Oh, the hypocrisy!

A recent commenter did all she could to avoid the topic of a post and railed at length about the hypocrisy of Christians. 

Critics have a point when they demonstrate where some Christians are hypocritical.  After all, Jesus taught to judge but not to judge hypocritically.

But unless the critics are just pointing out the hypocrisy of some Christians as mere trivia, then the critics become judges and hypocrites themselves. 

Think about it: If they reject the Bible, then what is their grounding for claiming that judging and hypocrisy are wrong? 

Even if they could provide a grounding outside the Bible that judging is wrong (they can’t, of course, but that’s a different problem for them), then they are guilty of judging Christians for judging. 

And of course, if they judge others for the (ungrounded) universal sin of judging, then they are hypocrites.

They judge people for hypocrisy when they are hypocrites as well, so they are double hypocrites.

Do they see the irony?  Do they realize their own hypocrisy?  In my experience they don’t.  They are too busy avoiding the central issues of the debate and they use the hypocrisy charge to position themselves as morally superior to Christians.

A friend used to complain a lot about hypocrites in the church.  I conceded that it is often the case, but I finally asked if he was wounded by some hypocrites at some point.  He smiled and said no.  I realized in an instant that he didn’t really care about hypocrisy.  He just used that as an excuse to feel superior to those awful, hypocritical Christians and to avoid God. 

These folks might want to reconsider the definition of hypocrisy as well.

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

The commenter in question insisted that to judge homosexual behavior as sinful was hypocritical if they didn’t give equal time to all other sins.  But that doesn’t meet the definition.  If one engages in homosexual behavior while speaking out against it then that would be hypocrisy.

Should Christians avoid hypocrisy?  Absolutely.  But we should point out when people try to silence us with silly logic.

ObamaCare: Pro-abortion, not pro-choice

Make no mistake: Obama & Co. plan to have taxpayer funded abortions as part of their “health” coverage.  Why wouldn’t they?  After all, they already refer to abortions as “reproductive health.”  I suppose that euphemism sells better than crushing and dismembering innocent human beings, but I still find it to be highly inaccurate.

Go see Stop the Abortion Mandate and follow the instructions.

Anyone who favors taking tax dollars to fund abortions here or overseas isn’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.

Home Depot sponsors kids’ booths at gay pride parades. Seriously.

I am not making this up. 

According to the Nashville Gay Pride website, Home Depot gave over $5,000 to be a major sponsor of its 2009 Gay Pride Festival in June. But simply financing the event wasn’t enough for the big box chain.

Home Depot also signed on as a vendor, conducting kid’s craft workshops for children via a special booth set up just for them.

To this end, Home Depot is basically encouraging the attendance of children at events which openly expose them to transvestites, cross-dressers, and homosexual activities.

Unfortunately, Home Depot’s participation in the Nashville Pride Festival doesn’t stand alone. It has also sponsored kid’s booths at other gay events in Atlanta, Kansas City, Durham, Portland, and San Diego.

Gay pride events have a long track record for offensive public displays of homosexual conduct. Obviously, Home Depot is OK with the idea of exposing children to an unhealthy and risky environment. So much so, it is willing to participate in it.

We bought a bunch of stuff for our new house tonight.  I’m really glad we went to Lowe’s and not Home Depot.  Home Depot is closer to our new place but I’ll be glad to drive a little farther to get to Lowe’s.

Read more here at the One Million Dads site.  You can send emails to the leaders at companies like Home Depot.  They have drafts like this that you can edit or send as is.

Dear Chairman Blake:

Your company’s financial support of gay pride parades is disappointing to me.

However, Home Depot’s decision to also include children’s activities at these events is irresponsible, at best.

Gay pride events are known for their frequent and offensive public displays of homosexual conduct. By offering craft workshops specifically designed for children, Home Depot is encouraging their attendance.

Thus, they will likely be exposed to unhealthy and risky environments.

I’m imploring you to put the safety and well-being of children first by not sponsoring or participating in homosexual events.

I can’t believe we’re having this conversation (Obamacare)

As pointed out at The Bumbling Genius: An All Too Common Answer, those pushing so hard for health care reform typically just point out problems with the current system and jump to the conclusion that whatever Obama is proposing is going to fix the problems and not cause any new ones.

Anybody see the problems with that?

If the current system is too expensive, how will total costs go down by eliminating competition?

If the current system is too expensive, what data do they have to suggest that government ownership will reduce costs?

If the current system isn’t working well, what data do they have to suggest that government ownership will improve effectiveness?  Anybody been to the DMV lately?  How about Walter Reed Memorial Hospital?

If the proposed system is so swell, why won’t the proponents be subject to it?

If this issue is so important that it transcends politics, why isn’t it important enough for legislators and Obama to actually read the Bill?

Does the tone from Obama sound familiar to the stimulus bill debacle that wasted untold amounts of money?  You know, the “this is too important to be bi-partisan about or debate” language?

Why are people acting surprised that abortions will be covered and funded by taxpayers?  The pro-abortionists already use the euphemism “reproductive health” to describe abortions.  Of course they expect you to pay for the abortions of others.

The system has flaws, to be sure, but people get health care already.  Most of the uninsured are illegal aliens and those who don’t want to pay for insurance.

Will illegal aliens be covered in the new plan?  Why not pay for health care for the whole world and not just those who enter our country illegally?

Steve Forbes has some outstanding ideas on how to truly reduce costs and improve care.  Think about these:

Conventional Lasik eye surgery costs a third of what it did ten years ago. And there has been virtually no inflation in the prices of cosmetic surgery, even though there have been enormous technological advances, and the demand for these procedures has increased sixfold since the early 1990s.

Special hospital facilities in India, Thailand, Singapore and elsewhere that engage in medical ”tourism” have infection rates a fraction of those found in most U.S. hospitals. These positive results are driven by the fact that patients write the checks and are thus fully conscious of the costs, as well as by the fact that providers are under pressure to make their offerings more enticing and affordable.

Here are some helpful and constructive measures that can move us to a more genuinely free-enterprise health care system.

–Equalize the tax treatment of individuals and businesses. If the company you work for doesn’t provide insurance or you don’t like the plan offered, you are forced to try to buy a policy with aftertax dollars. If an individual wishes or needs to buy health insurance on his own, why shouldn’t he get a refund tax credit of, say, $4,000–and a family, $8,000?

–Allow consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines. Today it’s illegal for someone in Chicago to buy a health insurance policy that someone living in New York City can buy.

–Encourage the use of Health Savings Accounts. That way consumers–not government bureaucrats or employers–would control the purse strings, or at least a portion of them.

–Permit small businesses to form pools so they can increase their pricing leverage with insurers.

–Remove state-imposed obstacles to allowing routine medical care to be offered in, say, Wal-Mart ( WMTnews - people ) stores.

–Remove the obstacles that prevent entrepreneurs from setting up new clinics or hospitals. A number of states make this extremely difficult by demanding that such entrepreneurs obtain a certificate of need. In fact, in some jurisdictions hospitals must get permission to make major capital purchases.

Genuine free-market reforms in health care will slash the number of the uninsured and lead to the same kinds of innovations and efficiencies that are experienced in most of the rest of the economy.

“Have you not read . . .”

Listening to a John MacArthur sermon on this passage about divorce got me thinking about some parallels with the pro-gay theology crowd. 

Matthew 19:1-11  Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.

His point was how the Pharisees in Jesus’ time were wildly pro-easy-divorce.

In the beginning of Matt 19, the Jews seem to be asking for Jesus’ opinion in a rabbinic conflict in interpreting Deut 24:1. The school of Shammai allowed divorce only for adultery, the school of Hillel allowed divorce tor any reason. They are asking if Jesus favors Hillel.

Keep in mind how educated and well read the Pharisees were.  Jesus seems to heart sarcasm, because in verse 4 He says, “Have you not read . . .” and then He goes to the very beginning, in Genesis chapters 1 and 2, to point out God’s created order.  They had obviously read that and knew what is said but had deliberately ignored it.  It was as if they had said “2+2=5″ and He was pointing out how ridiculous they were being for missing something so elementary.  The pro-gay theology crowd is the same way.

Sometimes I think orthodox Christians are too patient and gracious with false teachers.  There are a number of problems with pro-gay theology and we can go on all day refuting their arguments.  But in doing so we probably give them much more of a forum than they deserve.  It leaves them with the ability to pretend that it is just a toss up and that either view must be OK. 

Jesus didn’t drag out the discussion with the Pharisees like we do with the pro-gay theology crowd.  I think He would have answered them the same way He did with the pro-divorce crowd, with a dig at how in their rebellion they miss the obvious: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command . . .”

I could also see him saying something similar regarding abortion, i.e., “Have you not read . . . don’t murder, don’t shed innocent blood, children are a blessing, etc.?”

(Note that divorce was a hot topic in that culture while homosexuality and abortion were not.)


Trig Palin has divided America (Hat tip: Luke)

A Paliban Daily article titled “Sarah Palin’s Retarded Platform: More Trigs!” interpreted Palin’s outspokenness on disability rights as a political ploy to win votes. Other articles contained subtle but unmistakable eugenic overtones.

Those reactions echoed the hateful response that met Palin when she introduced Trig on the campaign trail last fall. Nicholas Provenzo of the libertarian Center for the Advancement of Capitalism discussed being “troubled” by Trig’s existence because “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.”

Sadly, such hatred reflects a broader societal bias against disability. Polls suggest public support for abortion is highest when the child is likely to have a deformity or a genetic condition. 

Our society has moral schizophrenia.

Senate Calls Its Healthcare Plan Ca Ca. No Really!

Stan had a good post on 1 Corinthians 6:19 and how it is often used as an anti-smoking verse. 

1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,

I thought he made good points about reading it in context and how it relates to sexual sins, though  I do think that v. 19 could have broader application though based on the principle of the Holy Spirit living in us. 

As our Associate Pastor pointed out to us in a Bible study last year, the whole “Your body is a temple so don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t have sex outside marriage, etc.” bit isn’t bad advice, but it is a rather significant understatement and misses out on something glorious: As Christians we are at the intersection of Heaven and Earth.  We have the Holy Spirit living in us. 

Why aren’t we rejoicing and applying that truth more?!

Andy Griffith knew moral relativism was nonsense.

What’s that?  Al Qaeda still doesn’t like us?  That can’t be.

Let this not come as a surprise to those who are mesmerized by Obama’s speech in Cairo, our positions … have not changed in the least,” al-Amriki said, in the transcription provided by MEMRI. “If we study his words carefully, we can note very clearly that this new beginning is still heavily based upon American interests … [Obama spoke] not because he loves the Muslims he lived with in Indonesia, as a boy, but rather, it is because the only way to defeat the Muslims is by distracting them with this temporary life.

I appreciate the candor of the National Education Association General Counsel in saying that it really is about money and power and not the children.

Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.

The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.

If Christians disagree on the Bible, does that disprove Christianity?

A recent commenter noted the following:

I’m sure God was a pioneer in viral marketing, and overall, it’s worked quite well for him, but I think he could have found a better method.

Also, LCB, every time a concept in the Bible is questioned, you usually tell me I’m wrong about it, and that it’s a complicated process. Now I’m no Darwin (come on, that’s funny), but I know my way around literature. Why would God write a book that contains the most critical information possible, that can only be fully understood by a select few? Everyone I know who is a Christian thinks different things about the Bible. Certain passages mean completely different things to different people, and many of them are completely certain that they know the truth. Logic tells us that most of them are wrong. What makes you right?

It isn’t that we couldn’t be wrong.  I’m sure we’re wrong on some things. It is that some people are wrong because when you analyze the text more closely you can see that they are wrong. 

For example, some pro-abortion Christians use a translation of Exodus that they think supports their view, but when you look at the original languages you realize that it is a pro-life verse .  Oddly, these readers ignore so many other pro-life texts and in my experience are completely uncorrectable about the meaning of the original languages. 

For you, that is evidence that these Christians just can’t agree so the Bible must be wrong about its claims to be God’s word. 

For me, it is evidence that they like their (misinterpreted) pro-abortion passage more than they like the truth.

Just because the Bible can be misunderstood doesn’t mean it can’t be understood. 

There are plenty of things that I don’t understand in the Bible, but many others that are crystal clear.

You can’t read the Bible in any serious way and not see that God is against religious pluralism, that Jesus is the only way to salvation, that Jesus is God, that the Bible claims to speak for God, that you are a sinner in need of a Savior, etc.

That isn’t what makes those things true, but any honest skeptic should concede that those teachings are clear.