Ray Boltz Decides He Is Gay

Well, I am a bit under the weather, so my thoughts here may be pretty jumbled. Ray Boltz, a famous Gospel singer, “came out of the closet”.

Boltz is perhaps best known for his song "Thank You," about a dream in which a Christian thanks the Sunday school teacher who led him to Jesus. It was the GMA song of the year in 1990. Other Boltz hits include "Watch the Lamb," "The Anchor Holds," and "I Pledge Allegiance to the Lamb."

His reasons for doing so? Well, because he realized that he has been gay since he was a little kid, and he just can’t change it. But my thoughts…few in number, circle around Boltz’s statements that, “he doesn’t want to get into debates about Scripture”. I have seen this trend not so much in liberal “churches” that push this stuff as I have in “conservative” ones. There is almost a total disregard for Scripture, teaching, debating, and arguing about what God has to say about this and many other topics. Discussion is simply off the table. After all, it is “not nice to argue”. Everyone’s minds are already made up anyway. Let’s all just get along. Emotionalism is the spirit of the age. We are afraid to hurt one another’s feelings, and anyone who would provide actual reasons for a position is easily dealt with through mockery or accusations of being a big meany. Forget that God has spoken. Forget that His Words have meaning and importance for every realm of thought and behavior. Instead, may we each make our god the way we see fit, and continue being nice in our “Christian” social circles. Surely this is what early church members died for; so that we could just stop arguing. Our gods have become whatever we say they are, and those who will not just accept that are plain rude.

“This is what it really comes down to,” he says. “If this is the way God made me, then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”

How totally deluded must an individual be to create his or her own theology after rejecting that which is derived from Scripture? (How many times per day do I do this?) If God has spoken, should we listen to what He has to say? Source - http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/09/ray_boltz_comes.html

Some Recent Thoughts On Idolatry

www.choosinghats.com

www.choosinghats.com

Why does gas cost so much?

Every year I have watched the prices for gas soar higher and higher. Only now are people really starting to notice, feel, and complain about the outrageous price for just a single gallon of gasoline. The high cost of gasoline of course drives up the prices of everything else contingent upon the resource, such as food which has just recently gone up 30%. People are finally starting to drive less. It’s not that noticeable yet, but where people are still driving to and from work as usual, they are not on the road as much in the evenings. The restaurant business is slowing down, and many family vacations will have to be canceled this summer.

There are no signs of relief.

What amazes me about this whole thing is that people already want their god the government to step in and do something about it, perhaps not realizing that it is the government which is very much to blame for what we are paying at the pumps, and consequently, what we are paying everywhere else too. The government, and the big-government-loving mainstream media, will inevitably point its finger to the oil companies and blame them for being greedy, as though the government and media are the arbiters of moral paradigms with regard to what constitutes greed. People should be allowed to buy and sell property for what they think it is worth.

Expanding the government’s power in the regulation of prices and supply with respect to gasoline will not solve any problems, but it will create many more. Legislation has been passed to criminalize those who charge more than what the government says that they can for a gallon of gasoline. Everything is about supply and demand. When an out of control government with the apparent collective economic knowledge of a middle-schooler steps in and sets a price on something like gasoline it will create long lines as people who could not afford gasoline before suddenly can.

Place the blame back where it belongs, on the government. Much of what you pay at the pump is not for gasoline at all, it is taxes. About 1/3 of what you pay when you fill up your tank is actually state and federal taxes on gasoline. The difference between greedy oil companies and greedy governments is that if you try to withhold your money from greedy governments you go to jail (not to mention that you really get little in return for your money).

Many people think that the rising prices in gasoline and everything else is just inflation. Not true. Again, government and media will point to prices, prices, prices and people will label it “inflation”, but this is not what inflation is. Inflation certainly causes higher prices, yes, but inflation is not the same thing as higher prices. Rather, inflation is an increase in the money supply. Happen to know who controls our money supply? You guessed it, the government. Specifically, the Federal Reserve, an unconstitutional body with a chair appointed by the President. The Fed frequently injects billions of dollars into the economy. Remember hearing all of that stuff about the Fed cutting interest rates? Any idea where the Fed gets the money to do that? If you wonder where that money comes from, well, the Fed just prints it. Wouldn’t that be nice? You need money, you just print it! Unfortunately for the people who are not on the Fed’s brownnoser list, none of this money will be crossing their paths for years to come, and by the time it does it will be worth much less due to the increased number of dollars in circulation. The value of the dollar drops, and while the Fed has an instant bundle of cash to blow wherever it wants, ordinary people are stuck with a weak dollar. Each dollar buys less, and hence prices are higher. Sound familiar?

How about those who supply us with oil? An economist actually gave me an argument in favor of the war in Iraq which was essentially that since someone must control the resources in that area of the world, and the US has the power to do so, the US might as well. Interestingly enough, oil prices have shot up since we have been in Iraq. (Think back a few years ago and you cannot miss the correlation.) A barrel of oil in 2002 cost $28. Add a little over $100 to that price and you have the current price of a barrel of oil. Why is it the case that oil has become so expensive? What is going on here? As with everything else, supply and demand is at work again. The production of oil in Iraq is half of what it was in 2002, before the US decided to invade it (unconstitutionally, because of UN sanctions, without any threat posed to us by that country, I might add). That’s right, half as much oil is coming out of Iraq as what used to due to pipelines being destroyed, fires, and other undesirable features of a country ravaged by war. The Middle East is less stable than what it was (another side note: there were no suicide bombings or Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the US invasion of that country) before 2002. We reap the terrible consequences of our government’s poor actions.

The War Party…I mean, the Republican Party…is currently talking up the idea of an unprovoked nuclear strike against Iran. (The last time I checked, that would make us the aggressor, not them.) The liberal, immoral John McCain has made jokes about bombing Iran, a country with no nuclear weapons and no means to create any for many more years, if even then (according to the CIA). Iran is a sovereign country with the right to enrich uranium for energy just like other countries and has violated absolutely no treaties (such as the NNT) or sanctions (there have never been UN sanctions on Iran), yet war hungry Republicans are ruminated with a desire to “turn Iran into a chunk of glass” and have nominated Insane McCain to propagate the lies which would allegedly warrant their doing so. We have already placed trade sanctions on Iran. Our total disregard for what Scripture has to say about just war and the sanctity of life will cost us in many more significant ways than what we pay for gasoline, but it will surely cost us there as well. If the US pursues war with Iran, another supplier of oil, watch prices go well over $6 per gallon.

And yes, we do need to drill offshore in an environmentally safe way, but again the government has made this virtually impossible. It is extremely expensive to build an oil refinery, and it takes years just to get the permits from the government in order to do so. Those seeking to build refineries have to confront numerous lawsuits even after all of this. There has not been a refinery built in the US for over 30 years, and it is not surprising.

Obama and McCain are not proponents of the real changes in monetary and foreign policies required to save our economy, nor are most of your men and women representing you in government. Take the necessary steps in order to make sure that in the future, they will be. This country desperately needs to return to honoring the principles set forth in the Constitution rather than laughing at them and dismissing them as crazy. The answers to our current struggles in politics are easily found but have not as of late been easily injected back into politics. Just open up the Constitution and read it. Obama and McCain are blaming the free market, and this will result in nothing other than higher prices and fewer freedoms.

Could this be just one more reason people are not satisfied with the candidates offered by the two major parties this year? I recommend using your vote and your money, but most importantly, your voice, in supporting the new party for conservatives, the Constitution Party. According to a recent Fox News survey, nearly half of Americans surveyed would consider voting for a third party candidate. The Constitution Party is the third largest according to voter registration and is steadily growing! (Meanwhile the Republican Party continues on its downward spiral into liberal politics, statist economics, and failed foreign policies - and it is shrinking in size!) This is the year to let the two major parties know that they cannot just give you whomever they wish as candidates.

Support the Constitution Party to bring America back to its ethical and economical roots. http://www.constitutionparty.org

Did you ever want to just "quit church"?

I do not know if this is completely right, but I suspect it is pretty close.

"What other church is there besides institutional? There’s nobody who doesn’t have problems with the church, because there’s sin in the church. But there’s no other place to be a Christian except the church. There’s sin in the local bank. There’s sin in the grocery stores. I really don’t understand this naïve criticism of the institution. I really don’t get it. Frederick von Hugel said the institution of the church is like the bark on the tree. There’s no life in the bark. It’s dead wood. But it protects the life of the tree within. And the tree grows and grows. If you take the bark off, it’s prone to disease, dehydration, death. So, yes, the church is dead but it protects something alive. And when you try to have a church without bark, it doesn’t last long. It disappears, gets sick, and it’s prone to all kinds of disease, heresy, and narcissism." -Eugene Peterson

You know you've been reading too much Van Til when...

These were taken from the Cornelius Van Til public group on Facebook. They are not all mine as you will see from the names, but they are worth sharing. The quotes without names belong to the name below them. I hope you enjoy these as much as I do, and please feel free to add your own!

You know you’ve been reading too much Van Til when…

1) 'Atheist’ and 'little girl sitting on her Granddad's lap and slapping him in the face' become synonyms to you.

2) You're always asking your 'partner' for more points of contact. – Paul Huxley

3) You are always out looking for people with Jaundice Eye.

4) When people hear "Another cup of coffee" people think about Starbucks but you think about being charitable when you are dialoguing about the faith.

5) You know what "Antithesis" means.

6) You know who Gordon Clark is...he's the guy that's against Van Til, right? – Jimmy Li

7) You respond to this as I am about to: "Praise God these describe me!"

8) You think that John Frame is either a Roman Catholic or an Arminian. (Ooh, touchy!) – Chris Bolt

9) You start using complicated words to illustrate a simple point, whether in ratiocination or predication.

10) The word presupposition somehow seems appropriate and somewhat necessary to involve during every conversation, whether with the milkman or your 3 year old niece.

11) When you think of every foolish philosophical manoeuvre in terms of Van Tillian illustrations, and in turn think analogically after the mind of Van Til, in a creature-creature fashion.

12) When the most Godly evangelists are heretics or unbiblical.

13) Transcendental, final reference point, autonomous, analogical, borrowing capital, world view, pre-commitment and impossibility of the contrary, need to be packed into a single sentence during a debate or at the breakfast table. – Fraser Mlyk

14) You start using WWII analogies when you talk about Theology, Apologetic Methodology, and Philosophy. – Stephan Diment

15) Out on the road you see a "Real Men Love Jesus" bumper sticker and you mutter to yourself, "Actually, love for Christ is an ethical matter, not a metaphysical one."

16) You think the very implication that one could possibly read TOO MUCH Van Til simply presupposes a fundamentally anti-Christian-theistic position. – Mike Evans

Add your own!

Hats and Hell

I believe it was Cornelius Van Til who said that choosing a worldview is quite different from choosing a hat. By this he meant much more than what I will touch on here, but I am nevertheless reminded of this illustration as I write this blog.

Within philosophy are laws of logic. We cannot just toss these laws aside without becoming irrational in our thought. Logical fallacies describe various manifestations of violations of the laws of logic. Here is one such fallacy:

Argumentum ad Consequentiam

"Argument to the consequences"

(Belief in) p leads to bad consequences.
(Where the bad consequences are irrelevant to the falsity of p.)
Therefore, p is false.

After a public debate against an atheist friend of mine, I was approached by a fellow student who is probably ten times more intelligent than I am. He raised issues related to the whole Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design controversy that I unfortunately misunderstood at the time.

Whether it was the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself in a very loud way I do not know, but my fellow student without any further words from me became very honest as to why he could not believe in my God. I was very appreciative of his honesty, especially since I never had to dig at all to get to what his real objection to Christianity is. I do regret that I misunderstood his questions regarding science, but perhaps one day the Lord will permit me to answer them for him or He will send another laborer to do so.

Either way, the problem in the heart of this particular soul was with those who have never heard of Christ having to die and spend an eternity in hell. The thing to do when answering this objection would be to remain sensitive to the non-Christian and parry both the intellectual and emotional strikes, but I found myself pointing out the fallacy in this kind of reasoning before I said anything else. A longer period of time would have permitted me to explain that we are all sinners, and thus all deserve the wrath of God. It is the grace of God that is not deserved, and it is an act of grace that God extends the Gospel offer to us and even more grace which brings us to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Time did not permit this to be stated though.

My answer was to illustrate the Argumentum ad Consequentiam Fallacy as follows:

Let us suppose that my Mother has terminal cancer (and thank God that she does not).

Believing that my Mother has terminal cancer leads me to conclude that she will suffer and die from this disease.

Therefore, my Mother does not have terminal cancer.

Is the conclusion here true? Of course not, for we supposed at the beginning of the example that the opposite was true. The negative consequences of my Mother having terminal cancer (that she will suffer and die from the disease), have nothing to do with whether or not it is true or false that my Mother has the disease.

This same fallacy is found in the reasoning of the person in this true story. One of the consequences of believing Christianity to be true is having to believe that there are people who have never heard the Gospel and will spend an eternity in Hell. Does this mean that Christianity is not true? Well of course not! So here we have no reason for not believing in Christianity, we simply have what may be an emotional issue to be addressed from Scripture.

Christianity is true regardless of whether or not one wants to accept a proposition like that of hell and what the doctrine entails. I fear that many of my non-Christian friends have placed an emotional disturbance above rationality and are guilty of committing this fallacy. Even if they do not blatantly commit the fallacy, it often resides at the center of the other supposed intellectual problems they actually seek out to display as warranting their rejection of Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord. The doctrine of hell and other potentially offensive doctrine like it are often seen as enough reason to hate Christianity from the start rather than digging deeper to see whether or not the worldview actually is true and whether or not these more shocking teachings might not contain truth and comfort when they are properly understood within the Christian worldview. As I have explained here, mere discomfort over the consequences of a proposition is not enough reason to hate those things which would require our belief of such a proposition or even to hate the proposition itself. Or, if I am wrong there, hatred is not enough reason to reject something as false. Reason has nothing to do with it.