Who acknowledges Him

I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more. I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one.

Are not five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. Do not be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows.

I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God.

But whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God.

Luke 12: 4-9

Sept 7, 2012: Democrats Deny God Three Times [2:11]

29 Comments

Filed under Christianity

29 responses to “Who acknowledges Him

  1. Maybe there will be retribution for their denial of God that day. I hear that David Petreus told the truth!!

    Like

  2. anonymous

    So if we affirm our God, but denied someone else’s is it a tie?

    Like

    • Violet

      I don’t see how affirming the Christian God (on which our nation was founded), denies anyone else’s god. Help me understand the point you are trying to make, anon?

      Like

      • chrissythehyphenated

        Truth isn’t determined by majority vote. It is what it is.

        Like

      • anonymous

        I was under the impression we affirmed one God. That It was not a game of he who dies with the most god’s wins. Is not the affirmation of a singular an implied denial of others?

        Like

        • Not a game. But you seem to be making the (extraordinary) statement that the whole world worships the One God. That seems a stretch to me, Do I misunderstand?

          Like

          • anonymous

            Was not making a statement one way or the other. Simply following the logic that perhaps not all Americans affirm the same God.

            Like

            • No argument there. But I think you are making a statement, after all. You are disagreeing with the affirmation of the Judeo-Christian God, because it excludes others who do not acknowledge the same. Some of us oppose that notion. Do you think a secular community that welcomes Islam, for example, can hold out for long against the demand of Islam that everyone, sooner or later, submit to its prophet? Only a Judeo-Christian nation, in my opinion, can have any hope of allowing true tolerance of others who are not in complete union with them, like Hindus or Buddhists. How do Hindus fare in Pakistan, I wonder? Or North Sudan?

              Like

              • I suspect that you will say Christians and Jews are not very tolerant, but I would point you to the state of Israel, for example, as a place, almost unique in all the world, where all faiths are tolerated. Christians running this country are also quite tolerant, because our faith demands it. Christianity has always been a pursuasive enterprise, and any deviation from that has either been a false charge, or it’s been soundly condemned. I would understand if you are saying that we should be a wholly secular country, but I’d still disagree, since all the principles we must use to construct such a nation are not moral or religion-neutral. Of course, writers like Sam Harris will say that only atheists can be trusted to form a secular country, but they have to lie outright to whitewash the murderous record of atheist nations in just the last century alone.

                Like

  3. anonymous

    Not so much making a statement as aligning points. Going back to the context of the original post “Who acknowledges Him” the theme seemed to be that a group was betraying God by not affirming a singular God.

    So if Group A says, Affirming only God(b) = Betraying God(a)
    and Group B says, Affirming only God(a) = Betraying God(b)

    Is that not a tie, or are both groups doomed by each others God?

    Like

    • So your argument is not directed at Chrissy, but with the very words of Christ in the Gospel of Luke? Very well.

      First of all, please correct me if I misunderstand what you mean by a “singular God.” You’ve used that word twice. I think you mean “one of a kind.” That word has other meanings, but I think we agree on that one, hopefully. The only reason I ask is that you’ve set up your 2 premises in a way that’s utterly, mutually contradictory with the notion of a one-of-a-kind, singular God. In fact, you’ve defined both premises with the unspoken (implicit) assumption that assures a “tie” is the only acceptable conclusion to the syllogism. Your assumption is “There are two gods, ‘a’ and ‘b’ which are the same in every way, equally valid and legitimate, except that some people prefer ‘a’ and some prefer ‘b’.” Acceptance of that assumption is the only way that you can legitimately make either of those premise statements.

      I suggest you try again, but this time, set up your premises such that the existence of a singular God is even allowed as a possibility, before you try to deduce anything.

      Like

  4. chrissythehyphenated

    I’ve been trying to understand what you two are talking about and I admit I’m at a total loss.

    In the passage I quoted, Jesus explains that He will vouch before God for anyone who has declared publicly that they belong to Him and that He will disown before God anyone who has rejected Him publicly.

    It seems very straightforward to me. I swear here before all you witnesses that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God who suffered, died and rose again in order to free me from eternal damnation. If I’m right, then when I get to the pearly gates, Jesus has promised He will tell His Dad, “She is one of my peeps. Let her in.”

    Contrariwise, if God exists and He is who Jesus said He is and if Jesus Himself is who He said He is, then a Democrat who shouted “NO!” to God on the convention floor (and never repented) will not be able to get past those pearly gates, because Jesus won’t have them on His list.

    What is so tough about this? It’s no different from getting past the big burly bouncer types at the door into some hot happening night club. You gotta KNOW someone to get in. Jesus said that, for Heaven, knowing Him will get you in. You either believe Him on this or you don’t.

    The decision to belong to Him or to reject Him is an individual choice, one that each of us is free to make. Your conversation seems to suggest that my choice has some impact on what is actually true or on what anyone else believes.

    But it doesn’t. The truth is what it is. If Jesus is who He said He is, then these choices will have eternal consequences. But in a free society, they’re not supposed to have civil consequences.

    Like

    • Dittoes on everything you said, Chrissy, and what Violet and Aussie said as well. I think it’s straightforward, but I think Anon disagrees, and I’m trying to find out exactly why. I think his/her point is that we cannot, in a civil/secular country, assert the Judeo-Christian God without offending those who do not believe, so we shouldn’t do it, and we shouldn’t criticize the Demoncrats (excuse me – Democrats) for rejecting the assertion. I think we fundamentally disagree on that. Is that right, Anon?

      Like

      • chrissythehyphenated

        I believe the whole point of the First Amendment was the protect UNPOPULAR speech. Popular speech doesn’t need protecting.

        The First Amendment protects Anon’s right to say I should never utter or post a single word that might offend someone else. It also protects my right to continue to speak the truth as I see it and let those who are offended or who disagree tell me why.

        If they do so in a polite and respectful tone, then we can then have a rational discussion on the facts. Such discussion may end with one or both of us changing our positions or in both of us agreeing to disagree and avoid the topic in future, especially at Thanksgiving dinner because it upsets the cook.

        I’ve changed my positions on many subjects as a result of such polite, rational discussions. E.g., I used to favor gun control. Larry Elder changed that one. I also used to oppose capital punishment. Dennis Prager changed that one.

        What the p.c. police and hate speech legislation does, however, is criminalize me for believing something someone else finds offensive. It also works in only one direction, since I get offended by a lot of what Leftist spew, but they don’t give a toot. They just want to shut up anyone who disagrees with them, probably because their arguments are deeply flawed and so they cannot actually defend them in a polite, rational way.

        Like

  5. anonymous

    You are correct. If you notice from my posts here in general, I have tried not to direct things at individuals so as not to be taken personal and have respected others views. Actually I think the mutually exclusive paradox is valid because in this case as each group deeply believes their God is the correct and singular one, but tolerates the others beliefs up to a point. Looking at it from another perspective the positive vote was seen less about the inclusion of God, but more the exclusion or removal of tolerance.

    Like

    • So, is the affirmation of anything always an insult to someone? By that reasoning, I think you *could* assert that any opinion, by anyone, about anything, is an assault on tolerance. That would include even your opinions, by the way. Lucky for you, we don’t feel that way, as far as I know. 😉

      Like

      • anonymous

        In many cases It all comes down to Three things:. A given perspective at a given point in time, from a given point of reference. And thank you.

        Like

        • Hmmm. Ok, now I’m starting to agree with your earlier statement about you “not making any statements.” I also agree that it’s hard to disagree with this particular non-statement, but I’m about to go down and squeeze some limes and make margs, and after a few of those, I might be able to find some criticism. Especially if it turns out that you meant it as a relativistic non-statement (like, “Everything’s relative.”), in which case I’m quite sure I will need the margs! 🙂

          Like

    • But on the subject of your “mutually exclusive paradox,” I simply disagree with it being valid. You conclude it’s a tie only because you have assumed that they are both right ahead of time. But they cannot both be right. That’s why you label it a paradox; it’s an apparent impossibility as long as you make that assumption. That’s why the assumption must be in error. They are not both right. One of them must be wrong. What’s so hard about that? Can we not just face that fact and stop worrying about hurting the feelings of the one who’s afraid of being wrong? Because I don’t see Chrissy afraid of being wrong.

      Like

      • chrissythehyphenated

        And I still have got absolutely no idea what you two are talking about. LOL

        Like

      • anonymous

        Sorry, sticking with the paradox label.
        Follow the logic… “One of them must be wrong”, “They are not both right”. In checking the official rule book(LOL), no place does it say that one or the other or either “must” be correct. Without proof beyond a reasonable doubt even the third group you raised should be entitled to their own beliefs. Also meaning that if each group(three assumed for simplicity) was given a numerical weight of 1. Then at any given time there would be a 2/3 majority against any other given groups beliefs.

        Like

        • You really don’t grasp that you are starting with an unspoken assumption in all your arguments, do you? You are starting out with the assumption that every opinion is to be given equal weight. Where in hell does the “rulebook” say that? Nowhere. You are making it up. It doesn’t matter that everyone else in your social circle assumes it also, so as not to hurt anybody’s feelings. It’s simply not true.

          And BTW, when I said that “one of them must be wrong,” I should have said “AT LEAST one of them must be wrong.” Just because your 2 statements are mutually exclusive doesn’t mean one is right and one is wrong. In this case, both are meaningless because they are both based on an invalid assumption that excludes the possibility of a singular God, which is the whole question you brought up in the first place. By coming up with a meaningless syllogism, you are just trying to “prove” something deductively from false assumptions. No wonder Chrissy is getting so confused. 😉

          Like

          • anonymous

            I’m all for Inductive reasoning, except we need a couple of Gods in order to run the comparison and none seem to be available to participate.

            Am I read correctly that as your opinion is that “It’s simply not true.” that we were all created equal. In effect some deserve more then one vote?

            “AT LEAST one of them must be wrong.” That was the addition of the 3rd group. Pointing out the possibility that even any two could be wrong with the addition of the 3rd group.

            Sorry if it was not clear, I thought possibility of a singular was a given and already understood, because without it would be impossible for either of the original groups to be completely right. However it was not assumed is that either of the original two groups “must” have picked the correct one to believe in. I ask the same, “Where in hell does the “rulebook” say that” anyone of these groups “must” be right?

            Group A is correct, they have the one and only singular God.
            Group B is correct, they have the one and only singular God.
            Group C is correct, we are all just reading pulp fiction.
            Group A and B are both correct, collect the complete set.
            Group A, B, C all wrong, the true God has not yet been revealed.

            Like

            • You have not clarified your position. I still think you are trying to use a (faulty) deductive approach to support the clearly invalid conclusion that the existence of multiple faiths implies that we have a “tie” and they are to be considered equally valid (or invalid). That is a common misapplication of logic used by atheists to convince easily-misled followers that all believers are stupid and should not be taken seriously.

              All that it takes to see that it is invalid, is to consider a single instance where it’s violated. For example:

              Group A is correct, they have the one and only singular God, and so they, alone among all other groups, don’t seem to get offended when others mock them, insult their God or try to kill them, which is often, and even though they are widely hated, they seek humility and insist that they are far from perfect, even if they believe their God to be perfect, which is true.
              Group B doesn’t believe in anything, except their own brilliance. They spend a lot of time mocking everyone who does believe in something, calling them self-righteous, yet stupid. Strange, that.
              Group C believes in a false god, and they know it, so it drives them to be continually on their guard for any insults, perceived or real, and they frequently abuse, rob, kill and maim anyone who doesn’t echo their claims, all the while loudly proclaiming their virtue, even while they horribly suppress their own women and abuse their children.
              Group D isn’t religious, but worships political figures and yet is strangely drawn to defend Group C, even though their principles are totally incompatible, mostly because they both enjoy hating Group A.
              Group E, F and G believe in many gods, all of which are shadows of different aspects of spiritual reality, with one being roughly similar to the one true God but with aspects clouded from centuries of separation from the worshippers of the One God. Other gods reflect the personalities of real spiritual beings subordinate to the One God, like angels or saints, while others reflect the gradual infusion of myth and legend into the culture.
              Group H, a group of amazons, worships the cacao tree, seeks to dominate the whole world militarily, subjugate men and form a utopia where left-handed women rule lesser races and perfect the production of dark chocolate.

              This test set of groups may or may not reflect reality, but there is certainly nothing logically inconsistent about it. And in no way could someone rationally say that each of these groups should be treated as equal in virtue or even tolerated equally, right? But isn’t that what you’re suggesting?

              Like

              • anonymous

                A very good representation of many diverse groups. I understand your point of not seeing the groups equal in all respects. So rationally how do we decide who stands in judgment over others and assign the correct amount of weight to their vote? Is the rational choice of the one or group to stand in judgment based on Wisdom, Intelligence, Education, Virtue or Seniority? When they assign their rational value to another group is it based on Wisdom, Intelligence, Education, Virtue or Seniority and by what yardstick is are the amounts of each measured?

                Keeping in mind that rationally If the Aborigine drafted an I.Q. test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it.

                Like

                • Well, that’s an easy one for me, since the Aborigines I know are Catholic in faith but retain their cultural identity. The Navajos I know like the fact that Jesus was a brown man and find a lot in common with the Christian spiritual life. In my world, Jews and Catholics and Protestants and Hindus and Buddhists and Taoists and American Indians get along not because we pretend that all our faiths are equivalent. We all know that we each think that our own is better, but that can be respected. We can also participate in self-government because we all have common principles of justice and moral behavior. But one must dominate, so in America, the Judeo-Christian code dominates. In India, the Hindu model dominates. In both countries, even muslims are tolerated though it causes unavoidable hostility due to their models being incompatible. I personally don’t think Islam is any more tolerable than Nazism should be, but I don’t make policy. I don’t think it’s necessary to have a universal spreadsheet of weighted judgment of all religions and peoples. It’s ok that one dominates. I know which one I prefer to dominate. What’s yours?

                  Like

                • anonymous

                  I think most would agree that their own is the best suited to the position of authority. We have seen throughout history how power corrupts even the purest. That power is abused openly if given the opportunity in the name of a cause. I have built up enough distrust in people that I feel no one person or group should ever be empowered enough to rule over another. Stepping back to the vote that we all witnessed and stated this discussion. If the outcome had been the other way, I sense most here would not have overlooked that the outcome without slamming the party for completely ignoring the voice of the people. I honestly had a bias to see the inclusion of God, but the cynic side of me as not able to hear anything close to a 2/3 majority while I watched the original broadcast and no matter how many times I watched the later clips. Even here it was seen as a denial, yet no one has comment what their government just did right before their eyes. Only serves to confirmed my distrust in the magnitude of other votes within government each day that take place in front of watchful eyes.

                  Like