Tides of Tyranny: God’s Transcendence and Man's Cynicism Part 1 of ...

Tides of Tyranny: God’s Transcendence and Man's Cynicism Part 1 of ...: Regardless of one’s political opinions, the idea of God’s control in a system brings with it some cynicism. Especially, as it relates to...

God’s Transcendence and Man's Cynicism Part 1 of 3

Regardless of one’s political opinions, the idea of God’s control in a system brings with it some cynicism. Especially, as it relates to voting, the will of the people and the candidates themselves. If the past is any indication of future elections, many Christians will again be in a quandary. How so? If God, in His providence chooses the world’s leaders, then should we not, as the Bible directs, yield to their authority? Again, I ask does this not present a conundrum for those believers in Christianity who may lean ideologically Left or Right?

This winding path often lead wayfarers to two very different destinations. They will either affirm God’s kismet but be at odds with His choice; or they will deny His providence at which point His involvement no longer matters. Here lies the dilemma for the Christian believer. Does God’s will or providence equal His endorsement or approval?

As Christians we don’t just want to know God’s will, but to accept it as being so. Thus, if the answer is the affirmative, God’s providence equals His approval, then God has chosen select leaders (whomever they may be), He must approve of the national leaders and we should throw our weight behind those select leaders.

So, God’s providence and control is void of cognitive dissonance as to God’s providence and control. We must seek the following:  Does God’s providence equal His approval? Is there a problem with this line of reasoning? Yes! The problem with this line of reasoning is that it quickly abandons reason and contravenes the character of God. In order to circumvent or navigate this kind of question, we must recognize that God’s providence is absolute, but His approval is not. Just because something transpires under God’s providence does not mean that He consents to it or determines that it occurs.

Tides of Tyranny: The Left's Sustained Assault on Christianity

Tides of Tyranny: The Left's Sustained Assault on Christianity: In a short communiqué following the indiscriminate killing of Muslims in New Zealand, Hillary Clinton wrote that her heart broke for “th...

The Left's Sustained Assault on Christianity

In a short communiqué following the indiscriminate killing of Muslims in New Zealand, Hillary Clinton wrote that her heart broke for “the global Muslim community.” But in her following postings, not a word about Sri Lanka Christians or the global Christian community. Obama similarly wrote in his tweet about New Zealand that he was grieving with “the Muslim community” over the “horrible massacre in the Mosques.” But in his posting about Sri Lanka, there is no mention of Christians or churches.

Is it coincidental or is there an underlying reason why neither former President Obama and former Democrat Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton failed to mentioned Christians being martyred or churches being destroyed? Based on Obama and Hillary’s social media posts, there is room for supposition, inference and implication. The interpretation is that the Left has essentially prohibited mention of all the anti-Christian murders perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and of all the Muslim desecration of churches in Europe, Africa, Middle east and elsewhere.

When all is said and done, the left’s decree is that nothing negative or evil, no matter how true, may be said about Muslims or Islam and nothing positive, no matter how true, may be said of Christians or Christianity.

Clinton’s post-New Zealand social media post also included these words: “We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped." To her credit Mrs. Clinton made sure to condemn Islamophobia, but she wrote not a word about the far more destructive and widespread hatred of Christians in the Muslim world. She calls on world leaders everywhere to condemn white supremacist terrorists, one of the smallest hate groups on the surface of the earth, but never calls on leaders everywhere to condemn Islamist terrorists, the largest hate group on Terra firma.

Does not the mentioned communications and social media posts tell us much about former President Obama and former Democrat Presidential Candidate Clinton?  By the same token, does not the written conveyance of the messages as it relates to acts of violence perpetrated by radical Islamic fundamentalists and a race supremacist tell us a lot about the left’s agenda and much more of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

Indeed, one of the most befuddling aspects of liberalism is its habit of ignoring, denying, or tolerating atrocities done in the name of Islam, all the while eagerly pointing the finger at Christians and conservatives on the rare occasion that mass violence is carried out by an alleged member of that group. The stark contrast was especially on display when liberals did not hesitate to blame conservative Christians for a Planned Parenthood shooting but refused to make similar indictments of Islam after a terrorist attack in California.

As I have alluded to in past commentaries, many liberal politicians have become outright apologists for Islam. Has not Hillary Clinton called for people to stop using the term "radical Islam" because it is offensive to Muslims? Evidentially she does not want the word Islam attached to any act of terror. This is a woman so desperate to make rationalizations for the religion that when a Muslim kills 14 people, she insists he had nothing to do with himself killing 14 people. The people were killed not by a Muslim, but apparently by some ethereal, furtive, brown-skinned apparition. For his part, President Obama has in the past lectured Americans for their "less than loving" behavior towards Muslims. Does not Obama’s chastisement of Christians and Hillary Clinton’s defending Muslims following Islamic terrorist attacks speak volumes of their peremptory, philosophical, theological and sociopolitical inclinations?