Posts

Two Mottos

/in , , , , /by

The political conversations that you’re hearing these days can often be categorized beneath two mottos:

  • In God We Trust
  • You Can’t Force Your Beliefs on Me

Either the individual is accountable to something greater than themselves, or a person is accountable to no one but themselves.

By using phrases that imply a form of oppression, the Modern Day Democrat is able to distract attention away from their resolve to reduce the world to a collection of personal preferences where the truth is based more on how you feel rather than what is real.

It’s not so much about policies or personalities, or even two political parties.

It’s about two mottos…

Recent polls suggest conservatives are more likely than liberals to support bans on politicized practices, even when both groups view the practice as similarly immoral (e.g., abortion opposition among pro-life conservatives vs. pro-life liberals). We propose a novel theory to explain this phenomenon based on people’s moral philosophies. Nine studies found that conservatives tended to endorse moral absolutism, whereas liberals tend to endorse moral relativism, and that moral absolutists were more likely to support banning practices they deem immoral. Conservatives on X (formerly Twitter™) used more absolute language than liberals, particularly in tweets containing morality-related words (Study 1). In a data set spanning 59 countries and 30 years, conservatives more often endorsed moral absolutism over relativism (Study 2). Studies 3-4 identified a need for closure as an underlying mechanism. Studies 5-9 documented a downstream consequence of moral absolutism: support for banning practices one deems immoral. The link between the perceived immorality of a practice and support for banning it was stronger among conservatives, even after controlling for attitude extremity (Study 5). Moral absolutism predicted support for banning practices deemed immoral even after controlling for regulatory focus, deontological thinking, individual and binding foundations, ideological extremity (Study 6), and attitude strength of the politicized practices (Study 7). Liberals and conservatives exposed to moral relativism reduced their support for banning practices that they opposed (Study 8-9). Our theory linking ideology to moral absolutism versus relativism can help explain why the link between perceived immorality and support for bans varies across the ideological spectrum. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved). (PubMed)

No Bottom Lines

Anytime you converse with a Modern Day Democrat, you want to begin by clarifying how the define the concept of truth. Ask them if they agree with the idea that what’s true for one person may not be true for another, and they will most likely agree.

You see that supported in the 2025 study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin where it examined the relationship between political ideology and moral absolutism vs. moral relativism across nine different studies (see sidebar).

The study found that:

  • Conservatives tended to endorse moral absolutism.
  • Liberals tended to endorse moral relativism.
  • Conservatives used more absolute moral language than liberals.
  • The pattern appeared not just in U.S. data but in a dataset covering 59 countries over 30 years.
  • People who endorsed moral absolutism were more likely to support banning practices they considered immoral.

This is a portion of a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR. In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus. At one point, she uses the phrase “minimum viable truth” to describe an approach that sets aside bigger belief systems and instead focuses on what appeals to the majority. It translates to a nonsensical contradiction in that while she says truth needs to be processed as something that’s different for everyone, she then goes on to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” As though what she is saying now transcends the definition of truth she just articulated.

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us. (Katherine Maher)

You see that dynamic elaborated on in a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR (see sidebar). In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus.

From a distance, this looks healthy. You don’t want to be so resolute with your opinions, that you disqualify yourself from being able to learn and grow based on a more comprehensive perspective.

But there’s a difference between being open minded for the sake of becoming more aligned with what’s accurate, and posing as someone who’s open minded in order to promote the idea that there are no absolutes.

Intellectual Icebergs

This is where Katherine Maher and the Democrat party are revealed as being an intellectual iceberg in that they appear approachable on the surface, but hidden below the water line is something genuinely sinister.

If truth is relative, then…

  • I am my own absolute – my right to be happy means I get to make up my own rules and I don’t have to answer to anything other than what I’m comfortable with
  • I am a victim – I may be different or damaged, but I am never wrong. When I’m confronted with a reality I can’t dispute without selfish or foolish, by pretending to be in pain, I can avoid having to explain myself or take responsibility for my actions.
  • I am justified – I can silence anyone who disagrees with me in that they are not merely mistaken, but genuinely immoral because they’re not telling the “truth,” which qualifies them as a liar.

But, if truth is relative, then…

  • You are a hypocrite – you can’t logically disagree with someone without violating your own premise that the truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.
  • You are conflicted – when confronted with something that is obviously wrong (a mother killing their own child), you can’t condemn it because of the way you’ve dismissed the reality of objective truth and the obvious difference between right and wrong.
  • You are meaningless – if there is no right or wrong, then your words are just mechanical noises that have no real meaning.

Even in the speech given by Katherine Maher, you see the unsustainable aspect of her platform…

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.1

You can’t say, “…the truth of the matter is” without contradicting everything you’ve said up to that point by asserting the idea that there are “many different truths.”

But this is the Modern Day Democrat: A conflicted and meaningless hypocrite posing as a persecuted activist that’s justified in silencing anyone who has the capacity to reveal them for who they are.

An Unacceptable Mindset

On the surface, they are either outraged or oppressed (I am a victim). They are indifferent to what’s real or indisputable because of the way they have empowered themselves to dismiss whatever it is they don’t want to hear (I am my own absolute). And anyone who disagrees can be mocked, maligned, and even murdered, not because they’re wrong, but because they’re a threat to a manufactured reality that can’t be sustained (I am justified).

This is Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s not so much an objection to a personality or a policy. The same policies could be championed by a Democrat (deportation of illegal immigrants) and they would be applauded as bold leadership. Whether it’s President Trump or any other Conservative, the personality is irrelevant because the same accusations would be made regardless of the individual in the charge.

If the philosophy that drives the legislation includes the idea that the individual is ultimately accountable to something greater than themselves, that is an unacceptable mindset. Regardless of what’s being said or who’s saying it, if it’s coming from a perspective that doesn’t allow a person to proclaim themselves as their own bottom line, it is dismissed first as stupid, then immoral and, ultimately criminal (see the “SIC-ness of the Left“).

I am Never Wrong Because I am Always Hurt

The problem, however, is the inevitable situation you find yourself in, as far being being revealed as either a fool or a fiend, given the transcendent nature of truth and the results that can’t be ignored regardless of the distortions and distractions constantly being circulated in the marketplace.

But, by asserting the idea that they are a victim, the Modern Day Democrat is never wrong because they are always hurt. By communicating every talking point from the perspective of someone who is either outraged or wounded, they’re able to distract attention away from the nonsensical aspects of their platform because of the way you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel and hateful. As a result, the Modern Day Democrat is accommodated rather than evaluated.

Medical Realities, the Rule of Law, Moral Imperatives, Historical events, Mathematical certainties, Irrefutable evidence, Divine Absolutes…

None of these are acknowledged by the person who’s determined to see themselves as their own bottom line. They are either antiquated traditions or biased attacks that violate a person’s right to be happy.

We Hate America…

Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY-13): Abolish prisons, abolish ICE, abolish borders, defund the police, and ‘all deportations are wrong’, including for violent criminals. She has called the U.S. an ‘effing disgrace’, and said in a prior social media post ‘I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me.’”

Michigan Democrat Senate candidate Abdul “El-Sayed’s campaign website calls the Supreme Court a ‘major impediment for democracy.’” (Bloomberg Law: Campaigning Democrats Amplify Calls to Overhaul Supreme Court – 7/8/26)

Hasad Piker is an associate of Abdul El Sayed. Piker is on record for having said he hated America.

The DSA has released a new program that, besides contemplating the advent of a classless society, calls for abolishing the US Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani sat in the Al-Khoei Islamic Center in Queens on February 20, 2026, during Friday prayers on the first day of Ramadan. The imam led a supplication in Arabic invoking the Mahdi with words translated by MEMRI: “Through your hands comes the relief for the believers and the killing of the infidels by your sword.”

If truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, then there is no “correction,” only “oppression.” Their opponents are Nazis, their Republican leaders are tyrants, and their world is oppressive. Anything that has the capacity to reveal the fact that their ideas don’t work and they are the very thing they claim to despise is disputed, not as a valid criticism based on facts and results, but as a personal attack fueled by fear and hate.

You can’t argue with people who think that way because they’re not listening to you. They’re simply waiting for you to stop talking so they can tell you why you should feel sorry for them. Regardless of the facts and the bottom lines you would use to validate your position, it is all dismissed as irrelevant and unreliable propaganda – not because it’s lacking in substance but because it’s a threat to the way in which they have authorized themselves to dictate what’s real according to what they prefer.

This is the dialogue being heard in our society today. It’s not a conversation between two different parties who both want the same thing, only differ in the way it’s obtained. Rather, it’s a contest between two spiritual paradigms summarized as two distinct mottos: “One nation under God,” or “You can’t force your beliefs on me.”

Those Aren’t Words, Those Are Masks

The Modern Day Democrat cheers for America’s enemies. 40% of Democrats believe church has a negative effect on society, and several recent Democrat primary winners have made it clear that they don’t like America or its institutions (see sidebar).

Words like “corruption,” “unconstitutional,” and “racism” are not words as much as they are masks when they’re coming from the mouth of a Modern Day Democrat. They’re strategically selected terms designed to trigger an emotional reaction in order to prevent an objective analysis. When you invoke the idea that you’re “hurt,” or that you’re being violated, the first priority is to medicate your wound rather than question your logic. And the more your logic is revealed as nonsensical, the more you have to assault the character and intelligence of those you can’t dispute. The result isn’t a conversation as much as it’s a demonstration. Even when you’re talking to a solitary person, you’re still interacting with the equivalent to a group of people screaming slogans and waving signs.

Real Results and the Right Questions

So, how do you navigate a situation where you’re attempting to reason with someone who’s unreasonable?

Results.

And while you can be accurate by simply stating the facts, if you want to be effective, you want to ask the question that can’t be answered without your opponent having to state those facts themselves.

The current administration is delivering a collection of policies that have resulted in:

And when you look at the military strategy accomplished by securing an agreement with Greenland, the reacquisition of our oil interests in Venezuela3, coupled with the President’s fearless efforts in providing an ever expanding view of the global corruption and the lies masquerading as necessary measures and credible headlines4  – it’s a great day!

But in order to get to that “great day” idea, you first have to ask those questions that compel an answer that reveals both the truth and the nonsensical efforts to suppress it.

  • Do you prefer a higher poverty level?
  • Would you rather have more murders in this country?
  • If you support open borders, then I’m assuming you leave all your doors unlocked, correct?
  • Which option translates to a stronger economy: More jobs or less?
  • Which gas station would you buy your fuel from: The one that charges a dollar more per gallon, or the one that charges a dollar less?5
  • Would you be comfortable if someone you knew you couldn’t trust was pointing a gun at you just because somebody else said it wasn’t loaded?

Conclusion

The “third party audience” debate technique is an approach that you take where the person you’re arguing with isn’t necessarily your real target. The real target is the undecided or persuadable person watching the exchange. You want to keep that technique in mind when you’re feeling like withdrawing from the conversation, be it on social media or in person, believing you’re just wasting your time or, perhaps making a bad situation worse.

There are impressionable people listening to your voice and, provided you’re telling the truth, they need to hear what you have to say, even if your opponent refuses to listen.

At the end of the day, this is more than Politics. You’ll hear people sometimes saying that our country is engaged in an existential crisis.

We are.

It’s not so much about policies or personalities, or even two political parties.

It’s about two mottos.

Our currency says “In God We Trust.” That is the foundation upon which our founding fathers built the Declaration of Independence. It’s because there’s a God in Heaven and there are Absolutes that exist independently of the way a person thinks or feels that they were able to articulate a cause and not just a complaint.

You take God out of the equation and you no longer have rights, you have demands – demands that can only be met by surrounding yourself with like minded people and silencing those who think otherwise. But even then, you are subscribing to an approach that is a philosophical dead end because of the way you’ve declared yourself to be “right,” despite the fact that you want to simultaneously say that there is no definitive right or wrong.

The candidates we endorse do not have to be pastors, they only need to be able to lead in a way that lines up with what’s true. 3+2=5 regardless of how the number 5 makes you feel. Lead and live in a way that acknowledges the reality of standards and not just situations. Stop trying to reinvent the human experience by thinking you can speak into existence something that is fundamentally flawed and then defend that position by saying “You can’t force your beliefs on me.”

Truth isn’t created with a conviction. For a conviction to be valid, it has to be true and no amount of passion or persecution will ever change that.

Two mottos.

Which one is yours?

 

1. “The Singju Post”, “What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs: Katherine Maher (Transcript)” https://singjupost.com/what-wikipedia-teaches-us-about-balancing-truth-and-beliefs-katherine-maher-transcript/, accessed September 9, 2026

2. The JCPOA was an agreement put in place by the Obama Administration in 2015 that lifted certain sanctions in exchange for Iran’s commitment to restrict its nuclear program. The problem with that agreement is that it was based on inspections that proved less than credible.

If Iran’s leadership has demonstrated that it cannot simply be trusted to disclose its nuclear activities, and if international inspectors cannot obtain sufficiently comprehensive access to independently establish that Iran has disclosed all relevant nuclear activity, then no agreement can establish with certainty that Iran has abandoned its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The agreement may constrain Iran’s known capabilities, but the underlying threat remains wherever undeclared activity cannot be ruled out.

3. In 2007, Chavez ordered that all foreign oil companies, including ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil be transformed into joint ventures and Venezuela would own 60% of the new organization. Both Companies refused, but were nevertheless forced to comply. This has also been the situation in Venezuela under Maduro who had a 25 million dollar bounty placed on his head by President Biden. President Trump’s actions in seizing Maduro were justified on several levels, given the evidence against Mr. Maduro that’s been collected over several years by investigators in Miami, New York, Houston, and Washington who have brought drug trafficking, foreign bribery, and money-laundering charges against several senior Venezuelan officials, members of the military and government-connected businessmen. Maduro’s removal also restores to the American companies that were ousted by Chavez the opportunity to resume operations.

4. There are several instances of fraud and corruption that President Trump has shined a light on that were operating in the shadows. One example is how the financial network that funds Iran’s terrorist operations are based in London. Billions of dollars of wasted and fraud was revealed by DOGE. President Trump introduced a new economic paradigm that put a halt to unfair trade agreements that hurt American manufacturing and positions the overall wellbeing of America as a priority.

5. There are several dynamics to consider when it comes to lowering fuel prices. #1) Destroy an international sponsor of terror’s ability to control the global energy market. This is being done most directly by preventing Iran from controlling the Strait of Hormuz. While the US doesn’t have complete control as of yet, the US Navy is now the agency that enforces maritime safety and control and not the Iranian government. In addition, by virtue of the US control of the Strait, Iran’s ability to export oil has been severely damaged. And that’s just part of a much broader strategy to cripple the current militant regime that governs Iran and create an environment that allows the Iranian people to institute a more democratic government. By destroying the militants that were in power and deploying Operation Economic Outcast, an economic campaign designed to cut off every income stream that is used to subsidize the IRGC, President Trump gives to the Iranians an opportunity to take control over their own country.

For more reading…

What Does it Mean to Love Your Enemy? | Part I

/in , , /by

This is a three part series that responds to a couple of social media posts denigrating ICE, the deportation of illegal immigrants, and the overall tone of President Trump’s leadership.

Most of the rhetoric is based on a distorted interpretation of what the Bible means, as far as “loving your enemy.” At the very minimum…

  • It’s not “hate” to rightfully identify illegal / sinful behavior (Lk 17:3; Rom 13:4-5).
  • You’re not being Christlike by ignoring fraud (Prov 6:12-19; 11:1).
  • Foreigners and strangers are biblically commanded to obey the law (Lev 24:17-22)
  • You are not “loving your neighbor” by encouraging them to ignore those laws that apply to them (Rom 13:3-4).

You can download the Bible study that talks about how to love your enemy by clicking on the links below…

• “How To Love Your Enemy” (Leader Guide)
• “How To Love Your Enemy” (Listening Sheet)

What Does it Mean?

What does it mean to love your enemy?

There are some people who believe that Christ’s command to love one’s enemy means to encourage and applaud them, regardless of their behavior.

Consider the following:

command verse
Do not resist an evil person. Turn the other cheek, do not resist, go the extra mile 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matt 5:38-40)
Do not judge Do not judge, or you too will be judged. (Matt 7:1)
Don’t be critical Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Eph 4:29)
Don’t be angry 19 My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. (Jas 1:19-20)
Love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt 5:43-48)

 

If we stop right here, then it’s very reasonable to believe that, when it comes to those who qualify as our “enemy,” we should never direct towards them any criticism or correction. Anything that has the potential to make them feel uncomfortable is at least cruel if not contrary to the Word of God.

And what makes it even more compelling is that when you look at the word “love,” as it’s used in Luke 10:27 where we’re told to “love the Lord your God…,” it’s the same word in the Greek:

Agape.

Agape love is described as:

…the goodwill and benevolence of God shown in self-sacrifice and an unconditional commitment to the loved one. Agape is similar to chesed in that it is steadfast, regardless of circumstances. Agape love is the kind of love we are to have for God in fulfillment of the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:37). Jesus wants to instill agape in His followers as we serve others through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 22:39; John 13:34) (gotquestions.org).

So, we are to love God, each other, and our enemies with “agape” love which, incidentally, is the same word that describes the kind of love God has for us.

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (Jn 13:34-35)

If “love” is nothing more than a perpetual affirmation of a person, then it would follow that nothing is inappropriate or deserving of condemnation. After all, we’re not supposed to judge (Matt 7:1), which further reinforces the idea that there’s no room for any kind of criticism in the heart of a true follower of Christ.

No one is immoral, there are no criminals, there are no threats, borders, or opponents. There is only love and acceptance.

Real Love in Action

But you find yourself having to reevaluate that perspective when you consider the way love is defined in 1 Corinthians 13:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Cor 13:4-7)

Agape love doesn’t delight in evil. Matthew Henry’s Commentary elaborates on that by saying, “It is the very height of malice to take pleasure in the misery of a fellow-creature. And is not falling into sin the greatest calamity that can befal one? How inconsistent is it with Christian charity, to rejoice at such fall!”

So, it makes sense, then, that, if you love your enemy, you’re going to promote their welfare by helping them avoid the consequences of sin.

And how do you do that?

Well, how did Jesus do it?

the actions of Christ verse
He resisted evil

13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14] [b]15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation. (Matt 23:13-36 [see also Matt 3:7; 12:34)
He judged 20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.[e] For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” (Matt 11:20-24)
He was critical

Peter:  23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16:23)

Pharisees: Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:  8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain;  their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]” (Matt 15:1-9)

Herod: 31 At that very hour some Pharisees came up and said to Him, “Leave and go away from here, because Herod [Antipas] wants to kill You.” 32 And He said to them, “Go and tell that fox [that sly, cowardly man], ‘Listen carefully: I cast out demons and perform healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I reach My goal.’ (Lk 13:31-32 [AMP])
He got angry 12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’[e] but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’[f]” (Matt 21:12-13)
He will punish His enemies and banish those who persecuted Him.

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matt 25:31-46)

 

In addition to the fact that Jesus did criticize, judge, and resist evil, when you consider the way in which God empowered the Israelites in the context of their military endeavors, it’s obvious that “loving your enemy” means something more than just being accommodating  (Ps 44:3).

You’re Not Being Kind If…

You’re not being kind if you’re making it easier for someone to sin. Nor are you loving your enemy, let alone your neighbor or family member, by enabling their disobedience. That would be like offering a glass of water to Adam and Eve so they can better digest the fruit they’re eating (Gen 3:6).

Fact is, you are being disobedient by not calling out bad behavior, given what it says in Ephesians 5:11:

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Eph 5:11 [see also Jas 4:17])

When you consider the whole of God’s Word, and not just random verses taken out of context, a believer’s response to evil looks much different than the accommodating applause that is often promoted by our society today.

Do not judge…

That’s not a direct quote from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus never said not to judge. The verse in its entirety is, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matt 7:1) What Jesus was saying here is to not be hypocritical by criticizing something in a person’s behavior when you’re doing the same thing. Bear in mind that in John 7:24, Jesus says to stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly. You can’t expose the fruitless works of darkness without “judging” whether or not what you’re seeing is, in fact, sinful. Galatians 6:1 instructs those who are spiritually capable to help restore someone who’s been caught doing something wrong. Again, you can’t correctly identify wrongful behavior unless you’re judging.

gotquestions.org sums it up very well…

The Bible’s command that we not judge others does not mean we cannot show discernment. Immediately after Jesus says, “Do not judge,” He says, “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs” (Matthew 7:6). A little later in the same sermon, He says, “Watch out for false prophets. . . . By their fruit you will recognize them” (verses 15–16). How are we to discern who are the “dogs” and “pigs” and “false prophets” unless we have the ability to make a judgment call on doctrines and deeds? Jesus is giving us permission to tell right from wrong.

Do not defend yourself…

Jesus told His disciples to get a sword, and if they didn’t have one, to sell their coat and go buy one…

36-37He said, “This is different. Get ready for trouble. Look to what you’ll need; there are difficult times ahead. Pawn your coat and get a sword. What was written in Scripture, ‘He was lumped in with the criminals,’ gets its final meaning in me. Everything written about me is now coming to a conclusion.” (Luke 22:36-37 [MSG])

The NIV Text Note reads:

buy one – An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They could need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) as the one who “bears the sword” (Rom 13:4)

The Bible is rife with military action, armed escorts, and multiple examples of “sanctified violence” which make it abundantly clear that there are times when the use of force is both encouraged and, in many instances, empowered by God Himself. (see also Conquest of the Promised Land [Josh 6:20-21; Josh 11:20], Gideon [Jud 7], David defending Israel by attacking the Philistines [1 Sam 23:1-2], Building the Wall [Neh 4:13])

Love your enemy…

Agape love in practice is to be constantly encouraging the object of your love in a positive direction. You are not “loving your enemy” by subsidizing their bad behavior or ignoring the Standard that defines it. You do that by alerting them to the pain and the problems that lie just beyond the sin that they’re getting ready to commit. Confrontation and criticism are both represented in the example of Christ and we are commanded to be Christlike, not only by calling out bad behavior, but also in way we do it (Ps 141:5; Prov 12:18; 25:11; 27:5-6; Matt 18:15-17; Gal 6:1).

Scripture as a Whole

When you remain silent in the face of evil, not only do you bring judgment upon yourself (Jas 4:17), you effectively insulate yourself from the attacks that come from those who want to silence anyone who would dare to point out their sinister actions and intent, which is frowned upon as well (Gal 2:11-21).

However sinful it may be, it’s an alluring way to remain on the sidelines so as to avoid the real conflict that’s happening on the field and the opposition you would have to contend with.

But when you look at Scripture as a whole, you are compelled to concede that remaining either silent or accommodating is neither biblical let alone noble.

What does it mean to love your enemy? At the very least, it means that you commit yourself to their welfare by helping them to avoid the consequences of bad decisions. You don’t do that by making it easier for them to fail or enabling the harm they would do to themselves and others.

In God We Trust

/in , /by

“In God We Trust.”

Some people have a real hard time with that.

More often than not, they’re the same people who want to cancel July 4th this year.

Thing is, if you line up the Declaration of Independence, the recent elimination of Iran’s Nuclear capability, and Alligator Alcatraz, the one common thread that you see is the reality of a Standard.

Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity are to be immediately deported, and our rights are guaranteed by God and not the disposition of a court.

Anything or anyone who promotes the idea of a Standard that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels is not welcome in mind of someone who wants to see themselves as their own bottom line. Religious sounding mottos and historical documents are fine right up until the point where it threatens a person’s resolve to eliminate the reality of Principles in favor of Preferences.

But that’s not the paradigm we’re based on and Freedom doesn’t mean you get to use your “rights” as weapons you use to get your way as much as you value them as gifts God gives you to guard your way.

In God We Trust.

Happy 4th of July!