News-Record.com

While I think it's vital for voters to understand the values that a candidate would bring with him/her to office, this sort of circus showmanship is not the way for them to find that out. Asking "What is your biggest sin?" is about the stupidest thing I've heard coming from an interviewer yet. Where the heck are sins officially, objectively ranked?

But the masses, who seldom if ever appear to think this stuff through, applaud the farce of seeing candidates compete in piety. And the Candidates willingly participate in the competition, very well aware that all of it is a distraction, a way to keep from saying anything of real substance. If you can get elected by saying "my biggest sin is that I looked on a girl with lust when I was 14," why jeopardize your chances by talking about national health care or Iraq?

The various polls even among Republican voters seem to indicate the masses, in fact, are not fooled nor entranced with such shows of piety. Thankfully so. Getting on with the business of electing a president according to specific policy and experience for the job.

"The various polls even among Republican voters seem to indicate the masses, in fact, are not fooled nor entranced with such shows of piety."

Interesting. But the question then becomes why are we seeing this, and seeing it to the point of nearly drowning out real discussions of substance? Is it maintained through fear of losing some sort of "face"? We know that there is a large sector of the population that is swayed by religion-spouting demagogues. Are politicians and media being held hostage by a small but vocal group of (for want of a softer word) nuts?

I suspect both the media and the polticos are angling for better copy. They guess discussions of substance are too boring for the public, and so feed them sensation, scandal and silliness. The public would be better informed, yes, if each individual took the time and made the effort to understand policy positions outside the knee-jerk slogans. But the public isn't offered cogent packages of communication from the news outlets, so the appetite withers.

What I diagnose from all the god-talk is the general fear of "different" religions (Islam and Hinduism, particularly...but fervid Catholicism from Latin countries, too). People want to be assuaged that whatever candidate they may choose, he or she is really not "too far" from the concept they have of "Judeo-Christian" belief (heavy on Christian, of course). Thus, the pabulum spouted is not of any great depth or import; it is part of a language game, a la Wittgenstein, to communicate a basic message of "trust me, I am like you".

In a somewhat related topic: did you read Stanley Fish's analysis in the New York Times Select blogs of why liberalism as a political and social philosophy is not compatible with strong, activist-minded faith?

While I appreciate the values that a person has, I do not vote for a political candidate based on those values. eric stated the premise fairly well in his first post above.

This one "upmanshipness" is stupid. Let a candidate share a little about his/her faith journey (if they so choose) and let it end there. A person's faith life is but one part of who that person is. Why try to make it the "only" part of a person? Oh when will we ever learn?

Shalom

I most certainly agree with the comments above in many respects. There is much too little emphasis on substance and content, too much posturing, and superficial religionism. Politics is in a sad sate in America these days – has been for some time – maybe since time immemorial. But with the media exposure as it is and the cool TV medium, it has become almost devoid of cogent ideas and commentary – honesty!

"We know that there is a large sector of the population that is swayed by religion-spouting demagogues."

Yes, whether the left-wing type or the right-wing. The leftist sound-bytes are just as superficial as the right’s. All the global warming toilet paper conservation laws and two-America catch phrases – the whole array of politically correct blather is just the flip side of the coin. Some of the most ludicrous propaganda and stupid programming I’ve seen has been on 9415 FSTV.

“discussions of substance are too boring for the public, and so feed them sensation, scandal and silliness.”

In the end, all must play to the media world to have any chance of winning. I have expressed my horror at the affects that sensationalistic TV programming has had on serious biblical Christianity. I think we just have to let the pop media be what it is and seek alternative sources of news and commentary.

“A person's faith life is but one part of who that person is. Why try to make it the "only" part of a person?”

I hardly think that the whole religion bit has even come close to insinuating that religion is the “only” part of their make up. But I reject the idea that the biblical Faith can be compartmentalized into a private little corner of ones being and the rest be shaped and informed by modern secularism. By its very nature, the genuine Christian worldview is comprehensive and absolute. If there was anyone at all who had an intelligent, biblically oriented platform and policy I would enthusiastically support them. I see very little. Even those who spout the right lingo on TV, are just cowering little weaklings when the suit of armor comes off – more baptized humanists than informed biblical thinkers.

‘ . . . why liberalism as a political and social philosophy is not compatible with strong, activist-minded faith?”

Which aspect of liberalism: Western social democrats or hard-core communist guerrillas. They are all of a piece – humanists! The highly academic intelligentsia that populates our institutions of lower learning are too wimpy and smug to do much overt activism. There are PLENTY of “liberal” crazies at the antiwar rallies, however, who fully qualify as “activist-minded” liberal zealots. This is just another attempt to perpetuate the myth that liberals are above-the-fray demigods of reason and insight, who gaze condescendingly from their Olympus of enlightenment onto the rest of the world: Christians, Muslims, conservatives, et al. I think that liberals could NEVER have taken over American culture the way they have if it hadn’t been for plenty of “activism.” So this guy’s full of it.

"All the global warming toilet paper conservation laws"

Cite please- we're all waiting.

Although my comment was a bit of tongue-in-cheek, here goes the info, Alice. I simply entered "one piece of toilet paper quote" and got:

"On the Huffington Post, Sheryl Crow, with oh-so-palpable concern for global warming, writes the following:

Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting."

In another news clip, which I cannot cite, someone picked up on this thread and suggested that machines be mandatory in all public stall dispensers limiting usage amounts. I forget who it was; but global warming gone bazonkers.

Maybe, maybe a volutary cut back - OR - natioal classes (if Gore is elected) on how to alter one's diet so as to produce less fecal material; or how to harden what is produced so as to use less paper - coupled with lessons on self control-retention capabilities.

Hope this wasn't too graphic, Alice. But you did ask for it.

Well, YOU'RE full of it, Nikos.
You referred to a law. Instead, you wiped up with a joke, which you didn't realize was a joke.
Where's this law written? When was it enacted?

Bearing false witess isn't nice.

Alice, way to keep Nikos on it's toes!

People of Nikos' ilk usually back themselves into corners without any assistance. You have seen this first hand, yet again!

Shalom

alice and darryl, with alice i can expect her pettiness and hatred.

darryl you are another case (supposedly)- you profess Christ as your Savior - what exactly is nikos 'ilk' - you are so self righteous at times it reeks when you post. perhaps you weren't 'centered' when you cast your ugly remark on nikos , is that it?
if you can't expalin nikos ilk - i can - his ilk is a God fearing,God loving individual who knows how to divide the word of truth, one who is in constant contact with the Father, he also isn't ashamed to speak boldly for the testimony of his faith, one who takes into account the full scriptural teachings (not picking and choosing the ones which are convenient), an individual who hangs his eternal life on the written word of Almighty God and is unabashed in defense of that word, one who prays often, seeks to be obedient, is unafraid of sacrifice and knows the pain of suffering caused by those of the faith who proclaim they are something which they are not, yes his ilk is a sweet smelling aroma to God and one He is well please to have in His service. the God of scripture requires obedience and expect His people to take His word undiluted by humanism/secularism and live according to those precepts and to pass those precepts (discipling) on to a world in need. yes his ilk is a good thing i believe and i commend nikos to God our Father and encourage him to stand firm and continue to minister Gods word in power and the strength of the Holy Spirit.
yes i choose to side with my Christian brother nikos, who btw doesn't need nor require me to come to his defense, but i am wearied darryl by your constant support with atheists, humanist, secularist and alice (whatever she represents) !
darryl you are left in a cold and calculating world of religionism - a place you have chosen of your own accord by picking and choosing the scriptures which scratch your itch. its a world of legalism which shows very little evidence of grace. so be it.

buz, yet again I rest my case.

The accolades for nikos could be said of any who post here. I never hear you say that about me, eric, etc. Is that because I, nor eric subscribe to the "brand" of religion that apparently nikos and yourself do?

buz, another thing; the "ilk" to which I speak I believe is known by you. Were it not, the comments in the above posting would not be made.

I do not "cherry pick" the postings of others to show the definite and conclusive points where these people contradict themselves. Rather, I let people read and learn for themselves. For any astute comprehending reader, those things are clear.

And remember, I never called myself "self righteous." It seems that something said really has gotten to you as well.

It is amazing that when contradictory points are alluded, the ones making those comments are suddenly attacked for noting such. Yet, these same people are attacked for not believing "lockstep" with others here. I respect the right of others to believe as they choose. However, I will state emphatically when I disagree with them and when there is clear contradictory statements.

So, let loose with the sharp tongues (keyboards), because that is the standard practice. I recall another who is reported to have experienced similarly.

Shalom

So it's petty and hate-filled to call someone on a lie?
Gee, Christianity sure allows its supposed adherents a lot of latitude when it comes to fibbin' for Jesus.

"nikos' ... ilk is a God fearing, God loving individual who knows how to divide the word of truth"

"Divide the word of truth"? I've always wondered what that Elizabethan phrase meant. Based on how Nikos acts, it could very well be shorthand for "chopping up the truth into a long series of tiny little lies."

Neat...

well i certainly received the expected responses.

darryl let's get it clear, i have no clue what nikos 'brand' of religion (i.e. catholic,methodist, baptist etc)and i also know for fact that nikos and i don't agree on several key issues of scriptures and this i also know for fact - he recited the word of God verbatim on many occassion and interjects what it has revealed to him, you on the other hand recite your agreement on a contining basis with the humanism/secular/atheist point of view - you constantly support known atheist/humanist/secularist and repeatedly mock a fellow brother(s) in Christ - you were not accused of cherry picking certain post - i said "you have chosen of your own accord by picking and choosing the scriptures which scratch your itch", which btw you do not deny and you wonder why "I never hear you say that about me". you deny the power and authority of scriptures. as far as you are concerned, if Jesus didn't personally say it , then it ain't true - but even then you alter what He said to suit your belief. so no darryl you won't be hearing any accolates from me any time soon, sorry.
you severely limit Gods word, its power and authority by rejecting pauls teachings, you place yourself in a position to constantly deny and reject the revealed truths of scripture and mock those very messengers of Christ.

eric it's no surprise you don't understand this subject (it's a spiritual thing, eh). albeit you seem well informed on many others.

alice you are a petty person who picks on the very pettiest of nuance or word and will drill and drool over it until we puke. nikos pointed out very truly that you attack him not on the merit of his belief but rather you pick up on one word which you believe undermines his entire discussion, then you want us to believe he is lying - as i've told you before alice it's all about comprehension and the ability to see the larger picture and not get totally hung up on a word (ad hominem).

Buz, you re the whiniest , most defensive christian I've ever met- one who feels free to insult others " in the name of god."

Nikos stated something as a fact- which was a big fat falsehood.
Which you're defending because he's a fellow christian.
I hve no problems with comprehension and my BS detector works just fine. It's easy to get " hung up on a word" when that ( series of) words comprises a lie..

Why don't you show me where Jesus says it's fine for Nikos to make up " facts" and present them as truth- feel free to quote chapter and verse.

buz, as should be known from past discussion on these blogs, I am not a biblical literalist. Yes, I have problems with scripture, especially when there are inconsistencies and contradictory errors.

I take the critique offered. I can handle living with people who disagree with me without moving to the point of insulting and belittling those others because we do not believe alike on every jot and tittle. Can that be said of those on that "opposing" side?

buz, just because I do not believe in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures as inerrant and infallible documents, should that lessen my standing as a person of Christian faith? If not, then why the postings supporting that? If yes, why and how does it do that?

I believe the ONLY thing required to be called a Christian was the belief in Jesus the Christ as savior. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

It is when additions to that are made that problems arise. I believe that is what we have here. Apparently, I am the only person of Christian faith who frequents these religion blogs enough to state the inconsistencies and errors made. Yet, it seems that some are allowed to do this while others are not.

Instead of saying who sides with whom regarding philosophic views, why not side with one another as fellow humans. I recall being told as a child; "you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar!"

Shalom

alice i take all that as a compliment, thank you !

"because I do not believe in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures as inerrant and infallible documents".......... yet you consistently cite verse upon verse of what Jesus said and taught an duse that as your tool to teach us on spiritual issues. so you totally pick which scripture is infallible to quote to us ? you could easily start your own church, there are many who want another gospel and your redacted bible would provide short reading. if the bible isn't providing you with the 'truth' - pray tell where do you get your 'truth' from ?

"I believe the ONLY thing required to be called a Christian was the belief in Jesus the Christ as savior ( i should remind you the devils also believe and tremble , does that make them christians ? )"... and if that is as far as your logic carries you then you are hopelessly lost -. the larger more pressing question is "what must i do to be saved".....you see your definition gives you a title , i.e. christian. my question when answered properly, provides eternal life in heaven. i'm afraid you cannot answer my question, for the answer is found in scripture, yep that infallible word of God and since you place no value in it then you must 'make up' your own answer and then your answer is only your own opinion because it is based solely upon your human intellect.
let me say that believeing is the beginning of salvation but certainly the scriptures which you do not believe tells us there are 'other' things involved in this salvation process of being saved. it is pointless for me to cite any of those things for they come from a source which you do not count as credible.

and finally "why not side with one another as fellow humans".....there you have it - the humanist declaration.

First, Alice, what "fact" that I made up are you referring to. You never specified; just accused.

Just a few addenda to what Buz has said, Darryl, You are corect in citing that the essence of being saved is believing in Yeshua as sin-bearer.
But Jesus Himself said, "If you love me you will keep my commandments" "Commandments" means teachings, instructions - i.e. theololgical content. Not ours - His.

As buz noted, the initial entry into the Kingdom through faith in Messiah is just that, an entry, a beginning. The raw material for constructing the inner spiritual man is truth, doctrine, teachings. Sts. Paul, Peter and John emphasize this all over their epistles. True (straight) worship (orthodoxy) consists of right thinking, which is dependent on right belief. God has given us that body of fact/truth: His reliable, authoritative, and infallible Word. When studied and believe - in faith - it becomes our very food whereby we live and grow and love and serve the living God. Trying to second-guess God, and making up our own orthodoxy, will always lead us astray.

The watershed issue for all humanity is whether to believe in Messiah, and then to follow Him by knowing and living out His Word of Truth. NONE of us is PERFECT in our understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures, but if we approach it with prayer, humilty and diligent study we can walk in the Light and please our Heavenly Father.

My goal is not to be contentious on this blog, but to defend the Faith, as God gives me wisdom and grace. Just as with Jesus, the sparks will fly as those who reject God and His Word attack both Him and those who seek to hold forth the truth of His Word - because rebellion against God and His divinely revealed Truth always produces anger, bitterness and vitriole. It's simply the nature of Truth coliding with error.

It's such an awesome responsibilty to rightly divide the Word of truth, and I really do approach it with fear and trembling. But the consequences of our culture and nation rapidly descending into the pit of unbelief and the whoesale abandonment of the moral and spiritual standards of Scripture are so alarming and tragic that silence is no option.

Oops you did it again...
Fibbing for Jesus again, are we, Nikos?
I made it very plain which of your " facts' I took exception to, AND you responded to it as a follow-up.

But let's refresh your failing memory, shall we?

""All the global warming toilet paper conservation laws"

WHICH law, Nikos? I asked you for a cite.
Now I'll request another.

What's the commandment subsection which permits telling porkies in the Name o' God? Please direct me to it. I must have missed it despite being incessantly exposed to the 10 C's my whole life.

Alice, it is futile. buz and nikos know of their inconsistencies and are like the current US President; never admit wrong/error!

You see Alice, truth is revealed in what is NOT said! There is a continuing revelation and we see both "sides of that coin."

As can be see above, I am now not even classified as Christian. Wonder what these "bible believing" people feel about "bible teaching" on relations with family and forgiveness?

Shalom

"truth is revealed in what is NOT said!".......

darryl you are really a funny guy - you ought to try standup comedy. do you REALLY believe that truth is revealed by what a person DOES NOT say. you cannot expect anyone here to buy that - can you ??! when i asked you where you received your truth, your answer was " ", oh that's right you didn't answer me. joseph smith had the angel moroni give him his truths - i'm still curious where you get your truth from ? but i suspect you will not answer me but you will expect me to understand what you don't say....that seems logical, yeah right !

. " "? , ! , , ' .

so swami darryl please tell us what truth i just didn't say in my above comment. it is beyond absurd to say that silence speaks more than words, if you can't, maybe one of the others here in this thread who agree with your statement can tell me what i didn't say. i'll be waiting................. in the mean time i'm going to bone up on my esp !

and to prove that i'm wrong on occassion, here is my confession - i thought i was wrong one time - but actually i wasn't (tee hee).

darryl please cite where you were unclassified as a christian - if you can't i'm gonna turn the 'word watcher' alice on you !! you don't want to be called a liar.....do you ?

darryl how is it that you were an ordained baptist minister and never believed the word of God ?? just curious, eh.

and whether or not you answer - i think i'm done with this thread - i belive this 'Inquisition 2008 ' is about over.

Yeah buz it is about over. I never realized until now that to post on the religion blogs was to open one's self up to an inquisition if one did not "go" with the "christian majority!"

"I believe the ONLY thing required to be called a Christian was the belief in Jesus the Christ as savior ( i should remind you the devils also believe and tremble , does that make them christians ? )"... and if that is as far as your logic carries you then you are hopelessly lost -. the larger more pressing question is "what must i do to be saved".....you see your definition gives you a title , i.e. christian. my question when answered properly, provides eternal life in heaven." (These comments seem to my reading comprehension to "unclassify" me as Christian Buz.

I am just saddened that the differing views put you at such odds with me. In the past, we at least respected one another. However, it seems that my comments here that put light on inconsistencies seems to have caused respect to be gone. How sad.

Shalom

upon review of some of my recent posts - i believe i have been a little too forceful in stating my pov - to those i've offended i offer my apologies (please don't view this as a dissent in my beliefs though). i get wound up at times and don't moderate what i post and i will make better efforts in the future to be less aggressive. some (actually most)are much better at presenting their side of issues than i - i'll work on my presentation skills :-)

""All the global warming toilet paper conservation laws"

WHICH law, Nikos? I asked you for a cite.

Alice, since I didn't mean originally to cite it as an already- enacted "law" I simply gave you the citing regarding the original purveyor of the IDEA. It was picked up by global warming activist,(which I heard on the media) who thought it would be a good idea to enact regulations (laws) regarding dispensing machines in public venues.

It was such a minor and passing quip, I didn't think you would make a mountain of that mole hill. Anyway, I do indeed apologize if I misled you in anyway. Will you forgive my unintentional misleading?

I do not forfgive your INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENT which you now try to label as having mislead me.
3year olds lie more convincingly, Nikos.

You're a vindictive, embittered soul, Alice. You are one of those lost sheep for whom Messiah came and died for. He grants a new and loving heart for the old hardened one.

You made a mountain out a minor, passing comment that I have explained. Asking forgiveness for anything was a stretch; but I did so in an attempt to be conciliatory and gracious. You consistently present a caustic side. Do you have a nice and gracious one? I hope so. But, in any case, Yeshua is the answer.

nikos,
in my experience, those who have not received forgiveness have difficulty in forgiving others. it's a dysfunction handed down from generation to generation. these same people often have great difficulty in admitting they have made a mistake and see no reason for others to forgive them a trespass that don't believe they have caused. i doubt that alice perceives her heart to be hard, likely she sees herself as loving, caring and nuturing and to some she may demonstrate those qualities - but here on these threads she seems vehement toward Christians (particularly you and sometimes me). when one truly experiences the forgiveness that God provides those who profess Him, it usually become easier to pass that forgiveness on to others who have wronged you (whether the wrong is percieved or real). and what a burden is takes off you to unload all that is required to continue in unforgiveness.
i've made many mistakes and asked for forgiveness many times - i have been caustic at times myself, but hopefully i have tried to make amends (as you did)and learn from those mistakes - let's hope she can also.................