Showing posts with label Gospel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gospel. Show all posts

Monday, November 2, 2015

Thoughts and notes on Occupy Peace

On September 20, 2015, the Occupy Peace movement was underway in Kingston, NY. The Occupy Peace movement is an anti-war movement started by trends forecaster Gerald Celente.

There were a lot of good spoken gems.

I will not distinguish between speakers, but here are a few excerpts from an Occupy Peace article:

"Where do you start occupying peace? You have to start in your heart and soul. Even those bad guys who bomb and do horrible things  they're just unhappy and frustrated and confused . . . they're misguided and so they continue doing bad stuff."

"We should not be like them. We shouldn't hate them. We can be angry with them and forcefully oppose them, but not with hatred in our hearts."
"We should not be like them. We shouldn't hate them. We can be angry with them and forcefully oppose them, but not with hatred in our hearts."
One of the most dangerous positions a person can find themselves in is in a hospital bed, he said.
"The number one cause of death in America is American medicine," he said. Between 560,000 and 700,000 people die every year of preventable illnesses and conditions. Ten million more a year are injured.
The trouble is, anti-war sentiment and activities have become partisan.
Sheehan said she'd been "harassed" and criticized by a fellow leftist for attending the Occupy Peace rally and somehow undermining the anti-war movement "by consorting with libertarians and with Ron Paul people." 
"First of all, I told this guy "what anti-war movement are you talking about?"
I'll go anywhere, I'll speak to anybody, as long as they are saying crush the empire." 
She, like Null, was critical of liberal Democrats in power:
"I can guarantee you, if Romney had won, if McCain had won, and they were doing what Obama is doing, there would be millions of people in the streets."
She said she agreed with Gerald Celente that the country needs a peace movement "with teeth," but one that remains non-violent. 
"It's been really lonely since Obama became president," she said. "It's because the anti-war movement is mostly partisan. They make excuses for their leaders instead of demands. So they're not comfortable with me, because I make the same demands on the Obama regime that I made on the Bush regime. And I'll do the same to the next regime until people of good conscience, revolutionaries like us, take over our communities."
"Less than one percent can turn this country around," he said. It was a point he made repeatedly throughout his hour-long presentation.
When it comes to modern weaponry, Nader said "enough is never enough" for the country's major armaments contractors.
He gave as an example a single Trident submarine, armed with multiple warhead missiles, could vaporize within 35 minutes 200 cities in a nuclear strike.
And when it comes to fighting terrorism, the U. S. is recruiting more converts to the Taliban and ISIS than they can convert themselves. What started off as a handful of men in Northeastern Afghanistan has grown to tens of thousands of fighters after the U.S.'s relentless insistence on bombing suspected terrorists, which have included thousands of innocent civilians.
"They call it 'blowback," Nader said. 
Nader urged the crowd to follow up on the rally by doing what earlier war resisters did  gather in living rooms and talk about what could be done.
Read the rest here

Judging from the footage, what was lacking from this crowd was youth. Not one speaker was young.

Yet this is supposed to gain ground as a national movement.

Judging by the photos and video, a lot of grey hairs were in attendance. This is concerning because a long-lasting movement usually has a lot of youth involved. The people in attendance at this rally don't have that many years. They are going to have to pass on their values to their adult children or else the movement suffers. In contrast, Black Lives Matters is filled with the youth. It will be around for a long time; at least as long as it needs to exist to accomplish its goal.

Luckily for Occupy Peace, people are more anti-war than ever before.

Let's call it, "social empiricism." Or "foreign policy empiricism."

We've seen war presented as a solution before and it doesn't work. The high mark of this anti-war sentiment was the Obama election, which was an outright rejection of the Bush presidency, foreign policy, and all. Apparently, this turned out to be only a rejection of Republican foreign policy, as evidenced by Obama supporters silence on the president's current agitations overseas.

However, because Americans loved him, and trusted him, Barack Obama successfully furthered the Bush agenda in many ways, and did what George Bush could not do on the foreign policy front. But he also did at least one thing that I couldn't imagine the neoconservatives let happen under a Bush Presidency: Obama made the Iran Deal. But now he is putting  "boots on the ground" in Syria to fight ISIS.

I see no crowds in the streets.

So for the most part, at the time, the same people who opposed the Iraq War are largely the same people who supported Barack Obama -- and he pacified their anti-war sentiments.

I hope that the election of a Democrat won't do the same next time around.

We know that the election of any Republican minus Rand Paul would continue to Bush foreign policy, even if having an improved economic policy.

So as Celente plans on having Occupy Peace chapters in each state, or something to that effect, then maybe we will see more youth join, because people are generally desire peace now (there's a poll on Reason.com waiting to be cited and inserted here).

I would like to see some Christian speakers at these rallies. Someone with some Christian bona fides. Someone mainstream opposing the American Empire. But a large number of conservative Christian twenty and thirty somethings would do the trick as well. It ought not be just one person. But an exegetical case against the war will have to be made.  The ultimate authority for the Christian is God's word, and it ought to be shown that 21st century foreign policy has been godless.

If this happens, if someone from the Christian right -- because conservative Christians are generally known to have a high view of scripture -- makes a solid case against war, then perhaps the Christian right, as awful as it is to write those words, should reach out to the Christian left, which certainly still exists. Whether the Christian left grabs the right's hand is of concern, but what would matter more is that the Christian right are on the right side of history.

Christians could become chapter leaders. The doors are wide open.

My only concern would be Occupy Peace's plank to give troops jobs to rebuild America's infrastructure.

But I guess this is beating something (jobs abroad fighting unnecessary wars) with something (jobs at home), versus nothing (no jobs at all for troops).

Fine, but I hope this is isn't too costly (lol).

Christians could just start their own anti-unbiblical war movement if Occupy Peace planks cause too much friction.

But J. Gresham Machen was once asked what the Church should do about the Great Depression.

His response: Preach the Gospel.

Perhaps if he lived long enough to be asked the question of the what the Church should do about World War II, he would have answered the same.

New Horizons quotes Machen:
This, then, is the answer that I give to the question before us. The responsibility of the church in the new age is the same as its responsibility in every age. It is to testify that this world is lost in sin; that the span of human life—nay, all the length of human history—is an infinitesimal island in the awful depths of eternity; that there is a mysterious, holy, living God, Creator of all, Upholder of all, infinitely beyond all; that He has revealed Himself to us in His Word and offered us communion with Himself through Jesus Christ the Lord; that there is no other salvation, for individuals or for nations, save this, but that this salvation is full and free, and that whosoever possesses it has for himself and for all others to whom he may be the instrument of bringing it a treasure compared with which all the kingdoms of the earth—nay, all the wonders of the starry heavens—are as the dust of the street.
An unpopular message it is—an impractical message, we are told. But it is the message of the Christian church. Neglect it, and you will have destruction; heed it, and you will have life.
The only person to come close to this kind of response in the Occupy Peace movement is the Buddhist scholar. Something deeper is at work here that the Buddhist scholar can't touch. And the solution is something that Buddha can't provide. It's the hearts of men that are out of whack. It's the gospel that brings peace. Christian nations don't place in power people who hate peace. Gospel people don't place in power people who believe the gospel of nation-building. It's just another form of collectivism.

So in light of Machen's comments, perhaps Christians should stay away from Celente's movement. I think they should.

As of right now, judging my Mr. Celente's flippant and religiously irreverent closing remarks, he doesn't care about who Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha are. But who they are certainly matters to the movement. Nothing -- not war, not the presidency, not science, not race, not peace -- is out of the scope of true religion.

Christianity is cosmic.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Friday, February 13, 2015

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Saturday, January 11, 2014

On the apologetic abilities of ex-believers

“Bart Ehrman’s career is testament to the fact that no one can slice and dice a belief system more surgically than someone who grew up inside it.” —Salon.com via New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman's old website.

There is a lot of truth to this maxim; but its applicability, as it suggests, extends far beyond just ex-Christians like Ehrman. It even extends beyond religion.



Thomas Sowell, for example, was a marxist that didn't come around to free-markets until he saw his god, his economic religious system, his beliefs he was immersed in, fail. This happened while he was interning for the U.S. federal government in the Department of Labor (I think).

He now is, as he has been for decades, dismantling the left-wing worldview in his weekly columns and books.

American humorist P.J. O' Rourke was also a man of the left, until he got a job, he's quipped a few times.

Christopher Hitchens, whom I will mention again below, was once a committed Trotskyist and socialist in the 1970s and 80s and later came to embrace, well, something.

It's not clear that he is writing approvingly, but in the foreword to Choice: The Best of Reason, Hitchens writes:
But the subsequent industrial and technological revolutions have displaced a good deal of power and initiative away from states and corporations--and the unspoken alliance between them--and toward the individual worker and producer. More than this, they have greatly attenuated the frontiers of states and nations and made it easier to be an everyday "internationalist" than many once-leftist parties would have believed possible. [1]
At the very bottom, this is a major admission of the success of capitalism from a former socialist.

Ex-Christians turned atheists, Ex-atheists turned Christians

There are also many ex-atheists who spend much of their life dedicated to sharing the gospel of Jesus and God's coming kingdom to unbelievers. C.S. Lewis, whom I've never actually read yet, except for that liar, lunatic, or Lord line,* comes to mind (I don't think that's too much of a simplification of my past).

Lewis, went on to write many books defending Christianity, such as Mere Christianity, and creatively shared the Christian worldview in his works of fiction, the most notable probably being the Chronicles of Narnia series. (I hear the space trilogy series is pretty good too.)



Some less prominent examples such as David Wood and  former Ex-Atheist.com proprietor A.S.A. Jones; others include Peter Hitchens, Alister McGrath, Francis Collins, John Harwick Montgomery, Marvin Olasky, and novelist A.N. Wilson.



Heck, even the late philosopher Antony Flew, who did not become a Christian his last years, became a deist (his words), and put out a book about how he believes in God, albeit a sort of "Aristotelean god."

Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens and are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Dawkins admitted to losing his "last vestiges of religious faith" (if I can recall that correctly from The God Delusion Debate DVD with John Lennox) in his teenage years; Hitchens, in his adolescence (around 9).



Dawkins was actually very explicit about why he believed as a young Christian. Via Wikipedia:
"the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing."
And then, he spends his entire life not striding against religion -- no, that came in recent years -- but in the scientific field explaining the Darwinian origins of life; fleshing out that theory, defending that theory, and re-telling the gospel of Darwin for each generation anew with such works as The Selfish Gene (1976), The Extended Phenotype (1982), The Blind Watchmaker: Why The Evidence of Evolution Reveals A Universe Without Design (1986),  River Out of Eden, (1995) Climbing Mount Improbable (1996), Unweaving the Rainbow (1998), The Ancestor's Tale (2004), The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (2009), and The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True (2011), never letting the gospel get stale.

In other words, he spent his career "surgically" explaining away design -- the very thing he used to believe in.

And if you were wondering why I described Dawkin's work as gospel, it's because I just saw the video below. N.T. Wright, in his own right, is a master at explaining the gospel to new generations of Christians. Pick up his "For Everyone" series to see what I mean.



[Editor's Update January 13, 2013 7:30 PM] It's somewhat of a genetic fallacy to say that because someone is an ex-believer in some religious belief or some economic philosophy, such as those mentioned above, that their new beliefs are true. However, the fact that they did leave one faith and now believe in something else should raise some eyebrows. 

*I know Lewis is not actually quoted in that link. However, I decided to link to perhaps one of the first websites that introduced that line of argument to me;  The Case For Christ DVD possibly being the other source for me.

Wikipedia has the quote in it's entirety and actually much to say about it from many sides.

[1] Gillespie, Nick. "Foreword." Foreword. Choice: The Best of Reason. Dallas: BenBella, 2004. 4.

WCF Chapter One "Of Holy Scripture" Sunday School (Sept.-Oct. 2021)

Our text for Sunday School (also "The Confession of Faith and Catechisms") Biblical Theology Bites What is "Biblical Theology...