Commentary

Mark Driscoll explains 8 things that might compel you to reject Jesus

4 Comments

The list is here on The Resurgence. (H/T Caffeinated Thoughts)

Here’s the best one from his list, in my opinion:

7. Embarrassment

Sometimes it’s just embarrassment, because being a Christian does not get you cool points anywhere. This was my big thing as a non-Christian. All the Christians would come to me and they’d be like, “Okay, you need to give your life to Christ.” And I’m like, “I don’t want to join the team, man. The Ned Flanders society. I do not want to join the team.” And it was always the kids with the bumper stickers and the t-shirts and the permagrins and the parted hair and the wristbands, and they’re like, “We love Jesus! We love him, we love him.” I was like, “Aaaargh! Seriously, is there another team that he has? Maybe wearing black, you know? Could I join that team?” It was just embarrassing. “I love Jesus.” You know how weird it is to get converted in college and your philosophy class, when they’re like, “How many of you are Christians?” “Oh, here we go.” You know. History class. “Yeah, I love Jesus.” Sociology class. “I love Jesus.” Women’s studies class. “Oh yeah, I love Jesus.” You know? You’re just a piñata for your whole undergrad degree. It’s embarrassing. And then every time any Christian says or does anything stupid, myself included—I am not beyond this capacity—it’s like, “You Christians.” You’re like, “There are billions of us! Just because one duffed it doesn’t mean we’re all doing it.”

It’s embarrassing. Do you think it was embarrassing for Naaman to go down to the river? “Hi, I’m the mighty man, leper, help.” It’s kind of embarrassing. For those in Nazareth, it’s like, “You’re the bad guys.” “Really? That’s kind of embarrassing, because we took a vote. We thought we were the good guys.” Some of you just need to be humiliated for Christ.

This is the reason I see the most often in the university and at work. People don’t want to be thought of as stupid, ignorant or different. It’s PRIDE. They want to compare themselves to others and think they are better. And they want others to think they are better than them.

The best reason of all isn’t even on his list. People want to pursue their own interests in this life and they don’t want to be encumbered with the demands of a relationship that forces them to do some things to make God happy. They want to work 100% on making themselves happy.

That’s the number one reason why people DON’T look into these issues to see if Christianity is true. They are afraid that it will be true and that they will have to dedicate some portion of their time to serving God and behaving themselves. I do it too. We all do. And it’s particularly hard to include God in your decision making when you aren’t getting your way.

What does G.K. Chesteron say?

“The problem with Christianity isn’t that it has been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

Exactly.

I’ll be picking up the Mark Driscoll series on sex and marriage as soon as things cool down at work. I’m working on 3 projects and it’s just too much to do!

News

MUST-READ: An overview of Obama’s radical pro-abortion record

2 Comments

I found this post at The Blog Prof. (H/T Nice Deb)

Excerpt:

Once again, for the umpteenth time, on Obama and abortion, it is indisputable that in his very short time in office, the most viciously pro-abort zealot to ever sit in the Oval Office did the following:

The multiple pro-infanticide votes are the most egregious of the above egregious acts, and he did so without any pity for those babies born alive only to be left in soiled linen closets to die.

Think of all the pro-life people who voted for Obama because they wanted free health care, paid for by their neighbors. This is the price of it.

Here’s one of the videos in the post:

There are a TON of videos of Obama talking about the abortion issue in the BlogProf’s blog post.

This image made me sad:

It’s the born-alive baby who was abandoned in a utility room to die. That’s not what you do with babies, for God’s sake. Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. He is most pro-abortion President ever.

Commentary

Dennis Prager explains the conflict between parents and the state

Leave a comment

The article talks about how the power of the state is bounded by 1) traditional religion and 2) parental authority in the family.

Excerpt:

The second most powerful obstacle to the state and government assuming primary authority is parents.

It was no meaningless phrase when baby boomers on the left declared, “Never trust anyone over 30.” Who was over 30? First and foremost, their parents.

As with religion, the further left the state or ideology, the more it seeks to undermine parental authority. In the Soviet Union, Komsomol, the Soviet Youth League substituted for parents. Mao, too, did what he could to destroy the family’s authority. Although no way comparable to Stalin or Mao, the American and European left also seek to undermine parental authority.

The battle over parental notification in the case of abortion is primarily about parental authority.

The battle over sex education in schools is largely about that, too — who gets to teach youth about sexuality and homosexuality? Parents or schools (i.e., the state)?

The battle over school vouchers is in large measure also a battle over governmental authority versus parental authority. Who gets to choose where one’s child attends school — the state or the parent? The battle over who gets to actually educate our children has already been lost to the state in the vast majority of cases. It is why the left is so uncomfortable with home schooling — parents, not the state, get to teach children.

As the late James O. Freedman, former president of Dartmouth University, said in a commencement address in 2002, the purpose of a college education is “to question your father’s values.”

Just as the left has substituted the authority of the state for the authority of God, it has substituted the authority of the state for that of parents. And just as God has been reduced to a non-judging, non-disciplining pal, so, too, the left wants parents to become non-judging, non-disciplining pals of their children.

In a nutshell, the left wants to have ever-expanding authority over people’s lives through ever-expanding governmental powers. It does so because it regards itself as more enlightened than others. Others are either enemies (the right) or unenlightened masses. It is elected by demonizing its enemies and doling out money and jobs to the masses.

I find that the expanding intrusion of the secular state into the family (via the schools) is very frustrating. I am concerned that the state will turn my children against me using my tax dollars. And the worst part is that if my children reject Judeo-Christian values, then they would actually be hurting themselves, and imposing social costs (e.g. – health care costs, etc.), on the rest of society. I think it would hurt me a lot to take so much trouble to have and raise children and then to see them become immoral, self-destructive and ungrateful to their parents.