My Fears Concerning Kony 2012

My heart races on edge, and my stomach turns every time I hear about the Invisible Children of Africa. It races for the possibility of justice, for the people of Africa who have been deeply wounded and brutally hurt but the LRA. Yet, my stomach turns as I hear about all of the pain and horrible things that have and do occur.

“Cursed is the one who perverts justice for the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow.”- Deut. 27:19

The Invisible Children have been on my heart for many years now. As I watched this video it reminded me of the others they had put out. When I was a senior in high school I attempted to get an Invisible Children presentation at my school but was denied by the principal because of the already full schedule of events for the school.

Yet, with all this said, I have some fears concerning the whole situation.

I fear that the LRA will continue to grow and that when Kony is taken out another man will rise to take his place. This is a sad thought but a true reality when you examine history concerning movements like the LRA.

But one thing I do not fear is that Kony will be brought to justice. I do not fear this because of what the Bible says, “So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.” Also, it says that “we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” Thus, Kony will be judged by God for his crimes and will pay in hell, unless he comes to Christ.

What I do fear is that Kony will, by many of us, get placed in the evil category while the rest of us get placed in the good category. Yet, what makes Kony different than us Americans who have slaughtered millions of babies via abortion? Or at which level do you become evil? Are murder and rape the only things considered evil? What about lying? Or stealing? Or sleeping around? Or hating? Or tearing others’ reputations down with gossip? The list could go on and on.

My fear is that some will believe that if we get rid of Kony that everything will be better (thought it will bring much good). And think that they can sit comfortably resting upon their achievements in helping bring him to justice. While they neglect a proper examination on themselves.

Now I do understand that some things are more evil than others in respect to their effects, but I believe that Kony is a reflection of the man’s true heart. He shows us evil in our hearts.

Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder,’ and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’ But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell.”

Thus, I fear that when many pitch in to this great quest to get rid of the evil that Kony is committing that they will not see the evil in their own hearts. I fear that many will stand before God and say, “I am good because I got rid of Kony, that evil man.” Yet, they will fail to see their own sin and need of a Savior.

The good new is that though we are sinners and haters of God, He came and died to redeem us that we could have relationship with Him and be his very own people.

Response to blog.

This is in response to another blog: http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html

Quotes from the article are in "" and my comments *.

The first half of the article I agree with. The outcast should not be shunned but loved. Jesus ate with sinners and loved them dearly.

The greatest spiritual leaders in history have all preached love for others as the basis for all happiness.

*False Christianity teaches true happiness is found in Jesus Christ.

“So if this is the founding directive of all the major religions… why is it that sometimes the most “Christlike” people are they who have no religion at all?”

Don’t get me wrong. I know a lot of incredible Christians, too. I know some incredible Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and Jews. I know a lot of amazing people, devout in their various religions, who truly love the people around them.

*The basis for life is not solely love everyone for the sake of themselves. What then is our definition? Is love then only to accept someone as they are? Then leave them where they are?

In truth, having a religion doesn’t make a person love or not love others. It doesn’t make a person accept or not accept others. It doesn’t make a person befriend or not befriend others.

*true, a religion. But not all who claim Christ are his.

I’m not here to say homosexuality is a sin or isn’t a sin. To be honest, I don’t give a rip. I don’t care. I’m not here to debate whether or not it’s natural or genetic. Again, I… don’t… care. Those debates hold no encumbrance for me.

*I get this, but as a Christian God wants to set us free from sin. Thus we love others that they might find life with Jesus.

There are things we all do or believe that other people consider “sinful.” There are things we all do or believe that other people consider “wrong.” There are things we all do or believe that other people would be disgusted or angered by.

*True others consider some things sin. And the scripture claims we are all sinner, But the Christians must repent for sin breaks our fellowship with God. There is a right and wrong. Christ came to set us free from sin. And yes this lack of love and hate is sin.

I promise you it doesn’t matter what you believe, how strongly you live your beliefs, or how true your beliefs are. Somebody else, somewhere, thinks you are in the wrong

Yet, we expect and want love anyway. We expect and want understanding. We expect and want tolerance. We expect and want humanity. We expect and want respect for our beliefs, even from those who don’t believe the same things we do. Even from those who think we’re wrong, unwise, or incorrect.

We expect all of that from the people who disagree with us and who disagree with our lifestyles and beliefs because, let’s be honest, nothing we do is actually bad enough to be worthy of disgust, anger, hatred, or cold-shouldering. Right? None of the ways in which we live our lives would warrant such behavior. Right? None of our beliefs are worthy of ugly disdain from others

*what is tolerance or acceptance? I will love someone yet have to tell him or her the truth because Jesus desires for us to be freed from sin and truly live. Truth is not relative. This argument seems to be based upon the belief that there is not absolute truth. Yet this claim is an absolute claim, which is contradictory. We can’t all be right. Yet I want to score all of this with the fact that we should love one another. Yet it seems you believe we must define love with tolerance. Yet love is not tolerance. And what is tolerance

We shouldn’t choose who we will love and who we won’t.

True. I agree that we should love all.

Just some thought I had. I agree with the hate that is shown by many religious people. Any person who claims to follow Jesus yet does not love is Not a Christian, This is found in the book of 1 John. Many people who claim it are not of God. But my question is, how do you define love? Because I have friends whom I love yet I still must tell the truth to. For Jesus came in the form of man to die for our sins and be raise again. That if we believe in Him we might have life in God, not just eternal life but true life now which is not bound to sin.

With love

Joshua

If God can do everything....

One if the main characteristics of God is Omnipotence. This can be defined as "the ability to do all things in so far as they are logically possible and consistent with His nature."

Thus If God can do everything then anything that God desires is not beyond His reach correct?
Then how come in 1 Timothy 2:4 it says that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."? This verse in light of our previous conclusions seems to be very conflicting. For if God can do whatever He desires and yet all people are not saved then there must be something in His way.

While I know sin stands in God's way. Do you think our conclusion implies "Free will" might stand in Gods way?

A book Review of Making Sense of it all by: Thomas V. Morris

*Warning this book review is my first of many to come so there may be much room for improvement*

Book Review

Blaise Pascal’s Pensees is reinvigorated in Morris’ book Making Sense of it all. Though I have read Pensees before and really enjoyed it, Morris’ book is a sort of modern exegesis of Pensees. He starts most of his chapters with quotes from Pensees, which he proceeds to practically apply and philosophize about throughout the chapter. Not only does he exegete Pensees he also has much reasoning and argumentation to add to Pascal’s arguments. This argumentation does not put up weak arguments from the opposition but attempts to tackle the difficult arguments head on.

In chapter one Morris goes onto give us a background to Pascal’ life. At first read one can see Morris glorifying Pascal a little too much. But then when one gets to page ten where he states “A lifetime of sickness and suffering, which had never been able to block out the light of his genius” and realized more of the humanness of Pascal. Yet even this statement seemed to elevate Pascal to genius. While Pascal was at the top of his field in mathematics and philosophy his life was still one of struggle. Morris would’ve done more justice to Pascal’ genius if he had presented both sides more thoroughly. Still it is understood that a biographical writing of Pascal was not to be the focus of Morris book therefore Morris emphasized Pascal’s accomplishments and thoughts. Besides this minor difference Morris’ presentation of Pascal in chapter one keeps him on track for the rest of the book.

Folly of indifference is the title of chapter two and rightly so for it is that which Morris desires to explain to us. Apathy and indifference plagued man of Pascal’s unbelieving friend and Morris also seeks to point out how modern day peoples are entrenched in this belief as well. This problem addressed by Pascal stating that those who deny truth on the grounds that it is disputed are not really lovers of truth. While it is understood when Morris and Pascal call it unreasonable to not seek answer to life’s hard question yet one can see that some people may be blind. It is true that those who refuse to seek truth on the ground of it’s disputation are not lovers of truth but it might also be possible that these persons have demonic/personal blindness due to sin.[1] Thus it could be sin that makes a person’s heart apathetic to truth and an inquiry of truth. If this is true then how could man who is dead in sin review his heart to seek truth?

Though spiritual blindness due to sin might be the answer to indifference (and Jesus the only answer, not reasoning) Morris’ reasoning is understandable. His reasoning about people being apathetic due to their desire to be free and not bound by anything higher is definitely true. [2] Morris then jumps into explain the different types of questions there are concerning truth. The first are label the existential peripheral questions which are those questions which are hotly debated yet are not crucial for my understanding of life. The other category is also widely debated questions but is essential for our understanding of life, existentially central disputed questions. Upon the latter is where Morris wishes to make his appeal to the Apathetic.

Next Morris brings an important point into view that he calls the Context Principle which is that the appropriateness of a form of behavior is always a function of the context. He appeals to the fact that in every occasion we as humans would act accordingly in different situations such as being quiet in the library, dressing up for special occasion and all of our daily experiences. Thus in the Context of our lives it matters how we act and in the context of life after death we should act appropriately. This means that the question of whether or not there is a God sets the context for the rest of reality. Thus we should all examine if we are being true to the context of reality as we do in every situation we approach. This context principle when applied to the existentially central disputed questions is very effective at showing the apathetic their lostness in a world without God.

Diversion is the Morris’ next of focus as he moves into chapter 3. This is a somewhat simple concept for is people have and indifference to truth then they also will be immersed in other things which keep them away from truth. This he says is not just a problem of the common man but also the intellect who is not immersed in the totality of life but only one level of it. Morris’ point here is not to tell us to forsake all areas of life but the philosophical but is rather saying that all things are good place in their rightful place. When we use things as a diversion to truth we become blind.

Morris then explores the meaning of life through the mid-life crisis of Leo Tolstoy. This chapter simply is trying to cement the conclusions at the end of the last chapters, which were that; a person without God has no basis for reality. Thus the person diverting apathetically is one, who if he looks reality in the face, will see he has no meaning and purpose without God. Tolstoy concluded that he could make his own meaning yet Morris rightly points out that we can’t impose meaning upon all things. For we can’t impose meaning upon things of other cultures, we have no control over the meaning of past, or death, we can only endow some meaning to the things we have control. Then one could also conclude that we truly only control a miniscule piece of reality if any. This leads Morris to point out that only a complete controller or sovereign who is God would give true completeness and meaning.

Though the last four chapters Morris seems clear and precise is argumentation which build upon itself Chapter 5 seems good at times and unclear in others. Giving a summary of the main historical arguments is clear. Though as he moves onto page 69 says that some people see desires as their obstacle for happiness yet he doesn’t give clarity as to if it is the problem. Yet he seems to give some ways that people have dealt with changing their desires. These explanations on the onset are a bit confusing to me. For he says type a person is a world conqueror or someone who conforms their desires to the worlds. This needs more clarity. Then type b is where he focuses most of his attention for they are the desire deniers that take many forms. Then he does get it right when saying that Christianity is that system, which says our beliefs inform our actions. But our beliefs and reason work hand in hand as we submit to truth.

As Morris moves into the next chapter he begins to answer the question of God being hidden. He answers well by appealing to God being non-material, transcendent, and omnipresent. Though his logic when it comes to Gods omnipresence being an explanation of God’s hiddenness seems a bit fuzzy. But the better argument made by Morris is the fact that God knows how much revelation to give each person in order that they would willingly choose Him. For if some reached him by reason they would get proud. God does not wish to force the will but to humble his or her pride thus He gives everyone the perfect dose of revelation.

Unlike the pervious chapter, Chapter 7 is not so clear. For the author goes on about wagering and tries to explain and analogy about racehorse that is a bit confusing. Yet when he compares the two worldviews of atheism and Christianity then it seems to make more sense. That the Apathetic diverting person referenced in the beginning is to compare a worldview of meaning making from themselves with no hopes after death to Christianities eternal hopes. Yet this argument could only work for those whose religion did not promise a lot in the life and the next. For instance if all pleasures for eternity were promised to me in heaven after death then this wage would not convince me. Morris did a great job of showing that this wager was to get a person past whatever barriers held them back in order to examine the argumentation. These arguments lead me to conclude that Morris is writing to convince solely those Apathetic diverted functionally Atheists. Yet this book seems to make a lot of assumption that lead me to conclude that it was written as a guide for discussion with them.

In chapter 8 Morris is just going on to explain how Christianity lines up with the wretchedness of man and yet his greatness in the same vein. This chapter is pretty straightforward and had not much to argue against except when it came to human guilt on page 140. Morris says that he disagrees with Pascal but never really gives and argument against him but instead just lays his belief of guilt along side of Pascal’s. This chapter he ends with showing that Jesus is the answer to man’s guilt and sin.

Morris then goes into a longer chapter about truth. He begins by reiterating why people avoid truth and explaining it a little more. He then goes on to explain how Pascal believed that Christianity was the only religion that covered the gambit of the human condition. In some ways this subject seems to be covered in previous chapters yet in other ways he attempts to better explain this. It seems a little pointless to bring up Athanasius’s arguments about the supremacy of the Christian religion due to the fact of the arguments relativity and uselessness to contribute to Morris’ focus. He does give a great flow of reasoning when it comes to past religions having similar beliefs previous to Christianity. This argument he rightly adds to the idea of general revelation. Putting a cap upon the marks of truth in Christianity Morris does a great job of pointing to the witnesses of Prophecy and the Apostles martyrdom.

Ending the book Morris points deeper to the truths in Christianity. In chapter 11 Morris does a good job of seeking to explain that Pascal saw arguments as limited. Though they are truly necessary, Pascal realized that the heart is what believes. For it acts upon reason and must have some basis for truth, yet the heart can obscure even the clearest argumentation. The last chapter Morris ends somewhat repetitive and not very powerfully. For the chapter can be summed up in that True satisfaction is found in God alone through a self hate and love of God and others.

The book on a whole is very good. It presents Blaise Pascal relatively clear and brings his reasoning into the modern world. Yet this book is not written for the unbeliever, as was Pascal’s for it is geared at how to use Pascal’s arguments. Not only is it shown to be for the Christian philosopher due to its how to nature but the set up of explanation is in such a way that unbelievers might not understand. This book is a good book for anyone desiring to understand Pascal and have some basic arguments for Unbelievers. In Making sense of it all Morris explains how Christianity is the answer for modern mans condition through a presentation of Pascal’s argumentation and a adding of his own.

---

[1] Ephesians 2:1-2

[2] Romans 1:21-22

Foreknowledge

This was a post in one of my classes where be have been reading the following authors:
Boethius, Augustine and Aquinas in reference to Free will and God's sovereignty seem to focus majorly upon How God foreknows all things and yet it does not imply necessity to mans will. Yet I wonder why they don't address Ephesians 1:4 "^4(H) even as he^(I) chose us in him^(J) before the foundation of the world, that we should be^(K) holy and blameless before him." The fact that God chose us. Any idea of choosing something in reality implies that Person A the Choosers has the power and Person B the chosen are without power.
To bring this argument even further Paul goes on to say that we are predestined in vs. 11 "¹¹In him we have obtained^(AA) an inheritance,^(AB) having been predestined^(AC) according to the purpose of him who works all things according to^(AD) the counsel of his will, ¹²so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be^(AE) to the praise of his glory." This seems to not only imply that God foreknows all things but that he is active in choosing us through Predestination.
Not only this passage but later in ch. 2:1 Paul says we were "dead in the trespasses and sins". How can a dead man bring himself back to life unless one who is powerful helps those who are powerless in choosing.

I have a disclaimer. I do see some of the logic in Boethius' arguments yet am still stuck with a desire to be obedient to the Scripture above all. Also I went to a dispensational school Word of life bible institute and was not reformed at all until I got to SWBTS 3 years ago and have been wrestling with these Scriptures.

Stumbling Block

I have been wondering about the Stumbling block which is mentioned in 1 Cor. 8.

In my past some people have used the weaker brother argument in a few ways:

A.) They have claimed that someone has done a neutral act to make the sin.
Ex. Person A takes Person B's laundry out because there are no more washers open. Then Person B gets very angry and says that Person A made them stumble.

B.) When someone has been a Christian for quiet some time but doesn't like younger Christians styles.
Ex. Older Christian calls the youth pastor and tells them that guitars being used in Worship is making them stumble.

The list could go on and on with examples and scenario's.

My first question is:
What is to be considered a legitimate Stumbling Block?

With that question I wanna ask. Can a older Christian have a legitimate stumbling block if they have read 1 cor. 8?

My Critique

This is my Critique of This article: http://www.slate.com/id/2285350#add-comment

*Please pardon the mistakes and ask for clarification if needed for I wrote this Critique and have not gotten any review of it yet.

Article Critique

The article that is in question brings into question the majority Republican ruled Congress’s first steps in office. Author David Weigel’s Thesis is that the Democratic party wishes to use the Republican majorities decision to Change the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act to no longer counting “rape” as federally funded for abortions but only counting “Forcible rape”. This decision by the Republican’s Wiegel says will be the primary focus for the Democrats to win favor.

Wiegel’s primary focus is on Democratic Rep. Steve Israel’s tactics to discredit the Republicans. Though Wiegel clearly presents his Thesis, which can’t really be argued with due to it’s explanatory nature, the really force of argument should and will in this Critique be place upon Rep. Israel’s, the Democratic GOP and Wegiel’s arguments against the Republican actions. Their approach is very clearly laid out in this arguments but their arguments fail when poked at with simple questions. Many things are presumed when they are making their defense that need be called into question when intelligent men and women are seeking the truth. The truth that I wish to bring out is the reality of their arguments and the truth that Christianity brings to the table.

In his first attempt to make an argument against the Republicans Weigel points out the fact that this step that they have made has “started the biggest backlash in the short, otherwise happy life of the new Republican House. “He then goes on the sight The Daily Show as proof of this backlash. This support doesn’t seem very weighty due to the fact that this show slants towards his view. Another reason this proof isn’t valid is due to the shows treatment of the issue that is very cynical one and doesn’t even reason out how the Republicans change might have been rational to save infants lives.

Throughout this article they continue to bash while only considering the issues core with a few quotes from Pro-Choice heads. They bash them by saying the changing of terms in a ”mess”, that the Republican’s have “dunked” themselves. And this might be a possibility for maybe they should’ve tried primarily to fix the economy. But the one difference in this whole argument is the Democratic view of life. For they see financial freedom above that of that of giving people more jobs. This is proved in the whole basis of the argument for if they saw “killing a unborn child” less important than money they would not attack with such fervor the Republican’s choice. Instead they focus, as Wiegel quotes at the end of the article, that a man “tends to vote with his pocketbook” and thus their tactic is to prosper man and lay waste all of his inconvenience regardless of the cost, even when it comes to a human life.

A Christian views each person even unborn as having value and worth. For we are all made in the image of God. Abortion advocates while claiming to love humans, only support those functioning humans, which is evidenced in the mothers’ choice to get an abortion. But this view is even faulty in view of the sheer facts that a fetus will one day be a functioning human and should be treated as thus. The Republicans in their adding of the word “Forcible rape” have only placed responsibility upon those who have put themselves in the situation to get raped. This for the Christian is good in a sense that people are force to be morally responsible and bad in the sense that we have still not eliminated the killing of the unborn.

While jobs are important and Republicans are flawed in many ways the human life is not to be killed for the greater good of the society. We must not misplace our values. With misplaced values we some slander of reality, for it was not by accident (as the Wiegel alludes to) that these leaders been placed into their office but it was by the vote of the people. While the strategy of the Congress is in question, I as a Christian must be honest that I don’t agree with their tactic 100% but can not say that they have sinned in proposing these changes. For by changing the “Rape” to “Forcible Rape” they have made a distinction between those who have willingly placed themselves into rape potential situation and those who did not. With this distinction will make many people gnash their teeth but it is a fact of reality that people place themselves in rape potential situations and thus should be held responsible.

Slandering and accusing without facing the issues is an improper handling of the issues at hand. For these issues must be faced head on and not given up to suit our comforts. As Christians we must be honest that the Republican Party isn’t perfect and should better tackle the economic Crisis at hand. But we can’t shy away from calling our love of materialism what it is. For the economy our country should not be placed as primary above human life.