Eretzel 5: Hope and Change

As a matter of being the first with breaking news, I thought I'd take a moment to mention that William McGrath has made a slight change in Eretzel, naming one of the Antichrist's sillier minions (and Minister of Finance) Lrak Xram as a tribute to the President's program to make the US look more like Europe. (Burning banlieues, anyone?)

Now, for me this raises a few questions. As I noted earlier, while the President has disturbing ideas and traits, his scariest feature is his astounding enthusiasm for abortion. He is now on the verge of re-opening an unnecessary line of research involving embryonic stem cells--unnecessary not only because there is no known benefit from such research, but also because the cells can be obtained in innocent ways, without killing. This move further cheapens and commodifies human life--and for nothing. It is this shedding of innocent blood that could take our country past the point of no return.

That said, McGrath's concerns about the effect of Obama's policies are well-founded. For example--

Murray the Alchemist: Are you trying to turn this into the conservative version of a PBS special? Let's talk about the important thing--the cover-up!

Ansric: What are you doing back here? I thought the League of Superheroes sent you over to Frank Creed to blow up the One State.

Murray: He's got picky rules about not blowing up cities. I mean, I don't mind blowing people up one at a time, but you don't get the really good fireballs that way. And you're still not dealing with the important change.

Ansric: If you mean the claim that "Lrak Xram" is too obvious and hard to pronounce, I'll agree with the first part. It's not that hard to pronounce, though. It's just a pity that McGrath didn't spell out the "x": then he would've had "Skram," which is easier to say and a bit more amusing.

Murray: You can pronounce the thing?

Ansric: Maybe it's because I've studied Russian, but yes, I can say it. Can't you?

Murray: One of the reasons I became an alchemist was so I wouldn't have to say stuff like that. You could turn into a cabinet nominee or something. But what really bugs me isn't this change. He got rid of an explosion in an earlier version!

Ansric: Because it didn't work right. You complained about that yourself.

Murray: Yeah, but he didn't fix it! I always say, "Any explosion you can walk away from--

Ansric: Is a good one?

Murray: Is a dud! I mean, a real explosion will hurl you several feet at least. I've wound up in another kingdom a few times! That's the kind of excitement a book needs. If the Anakim had just blown up Antiochus and his buddies, they would've gotten away with it.

Ansric: Somehow I doubt it, but it might've blown Lrak's name right. But I guess all this--and I'm back to politics, now--proves that if you want real "hope and change," the magic phrase isn't "Lrak Xram" but "Maranatha!": Come, O Lord! Maybe if we had more people saying that, the country might endure. As it stands, though, Eretzel provides a warning that unfortunately many will ignore.

Don't ignore Eretzel or the tour! For more information, check out the following this week:

The Manasseh Factor

Yesterday I said I would try to justify invoking the apocalypse concerning Obama's presidency. As it happens, he has given me a case in point.

You see, while some people are sure that Obama is the Antichrist, that's a bit of a reach for me. I will agree that the sort of person who fell for his publicity and charisma would probably think the Antichrist was a wonderful person too. Such people have flunked a major test. They should try to improve with God's help.

But it's actually abortion that is the critical issue in my opinion. Let's look at one of the greatest revivals you could ask for, as recorded in 2 Kings 23. And let's start with verses 24-25:

24 Furthermore, Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem. This he did to fulfill the requirements of the law written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of the LORD.
25 Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the LORD as he did-- with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses. (NIV)

Now, given the modern emphasis on God's grace, the result is obvious: Josiah turned to God, so everything will be all right. Right?

Wrong. Enter verse 26:

26 Nevertheless, the LORD did not turn away from the heat of his fierce anger, which burned against Judah because of all that Manasseh had done to provoke him to anger.

Okay, wait--what's this about Manasseh? Well, he was heavily into idolatry and magic, but he had other bad habits too. Let's back up to 2 Kings 21:

6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced sorcery and divination, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.

Child sacrifice was a big deal then. They waited until the kid was born, but it was chucking a kid into the dumpster for personal gain, kind of like having an abortion to avoid having a kid to bother with.

But wait, there's more:

16 Moreover, Manasseh also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end-- besides the sin that he had caused Judah to commit, so that they did evil in the eyes of the LORD.

As a nation, we've been wallowing in the innocent blood of aborted children for more than thirty-five years now. We have elected the most pro-abortion president in our history. If he continues to act in favor of killing innocent people, will we not pass Manasseh's line? This is why I called him an "apocalyptically bad" choice. Left to himself, he is very likely to fill America with even more innocent blood than has already been shed, and at some point we will find we have gone too far.

What can we do? Well, we can humble ourselves and pray that God will give the president a revelation concerning how evil some of his pet policies are. God is our only hope and prayer our only weapon.

President Obama: a Christian Response

I said before the election--well before it--that I believed Obama would be an "apocalyptically bad" choice for president. He's now president anyway. But I'd like to explain my use of the word "apocalyptically" and explain how to respond to the current situation.

Actions have consequences, and in my next post I'll go into why I think the current president could lead to the destruction of the country. For now, I'll sketch the current situation for those who may not have been paying attention.

While the president does have a number of frankly disturbing traits--especially his tendency to stifle dissenting views--I admit that his stance on abortion particularly troubles me. He was one of the only senators who thought it should be legal for a doctor to reach into the birth canal, reposition the baby to come out head last, and then punch through the skull and brain at the last moment, killing the child. This is also known as "partial-birth abortion"; it's probably the most obviously evil form of abortion there is. It's also the least justifiable, because under virtually any imaginable circumstances, it's more invasive and dangerous to the mother than simply giving birth.

Yet the current president supports it. He also opposed keeping alive any kids who might survive an abortion.

On the other hand, he is the president, and as Christians we are to subordinate ourselves to the ruling authorities.

So what do we do?

To begin with, we need to repent. It doesn't bother me quite so much when the unsaved do something stupid; they're rebelling against the omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God, so they can't be that bright anyway. But when we act the same way, that's frightening. I confess that I did not deal with the election properly from a spiritual standpoint; in general, I think we did too little too late. And if you voted for killing the unborn, well, you have some repenting to do as well.

Then we should pray for the president. As we read in Proverbs 21:1, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases." God can cause him to act better than he is, and that is likely our only hope.

I also think it is reasonable and righteous to ask God to send the curse of Babel on his enemies: whenever there is an attempt to enact some wicked law or policy, may God bring confusion and division upon his enemies. This does not involve sedition on our part, and certainly no violence or even threats. Leave it in God's hands. But asking for him to bring strife upon the ungodly has a very long biblical pedigree.

Next up, my justification for invoking the apocalypse.

Single-issue voting

Some people act as though it's horrible to vote based on a single issue, especially if it's abortion. But let's consider that idea carefully.

Suppose there is a candidate whose views and policies you agree with almost 100%. On practically every issue, this candidate is perfect. However, the candidate believes that all Jews (Blacks, Asians, handicapped people, whatever) should be deported or shot. Do you still vote for that candidate?

If you would, then you're like a lot of people, even self-proclaimed Christians, who will vote for someone they supposedly disagree with on a major issue because they believe that the good outweights the bad. But in some cases, a single evil can--must--outweight any amount of good.

I expect some will cry foul, however. After all, how likely is it that a candidate will agree with you on every issue but still have one extremely odious view?

But that's my point--at least partly. You see, if someone is able to justify killing an unborn child, he can justify a lot of other things. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum; one evil will lead to another. So while abortion is a single issue, it touches on other fundamental issues.

You may say, as double-minded voters often do, that the pro-abortion candidate is anti-war and probably anti-capital punishment. But war and capital punishment do not take nearly as many lives in any given year as abortion does--and the lives taken by abortion are easily the most innocent and deserving of protection. Is it reasonable to save a hundred thousand hypothetical lives--those who may be killed in a war--at the cost of a million actual lives?