Steven Cohen, a professor of public administration at Columbia University, said:

"This isn't Britney Spears we're talking about. This is the governor. The bottom line is, he controls the National Guard and the state police. He could have people come to arrest you and me tomorrow. So his private behavior does become a public issue."

What do you think? Does it matter?