About Me

Name: Michael Scotto
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Jim Dobson's Folly

Posted by Michael Scotto on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:43:09 PM
The Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost
 
Hotair.com is featuring a story about the ill-effects of two decades of the disease known as "self-esteem" (i.e. "self-conceit" Webster's).  The word "self" should sound alarms! That's Christianity 101... "self" is the problem, not the solution.

Many of us have been warning that this day was coming. The most troubling aspect of this psycho-babble is that its greatest champions come from within the Evangelical Christian community. If any group should understand the inherent evil in man, it should be us.

I used to write to Dobson's "Focus on the Family" ministry. I stopped writing a few years ago because no matter the topic this cut-and-paste seemed to find its way into every response:

"Dr. Dobson is neither a theologian nor a Bible teacher."

Great. America's "foremost expert on the family" (an institution created by God) claims to be an authority on the subject because he has a degree from  a godless institution where he sat at the feet of godless men studying the musings of other godless men.

Lovely. Apparently it's more important to study Pavlov than it is to study Paul. What on earth did the church do for 1800 years before Freud came along to interpret the mind of man for us?

The cult of self has infiltrated most of the church. I can't count how many conversations I've had with other Evangelicals in which they parrot the nonsense that "we can't love others unless we love ourselves" (thus butchering a well-known verse of scripture). Truth be told, most people who say "I hate myself" are so wrapped up in themselves that they are the ones who love themselves the most!

If you really hate yourself, you'd be glad that you're fat and have no friends! Who wants the people he hates to be popular and attractive?

We're supposed to strive to love others as we love ourselves because WE ALREADY LOVE OURSELVES. If that were not the case, the instruction would be meaningless. You don't make a comparative based on a wavering premise. And according to the self-esteem cult, since most of us don't have enough self-esteem, the comparative really lacks any sense.

The witness of scripture cannot be made to support any new interpretation of that verse (sorry, Sigmund).

Self is the problem. Self is the disease. Self must die with Christ.


Here are some scripture quotes from some soon-to-be-released Bibles:

"Cain, thou canst love thy brother Abel for thou lovest not thyself! Thy lack of self-esteem manifests itself in hate for thy brother... and Lamech said unto his wives, I have a slain a man because I don't get enough love from my family and I consequently don't love myself enough. If Cain was self-loathing, I self-loathe seventy and seven times!" - Genesis (King James Dobson Version)
 
"Nebchadnezzer, you have been weighed and found wanting... by that I mean you don't love yourself enough which means that you can't really love others the way you should. Your kingdom shall be taken from you and given to one with a higher concept of self." - Daniel (Colorado Springs translation)
 
"Alas for you lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites! You tell others to love God , yet you don't even love yourselves enough! You cannot love God until you love yourselves. How much longer should I suffer this people who just don't have a high enough opinion of themselves? This generation of self-haters shall bear the guilt of it all!" - Luke (Colorado Springs translation)
 
"Esteem yourself better than others and think more highly of yourselves than you ought. If I didn't instruct you, you would be in grave danger of caring too much for the needs of others. Let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, grasped onto it with all His strength, demanded people cater to His needs and exalted Himself." - Philippians (Peales's Dynamic Equivalency)

You can pre-order these versions at Focus on the Family.

By the way... do you know what populations have the highest levels of self-esteem? Criminals and gang members.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Church on the Left and on the Right

Posted by Michael Scotto on Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:46:36 PM
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The unsaid truth about the Catholic Church (CC) in today's rightist politics is that the CC is essentially a force for worldwide (radical) leftism.

The Catholic Church

  • opposes the death penalty (sic) 
  • supports the international socialist "Living Wage"
  • calls for open US borders
  • demands that third world debt be forgiven sans conditions ("No Structural Adjustment")
  • supports increases in entitlements
  • has historically sided with Arab terrorists over Israel.

The PLO was welcome at the Vatican in the early 70s yet Rome didn't recognize Israel until the early 90s.

The issue of communism is no longer relevant.

Need we mention Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors" calling for the exclusion of all forms of non-Catholic worship by civil governments and the historic CC position that it is superior to civil governments (and has the right to order the use of the temporal sword)?

Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

That will have to do. I don't have the space to print what's available on the subject.

Don't worry, I've left quite a bit of room for "nuance."

Even on the two issues that we view as "conservative" issues (Traditional Marriage and Abortion), the CC takes a scary ecclesiastical position. If you'll note the words "grave offense" in regard to supporting the legal status of abortion (you professed Catholics who miss mass might want to check out your own "grave offenses") and bother to look up what that truly buys the offender, you will see a doctrine that is offensive to a Constitutional Republic (as John Adams warned).

The Catholic Church can hold over the heads of politicians and judges eternal threats that most other religious organizations can not (and do not). I know, I'm a "bigot" and I'm "ignorant" (let's get those accusations out of the way), but that does not change either codified doctrines, decrees of popes and councils or history.

If the US Bishops can withhold (or threaten to withhold) communion (a means of salvation) from judges and politicians who fail to vote on abortion as instructed by the CC can they not do the same with other issues (including the death penalty, border policy and issues of war)? If you say that this is just a "US Bishops" problem, you ignore the fact that those bishops are given their authority by Rome (and Rome has deferred to the judgment of each local bishop).

"The norm of the church is clear," Cardinal Arinze [prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments] answered. "The church exists in the United States. There are bishops there, let them interpret it." However, when asked more generally if a priest should refuse Communion to a politician who is "unambiguously pro-abortion," Cardinal Arinze said, "Yes." ... Citing Cardinal Arinze's response to the specific question about Kerry, Bishop Gregory's statement said, "Each diocesan bishop has the right and duty to address such issues of serious pastoral concern as he judges best in his local church, in accord with pastoral and canonical norms."

"Formal Cooperation in Evil" Pass it on!

If a lay Catholic is merely "Pro-Choice" he is considered "guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion." Denying communion in the CC is not like denying it in a Presbyterian or Methodist church. The Eucharist is at the center of Catholic life and Catholic salvation. A "grave sin" in Catholicism is serious business (it "brings damnation to the soul"). The Eucharist is essential to "the sanctification of the soul."

It is a serious threat to withhold a means of sanctification or threaten someone with a vedict of eternal separation from the love of God for supporting a political position. Fortunately, the Catholic leftists in DC have thus far ignored these threats, but what happens if the US Bishops use their threats against judges who care?

Southern Baptists can kick out a member, but they can't threaten his eternal state. The CC claims such a power and are in a position to threaten the faithful with it. They have already moved in that direction with abortion votes. What issues are next? What politicians and judges will have their eternal states threatened for supporting policies or wars the CC may condemn?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (5) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney: Ignore that Doctrine Behind the Curtain!

Posted by Michael Scotto on Monday, February 19, 2007 3:32:54 PM
Calling an Ox a Bull

In the Broadway musical 1776 Benjamin Franklin likens being called an Englishman without the full rights of an Englishman to calling an ox a bull; he is thankful for the honor but would much rather have back what is rightfully his. I have a similar thought when I hear Muslims trying to placate Christians by speaking highly of the Lord Jesus. When you refer to one’s God as anything less, no matter how complimentary or flowery the language, any hope of “common ground” disappears. (The same should also be said about the finished nature of Christ's sacrifice.)

Mitt Romney likes to keep pointing out that his church is a “Christian” church because they have the name “Jesus Christ” in their title. Excuse me for not getting terribly excited. The “other Jesus” of the LDS is not the same as the God of Evangelical Christianity. This is not an entry designed to debate the issue, I am merely pointing out what exists. You cannot equate two belief systems that have different deities. A circle is not the same as a sqaure no matter what you call them.

For that matter, the Trinitarian Father is wholly different than "the Father" of Mormonism. The LDS is free to teach whatever they’d like to teach; just don’t pretend that when you talk about “Jesus Christ” it is remotely anything like when an Evangelical talks about “Jesus Christ.”

I think Brigham Young would agree with my assessment. He’d never accept my definition of Christianity and I certainly don’t accept his. So we can all stop pretending now.

Mitt Romney is clearly trying to deceive the ignorant. Just be honest, Mitt, you reject the eternal Godhood of our Lord. I'd at least respect your honesty for admitting such.


Pro-Life Will Come in and Bat First…

Does a candidate have to agree with my theology before I will support him? Well, no. I seriously doubt there is a candidate who would agree with all my doctrines. I’d vote for Benjamin Netanyahu or Michael Medved (Orthodox Jew) if possible. Doctrine is not the problem with Romney. I don’t support Mitt Romney because he is deceitful and secretive about his doctrines and he pulls the double-switch on conservative issues more than Tony LaRussa pulls the double-switch during a Cardinals game.

Trying to fool Evangelicals by generically using the word "Christian" just confirms my conclusion concerning the duplicitous nature of his character. If you can't be honest about the doctrines you hold to be true concerning eternal matters, why should I believe what you say (or your convictions) about temporal matters?

Jefferson never tried to deceive anyone concerning his theology, why do you Mitt?


I'm Talkin' 'Bout Love

Someone needs to tell Mitt (and perhaps someone will) that the average Evangelical is so ignorant of the core doctrines of the faith that denying the Trinity probably wouldn't register. Just get some Christian Rock star to talk about love and sing ambiguous songs about "Jesus" and nobody will seem to care that you've lowered their God from His place or questioned the finality of His atonement. Remember how popular John Paul II was at Focus on the Family? Trent Schment, the guy was pro-Life!

Romney is completely fabricated. His recent television interview with his wife draped across him as they talked lovingly about their bathroom habits didn’t exactly conjure up pictures of George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt. I felt like I was being played for a fool. I was watching a man who wants to be President so he can be President. It was very Clintonesque.

I don’t support Mitt Romney and I won’t support Mitt Romney.

A man who can’t even be honest about what he believes (politically or doctrinally) is hardly someone that I would trust to sit in the Oval Office.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Good Ol' Charlie Brown... So Far, So Good!

Posted by Michael Scotto on Monday, February 05, 2007 9:40:55 PM
Let's Hope We Won't Have to Say "Good Grief"

February 12 will mark the 7th anniversary of the passing of one of America's greatest philosophers, Charles M. Schulz, the creator of the "Peanuts" comic strip. In deference to 'Sparky's' dislike for the strip's title (thrust upon him by his publisher), let's call it the "Good Ol' Charlie Brown" comic strip.

Almost everything that I held dear in my childhood has been tarnished in the intervening years. Usually the tarnish is supplied by the people involved in some pathetic attempt to appear "cool" to the entertainment culture.

I grew up in a family of three boys and three girls. Naturally, I watched The Brady Bunch. Unfortunately, the cast of The Brady Bunch have been on a two-decade crusade to inject as much off-set sexual innuendo as possible into Clinton Avenue (where the fictional family lived) and destroy the idealistic family sit-com's image. Recently, on TV Land's Hollywood Myths & Legends program, Greg (Barry Williams) had the privilege of confirming his on-set drug use.

I'm impressed, aren't you?

Paul McCartney has been on another sort of tour these last 25 years. He's on the "I was a radical, utopian, peace-loving hippie, honestly" image rehabilitation tour. I'm a big Beatles fan (putting it mildly) and I've come to accept John's brief, yet obnoxious, radical leftist period of the early 70s. However, as one who has for many years been devouring, discussing and dissecting McCartney's music (Beatles and solo) - he's the reason I play bass - to a degree that experts would term "unhealthy," I can find very little "utopia-spewing" leftism in the man's musical past.

Sure, he was no Margaret Thatcher, but considering the era, Paul was a pretty good John Major. McCartney wrote a couple of nice, vaguely anti-radical, political songs early in his solo career (Too Many People, Wild Life). He gave us this great line (summing up the period) "A lot of political nonsense in the air" (Wild Life). And the Beatles gave us two of the best right-wing rockers in pop music history (Taxman, Revolution).

McCartney's post-911 slogan song Freedom has this bit of utopian, peace-loving leftism, "I will fight, for the right to live in freedom."

Rock on, Paul. All I am saying, is give war a chance.


Keeping It Clean

All that leads me to Mr. Schulz and Charlie Brown. Charles Schulz never let me down. He was so protective of the image his strip projected that he actually included a provision in his will asking that the characters remain "as authentic as possible" and that no new strips be based on them. (Schulz respected his work and his public.)

So far, so good... but as Playboy knows... a little cha-ching and a little bling can make a Mouseketeer drop her top faster than a former child TV star. 

I hope and desperately pray that we never see this: 

A Press Release from United Features

Well, it's about time Charlie Brown and the gang moved into the 21st century!
 
We're hoping the "new" Charlie Brown and his new friends will speak to a new generation. This time around the gang will be taking on the tough issues. Schroeder starts rapping and will announce he's hooked on heroin, Lucy will push for a Women's Studies department at her school, 'Ms.' Othmar will get a divorce, Linus will get a tatoo and Snoopy will realize that glorifying war is just plain wrong. But the most open and educational plot line will revolve around Charlie Brown's secret love for "the little Red-Haired Boy".
 
Charlie Brown's new friends will include Hip Hop (a friend of Franklin's who teaches Schroeder a thing or two about music); Scruffy (a homeless dog from New Orleans who steals Snoopy's Van Gough... to feed his family); Maya (a friend of Sally's who helps all the kids see how empty their lives truly are); and Ducky (a new boy who helps Charlie Brown see the inherent evils and metaphors for war evident in organized sports - well those involving boys anyway).
 
Joe Schlabotnik step aside! Charlie Brown has a new hero: Nancy Pelosi! Follow the gang as they go to Washington and learn a little bit about the workers' controlling the means of production. Linus visits a mosque with his new friends from the ACLU and concludes that all religion is 'just too darn dangerous'... except Islam.
 
Snoopy's done with the military industrial complex too! He's no longer chasing the Red Baron or writing chauvinistic novels, now he's chasing his feminine side and writing articles for Cosmopolitan! 
 
 Peanuts 21st Century... get excited!! (Made possible by a grant from the MacArthur Foundation)


"I can't stand it. I just can't stand it." - bleechers 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »