Some people in the news have said that Barack Obama may suffer from the Bradley effect, and that he needs a 8-10% lead in the polls to be elected because of the reluctance of some voters to vote for a black man. The Bradley effect was named after Tom Bradley, the long time black mayor of Los Angeles, CA who ran for governor in 1982 against George Deukmejian who was white. In spite of being consistently ahead in the polls, Bradley lost the election. The common explanation for this loss was that many whites would not vote for a black, but neither would they admit the same for fear of being labeled prejudiced.
Race relations have come a long way since 1982. America is ready for a black president when a black candidate is found that is worthy of the office. Barack Obama has already benefited from the reverse of the Bradley effect, in that much of his popularity comes from being black. Barack will have almost total support amongst blacks. Nothing wrong with that. But there is also a feeling of guilt amongst the great majority of whites who are not prejudiced against blacks, and thus we would love to see a black win the presidency. It would show the world that America is finally color blind. Unfortunately, this attitude could lead to electing a very unqualified black to the presidency.
Fifty years ago a person with as little experience as Barack Obama would never have been selected as a candidate no matter what his color or party. With both a Muslim father and step father he would also have been looked upon with suspicion while we are at war with a Muslim faction. But now politically correctness has taken the place of common sense, dictating that we must never "profile" no matter what the risk. Do we really know Barack's true attitude toward the Muslims? He says all the right words but he is a politician, a group noted for telling people what they want to hear in order to get elected. What damage could a Muslim sympathizer do in the White House? I would not like to find out.
Barack Obama may be immenently qualified to be president, but with his record of accomplishments doesn't illustrate it. He may have a proper attitude toward radical Muslims and their despicable plan to force Sharia law upon the whole world through terror, but how can we know? As a man I will give him the benefit of doubt, but as a possible president I will not!
Vernon Sandel
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Barack or Hillary?
It seems like 50% of the news stories are about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Although I am sick of hearing about them, it is of course extremely important that a proper choice is made. The coming election is slated to be pivotal in many respects, one of which is how we will respond to radical Islam's threat to convert us to Islam or eliminate us.
After living through the Clinton presidency with its new scandals about every week, it was refreshing to have a black man (half black anyway) vie for the candidacy on the Democratic ticket. "Go Barack! Anyone but Hillary" summed up my attitude. Barack has a charisma about him that inspires people.
However, the more I learn about Barack Obama the more questions I have about the wisdom of choosing him to be the Democratic candidate. I didn't know his father was a Muslim. I didn't know his mother divorced the father only to marry another Muslim from Indonesia. I didn't know he belonged to a church that vilified whites and whose pastor, Rev. Wright, from the pulpit made racist and anti American statements. I was appalled when I visited the church's web site. I had never seen a more racist web site. It has apparently been taken down now that the Rev. Wright connection to Barack has been publicized.
Of course Barack has denied sharing the opinions of his pastor while not distancing himself from the man as a mentor and friend. He would not be where he is today while standing with Rev. Wright's Statement, "I say God Damn America!" What would you expect a politition to say? I hold that in all probability Barack Obama is a patriotic american, not a Muslim sympathizer (in spite of his mother's twice marrying a Muslim) or a racist black man. But when it comes to choosing man that could become president of the United States, should we even consider taking a chance on a man with so many items in his past that could influence his thinking in ways that could be harmful to our country? What about his wife's comment, "This is the first time in my life I have been proud of my country". Was it a gaffe or is it further evidence that we don't know their true feelings about America?
I have changed my mind. I would rather see Hillary get the nomination. If the super delegates end up making the choice of candidate, I hope they choose the "devil we know rather than the devil we don't know".
Vernon Sandel
After living through the Clinton presidency with its new scandals about every week, it was refreshing to have a black man (half black anyway) vie for the candidacy on the Democratic ticket. "Go Barack! Anyone but Hillary" summed up my attitude. Barack has a charisma about him that inspires people.
However, the more I learn about Barack Obama the more questions I have about the wisdom of choosing him to be the Democratic candidate. I didn't know his father was a Muslim. I didn't know his mother divorced the father only to marry another Muslim from Indonesia. I didn't know he belonged to a church that vilified whites and whose pastor, Rev. Wright, from the pulpit made racist and anti American statements. I was appalled when I visited the church's web site. I had never seen a more racist web site. It has apparently been taken down now that the Rev. Wright connection to Barack has been publicized.
Of course Barack has denied sharing the opinions of his pastor while not distancing himself from the man as a mentor and friend. He would not be where he is today while standing with Rev. Wright's Statement, "I say God Damn America!" What would you expect a politition to say? I hold that in all probability Barack Obama is a patriotic american, not a Muslim sympathizer (in spite of his mother's twice marrying a Muslim) or a racist black man. But when it comes to choosing man that could become president of the United States, should we even consider taking a chance on a man with so many items in his past that could influence his thinking in ways that could be harmful to our country? What about his wife's comment, "This is the first time in my life I have been proud of my country". Was it a gaffe or is it further evidence that we don't know their true feelings about America?
I have changed my mind. I would rather see Hillary get the nomination. If the super delegates end up making the choice of candidate, I hope they choose the "devil we know rather than the devil we don't know".
Vernon Sandel
Monday, March 31, 2008
God Spoke the Worlds Into Existance??
Many times I have heard preachers say, "God spoke the worlds into existence". Yes, I know that Genesis 1 says, "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light", etc. But does this mean that God spoke and that speech or sound created light? The picture I get from this is a God that is a big genie in the sky who creates things by magic. I think there is a better interpretation of this that corresponds with other scriptures.
First, we understand sound rather well in terms of pressure waves in a medium. It is difficult for me to believe such pressure waves created the earth, sun, moon, stars, and life.
Second, in John 1:1-3 we read concerning Christ, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Christ's involvement in creation is further confirmed by Paul in Col. 1:16: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."
When the scriptures use the word "God" it refers to the Father. 1 Cor. 8:6 "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
If God (the Father) said, "Let there be _____" and that created it, there is no role for Christ in creation. A better interpretation is that God said, "Let there be _____" and Christ created it. The scripture does not give a clue as to how Christ created it except in the case of the birds, animals, and humans which were formed from the ground.
Notice that in Gen. 1:20 and 24, the creation of birds and animals, the same "And God said" phrase was used as in all the previous creation verses. However, the Lord God formed the birds and animals out of the ground: Gen. 2:19 "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." From this scripture it is obvious that God did more than "speak" the the animals into existance. Thus we may assume that in the other creation days there may have been similar creative activities not specified. God said it and the Lord God (Christ) did it. This fits the pattern of the above interpretation. We are not given the details of how God created the world.
I cringe every time I hear it said, "God spoke the worlds into existence".
Address comments to: vrsandel@hotmail.com
Vernon Sandel
First, we understand sound rather well in terms of pressure waves in a medium. It is difficult for me to believe such pressure waves created the earth, sun, moon, stars, and life.
Second, in John 1:1-3 we read concerning Christ, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Christ's involvement in creation is further confirmed by Paul in Col. 1:16: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."
When the scriptures use the word "God" it refers to the Father. 1 Cor. 8:6 "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
If God (the Father) said, "Let there be _____" and that created it, there is no role for Christ in creation. A better interpretation is that God said, "Let there be _____" and Christ created it. The scripture does not give a clue as to how Christ created it except in the case of the birds, animals, and humans which were formed from the ground.
Notice that in Gen. 1:20 and 24, the creation of birds and animals, the same "And God said" phrase was used as in all the previous creation verses. However, the Lord God formed the birds and animals out of the ground: Gen. 2:19 "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." From this scripture it is obvious that God did more than "speak" the the animals into existance. Thus we may assume that in the other creation days there may have been similar creative activities not specified. God said it and the Lord God (Christ) did it. This fits the pattern of the above interpretation. We are not given the details of how God created the world.
I cringe every time I hear it said, "God spoke the worlds into existence".
Address comments to: vrsandel@hotmail.com
Vernon Sandel
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The Birth of Jesus—Harmonizing the Accounts
Why is it that when the Christmas story is told whether in sermon or movie, the total Biblically correct story is never told. Is it because of inconsistencies in the facts presented? Luke (Luke 2), for example, has Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem for a census at the time of Jesus birth, which occurred in a stable. He continues with the circumcision of Jesus on the 8th day, Mary’s purification and the sacrifice in Jerusalem required by Jewish law and then the return to Nazareth.
Matthew, on the other hand, makes no mention of Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth prior to Jesus’ birth, but leaves you to assume that they lived in Bethlehem at that time. The star announcing the birth of the “King of the Jews” and the wise men (Magi) are prominent features of the Matthew account. The wise men came to Bethlehem after visiting King Herod (Herod the Great whose official Roman title was King of the Jews), and followed the star to the house where the “young child” (not baby) was. Subsequently, Joseph was warned in a dream to flee to Egypt because Herod would try to kill the child by killing all the boys in Bethlehem who were 2 years and under (in according with the time he had learned from the Magi that the star appeared). Clearly the family was living in Bethlehem at that time. After the death of Herod the Great, the family returned to Israel, but went to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem because Herod’s son Archelaus was Tetrarch of Judea.
Movies portraying the events surrounding Jesus’ birth meld the two stories together usually by leaving out the Luke account of returning to Nazareth or by having the Magi visit the stable birthplace of Luke’s account. Neither of these scenarios fit the Biblical account. So what did happen? How can we meld the two together?
In the Luke account the family stayed in the Bethlehem area for at least 8 days. Being poor, Joseph who was a carpenter probably had to look for work during that time. Being an excellent carpenter (we presume), he may have been offered a job on a permanent basis at a wage superior to his former employment. In which case, he would take the family back to Nazareth, collect his belongings and move to Bethlehem. Thus when the Magi arrive they are living in a house as described by Matthew. Although there may be other Biblically correct scenarios which meld the two stories together, this is the one which makes most sense to me.
The difference in the two accounts of Jesus’ birth has caused another problem which is not so easily resolved: the year in which Jesus was born. Since history records the death of Herod the Great as March or April, 4 BC, Jesus must have been born before this date. If the events recorded by Matthew occurred near the end of Herod’s life, this would place the birth of Christ about 6 BC. However the Luke account places the census and birth of Jesus while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Historical records show that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 or 7 AD, after the banishment of Herod’s son Archelaus to Gaul (France) in 6 AD. This has been a problem for Bible scholars, most of whom accept the timing of Jesus birth according to the Matthew account. Tertullian, writing around 200 AD, stated that the census had been taken by Gaius Sentius Saturninus, legate of Syria from 9-6 BC rather than Quirinius.
In summary, the Matthew and Luke accounts of Jesus birth can be harmonized, but a mistake has to be acknowledged in the Luke account in naming the wrong governor of Syria.
One other point, when is the last time you stood under a star? The attempts by some to determine what the star of Bethlehem was would seem to be futile if you consider that to guide the Magi it would have to have been a light that was close to earth. Otherwise there would be no way that the Magi could have followed it.
Care to comment? You can reach me at vrsandel@hotmail.com.
Vernon Sandel
Matthew, on the other hand, makes no mention of Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth prior to Jesus’ birth, but leaves you to assume that they lived in Bethlehem at that time. The star announcing the birth of the “King of the Jews” and the wise men (Magi) are prominent features of the Matthew account. The wise men came to Bethlehem after visiting King Herod (Herod the Great whose official Roman title was King of the Jews), and followed the star to the house where the “young child” (not baby) was. Subsequently, Joseph was warned in a dream to flee to Egypt because Herod would try to kill the child by killing all the boys in Bethlehem who were 2 years and under (in according with the time he had learned from the Magi that the star appeared). Clearly the family was living in Bethlehem at that time. After the death of Herod the Great, the family returned to Israel, but went to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem because Herod’s son Archelaus was Tetrarch of Judea.
Movies portraying the events surrounding Jesus’ birth meld the two stories together usually by leaving out the Luke account of returning to Nazareth or by having the Magi visit the stable birthplace of Luke’s account. Neither of these scenarios fit the Biblical account. So what did happen? How can we meld the two together?
In the Luke account the family stayed in the Bethlehem area for at least 8 days. Being poor, Joseph who was a carpenter probably had to look for work during that time. Being an excellent carpenter (we presume), he may have been offered a job on a permanent basis at a wage superior to his former employment. In which case, he would take the family back to Nazareth, collect his belongings and move to Bethlehem. Thus when the Magi arrive they are living in a house as described by Matthew. Although there may be other Biblically correct scenarios which meld the two stories together, this is the one which makes most sense to me.
The difference in the two accounts of Jesus’ birth has caused another problem which is not so easily resolved: the year in which Jesus was born. Since history records the death of Herod the Great as March or April, 4 BC, Jesus must have been born before this date. If the events recorded by Matthew occurred near the end of Herod’s life, this would place the birth of Christ about 6 BC. However the Luke account places the census and birth of Jesus while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Historical records show that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 or 7 AD, after the banishment of Herod’s son Archelaus to Gaul (France) in 6 AD. This has been a problem for Bible scholars, most of whom accept the timing of Jesus birth according to the Matthew account. Tertullian, writing around 200 AD, stated that the census had been taken by Gaius Sentius Saturninus, legate of Syria from 9-6 BC rather than Quirinius.
In summary, the Matthew and Luke accounts of Jesus birth can be harmonized, but a mistake has to be acknowledged in the Luke account in naming the wrong governor of Syria.
One other point, when is the last time you stood under a star? The attempts by some to determine what the star of Bethlehem was would seem to be futile if you consider that to guide the Magi it would have to have been a light that was close to earth. Otherwise there would be no way that the Magi could have followed it.
Care to comment? You can reach me at vrsandel@hotmail.com.
Vernon Sandel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)