Superman and Jesus.

In the newest Superman movie there are a lot of parallels between Superman and Jesus.  Here's an interesting list of the parallels between the life of Jesus and Superman.  It's obvious that the original Superman was modeled after Jesus, the god, man person.  

According to director Zack Snyder, this isn’t the first time the above comparison has been made.

‘I think the relationship between Jesus and Superman is not a thing we invented in this film, it is a thing that has been talked about since the creation of Superman,’ he said, speaking to us from Warner Bros studios in LA.

‘And in a weird way, probably was talked about more when Superman was created than it is now. It’s one of those things mythologically you take for granted, a little bit.

‘When you talk about mythology, you want to make a point about the importance of a character, or the relevance of a moment, to be able to draw from peoples’ collective experiences. What is personal to you or to someone who sees a Christ story or someone who doesn’t, it might affect the way they see the movie in a different way, or it may make the events in the film more personal, or make the mythological points of the film more intense.

‘For me personally, I think that the mythological part of the story – and there’s other parallels as well – but if you see this Christ-like story within it, it is really to act as a metaphor to see that Superman is struggling in a way that there might be another layer to it that you can draw from other experiences. But by no means is it for one idea to cancel out the other, or for it to be mutually exclusive to one single idea. I think it’s drawing on all mythology: comic book, religion, ancient, philosophical.’

And according to screenwriter David Goyer, it’s not just Jesus Christ Superman.

‘We didn’t come up with these allusions of Superman being Christ-like, that’s something that’s been embedded in the character from the beginning, he said. ‘But also the legend of Moses, clearly the whole way his parents give him up and send him…’

 This story goes into a bit more detail on the historical basis for Superman, Jesus parallels.

The National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama, the Gospel, and Campaign Mode

I googled President Obama's remarks at the 2012 National Prayer Breakfast after reading about the strong political undercurrent in press reports. Without looking at the date I started to read his remarks. They were personal and conciliatory. I wondered what I missed. It turns out that I was reading his 2011 remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. His remarks contained personal professions of faith, friendship with Christians on opposite side of the political spectrum, and the importance of caring for the less fortunate.

This year's remarks are similar to last year's speech except that he's ties his specific policies into his faith. Could it be because this is an election year?

He notes how his faith is what motivates him and should inform our public actions. I wonder how the ACLU feels about that? Probably not a big deal, because his policies generally align with theirs.

But in my moments of prayer, I’m reminded that faith and values play an enormous role in motivating us to solve some of our most urgent problems, in keeping us going when we suffer setbacks, and opening our minds and our hearts to the needs of others.

We can’t leave our values at the door. If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel -- the majority of great reformers in American history did their work not just because it was sound policy, or they had done good analysis, or understood how to exercise good politics, but because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action -- sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance.

He talks about his personal devotional life.

I wake up each morning and I say a brief prayer, and I spend a little time in scripture and devotion. And from time to time, friends of mine, some of who are here today, friends like Joel Hunter or T.D. Jakes, will come by the Oval Office or they’ll call on the phone or they’ll send me a email, and we’ll pray together, and they’ll pray for me and my family, and for our country.

But I don’t stop there. I’d be remiss if I stopped there; if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends. So instead, I must try -- imperfectly, but I must try -- to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation.

Then he goes into the more political portions of his speech. He talks about financial institutions and insurance companies.

And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs -– from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato.

Then he goes into tax policy.

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.

Government paying for college education.

When I talk about giving every American a fair shot at opportunity, it’s because I believe that when a young person can afford a college education, or someone who’s been unemployed suddenly has a chance to retrain for a job and regain that sense of dignity and pride, and contributing to the community as well as supporting their families -- that helps us all prosper.

Then he goes into foreign policy.

And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure. It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these –- for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.

To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” And for others, it may reflect the Jewish belief that the highest form of charity is to do our part to help others stand on their own.

Treating others as you want to be treated. Requiring much from those who have been given so much. Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need. These values are old. They can be found in many denominations and many faiths, among many believers and among many non-believers. And they are values that have always made this country great -- when we live up to them; when we don’t just give lip service to them; when we don’t just talk about them one day a year. And they’re the ones that have defined my own faith journey.

He talks about our various roles in society.

As a loving husband, or a supportive parent, or a good neighbor, or a helpful colleague -- in each of these roles, we help bring His kingdom to Earth. And as important as government policy may be in shaping our world, we are reminded that it’s the cumulative acts of kindness and courage and charity and love, it’s the respect we show each other and the generosity that we share with each other that in our everyday lives will somehow sustain us during these challenging times. John tells us that, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

And his need for God's guidance.

I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment -- asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong. I know that He will guide us. He always has, and He always will. And I pray his richest blessings on each of you in the days ahead.

There's much that I can commend in his remarks about the importance of faith, humility, the importance of faith informing our public actions. Yet the implications of his remarks about specific policy issues raises questions about how he gets from point A to point B when he looks to Jesus and the Bible for his direction and inspiration.

How can he support and promote the killing of unborn children through his Administration's policies? How does that line up with care for the vulnerable and powerless among us? How can he support and promote the redefinition of marriage, an institution clearly established by God as the union of a man and a woman? (He says he still believes in traditional marriage, but his administration's policies actively seek to change it.) There's a major disconnect, contradiction between the values he articulates and espouses and what he actually does.

What's skewed his perspective? Politics? Power? Fear of man? Confusion? I don't know the answer to that but the gulf is very revealing on these two core issues.

His actions on life and marriage issues are fundamentally at odds with the faith he professes.

Jesus, football, secular intolerance and confusion.

There's an interesting article in US Today which highlights the intolerance and confused thinking of the modern secular person who attempts to hide behind guise of open mindedness and tolerance.

The article is entitled, "And I'd like to thank God Almighty". The writer Tom Krattenmaker has a beef with high profile athletes who use their public notoriety to espouse their Christian beliefs.

He says:

"They are also leveraging sports' popularity to promote a message and doctrine that are out of sync with the diverse communities that support franchises, and with the unifying civic role that we expect of our teams. Typifying the exclusive creed taught by many sports-world Christians is the belief statement published by Baseball Chapel, which provides chaplains for all major- and minor-league baseball teams. Non-believers in Jesus, the ministry declares, can look forward to "everlasting punishment separated from God."

Yes, they are promoting the belief held by Christians since day one. That Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. (In fact, those are Jesus' very words.)

Krattenmaker doesn't like this narrow religious belief because it's "out of sync with the diverse communities that support franchises." In other words, their views are not politically correct.

He goes on to say that these sports teams are "our team" and intimates that these athletes should not be making these sorts of narrow comments, because these teams are supported by "tax-paying" persons.

The implication is clear: these athletes should drop their comments about Jesus being the only way to heaven, because people pay taxes and we have this notion of the separation of church and state. Thinking along this line means the belief should never be made even in churches, because taxes benefit churches which use public fire and police protection.

Realizing he could be a tad bit intolerant himself, which would be form of hypocrisy given his claims, he throws in the comment:

These sports stars, like all Americans, have a right to express their faith.

And of course

Evangelical players and ministry representatives in sports aren't out to harm anyone, of course. On the contrary, they see themselves as fulfilling the Bible's Great Commission ("Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matthew 28:19). In this sense, their mission is pure altruism: They seek to share the gift of eternal life.

But then again there's this one little problem. This pesky belief that their belief in God is the right one.

But there's a shadow side to this. If their take on God and truth and life is the only right one — which their creed boldly states — everyone else is wrong.

Can't we all just get along and say everybody is right?

Of course, according to Mr. Krattenmaker, there's the view of American Christians delivered to us by the Pew Forum poll which should resolve the question.

It's not just non-Christians who might have a thing or two to say about this exclusive theology. According to a December 2008 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, 65% of American Christians believe that many religions can lead to eternal life. Our pluralism is a defining and positive reality of American life — but not one that is much valued by those who define the faith coursing through the veins of sports culture.

So that settles it, if two-thirds of self identified American Christians don't believe a basic tenet of Christianity - the uniqueness of Jesus as the only way to salvation - it should be dropped and no longer spoken about in public by athletes who still happen to believe what the Bible says.

Krattenmaker then pulls out Tim Tiebow the star quarterback on the University of Florida football team who as you might have guessed it is an outspoken evangelical Christian, one of those guys with a narrow view of salvation. The author again doesn't want to appear too intolerant so he says we should applaud Tiebow's good works but he's one of those "who promotes a form of belief that makes unwelcome judgments about everyone else's religion."

In making and acting on rigid claims about who is or isn't in good standing with God, the Bob Tebow organization is working at cross purposes with the majority of Americans — indeed, the majority of American Christians — and their more generous conception of salvation.

Certainly, Tim Tebow must be applauded for the good he does working on his father's missions, but he should be seen, too, as one who promotes a form of belief that makes unwelcome judgments about everyone else's religion. Let's not forget the twinge that is felt by sports-loving Jewish kids and parents, for example, or by champions for interfaith cooperation, when adored sports figures like Tebow use their fame to push a Jesus-or-else message.

Is sports-world evangelicalism really "good for everything"? Certainly a lot, but not everything. Not if you're Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, non-evangelical Protestant, agnostic or anything else outside the conservative evangelical camp.

The illogic and confusion of Mr. Krattenmaker comments are very evident. First, he's being just as narrow as those he accuses of being narrow. Is his implicit view the only way, e.g. there any many roads to salvation? Isn't it narrow for him to think he has the right answer?

Second, has he ever thought that just maybe there's a unity, consistency between beliefs of Christianity which says we're to love God, aka Jesus and love our neighbor? Jesus thought so when he said the two commands go together. That you can't just pick and choose which tenets of Christianity you like and discard the rest? That these players wouldn't be the same person if you tried to chop up their faith into acceptable and unacceptable beliefs?

I think what Mr. Krattenmaker wants is a faith of his own making. The faith of good deeds and nice guys and of course one where all religions lead to salvation. (Even if that defies the laws of logic.)

The dangers and consequences of government run health care. And who do we trust God or government?

There's a great video on government run health care put out by the Acton Institute. In a few minutes it succinctly points out the dangers of government run health care. Frankly, the mess our health care system is currently in, rising costs, etc. is largely due to government intervention in the health care system. Now President Obama and Democrats in Congress want even more.

In very simplistic terms, the ultimate issue and question is who do we trust or put our security in, God or government? Some may ask what does God have to do with our health care system. For one, He's created the government as an institution in society to do certain things. When we reject His design for government, in a sense, we're rejecting Him. And second, who do we look to for our ultimate security in life, to provide for us, God or the government. Here Jesus' words come to mind about not worrying and trusting God to meet our basic needs. Or if we believe it all depends on us, we'll look to government.

Historical revision and intellectual disingenuousness permeate "Newsweek" cover story on homosexual marriage.

Advocates for homosexual marriage in the liberal intelligentsia realize a major roadblock to achieving their goal is that pesky book the Bible and the influence it holds on millions of Christians and Jews and even Muslims.

Generally, I think they're dismissive of these uneducated, unenlightened folks who take serious a book written a couple of thousand years ago by often uneducated people bound to "superstitious" beliefs about miracles and supernatural happenings.

Be that as it may, they figure they better address the claims of this book because of its influence. They see the influence churches, including black churches, played in the battle in California over Prop 8. "All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections." They realize their better address the Bible on this issue.

When they do, they attempt to debunk and deconstruct the clear meaning the the texts by trying to read into the text their own biases.

Such is the case with the Newsweek cover story, "Our Mutual Joy: Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side" written by a Lisa Miller.

The first paragraph of the article cynically looks at a couple of biblical ideas and stories and distorts their meaning.

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel-all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments-especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple-who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love-turn to the Bible as a how-to script? Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

Miller suggests both the Old and Testaments take a low view of marriage. This is ridiculous. To suggest the model or ideal for marriage in the Old Testament is polygamy is ridiculous. Genesis 1 points out that the ideal is one man and one woman. The effects of the fall can be seen in the distortion of all areas of life including family and marital life. The fact that people engaged in less than the ideal does not mean that has become the ideal.

In the New Testament, Jesus reaffirms the ideal of marriage is a one man, one woman relationship and says the reason God allowed unilateral divorce in the Old Testament was their stubborn, hard hearts. Matthew 19

Similarly, Miller says Paul had a similar low view of marriage. That marriage was a last resort for those who can't control their lusts.

Paul's comment that it was better for a person not to marry was due to the crisis and difficulties facing the people he was communicating with. In fact, Paul analogies marriage between a man and a woman to Christ and the church. Marriage is a beautiful, powerful institution ordained by God.

Miller then seeks to address the view that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman by saying it doesn't and no right thinking person would want their marriage to look like a biblical marriage.

First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage-theirs or anyone else's -to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.

First, Jesus clearly does define marriage as a lifelong relationship between one man, one woman. And her second assertion merely distorts what the Bible actually says about marriage. There are a lot of bad things mentioned in the Bible, e.g. murder, rape, betrayal and so forth but that doesn't mean the Bible affirms them; it's merely describing what sinful people do.

She then asserts the relativist thinking that the Bible is a "living document" with no fixed meaning that needs to be reinterpreted in light of today's changing circumstances.

Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married-and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

Of course, if the Bible doesn't have a clear definition of marriage and the models of marriage it provides are what no sensible person would want, why does the Bible even need to be considered in the debate? She then argues the other side by saying the Bible is "powerful" and "speaks truth to us" 2,000 years later. See how she's simply throwing arguments at the Bible which are contradictory and mutually exclusive?

She says the Bible never addresses woman to woman sex. Wrong. See Romans 1:26.

She says Paul really wasn't talking about homosexuality. She references "progressive scholars" to support her argument.

Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God."

Unfortunately for her, such arguments have no basis in fact, merely speculative efforts to dismiss Paul's meaning as found in the text and clearly understood by Christians consistently since the text was written.

She makes the false assertion that

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument).

And we need "A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

Again let's move beyond "literalism" she says. And she uses the usual liberal "literalism" smokescreen to say we need to change the meaning of the text. How do you move beyond historical events that occurred? Are they simply not be taken literally and thereby can be dismissed as not statements of fact?

She includes a smattering of liberal, e.g. progressive religious figures who support her pro-homosexual marriage views and concludes by saying that if we really loved as Jesus taught us to we'd support homosexual marriage.

Of course, Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law but fulfill it. Matthew 5:17 (A law which clearly forbids homosexual behavior.) And the New Testament definition of love, in part says, "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. I Corinthians 13

In a biblical understanding of love, those who do not rejoice at wrongdoing such as homosexual behavior are acting in the spirit of biblical love while those who do rejoice in homosexual behavior are not.