Showing posts with label responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label responsibility. Show all posts

Monday, February 5, 2007

Heaven for non-Christians?

As with many issues, compassion and humanism have a way of clouding this issue. However, the answer, although unpopular in today's culture, is black and white, no shades of gray. Let me first state that I know many caring, compassionate people that will whole heartedly disagree with what I am about to write, and that is OK, that is what makes Helium great, it is a place to express opinions. A Christian family member of mine has been struggling with this exact question for some time, and she expressed her theory to me on the matter. She has theorized that we will all be judged on merit, and that devout Jews, Muslims, etc will have a chance to enter Heaven upon their demise. The only problem with this theory is that she is a human, she is not God, and in reality, only God's opinion matters. Recently, a well know religious figure, Joel Osteen, was asked this same question by Larry King on national television. His answer surprised me, and in many ways it troubled me about his resolve. What was his answer to this difficult question? He simply did not give an answer at all. I would have much rather him answered on way or the other, at least that would have shown some backbone. In a world where far too many churches have become more interested with attendance that truth, his lack of an answer weakened the church as a whole. So, what is the correct answer to this question? As with all questions involving God, we must turn to the Word of God to get the only important opinion, God's own opinion. There are many passages that deal with this issue, but for the sake of time, we can look at one passage and get the answer we are looking for.
John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
From this passage, it is clear that to enter Heaven, you must come to Christ. There is no wiggle room on this issue, for Jesus did not say you can be born again, he said you MUST be born again. As I stated, this issue is black and white, and I know that I am correct in my analysis because what I have written lines up with the word of God; and any one person and God make a majority.



Monday, January 22, 2007

Is God a Republican or a Democrat?

In case anyone had not noticed, the Bible makes no reference to the Republican or Democratic parties. The answer to whether God wants you to be a Democrat or a Republican can be summed up by one verse in the book of Joshua. While standing outside of Jericho, Joshua had a visitation from what can best be described as Jesus in the Old Testament. In the fifth chapter, verses 13 and 14 read as follows:
And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant.
In this passage, Joshua asks Christ the same question many are asking today. The Republicans will claim God is on their side, and some Democrats will claim God is on their side, but the answer is NAY. The real question is not which party God affiliates himself with, because as it is later stated, God is no respect of faces (he does not value one above another), but what party affiliates itself with God. Unfortunately, neither party can claim that they support God fully, and for this reason, it comes down to individuals, not parties. There are many aspects of the Political process that leave God out all together. The slander, mud slinging, back door dealings, and corruption that has become common in the political realm leave one dazed. This is simply more evidence that each candidate should be looked at on his or her merits, and personal position on each issue, not the letter listed beside their name. In many respects, George Washington was wise beyond his days when he suggested that there be no political parties, just individual candidates. This is how God views politics, he looks into the heart of the individual, not their party. However, can it be said that during any one point in history one party is closer to the path of God? Certainly God was not in favor of slavery, and in the same respect, he does not favor Gay Marriage or Abortion, so there is some merit to this point. All in all, I would have to say that God is not in favor of either party, and as I stated earlier, the question is, which party is in favor of God. From the looks of things, maybe God will abstain this time around



Sunday, January 14, 2007

Ethical Hypocrisy

Well, the House at Senate is at it again...slander, hypocrisy, unethical behavior...it seems that the ruling party makes no difference. After years of Republican domination in both houses, and screams of unethical behavior being fired across the aisle from the Democrats, the tables have turned. After the classless words of Barbera Boxer aimed at Condi Rice on Friday, I did a little research on Boxer. She is insistent that if you have no immediate family in the military, you can make no policy on Iraq. Therefore, maybe Boxer should be kept out of all policy relating to finances...she passed over $40,000.00 worth of bad checks in the not so distant past. Sounds a little unethical if you ask me. I can see maybe one thousand dollars, but if you get up to forty thousand, you must know the check is bad before you write it...but she is a liberal woman and a Democrat, so I guess she gets a pass. Then there are the cries of bipartisanship from the Democratic House members. They constantly complained that their Republican counterparts would not let them make amendments to proposed laws. Therefore, when the Democrats took over, you would think that they would rise above the fray and seek a truce with their Republican brothers and sisters...wrong. They have passed a rule that Republicans can make no amendments. Then there is the great, recently re-elected William Jefferson of Louisiana, or should we call him Cool Dollar Bill Jefferson. He was caught with $90,000.00 worth of marked bills that were used to bribe him by an undercover agent...sounds ethical to me. Lastly, actually this is not the final example I have found, but it is the last one I will put in this article, there is the great Nancy Pelosi. Does anyone else find it odd that after preaching about the need for a minimum wage increase in all U.S. Jurisdictions that American Samoa was exempted from the law? Not so strange when you realize that Star Kist, based in Nancy Pelosi's district, has an enormous operation in American Samoa...oh so ethical. So, before you cast a stone, maybe a check in the mirror is in order. Leadership brings with it great responsibility, and apparently neither party has figured this out.




Tuesday, December 5, 2006

Why Wal-Mart?

The newest “evil” being attacked by the left may be a surprise to many Americans. There is a full fledged attack on the Wal-Mart corporation that has actually gained endorsement from politicians such as Al Gore, John Edwards, and even the prodigal son of Democrats, Barak Obama. Upon hearing that this attack was being waged, I found myself a little bewildered. It just was not clear to me what the Left could possibly have against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart provides millions of consumers with affordable goods; and they provide millions of employees, many of which would otherwise be unemployed, with jobs. So, I decided to go to the source. The group leading this charge against Wal-Mart has a website titled Wake-Up Wal-Mart. In an attempt to find out what the big problem with Wal-Mart is, I went to the web site and did a little digging. It did not take me long to find enlightenment. In fact, here is a list of the ills of Wal-Mart in the eyes of its detractors:

Wal-Mart has a responsibility to all Americans to set the standard for customers, workers and communities, and to help build a better America.
The truth is that Wal-Mart has let America down by lowering wages, forcing good paying American jobs overseas, and cutting costs with total disregard for the values that have made this nation great
In Wal-Mart's America, workers are paid poverty level wages even when they work full-time; In our America, workers are paid a living wage with proper health and retirement benefits.
In Wal-Mart's America, wealthy companies shift their health care costs onto tax payers like you and your families; In our America, corporations live up to their responsibility and provide their employees with adequate and affordable health care coverage.
In Wal-Mart's America, suppliers are forced to make their goods cheaper even if it means shipping U.S. jobs overseas; In our America, we value U.S. jobs and companies that buy and sell "Made in America."
After reading this list, a few blog post by those against Wal-Mart, and a list of groups endorsing the web site, it became abundantly clear why the Left has become anti Wal-Mart. Let’s take a look at what the list is really saying, without the Wal-Mart slant:
1. America has the responsibility to take care of workers and communities.
2. America has let us down by not insuring higher wages regardless of the cost to business.
3. It is the responsibility of the Government to make sure all people are paid high wages and granted healthcare coverage at no expense.
This is a much shorter list, but I think you get the idea. What is wrong with Wal-Mart? In a nutshell, it celebrates capitalism and personal responsibility. To the Left, this is the unforgivable sin. The argument is simply that Wal-Mart should run in a more socialistic manner. More evidence to the fact can be seen in some of the complaints of Wal-Mart employees who want change. One such comment stated that Wal-Mart will fire you if you get injured at home and can not go to work. Another stated that Wal-Mart no longer accepts doctor’s excuses for absences. In other words, if you do not go to work, you do not get paid, and you may be fired. In the world of the socialists, see France, there is no reason that a worker should have to be responsible to keep their job. It is all becoming clearer. The list of those endorsing the web site also brings clarity to the matter. The largest supporters all happen to be unions. Never would have guessed. So, is it really Wal-Mart that is under attack, or is it what Wal-Mart represents, the American way of life.