Tag: Tolerence

HOW TO SAVE FOOD AND REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING…

Would the tolerant and open-minded motorist who yelled “F*#@ Trump!” at me outside my house, please consider eating his food rather than throwing it at my car and my garden. This would prevent wasting some of earth’s resources and reduce the effects of global warming. Thank you…

599px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17

Advertisements

FOSTERING HATRED AND DIVISION

Those who are determined to label Mr. Trump and his supporters “racists” and “bigots” (and so on) are causing more damage than they claim to be trying to prevent…

Their accusations and lies actually promote division and foster hatred against those who support Trump, so that the millions of people with a genuine desire to see their own preferred brand of democracy, and who are no more “racist” or “bigoted” than anyone else, are  mocked, demonized and vilified.

This is the work of politicians and media people pretending to be tolerant and pretending to be the champions of diversity: this is the real fascism. It demonstrates that all they’re really interested in is power.

TRUE CONFESSIONS OF A DEPLORABLE

Mrs. Clinton has attempted to back-track on her recent condemnation of Trump supporters as being “a basket of deplorables”. They are “deplorable” because (she is determined to make you to think) they are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it”

IMGP4621

These comments were made to an audience which compliantly laughed profusely, agreeably and hysterically. Such accusations are common and will continue to be thrown at Trump and his supporters, such as myself, this election season. So what about it: am I “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it?”

I have to “come clean” and “fess up” at the outset: I’m white. Not only am I white, but I’m male. Some of my white counterparts and some white women think that these two facts alone require profuse apologies and hand-wringing: I suggest they take it up with my mother and father.

As if being a white male weren’t bad enough, I just happen to be heterosexual, and…gulp…I’m also a professing Christian. To those who are at the extreme end of the politically-correct spectrum these confessions are sufficient to throw me into Mrs. Clinton’s basket of deplorables for life.

AM I RACIST?

To my mind all “races” are equal in value, gifts, and talent, and should be treated accordingly, though I’m convinced there’s only one race-the human race. African-Americans, as Mr Trump said himself recently, have contributed to the culture and success of this nation to an incalculable extent and in countless ways, as have Hispanics and many others. They make America what it is. They enrich and color (excuse the pun) the culture, and they’re loved by our Creator every bit as much as I’m loved by him. They are my brothers and sisters in the flesh.

SEXIST?

Believe it or not, I married a woman, which I still see as a very shrewd and sensible move. She’s my equal in almost every way, and certainly my better in some things. I am, however, physically stronger than her. I don’t see that as a “sexist” remark: if she and I were to have a boxing match you’d be wise to bet on me and not her. If there were a woman running for President who gained my respect by being honest and supporting good, godly policies, I may well vote for her, because women can be amazingly well organized, practical and determined. Men and women are equal in value: we just have some differences, and I say, “Vivre la difference!”

HOMOPHOBIC?

While I don’t agree with the lifestyle I’ve had several gay and lesbian friends over the years, and some of them were amazing people. It’s been my experience that in general they have a tremendous sense of humor, are caring and sociable, and take a positive view of their lives. Being human, they’re equal to me in value and talents. Again, I think their lifestyle is wrong, but I know that God loves them, and wishes them to repent of their sins and be saved just as he wishes me to repent of mine. It seems to me that people who want to take away my right to an opposing view (such as Mrs. Clinton) and to call me “hateful” suffer from “homophobia-phobia”.

XENOPHOBIC?

I’ve spent time in several different countries, and I love to experience other cultures. I have a special admiration and fascination for the people and culture of Asian countries such as India and China. I’ve had friends from many different countries and ethnic backgrounds. I love to learn about other places, other art forms, foreign food, architecture, literature. If someone from Syria were to move in next to me I would be happy to befriend them as I would any Westerner. I just happen to believe we should take care who we let into the country, that’s all.

When I immigrated, I had to wait five and a half years in my country of origin before receiving my green card, during which time my background was thoroughly researched and my body examined for various diseases. I did not resent it at all, in fact it felt good to know that the US cared that much about who immigrated. Currently such precautions are virtually non-existent.

ISLAMOPHOBIC?

Some people share President Obama’s view that to question someones motives for coming into the US is being “fearful”. That’s poppycock. He locks his doors at night, and he has an armed guard, as does Mrs. Clinton. Is that being “fearful”, or is it being prudent? I’m convinced it’s the latter. There are plenty of people around the world who’ve expressed the determination to kill as many Americans and Westerners as possible, and most of them are extremists of a certain religion we all know the name of. It’s not being fearful to examine their motives for coming: it’s being wise. Trump has not suggested banning all Muslims from immigration, but only much more cautious approach than Mr. Obama has. Yes, the great majority of them really are ”peace-loving” people, but even if only one percent of the world’s Muslims take their scriptures literally, that’s still many millions of people who believe the world must be conquered for Allah one way or another-by violence if necessary. Let’s love them, but be wary. Again, that’s not fear, it’s prudence.

“YOU NAME IT”

Alright, I’ll name it. The current administration supports and defends abortion on demand for any reason and without question, and Mrs Clinton feels the same way. So I would say that at the top of her “you name it” list would be pro-lifers, of which I am a proud member. I will never change my view on that, and I will never apologize for it.

Another “fear” I’m said to have is of globalism, and perhaps I really do have a fear of that: America should retain its individuality and its strengths, and not be watered down by lowest-common-demonator thinking. Most particularly, if some people have their way, the gospel of Jesus Christ will be silenced in order to avoid “offending” people of other religions-one in particular-who will have all the freedom they wish to further their own religion. To me this is the deep-down un-stated aim of globalism: the end of the influence of Christianity and the gospel of Jesus. I think it’s right to be wary of the attempt to bury the Way to life…

I suppose I’ll just have to get one of those t-shirts, which reads “PROUD TO BE A DEPLORABLE!”

PRIVATE RELIGION?

There are people who insist that if you have beliefs you should keep them to yourself. That is, unless you’re a Buddhist, a Muslim, an atheist, an evolutionist, a Hindu, or a follower of just about any other religion or philosophy…besides Christianity.

Faras_Saint_Anne_(detail)

In a world awash with political correctness it’s the Christians who are expected to keep their beliefs to themselves while everyone else is more than welcome to “enrich our understanding of other cultures”. The US government is recruiting and inviting people from cultures opposed to the Christian faith to come and mingle, homogenize and intolerate us (my own word creation). I love other cultures: I would be happy to see people of differing cultures mingle successfully. But there’s a price to multiculturalism.  Behold the writing on the wall…

I was in Israel for several months one year, and had the pleasure (once past all the security checks) of attending Manger Square on Christmas Eve. I was not exactly dressed up for the occasion, which is possibly why, when I approached one American tourist and asked him if he were a Christian, he turned his nose up at me and replied, “Yeah, but that’s my business”. The demand to “keep it to yourself” sounds more strange and paradoxical when it comes from a professing Christian, and it’s amazing how many of them exist. Which gospel are they following?

So what about it: are they right? Should we cower in a spiritual corner for fear of “offending” someone, or respect them so much that we swallow our convictions while they tell us all about what they think?

The answer we live by will depend on what our faith is based on. If we really have no distinct convictions and we’ve been inculcated with multi-cultural brainwashing, and if we call ourselves “Christians” because we think we’re such nice people that God can’t fail to let us into his (or her) heaven, we’ll cave to the silencers and agree with them. We’ll cave for fear of being thought of as deluded, narrow-minded “bigots”, “extremists” or “fundamentalists”. These are all blanket terms designed to intimidate us into submission: judgmental accusations leveled by those who call Christians “judgmental”. They are the verbal weapons of people  who are so “tolerant” that they just can’t tolerate us.

If, on the other hand, we really believe what we say we believe, we’ll recognize that there’s a vitally important message to convey, and we’ll accept and take to heart the command our Lord Jesus gave after his resurrection:

…go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:18-20).

Preaching the gospel is exactly what the apostles did without fear, accepting the name-calling, the intolerance, the ostracism, and ultimately the physical abuse and persecution.

There is, however, a condition. It’s clearly defined by Paul, John and James, who declared that it’s no good spouting words and claiming to be spiritual and on a higher plain, if your words are not accompanied-and preferably preceded-by what accompanied the preaching of Jesus: love, mercy and good deeds. Paul said:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1).

James said:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?”, and:

Show me your faith without deeds and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe and tremble” (James chapter 2).

You see, what people object to, what irritates them no end-and often quite rightly-is being preached at by someone who doesn’t care for them or even know them, or who is patently not living a life of love and integrity: that’s not impressive to the vast majority of people. They want to see truth in action, and they want to see real, genuine, no-strings-attached love.

So let’s obey the command of our Lord, if we truly believe that his word is true (and if we don’t, we’re still dead in our sins). But let’s do it in love. Let’s care about the people we intend to share our faith with, so that they can see that there’s some substance to what we profess.

A Sword from the LORD

sword

Hello! This is Nathan Fisher. I’ve seen my Dad publish a lot of fantastic articles here over the years glorifying God, and this seems like quite a bit of fun.

So anyway, on a more serious note, I was reading an article on the New York Times about “religion.” It correctly attributed the quote,

“I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,”

…to Jesus in Matthew 10:34. However, the author of the article, “How Well Do You Know Religion?,” implied that this shows the violent side of the Judeo-Christian tradition and that Christianity is as violent as or more violent than certain others towards outsiders. Was Jesus saying that He wanted Christians to convert by force, to oppress, or to conquer?

Unfortunately, this shows once again that the Bible has been misinterpreted. When Jesus first began to teach the gospel, He was hated, persecuted, and ultimately executed. This was the same for all of the apostles (except John) and the hundreds of Christians that came after. Those that wanted to preach Jesus’ real words to ordinary folk in their own language, such as William Tyndale, Martin Luther, and others were attacked and pursued.

When Jesus said the above quote, His intention was to show that the message He brought and His death and return to life would bring conflict and strife. His sword was metaphorical: a sword of division. It was not that it was His will to oppress non-Christians, but  who He was that would bring trouble. In the evil world we are in, good is not always accepted as what it is.

In fact, Jesus says, and I quote:

“For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’”(Matthew 10:35-36 NIV, quoted Micah 7:6)

…and this has happened in families throughout history, increasingly so as the events of Revelation draw near.

When He was arrested, the Messiah told Pilate,

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.” (John 18:36)

And another thing about violence, especially concerning the Old Testament:

“For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!” (Ezekiel 18:32)

The sword Jesus is describing was, and is, the violence stemming from the oppression of truth. However, the LORD has a plan to end this. We have the last chapter of history: Revelation.

August 2013 012

 

WE WIN!

Oh yes, and lastly, as a comfort to all of us, Jesus told us,

“In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (Jesus, John 16:33 NIV)