http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2015/12/05/is-gunslinger-christianity-even-actually-conservative/



I’m not sure what the right adjective is for the kind of Christianity espoused by Jerry Falwell, Jr, and his adoring fans in the student body of Liberty University. In case you missed it, Falwell gave a speech at a school-wide convocation in which he said, “If more good people had conceal carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they go out trying to k**l us… I just want to take this opportunity to encourage all of you to get your permits… Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here.”

The students went wild like it was a pep rally. Indeed, it felt more like a speech being given about a rival football team than an incitement of violence against people from another religion. I don’t think the students were saying let’s go k**l us some muslins. They were saying hell yeah, our college president is a bad-ass who carries a gun in his back pocket. He’s not a stuffy bureaucrat. He probably goes muddin’ in his jeep just like us. Perhaps I’m being overly charitable, but I really think they were applauding Falwell’s lack of giving a f*** more than his targeting Muslims per se.

I got some flak on my facebook page for saying that Jerry Falwell, Jr’s speech reveals how far conservative evangelicalism has gone adrift. It’s true that that’s not quite fair. There are (at least some) conservative evangelicals who have not sold out to knee jerk Republican talking points and cowboy populism. In trying to think of another adjective for Falwell, Jr’s kind of Christianity, I figured I would go with gunslinger Christianity for now.


It’s the Christianity of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood (at least before the chair incident). It’s the Christianity that likes to talk tough and feel tough. It’s the Christianity that believes in the absolute t***hiness of being caustically politically incorrect instead of the lukewarm relativism of cultural sensitivity and other such nonsense. It’s the Christianity that takes p***e in how hard its children get spanked. It’s the Christianity that thinks pastors are ruined by seminary education.


In other words, it’s right-wing cowboy populism which is often conflated with conservatism but really isn’t the same thing. It’s a perversion of conservatism to conflate political incorrectness with integrity. Donald Trump is the perfect example of this conflation. He’s very “t***hy” in his daringness to “talk straight” about Mexican immigrants and Muslims, but he isn’t being t***hful. A real conservative cares immensely about t***hfulness even if it’s nuanced and confusing and boring, while a right-wing redneck populist loves the ballsy one-liners of t***hiness even if they aren’t fair or t***hful. A true conservative scriptwriter would never make it in Hollywood; only gunslinger populists can come up with the bad-ass one-liners that the hero says while sucking on a filter-less, hand-rolled cigarette before blowing the enemy’s brains out.

I don’t know how widespread gunslinger Christianity is in conservative evangelical culture. My conservative evangelical friends claim it’s a fringe minority. I’m not so sure about that. I really think that evangelical megachurchianity’s uncritical embrace of celebrity culture has produced an idolatry of tough-talking, ballsy, bad-ass alpha males. Megachurch pastors like Mark Driscoll may be more intelligent than Jerry Falwell, Jr, but their brand is built off of the same kind of gunslinger bravado.
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Jesus. I don’t think Jesus is thrilled about a bunch of twenty-year old guys getting conceal carry permits so they can play Clint Eastwood in between classes at Liberty if somebody brown and suspiciously Arab-looking shows up. For a Christian college president to encourage all of his students to go out and buy a bunch of guns is at best tremendously irresponsible. To my conservative evangelical friends who say #NotAllConservatives, you need to rein in your gunslinger friends because their witness is your witness, whether you like it or not.

The only account of creation says nothing about God creating time. He created the Sun, Moon, and Stars for the expressed purpose of measuring time, but that is not the same as creating time. Just as creating a yard stick to measure material has no bearing on the existence of material.

As for "without light there is no time" - God must have had time to separate the light from the darkness. And for God to BE requires TIME to BE or He could not have been to begin with. (local vernacular preposition to end with)

And time does not end when we turn out the lights.

Time is as old as God. And since God does not have to utilize a draftsman in order to create, I believe He created from "The Beginning." So the Earth is as old as God. (Well, maybe minus the "Time" it took for the birth of Wisdom prior to creation, as recorded in Proverb the eighth.)

And THAT little gem should give headaches to all those who think they have "proved" the earth is 7,000 years old, by counting the genealogies recorded in scripture, as though that was a measure of Earth's age. There are all kinds of Genealogical records, no two of which agree with all the others, because all the others also do not agree because they are not recorded for the same purpose.

Some are simply family records, and some record the heads of families, and some record families with the law of inheritance included wherein a brother begets children in a deceased brother's name, so the deceased Brother's name is not lost to Israel. Anyway, it is not intended for the purpose of "proving Earth's age." I think God already did that when He said He created IN THE BEGININNG.

I noticed "Beginning" is not articulated, so it could be referencing "In beginning, God did thus and He did that and He did this other" as a reference to activity instead of a reference to time measuring which is a mental gymnastic rather than an activity.

Your statement "God was telling Moses that He is the Self-existent One (with no beginning nor any end) Who exists in the past, the present, and the future concurrently" got my attention for the reason there is no "concurrent time of existence of past, present and future" based just upon the use of "Am." I can say I am going to the store, and no one understands I am claiming I "was, am and will be" going to that store. "Am" carries no reference to was and will. And that meaning certainly is not carried over into the Septuagint revelation, which has God saying, in response to Moses query "Who shall I say sent me," "Tell them The being hath sent you."

This is one of many proofs there is no TRINITY other than in the minds of Scholars. God introduces himself to Moses as a first-person-singular "being;" i.e., there is only one person in the "person-singular" being.

In Exo 3:14 God introduced himself to Moses using singular pronoun, singular verb, singular definite article and singular verb participle.
εγω ειμι ο ων = "I AM THE BEING."

εγω = first-person-singular pronoun ="I"
ειμι = first-person-singular present active verb ="am"
ο = singular definite article = "the"
ων = Singular participle = "Being"

"Singular" participle means there is only one person in "The Being."

Again, the number of "Persons" in God is a matter of Grammatical Principle, not comparison definition. In other words, I do not have to prove God is a person, though God does apply the language sufficient to do so.

http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/11/17/3723069/governors-refugees-response/


These Christian Governors Are Refusing Syrian Refugees. That’s Not What Jesus Would Do.
BY ESTHER YU-HSI LEE NOV 17, 2015 3:52PM

CREDIT: AP PHOTO/SANTI PALACIOS

A Syrian girl eats a lollipop after her arrival on a small boat from the Turkish coast on the northeastern Greek island of Lesbos Monday, Nov. 16, 2015. Greek authorities say 1,244 refugees and economic migrants have been rescued from frail craft in danger over the past three days in the Aegean Sea, as thousands continue to arrive on the Greek islands. (AP Photo/Santi Palacios)




At least 27 governors have recently come out against allowing Syrian refugees in their states, claiming that refugees could be a potential terrorist threat. Although the ultimate decision to resettle Syrian refugees will fall on the federal government, some governors have taken extreme measures like signing executive orders to prevent refugee settlement.
The anti-refugee position has struck many observers as hypocritical — especially considering the fact that, before the deadly attacks in Paris and Beirut over the weekend, many of these governors have invoked their Christian faith to make statements calling for tolerance and helping people different from them.
Indeed, many Bible passages call for Christians to “welcome the stranger.” Matthew 25:41-43, for instance, says that “we cannot say to those in need, ‘you are not our problem.'”
Here are just a few examples of previous statements from state leaders that run counter to the spirit of the position they’re taking on Syrian refugees now:




Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R)Arizona
On Syrian refugees: “Given the horrifying events in Paris last week, I am calling for an immediate halt in the placement of any new refugees in Arizona.”
On religion: When Pope Francis visited the United States two months ago, Ducey, who identifies as Catholic, said that he was “honored” and “deeply humbled to be a small part of the Pope’s historic visit.” Ducey may admire the pope, but his statement goes against Francis’ long-standing call for a compassionate solution to handle immigrants. Notably, Francis has called on European parishes to each take in refugee families.


Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R)Georgia
On Syrian refugees: “In light of the terror attacks in Paris, I’ve issued an executive order [pdf] directing state agency heads to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Georgia […] Until the federal government and Congress conducts a thorough review of current screening procedures and background checks, we will take every measure available to us at the state level to ensure the safety of Georgians.”
On religion: Deal has previously said that his faith guides his political decisions, noting, “I try to be a follower. Our understanding of what Jesus taught was that you’re going to hide these t***hs in your heart. It’s not so much what you say, it’s what you do. And it’s the way we try to live.” Deal perhaps missed the part of the Bible where Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbors as themselves.




Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R)Idaho
On Syrian refugees: “It makes no sense under the best of circumstances for the United States to allow people into our country who have the avowed desire to harm our communities, our institutions and our people […] The savage and senseless ISIS-driven attacks in Paris illustrate the essential inhumanity of terrorism and make it clearer than ever that we must make protecting our homeland from this threat our primary focus.”
On religion: Otter briefly studied to become a priest, noting, “I’m a Catholic, and I’ve got a value system I grew up with.” That value system includes welcoming refugees; just this week, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated the call to assist refugees in the United States.



Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R)Iowa
On Syrian refugees: “Until a thorough and thoughtful review is conducted by the intelligence community and the safety of Iowans can be assured, the federal government should not resettle any Syrian refugees in Iowa.”
On religion: Branstad once said that because of his mother’s Jewish heritage, he treats all religions with respect and dignity, according to the Des Moines Register in 2010.



Republican p**********l candidate and Louisiana
On Syrian refugees: “Mr. President, in light of these attacks on Paris and reports that one of the attackers was a refugee from Syria, it would be prudent to pause the process of refugees coming to the United States. Authorities need to investigate what happened in Europe before this problem comes to the United States.”
On religion: During a prayer meeting in June, Jindal told a crowd, “The single most important time in my life is the moment that I found Jesus Christ.” However, Jindal’s embrace of Jesus Christ has failed to grasp that part of Jesus’ mission was to feed the hungry, to care for the sick, and to welcome the stranger, namely immigrants.



Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R)Mississippi
On Syrian refugees: “I will do everything humanly possible to stop any plans from the Obama Administration to put Syrian refugees in Mississippi.”
On religion: Bryant once told a group of students that Christianity shaped his world view and that Christmas wouldn’t be a holiday without Jesus Christ, whose own journey escaping from Egypt with his parents has some parallels to the plight of people fleeing Syria.



Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R)Nebraska
On Syrian refugees: “Nebraska is a welcoming place for families seeking a home to live, work, and raise a family. My administration understands the danger and persecution many are facing in the Middle East, however, it is important that our state consider the safety and security of Nebraskans first in any refugee resettlement efforts.”
On religion: In a series of tweets written during Holy Week 2015, Rickets urged families to come together to remember the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and “to give thanks for the blessings we have received and to renew our commitment to treat others with Christ-like dignity and charity.”




North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R)North Carolina
On Syrian refugees: “I care for these people … “We have an act of war going on that could come to our country and my job as governor is to protect the people of our state while also showing empathy to those people who are being harmed by terrorists.”
On religion: In a statement made on Easter, McCrory, who identifies as a Presbyterian, wrote, “May we conclude our Easter celebration with a renewed commitment of unconditional service to each other with no expectation of reward other than Christ’s declaration, “wh**ever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”



Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R)Ohio
On Syrian refugees: The governor doesn’t believe the U.S. should accept additional Syrian refugees because security and safety issues cannot be adequately addressed,” said Jim Lynch, a spokesman for Kasich’s administration. “The governor is writing to the President to ask him to stop, and to ask him to stop resettling them in Ohio. We are also looking at what additional steps Ohio can take to stop resettlement of these refugees.”
On religion: Kasich frequently references his faith to explain his policy positions, such as his decision to expand Medicaid coverage to addition low-income Americans. During a meeting with Christian conservatives, Kasich said that the most important thing about faith “is what you do and not what you say.” He’s also said, “when I get to the pearly gates, I’m going to have an answer for what I’ve done for the poor.”



Texas Gov. Greg Abbot (R)

On Syrian refugees: “Texas will not accept any Syrian refugees & I demand the U.S. act similarly. Security comes first,” Abott said in a tweet.
On religion: Earlier this year at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, Abbott quoted scripture and urged attendees to remember God’s reminder that “a problem, a difficult situation, or a calamity” is an opportunity to “open the door to the Lord, so that he can come in.”
Additional reporting by Tara Culp-Ressler and Jack Jenkins.
Thanks to the Center for New Community for help compiling some of these governors’ most recent statements on refusing refugees.
TAGS RefugeeReligionSyria

11/11/2015 Why Does The Left H**e ISRAEL? 'A War On God’ . . . .
Exclusive: Joseph Farah says the contempt boils down to 'a war on God’

http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/why-does-left-h**e-israel-2/

JERUSALEM – Someone recently asked Joshua Muravchik, the distinguished scholar of international studies at Johns Hopkins University, why the left, which once embraced Israel, now detests the Jewish state.

He explained, “L*****ts/liberals/progressives believe that the great moral drama of our era is ‘the rest against the West’ or the ‘people of color’ against the ‘white man.’

This has replaced poor-against-rich or worker-against-capitalist as the core idea of progressive thought.
Seen through that lens, Israel (the ‘Western,’ ‘white’ guys) is automatically wrong, and the Palestinians (the ‘anti-colonialist,’ ‘people of color’) are automatically right.

On the other side, conservatives value Israel as a free country, a democracy and an ally of the United States.”
While I think there is some element of t***h in what Muravchik says, I think he misses the big picture.

First of all, if you travel to the Middle East and visit the Arab “Palestinians” in Judea and Samaria and Gaza and then visit Israel, you will be hard-pressed to see any significant difference in the skin complexion of Arabs and Jews.

While many Israelis emigrated from Europe and the former Soviet Union, they also came in big numbers from the Arab world where they were visibly indistinguishable from their Muslim and Christian neighbors.

As well, Arabs run the gamut in skin color from very light to very dark. Many even have sandy hair and blue eyes.

So this whole racial dynamic makes little sense.

Arabs and Jews are ethnic cousins – all genetically children of Abraham.

While it’s true that Israel is often mischaracterized by the left as a colonial oppressor, the only ethnic cleansing and genocide being espoused in the Middle East comes from the Muslim Arabs, who insist the Jewish state needs to be destroyed and demands that no Jews be permitted to live in their “liberated” territories.

I believe there is something much more fundamental at play between the alliance of the left and radical Islam.

It’s not so much a war on the West.

It’s a war on God – specifically the God of the Bible.

That’s what ever so clearly Israel represents in the world today – a fulfilled promise of return to statehood and nationhood after nearly 2,000 years.

It also stands at the very heart of Israel’s legitimacy as a nation.
Israel, after all, is not just a legitimate state because the United Nations approved its rebirth in 1948. Israel, after all, is not just legitimate because Jews lived in the land continuously since the time of Joshua.

Israel, after all, represents the people who were summoned by God to live in the land, delivered out of Egypt to the land and who brought the Bible to the rest of the world.

What’s more, the modern-day state of Israel perfectly fulfills the prophecies of a worldwide dispersion of the Jews throughout the world who would return to the land with a nation reborn in one day.
No other nation in the history of the world has experienced the miraculous rebirth Israel experienced just as described by the ancient Hebrew prophets.

But that is a frightening reality for Muslims and the left, because Muslims worship a different god with a different story of history, and the left denies any god at all except the god of materialism.

Could this be why Islam and the materialistic left have found a common enemy in Israel?

To me it’s undeniable, self-evident.

Israel is a reality that cannot be denied, unless it is demonized as an impostor.

And that’s exactly what Islam and the materialistic left do.

10/30/2015 The Constitution's Big Lie: Constitutional Dictatorship . . . .
 
http://antoniusaquinas.com/2015/10/29/the-constitutions-big-lie-2/

One of the greatest h**xes ever perpetrated upon Americans at the time of its telling and which is still trumpeted to this very day is the notion that the U.S. Constitution contains within its framework mechanisms which limit its power.

The “separation of powers,” where power is distributed among the three branches – legislative, executive, judicial – is supposedly the primary check on the federal government’s aggrandizement.

This sacred held tenet of American political history has once again been disproved.

Last Friday (October 23), the Attorney General’s office announced that it was “closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges” against former Internal Revenue Service’s director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, or, for that matter, anyone else from the agency over whether they improperly targeted Tea Party members, populists, or any other groups, which voiced anti-government sentiments or views.
The Department of Justice statement read:


The probe found ‘substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime.’ (My emphasis)
Incredibly, it added:


We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.

DOJ Closes Lois Lerner Investigation Without Charges
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-23/doj-closes-lois-lerner-investigation-without-charges

That the DOJ will take no action against one of its rogue departments demonstrates the utter lawlessness and totalitarian nature of the federal government.

The DOJ’s refusal to punish documented wrongdoing by the nation’s tax collection agency shows the blatant hypocrisy of Obummer, who promised that his presidency would be one of “t***sparency.”

It can be safely assumed that Congress will not follow up on the matter, as Darrell Issa (R-Ca.), who chaired a committee to investigate the bureau’s wrong doings, admitted that its crimes may never be known.

Issa on IRS Scandal: May Never Get the T***h
http://www.newsmax.com/US/issa-scandal-irs-investigation/2014/07/09/id/581638/

The DOJ and Issa’s responses are quite predictable once the nature of the federal government and, for that matter, all governments are understood.

Basic political theory has shown that any state is extremely reluctant to police itself or reform unless threatened with destruction, take over, or dismemberment (secession).

The Constitution has given to the federal government monopoly power where its taxing and judicial authority are supreme. It will not relinquish such a hold nor will it seek to minimize such power until it is faced with one of these threats.

While it was called a federated system at the time of its enactment and ever since by its apologists, the reality of the matter is quite different.

As the Constitution explicitly states in Art. VI, Sect. 2, the central government is “the supreme law of the land.” The individual states are inferior and mere appendages to the national government – ultimate control rests in Washington.

In fact, it was the Constitution’s opponents, the much derided Antifederalists, who were the true champions of a decentralized system of government while their more celebrated opponents such as Madison, Hamilton and Jay wanted an omnipotent national state.

Thus, in the American context, the only method for those oppressed by the federal government is to either threaten or actually go through with secession.

Attempts to alter its dictatorial rule through the b****t box or public protests are futile. While there will naturally be outrage at letting the IRS off the hook, focus and anger must be redirected away from participation within the current political system to that of fundamental change.

Congress’ refusal to prosecute an executive bureau that has deliberately used (and is still using) state power to oppress and harass opponents of the Obama regime demonstrates the bankruptcy of the idea that separation of power limits tyranny.

Federal power and the corresponding tyranny and corruption which it has bred has never been countered by the checks and balances and separation of powers of the supposed “federal republic” created a little over two centuries ago.

Until the “big lie” of the Constitution is realized, agencies like the IRS will continue to target and tyrannize anti-government organizations, groups, and individuals.

The Constitution provides no real mechanism for the redress of grievances from the subjects which it rules. Only when the breakup of the federal Union has taken place, will American liberties and freedoms be secured.