Fake Christians: Part 1
Charles Barkley says that he gets sick when he hears the word “conservative” because “they’re just fake Christians, as I call them.” Clip below:
[dailymotion x4e0qt]
This got me to thinking. Which party is the party of Biblical values? Why don’t we take a look at some important issues in this election as well as major differences between the parties and see how we dastardly Christians fare, eh?
Right to Life/Abortion
Conservatives say:
That all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That life, as an inalienable right, is granted by God at the moment of conception and should be protected by the same government that drafted the document declaring the right of all to it.
Liberals say:
That pregnancy is not equal to life and that a fetus is a clump of cells. That women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy under the law as an issue of privacy.
The Bible says:
That life is given by God in the womb — “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee…” Jeremiah 1:5
That taking the life of a child is spilling innocent blood — “Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.” Psalms 106:37-38
If a life is a life in the womb according to Jeremiah, and the taking of innocent life is considered evil, I would say that this one falls to the conservative view point.
Point for Conservatism.
Welfare and Entitlement
Conservatives say:
People should work to build better lives for themselves. The Platform of the GOP claims a goal of moving welfare recipients off the rolls and into jobs. That while the government should provide assistance to those in true need that we should not create a “welfare state” where people choose to live off of the government instead of by their own hand.
Liberals say:
People are entitled to a certain level of dignity through income. If they are unable to earn the income they require the government should provide assistance for those who have a disability, lack education or job training, unskilled laborers whose jobs may have been outsourced, substance abuse or addiction issues, etc. They believe that government should support them until such time as they are ready to get back on their feet.
The Bible says:
“Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. ” (2 Thessalonians 3:8-12)
But what about those who can’t take care of themselves? Doesn’t the Bible say that we should help those who can’t help themselves? Actually, the Bible says that family should first take care of their needy:
“But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.” (1 Timothy 5:4)
What about those without family? The Bible, in that instance, calls upon the church to care for “true widows”:
“Honour widows that are widows indeed.” (1 Timothy 5:1)
However, the Word is careful to remind us that family should take the charge first, and the chapter outlines certain restriction of who qualifies as a “widow indeed”. (A widow indeed is supposed to be over 60, never divorced, well reported, raising her children and doing good works…)
“If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” (1 Timothy 5:16)
Perhaps one of the most intersting accounts of government involvement with the poor is found in Ezekiel:
“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50)
So the Bible actually counts not strengthening the hand of the poor and needy, or assisting them in ways that allow them to provide for themselves (their “hand”) as “iniquity” or sin.
While this one is hard to judge, and I truly believe that many liberals want to provide for the poor for good reasons and because they genuinely feel for the people in these positions, we must recognize that if we’re talking about “fake Christianity” that true Christianity, based 100% on what the Bible has to say about the issue, is probably more harsh on the subject of welfare than even the most radical conservatives.
Point for Conservatism.
Conservatism seems to be on the side of “true Christianity” on these first two points. We’ll take on two more issues next go ’round and see how the movement fairs. So far, however, Chuck isn’t looking very bright.
4 Responses to “Fake Christians: Part 1”
By Karl on Feb 17, 2008 | Reply
First, let me share the facts:
**Democrat CFR member Candidates:**
Barack Obama: Also, his wife Michelle Obama is on the Board of Directors in the Chicago branch of the CFR.
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
**Republican CFR member Candidates:**
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Newt Gingrich
Mike Huckabee: Huckabee is not a CFR member, though he named Richard Haas, president of the CFR, as his adviser on foreign policy. On Feb. 21, 2006, Hass wrote a column for the Taipei (China) Times titled, “State Sovereignty Must Be Altered in Globalized Era.” This is an explicit solicitation for global government. Here is the article –http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021
So what is the “CFR” anyway?
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is David Rockefeller’s private thinktank. This group has nothing to do with our government since it is entirely private. This group is pro-war and pro-North American Union (loss of American sovereignty and loss of Constitutional protections). You can read more about this group at –
http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/cfr_stacks_deck_with_dem_gop_presidential_candidates.htm
Here’s a short video of a discussion between Dick Cheney (ex-director of CFR) and David Rockefeller, which reveals their close-knit ties –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg
The Money Masters (documentary, part 1)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6076118677860424204
The Money Masters (documentary, part 2)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683
Reviews of “The Money Masters” documentary from financial experts
http://www.themoneymasters.com/reviews.htm
America: Freedom to Fascism (documentary)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
About the director of “America: Freedom to Fascism,” Aaron Russo
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/about_aaron/about_aaron.html
Spin (documentary)
Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353
About the creator of “Spin,” Brian Springer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Springer
“Corporate Media Censorship (part 1)” by Daniel Estulin
http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias¬icias=ver&id=349
“Corporate Media Censorship (part 2)” by Daniel Estulin
http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias¬icias=ver&id=353&idioma=en
QUOTES OF INTEREST, RELATING TO CFR, TRILATERAL COMMISSION, AND BILDERBERG:
“The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for “the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.” Harpers, July l958
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
-David Rockefeller speaking at the UN, Sept. 14, 1994
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” — David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
1973, August 10: The New York Times publishes “From a China Traveller” by David Rockefeller, who writes about Communist China: “One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony….There is a very real and pervasive dedication to chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive….The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose….The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in history.”
1974 - Richard N. Gardner writing in Foreign Affairs (CFR’s publication) April 1974 Article entitled The Hard Road to World Order, “In short, the “house of world order: will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” …….but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
“We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (CFR publication) (July/August 1995)
“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.” Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
By Ned Williams on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for this post, Wes. Homosexual Marriage was plainly on Barkley’s mind in reaching this conclusion.
By Wes Comer on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Yeah — I’ll address that in the next post. I started to tackle *all* of the major issues in this one, but realized that if I made the post too long I was at danger of no one reading it.
By David on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Chuck shoulda stuck to playing ball. He’s clearly out of his league here.
It is revealing that his animosity against Christians is based upon his complete lack of knowledge about what God says in His word.