Peace
Friday, March 11, 2005
He's Here
Congratualtions to my brother and his wife, Derek and Judi. On the morning of March 10th 2005 Judi gave birth to their fourth child Dawson Jeremiah. Dawson joins his older siblings, Brandon, Jacob and Bethany Rose. We love you all and if I coded it right you should see his picture below...if not I'll try again when I get a bit more time...Thanks
Peace
Peace
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for your visit. I just added a counter to let you know I appreciate your time. If you want to leave a comment anywhere I promise I'll read it. If not no worries.
Thanks again...Peace
Thanks again...Peace
Monday, March 07, 2005
Will the real evangelical Christian please stand up?
I live in the upper Midwest and generally life is quite calm. There is an overarching belief in God and the importance of religion. That having been said, there are also often conflicting views and statements from people that claim the label "evangelical Christian." I would suppose this to be true across the board but I don't live across the board. I live here.
In this Sunday's Grand Forks Herald, see upper Midwest, an editorial appeared that provoked some thought. It was submitted by Milo Mathison. He lives in a community very near to mine. I do not know him personally nor what his denomination of choice is but in his letter to the editor he states a few things that peaked my interest.
The general content of his letter concerned the national and state budget proposals. He bemoans the fact that the cuts that are proposed are not good ones because those cuts are aimed at social programs that benefit the poor. "Our priorities are revealed by those we leave behind" is the last statement in his first paragraph. Skipping down a few well intentioned paragraphs he writes, "As an evangelical Christian, I am deeply concerned about the course our nation is taking. Neglecting the poor and vulnerable, which may be economically justified, is morally indefensible given the abundance of Scripture mandating care for the poor. To assure sufficient revenue to restore quality of life for our vulnerable citizens, taxes must be put on the table."
To most of his argument I will agree and cheer him on especially when he brings God's Word into his thinking with respect to living out the teachings of Scripture with respect to the poor. However!!! he makes a giant leap that cannot be allowed to stand in the same realm of "evangelical" thinking. Mr. Mathison readily turns to Scripture to secure his benevolence but then does not consult or quote or even tip his hat to it when employing government assistance through taxation to the poor. Screeching halt noise.
The Scripture are clear and abundant in their command to help the poor and needy but they are as equally clear on two other issues that effect Mr. Mathison's argument. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that it is the role of government to "provide welfare" to it's citizens. As a matter of point governments are in charge of very little in Scripture. Basically they have legal jurisdiction over criminals in order to keep people safe and military jurisdiction to keep people safe. That's it in a nutshell. The other point that Mr. Mathison et. al. need to consider is that those statements of Scripture that command care for the poor are directed at the Church. It is the Church's responsibility to care for the widows and orphans etc.
Now I agree with Tony Evans when he said, "You can't replace something with nothing" with respect to the hypothetical possibility of discontinuing welfare. The Church, and that includes "evangelical Christians" is woefully unprepared to care for the poor. Why that is true is a matter for future discussion. But Please Mr. Mathison and "evangelical Christians" everywhere if you employ Scripture as your basis for argument please be consistent in your use of it. Thanks.
Peace
In this Sunday's Grand Forks Herald, see upper Midwest, an editorial appeared that provoked some thought. It was submitted by Milo Mathison. He lives in a community very near to mine. I do not know him personally nor what his denomination of choice is but in his letter to the editor he states a few things that peaked my interest.
The general content of his letter concerned the national and state budget proposals. He bemoans the fact that the cuts that are proposed are not good ones because those cuts are aimed at social programs that benefit the poor. "Our priorities are revealed by those we leave behind" is the last statement in his first paragraph. Skipping down a few well intentioned paragraphs he writes, "As an evangelical Christian, I am deeply concerned about the course our nation is taking. Neglecting the poor and vulnerable, which may be economically justified, is morally indefensible given the abundance of Scripture mandating care for the poor. To assure sufficient revenue to restore quality of life for our vulnerable citizens, taxes must be put on the table."
To most of his argument I will agree and cheer him on especially when he brings God's Word into his thinking with respect to living out the teachings of Scripture with respect to the poor. However!!! he makes a giant leap that cannot be allowed to stand in the same realm of "evangelical" thinking. Mr. Mathison readily turns to Scripture to secure his benevolence but then does not consult or quote or even tip his hat to it when employing government assistance through taxation to the poor. Screeching halt noise.
The Scripture are clear and abundant in their command to help the poor and needy but they are as equally clear on two other issues that effect Mr. Mathison's argument. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that it is the role of government to "provide welfare" to it's citizens. As a matter of point governments are in charge of very little in Scripture. Basically they have legal jurisdiction over criminals in order to keep people safe and military jurisdiction to keep people safe. That's it in a nutshell. The other point that Mr. Mathison et. al. need to consider is that those statements of Scripture that command care for the poor are directed at the Church. It is the Church's responsibility to care for the widows and orphans etc.
Now I agree with Tony Evans when he said, "You can't replace something with nothing" with respect to the hypothetical possibility of discontinuing welfare. The Church, and that includes "evangelical Christians" is woefully unprepared to care for the poor. Why that is true is a matter for future discussion. But Please Mr. Mathison and "evangelical Christians" everywhere if you employ Scripture as your basis for argument please be consistent in your use of it. Thanks.
Peace
Friday, March 04, 2005
The PAC Cable giants and their contributuons...aka watch out Peter
Ok I'm over a month behind...blah. I did the checking online at oprnsecrets.com and they have numbers listed there for the contributions to Dem and Rep candidates for 2004. I looked at three cable companies and threw Disney in for the heck of it. INFO: Adelphia Cable- total Dem contribution in House=$500; total Rep contribution in the House=$0; Total Dem contribution in the Senate=$0; Total Rep in the Senate=$3,000. National Cable & Telecommunication Assn- Total Dem contribution in the House=$344,409; Total Rep contribution in the House=$542,862; Total Dem contribution in the Senate=$109,996 Total Rep contribution in the Senate=$105,000. Comcast Corp- total Dem contribution in House=$109,450 Total Rep contribution in House=$168,050; Total Dem contribution in the Senate=$66,300 Total Rep contribution in the Senate=$62,300...ok and just for fun Disney- Dem in House total=#99,000 Rep in the House=$91,500; Dem in Senate=$53,000 Rep in Senate=$49,000.
The only result for the Presidential candidate was from Comcast= $5,000 to Bush, $250 to Kerry.
Number are numbers right? They don't lie right? Please!!! Nowhere did Peter or ABC mention that the twp Democrats that gave the rebuttal to the Presidents State of the Union Address total #9,000 in contribution by Comcast or their link to pornography on demand. [Boxer = $4,000, Reid = $5,000] And just to add insult to injury the failed re-election of Daschle in ND cost Comcast $10,000...whatever.
The point is that the bias of ABC and Jennings isn't a surprise what is a surprise is that they continue to fail to understand that for a significant portion of the American public a two minute hatchet piece on the Bush Presidency just doesn't wash anymore. Peace
The only result for the Presidential candidate was from Comcast= $5,000 to Bush, $250 to Kerry.
Number are numbers right? They don't lie right? Please!!! Nowhere did Peter or ABC mention that the twp Democrats that gave the rebuttal to the Presidents State of the Union Address total #9,000 in contribution by Comcast or their link to pornography on demand. [Boxer = $4,000, Reid = $5,000] And just to add insult to injury the failed re-election of Daschle in ND cost Comcast $10,000...whatever.
The point is that the bias of ABC and Jennings isn't a surprise what is a surprise is that they continue to fail to understand that for a significant portion of the American public a two minute hatchet piece on the Bush Presidency just doesn't wash anymore. Peace
To Blog or not to Blog?
This is probably a question that most bloggers ask themselves...well those who one might consider serious about the venture. A friend of mine, a blogger, byron-harvey.com, is a serious blogger and sent me some very helpful information that I have been going over and deciding about the best course of action. Basically I have decided to be "a bit" more serious about this blog and work my way into the blogosphere. Now this may leave me eons behind those like byron, whom I envy a little...his mind is sharp and I have great respect for him. And so please allow me to apologize for my delay with the next post which is late but still important in so far as it follows through on what I said I was going to look into. Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
