Monday, October 13, 2008

LEST I GET DELETED -- WHY FUNDAMENTALISTS/EVANGELICALS AREN'T JUST "OLD TESTAMENT THUMPERS" AS MUD-RAKE SAYS

In case Mud-rake removes me from discussion on his fundamentalist muck-raking blog (his name for it), I am re-posting here.

Mudrake, I just mentioned that we are not under the Old Testament Law but under New Testament grace, and you come back talking about your notion of "fundamentalists" as "O.T. Thumpers." Why is that? Didn't you read my comment above?

There isn't anything that evangelicals believe that isn't reinforced in both testaments --including our pro-life position and our view of marriage and sexuality. Both are defensible by both testaments. Orthodox Jews and Bible-believing Christians would agree on these family matters. So a person can be a "New Testament thumper" --and still come to the same conclusions about right and wrong as what Mudrake calls an "O.T. Thumper."

To the Christian blogger, Dawg-doc, a Mississippi professor of American politics, I take issue with his statement that fundamentalists want to legislate morality.

We, whom Mudrake calls "fundamentalists," are just concerned that there are radical liberals who HAVE changed abortion law, thus legislating their view of morality through the activist court --and now they want to change marriage law --which they will do once they take the Supreme Court majority again for many decades to come. Hillary, e.g., will likely be put on the court if Obama wins.

We so-called "fundamentalists" are not the "changers" wanting to legislate some new restrictions on a free society.

We believe the LAW teaches. After Roe, promiscuity rate shot through the roof and that era was called "the sexual revolution." The new law taught the American public that abortion was ok. What did we get? MUCH more unwed teen pregnancy, more men refusing to marry these girls because they contended the girls should have aborted, more teen moms keeping babies and parenting inadequately, and less adoption --and new-to-us incurable STD's.

Now the liberal people want new law to teach the masses that homosexuality, cross-dressing, etc. are normal and new and equal "rights." They want this taught in the schools, K-12. You will send your kids to home school or Christian school --and abandon the public school kids, who can't afford private ed, whose parents don't know what's going on, --you would allow these children to be exposed to books like "My 2 dads" and "Jesse's Skirt" --or whatever --books promoting crossdressing and homosexual marriage to young children. That's why Christians should favor vouchers for ALL children to afford the choice of a moral education --to break that monopoly of the secular liberal viewpoint on our schools.

Homosexual relations and cross-dressing are "allowed" and not prosecuted by law --but liberal folks want to CHANGE the law to recognize homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality in marriage and employment laws --to make us hire cross-dressers and homosexuals in any job, accommodate their financial costs for sex-changes, adoption, surrogacy, etc. Already, schools are advised to let children cross-dress, despite the disruption it causes among children.

We will then also be asked to turn a blind eye, as we almost do already, to polygamy --and to support their huge numbers of children with medicaid and foodstamps, etc. --and overlook that they teach the young girls under their fathers' authority that God wants them to marry these over-the-hill husbands of many other women. Not exactly equal rights for girls.

I'm no change-agent re: the law; I'm concerned about those who succeeded in changing abortion law in 73, who, like Mud-rake here, go so far as to say that Bible-believers are, in his words, "un-American and dangerous" because they oppose these recent and pending legal changes.

He said elsewhere that "American democracy cannot abide such a sub-group in this nation" --referring to fundamentalist or right wing Christians--even evangelicals. I don't think he sees much distinction between the two groups, but he hasn't said lately just what it is he thinks should be done with us. I think he suggested prison once, like GITMO, but I probably can't find that in his archives, as every now and then, he seems to have an attack of conscience or embarrassment and deletes whole blogs of his.

I think this new wave of evangelicals saying we should ignore the law and politics and just evangelize are missing the salt and light function of the Church in a free society--our responsibility to other people's children and not just our own. The Church has always put our money into missions, the needy, evangelization --and also into para-church groups being salt and light in the halls of Congress --slowing down abortion, retarding the nation's slide into a moral abyss, proclaiming the moral truths of our God to a nation whose faith is eroding, under the onslaught of unbelievers filling our university faculties.

We are missing how important a free society with righteous law is to the church when evangelicals become pacifists and say we should not participate in the wars for democracy. Our freedom has enabled us to prosper and to send missionaries around the world. Totalitarian governments give no room for the Gospel to be proclaimed.

Democracy with freedom of both speech and religion is essential to the spread of the Gospel --and I think we are supposed to help restrain the bullies of the world --when it comes to the eternal battle between truth and deception, good and evil.



"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

7 comments:

kateb said...

A couple of simple truths that it took my four decades to get Barb.

You cannot have an honest conversation with a dishonest person.

You cannot have tolerant discourse with an intolerant.

When you win a debate with people like this, they just change their position. It's the debate (de-bait) that they're after.

In streamlining my own life I have found that my time is better spent dialoguing with honest and tolerant people :-)

Yankee Doodle said...

Hi!

I've learned something at school these days- it's a waste of time to argue with die-hard atheist or kool-aid drinking Obama supporters.

It would be better to reach out to those in the middle of the ground, those who do not despise Christians so much as mud does.

kateb said...

I hope it didn't take you 40 years :-)

We can lead a horse to water - but we can never make it drink.

Let him who has ears listen. That's pretty much the end of our job.

steve said...

OH YEAH!!!!!

KOOL AIDS HERE BRINGIN YA FUN
KOOL AID GOT THIRST ON THE RUN
GET A BIG WIDE HAPPY EAR TO EAR
COOL AID SMILE!!!

Barb said...

I don't consider Mud-rake my target audience, but those who might be deceived by him. I am presenting a counter-view to his. If he could benefit from it, fine, but I've not known him to have ears to hear, yet.

Liberals think if they repeat a deceit/lie often enough, people will believe it--and sadly, this is true.

In fact, liberals have succeeded in making many evangelicals think they are wrong to involve themselves in politics and legislation. They actually have some of our young intellectuals in Christendom spouting their liberal mantras --that separataion of church and state means we should have a gov't uninfluenced by religion-based values -- that old-fashioned morals held by majority have no role or place in American legislation.

That's why I oppose Mud-rake; he's wrong, radically left, and some evangelicals are duped into agreeing.

kateb said...

I don't think any Christian would fall into the hate spewing, rabid, spitting kind of stuff like this - seriously?

I sure hope not - I know there's alot of shame and peer pressure put up to make people back off of stating their beliefs. Maybe it does work on some new believers. I hope not though.

This mud rake is rabid.

Barb said...

Yes, Mudrake IS rabid.