2008 December | The Conservative Sensei

Look! It's a Comet.

18 Dec 2008 @ 2:29 AM

The Episcopal Church of North America has been in the news a lot in the past several years. In 2003 they appointed its first openly gay Bishop and most recently over 100,000 members of the church broke away due to the radical shift of their theology. Of course, the radical shift from what the vast majority of Christians believe an practice isn’t the point according to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, it is the media’s fault. (See article here)

The ironic thing about the Episcopal church is that they refuse to look at their behavior as wrong or against scripture but to look for someone to blame for the problem. In this particular case it is the media’s fault for focusing too much on the “negativity of the world” and not the more positive aspects. Everyone wants to feel good. I’m sure the members of the Episcopal Church are no different. The problem, however, is that you can’t change the whole premise of christianity and expect everyone to accept it.

The media is indeed riddled with examples of the battle between conservative Christians and the “embattled” gays of the world. (Note the sarcasm here). If Bishop Schori wants someone to take the road less traveled, as she refers to in the article, perhaps she should look internally at the direction that her Church is marching. The media isn’t the problem and Christians shouldn’t be expected to accept the radical meanderings of the Episcopal clergy either. Most of the issues that are facing the vast majorities of the churches today can be summed up quite simply.: Either you believe the Bible is the word of God and it was meant to be adhered to or you don’t. That is the great part, God gave you the ability to choose. Don’t look for others to change because you made a decision you aren’t comfortable with or because you think you have a right to be included. These are God’s rules, not man’s.

It is Ok if you don’t believe in God, He still believes in you.

Posted By: conservativesensei
Last Edit: 18 Dec 2008 @ 02:29 AM

Email • Permalink • Comments (5)

Categories: Episcopal Church

A Question of World View

16 Dec 2008 @ 3:31 AM

If asked these question, how would you respond?

Does your world view come in spite of or in contradiction to scientific fact? Can a Christian be a good scientist? Are the ideals of a scientist mutually exclusive to being a Christian or would being a Christian make you a better scientist? As I was watching Ben Stein’s documentary last night these questions were posed and I really think they hit at the heart of some pretty serious questions.

The majority, atheistic — or at most agnostic — scientific community of today consider christian doctrine or its core beliefs to be on equal standing with ancient mythology, tribal tales passed down throughout the millennia, or in many cases just complete conjecture and fantasy. Any Christian would contend that these notions are obviously not true and yet these ideas are found throughout scientific literature. The proponents of Intelligent design have faced ridicule, expulsion from universities and loss of their livelihoods from merely suggesting that Intelligent Design might have some bases in scientific fact. Many contend that it is soundly based on empirical data and it should be equally accepted with the mighty Darwinian theory. In fact, you can find equal numbers of scientists on the side of Intelligent Design and who are indeed demanding that it should be placed on a commensurate level.

This Blog is simply an introduction into a topic that I would like to spend a greater amount of time exposing to current and future readers alike. It also offers me a chance to really delve into the specifics of a fascinating topic that is tearing at the fabrics of the faith communities today. If Christians can not articulate their thoughts or explain their ideas we will continue to be pushed to the side and not be heard. You must be able to not only profess your faith to the world but defend it as well. You could be that spark that opens their eyes. When they call, can you answer? Let us endeavor here to begin our education and renew our faith to be the guiding light to the naysayers so that they will know there is a God and he created the Heavens and Earth.

Posted By: conservativesensei
Last Edit: 16 Dec 2008 @ 03:31 AM

Email • Permalink • Comments (4)

Categories: Intelligent Design

It Is All Fun and Games Until You Get a Shoe in the Eye!

15 Dec 2008 @ 2:40 AM

Here is a link to one of several articles that details President Bush’s run-in with an angry reporter today in Iraq. The reporter threw his shoes at the President during a press conference with the Prime Minister of Iraq. In the Arab culture, the touching of the soles of the feet is a great insult that a person can have on another. If you recall when the statues of Saddam Hussein were being torn down by angry Iraqis, they slapped them with the soles of their shoes. There is a video of the incident available from this link also. Just goes to show that idiocy knows no geographical boundary.

Posted By: conservativesensei
Last Edit: 15 Dec 2008 @ 02:40 AM

Email • Permalink • Comments (1)

Categories: President Bush

Science Is About Facts..Unless I Don't Agree With You.

15 Dec 2008 @ 2:23 AM

Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a brilliant video that explores the walls that have been erected in the Scientific Community against any scientist that challenges the Cult of Darwinism that is so prevalent in academia today. It is truly staggering the blacklisting and expulsions that are taking place in a community that sole existence is supposed to be about facts and academic debate. Does the mere whispering of the concept of Intelligent Design mean academic ruination in our schools today? Watch this video!

I was so moved by this video that I will be addressing several of the more controversial issues in future Blogs. When, not if you watch this video, have a pen and paper ready to take notes. No matter where you come down in the debate, you are doing yourself disservice if you don’t watch this documentary.

Posted By: conservativesensei
Last Edit: 15 Dec 2008 @ 02:23 AM

Email • Permalink • Comments (1)

Categories: Ben Stein

If the US Constitution is Living, When Did it Become Viable?

14 Dec 2008 @ 11:01 PM

In a society today that thinks everything is relative and there is no right or wrong it becomes harder and harder for segments of society to claim they actually believe in something without those people immediately being branded various derogatory names. Closed minded, unintelligent, simpletons, bigoted…etc.

One clear example of this happening is from the so called “Living Constitution” advocates throughout the United States. Their position, put in the most simplest terms here, is that the US Constitution is living and therefore the meaning of the document evolves as societal standards evolve. This triggers about 47 ,000 questions in my head when I hear this but lets keep it to a couple due to space and time considerations.

If the US Constitution is living, when did it become viable? Liberals have used the viability argument for sometime to justify the killing of innocent babies (Abortion) for decades. ”The fetus is not viable and could not survive outside the mother’s womb therefore it is her right to abort it.” Sound familiar? So, back to the original question? When is the Constitution viable and able to survive on its own? Was it when it was amended to allow suffrage for women? How about when it was amended to abolish racist Poll Tax policies? Or, I know, how about the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery in the United States? Were any of these the viability point?

I offer to anyone reading this that none of the above instances proved that the Constitution was, is, or every will be a “Living” document. The Constitution does not nor could it every have attempted to foresee and address every single issue that becomes faddish or hip during the nuances of a changing society. (Read Abortion “rights”, Same Sex marriage, Gun ban or restriction gun legislation.) All of the above illustrations are clear examples of the Constitution being amended to deal with issues not addressed in the Constitution. See the pattern?

The founding fathers could not have imagined a society that argued that killing an unborn baby was a mother’s right or that the government could pass laws that took away your right to own a gun because a person lived in a specific geographical region (Washington D.C., for instance). The Constitution isn’t living and should not be viewed as such. Certainly not from the “enlightened” left who only think it is living when it helps their newest pet cause.

The Constitution is not alive! Advocates can not simply add to it when they find it convenient. If it doesn’t specifically address it, it doesn’t address it. It becomes a legislative issue at that point and falls back to each state and by proxy, the people, to decide what the laws will be. If the citizens of this great country agree that something should be addressed by the Constitution, then it has to be added (read amended) not magical inserted through acts of judicial activism. The 10th Amendment says it best:

“The Powers not delegate to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”