Principled Selection of Righteous Leaders

Principled Selection of Righteous Leaders

For those that don’t understand my gist regarding choosing candidates for your next presidential election, I offer this explanation. I will say this once and I am not saying this again.

It doesn’t matter how much money a candidate has, if he or she is a businessman, a doctor, a professor, a community organizer, or talks the talk that people want to hear. I don’t know if you folks are Christian or not, but this is one issue that people seem to ignore or put aside when it comes to electing leaders. The word of God tells us to elect leaders from among ourselves! And this IS what matters! You cannot get by this biblical principle. We are told what qualities to look for:

“Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.” (Exodus 18:21, ESV)

The first quality is that the candidate must be “able.” They must be capable of the position they are seeking. The president of the United States of America needs more arrows in his quiver than just financial savoy. Yes, financial woes are a big problem for us now, but do not think that they are disconnected from many other issues. This brings us to the second quality.

They must be persons “who fear God.” What does that mean exactly? It means that first, they must believe in the Judeo/Christian God; second, they must believe that God is just, and third, they must believe that God will punish evil doers. This is a powerful force against doing wrong or evil. The financial woes in part are because we have a culture that is disintegrating. Too many Americans are looking for a free ride instead of a job. This can be a huge financial drain on any country. What about the political condition of the world? The size and force of our military must match and exceed the danger posed by the world today. This too has a financial weight to it. One cannot just downsize the military to save money if there is a looming threat abroad.

The third quality is that they must “be trustworthy.” How do we determine a person’s trustworthiness? We look at what they have already accomplished. Candidates that have sudden conversions on issues at the moment they run for office are extremely untrustworthy. These are the ones who know what you want to hear and are willing to speak it merely to get your vote. If they suddenly state, for instance, that they are pro-life when they were not previous to their running for office, do you really think that engenders trust? No! They must have exhibited these traits in their actions and occupations previous to seeking office. These are qualities that must be established “before” they are chosen.

The fourth and final quality is that they must “hate a bribe.” This shows that they are principled human beings who are not persuaded by gain. When you see someone who is constantly switching their positions on the issues, it is likely that they are doing so for personal gain. Principled people are not easily persuaded. The principled man must be shown that their position is wrong before they are willing to change it.

If Americans would merely put these four Godly biblical principles into use in their selection of leaders, this country might survive all of the opportunists who desire political office for personal gain. If, however, you are more persuaded by words than by actions, you will likely be fooled into supporting someone who does not “do” what they said they would do. Remember, we are all responsible for every choice we make, so don’t compromise.

Don’t Shoot the Messenger,

Kathryn Colton Shaw
Mark David Shaw

Killing Jesus, A Refutation

The film “Killing Jesus” which Fox News aired on Easter Sunday, was an adaption of the book by the same title and authored by Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly. My commentary here is on the film alone having not read the book.

The first thing I noticed is that the story of Jesus, as depicted by this film, was stripped of all the miracles Jesus did while walking this earth. Clearly the author had a difficulty with miracles and did not allow them in the film. I have heard O’Reilly state that the holy scriptures are mere allegory and then cite supernatural events like Jonah and the fish as reasons for his belief.

I find it interesting that a Catholic, who claims to believe in God, would strip Him of any supernatural abilities. If God exists, then He certainly is supernatural, and if He is supernatural, then He is also capable of doing supernatural things. Bill O’Reilly’s distaste for miracles does not make them false.


Where I was truly surprised is the blasphemous nature this film took. The film depicts Jesus going off to pray after learning of John the Baptist’s beheading, praying for God to forgive Him (Jesus). This reveals that the author also does not believe Jesus to be Deity. My question for O’Reilly then is, “How can you call yourself a Catholic when that very Church has officially declared Jesus as God?” But then again, if you treat your Church as you do the word of God, you allow yourself to pick and choose according to your sensibilities.

Let me make this clear for you Mr. O’Reilly. If Jesus needed forgiveness for a sin or sins that He committed, then your claim on salvation is in vain. For Jesus would be a mere man only, there was no virgin birth, and God would certainly not be his Father. He would have died and would have had to pay for His own sin with His own death. That would mean Mr. O’Reilly that you would be most miserably unsaved for only a spotless lamb is an acceptable sacrifice. Your sins would not be forgiven and you would not be able to make a claim of such.

O’Reilly has allowed his human reason to be exalted above the Word of God. Where his sensibilities regarding the miraculous are assaulted, he merely writes that off as an allegory. It amazes me that one can claim to maintain faith in God and at the same time claim that His only message to mankind is allegorical. Why this is so dangerous is that if one makes a claim that the bible is allegory, then one has also made the claim that their salvation and eternal life is based upon allegory not a clear promise by God.

If God has left His word to be inspected and judged by fallible human beings, then it is worthless to start with. But that is not the witness of the scriptures, for God says that He puts His word above His name. And if God is infallible then so would be His word. Yes, we would need to inspect it, but not to determine what part is allegory and what part is literal based upon one’s own sensibilities.

O’Reilly has clearly stepped over the threshold and offended many Christians. You see Mr. O’Reilly, Jesus’ miracles had eye witnesses. You would not show a resurrected Jesus in your film, which I assume that you are aware of that we celebrate Easter for. There were many eye witnesses of His resurrection. You did not show a Roman guard at His tomb which would undermine the resurrection story. So in this film you are undermining the faith of those who are weak in the faith and for that you will have to give an account. Not to me, but to the Creator. For the scriptures state, “not many of you should become teachers knowing that you will undergo a stricter judgment.” (James 3:1) Jesus Himself said, “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

You can attempt to allegorize those passages but your attempts at such will not negate their literal statement and warning. I truly hope you see the error that you have committed and seek God’s forgiveness. I also hope that you will apologize to the Christian community and admit your failures with this work. Jesus is not a fairy tale or a mythology. He is real, He actually came to give His life for those who would believe upon Him, and He is returning. That sir, are the facts of reality.

Don’t shoot the messenger

Empathy or Religion?

A popular statement touring the social networks states, “You don’t need religion to have morals.  If you cannot determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion.”  Kane Bailey makes a claim to having coined this. To analyze such a statement one would need to understand the definition of the terms.  First, what is meant by morals, second, what was meant by empathy, and finally, what was meant by religion.  However, the statement fails in its construction so no need to define the terms.  

My first observation is that it appears someone wants to do away with the need for religion, and the statement seems to be biased in that direction.  Indeed, in my research I discovered that it is the statement of an agnostic. 

The presupposition of this proclamation is that all morals can be defined or determined through empathy.  Right and wrong are somehow miraculously discerned through one’s deeds of empathy.  To see the faulty logic in this we only need to ask, “Why?”  You see, that shows you that you are at a dead end.  The statement is circular reasoning.  It assumes the statement.  The other problem with this statement is that it commits an equivocation fallacy.  If you look carefully the first statement speaks of “having morals” while the second statement speaks of “determining morals.”  These are two completely separate issues.  The first statement can be true, while the second statement seeks to ride the coattails of the first, but when analyzed properly, is actually found to be false.

Even the Bible states that, “For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’”  (Galatians 5:14)  One does not “need” religion to do this.  However, if one wants to know what morality is, what is right or what is wrong, one cannot discover it by merely having empathy.  For instance, what if I have empathy for the “wrong” thing?  How would I know it was wrong?  What if I had empathy for a murderer?  We have a number of cases where we have witnessed a member of a jury taking the side of the murderer.  If empathy were the determining factor of discerning right from wrong then we could never question one’s empathy, could we?

Morality is actually something that transcends human behavior, feeling, or thought and has an absolute quality where it cannot change.  This is why we humans know intrinsically that certain things are wrong.  They have always been wrong, because they existed before humanity itself.  That standard is indeed learned through a particular religion….Judeo Christianity.  Without a written transcendent standard of morality, morals would be defined by the individual, which would result in a plethora of moral claims with nothing more than the authority of the individual to substantiate it.  Morality can only be defined by the Creator, else it carries no real definition.

Don’t shoot the messenger!

Abort Because of Poverty?

Is poverty a valid reason to get an abortion?  This is one of the excuses thrown out there in discussing the morality of abortion.  The argument is always shrouded in the claim of being the moral thing to do.  If we think this through to its conclusion we can discover the viability of this claim. 

First, the stages of development of a human being have no points along the way where it was not human.  That is scientifically irrefutable.  Having that understanding, now let’s investigate the claim.  If I may morally take human life in its early stages to keep them out of poverty, then I can also morally take life at any stage to keep them out of poverty.  For instance, why not have a threshold where when a person goes below it and into poverty, we just kill them.  We could eradicate poverty altogether.  Of course this is absurd and shows the fallacy in the original argument.

Second, is poverty so torturous that it should be used as a reason to take human life to avoid it?  Well why not go ask people who are in poverty now.  Let’s see how many we can find who would agree to their termination to relieve them of this suffering.  Again, this is absurd and also shows the absurdity of the original argument. 

What makes the argument so irrational is that an adult is choosing for a child whether they would be worthy of life.  Adults do not have that choice after birth so why should they have that choice before birth?  Either way it violates the choice of another human being which invalidates the premise.  God has a lot to say about poverty and how to avoid it.  Hint, it starts with keeping His commandments, one of which is, “Thou shalt not murder.”  But then again He also says:

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” 1 Corinthians 2:14  

Don’t shoot the messenger!