Tag: Joe Biden

Saint Or Antichrist?

Are either of these accurate? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In light of the recent assassination attempt, something humorous is both sides are using the Bible to try to back a point. The left is using this as proof that Trump is the antichrist. The right is using this as proof that Trump has an anointing of God on him. I’m not going to say either of those positions is false, but I am going to say the arguments I see being made are just horrible.

So let’s start with the easier one.

You all know I’m an orthodox Preterist so I wouldn’t be reading this in any futurist sense at all, but for the sake of argument, I’m going to take a more dispensational approach. To begin with, the Bible doesn’t say that about the Antichrist. It says that about the Beast. Now aren’t those the same person? They could be, but Revelation never says that they are. That is an assumption that is brought to the text.

For the second point, I am not saying that what happened to the president is a mere matter, but put it in proper context. The overwhelming majority of us that had a bullet graze our ear would survive. That is not surprising. What makes the Beast surprising in the text is that his wound is fatal and yet he survives it. (It’s also one of his heads as the beast has multiple heads, but again, I’m assuming a more dispensational approach here.)

About the only way you would die from a bullet to the ear is if you had hemophilia and your blood couldn’t clot properly. The fact that Trump survived this is not incredible. Had it hit him full on as it would have if he had not turned his neck and yet he survived would indeed be incredible. (And even still, it would not show he was the Antichrist.)

That one’s fairly simple, but the right side coming from evangelicals is more complex.

In the Bible the concept of blood on the right ear (Leviticus 8:22-24 and 14:28) serves as a visible mark of consecration, signifying that the person is dedicated to God’s service and has been set apart for a specific purpose. This act represents a physical and spiritual transformation, preparing the individual for their sacred role. Here’s a breakdown of the significance:

*Right ear: The right ear represents hearing and obedience. In ancient times, the right ear was considered the most important ear, as it was the ear that heard the words of God.

*Blood: Blood represents life, sacrifice, and atonement. In this context, the blood is a symbol of purification and consecration. *Consecration: Consecration means to set something or someone apart for a specific purpose, making it holy and dedicated to God. In this case, the blood on the right ear signifies that the person is being set apart for a sacred task or role.

*Priestly consecration: In Leviticus 8, the blood is applied to the right ear of Aaron and his sons, consecrating them as priests. This act sets them apart as mediators between God and the people.

*Purification: In Leviticus 14, the blood is applied to the right ear of the person being cleansed, symbolizing their purification and restoration to the community.

It’s really embarrassing to see evangelicals sharing stuff like this.

For one, yes, the right ear was anointed, but so was the thumb of the right hand and the big toe of his right foot. This was also an intentional act. No Jew today would accept being shot at to get the blood of someone. It was also done to consecrate someone as a priest, which is not the office that Trump is running for.

For Leviticus 14, it is for atonement, but it is the blood of an animal. Also, there is to be anointing oil placed on the body parts as well, and it’s the same parts of the body. In both cases, we only have one body part so this does not apply.

There are some who are saying that it was divine intervention that caused Trump to move when he did to avoid the bullet. Maybe. We don’t know. I am one who thinks it is foolish to speak when we do not know.

For those who are playing pin the tail on the Antichrist, please stop. It’s embarrassing. Yes. There have been some predictions made about Biden like that and if Kamala Harris starts running, they will be made about her. They have been made about most every political figure and every tyrant and they have all been wrong. (Aside from Nero as the beast which I hold was entirely correct.)

I am a conservative who votes that way, but I try to knock down bad arguments wherever I see them. The antichrist argument is a bad argument. The right ear anointed argument is a bad argument. If anything, the evangelicals making arguments like the above are the most embarrassing since they should know better.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Biden On Abortion

Is Biden’s answer to the abortion question a good defense of the pro-choice position? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Like many of you last night, I watched the vice-presidential debate and I was definitely pleased to hear the abortion question come up. Thankfully, Ryan did not get interrupted during what I thought was an excellent answer. Ryan got to the facts of what abortion is, which is the main question to answer. Then we turned to Biden, who like Ryan, is Catholic. Biden gave an answer that I’m sure many Christians thought would be difficult to argue against. Is it really a good response? Let’s find out.

Biden: My religion defines who I am. And I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.

Response: Of course, we would not have much problem with this. Granted, I am not a Catholic, but by and large, we would not have problems as Christians even if we’re not Catholics with the idea that we should help others who cannot take care of themselves. The difference is I would include babies in the womb at this point.

Biden: With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide. Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

Reply: Here is the key point. Biden has just said life begins at conception, which is exactly what Ryan had said earlier. This is the opinion of the RCC as well. Biden says that he accepts it personally.

Biden: But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.

Reply: For many, this sounds so good and non-judgmental and tolerant, which is what we’re taught to be. “I personally am against abortion, but I’m not going to limit your freedom to do that.”

And hey, we don’t want anyone imposing their worldview on us. Right? We don’t want to live in a theocracy or anything like that do we? What could we have against this?

Biden’s problem is that his view is imposing. Let’s look at this with what he says next.

Biden: I — I do not believe that — that we have a right to tell other people that women, they — they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court — I’m not going to interfere with that.

Reply: Once again, this fits with our modern milleu, but it assumes at the start that the life in the woman is her body, which is just its first major problem. If that life in there is something that might depend on the woman but is itself not part of the woman, then it is not the woman’s body. It is another body that is growing inside of the body of the woman.

We also do a number of times tell women they can’t control their body. If a woman goes out and strips nude in a public place, we will arrest her. It’s her body, but she is not allowed to publicly expose herself. If a woman gets drunk and tries to drive, we will arrest her for what she is doing with her own body. The idea that if someone does something with their own body then it is automatically justifiable is simply false.

Now by and large, we do let people do what they want with their own bodies, but only until they endanger the freedom of another. You have the right to free speech, but that does not mean you can use it to walk into a crowded theater and yell “Fire!” or make a threat on the life of a government official. Recently someone on Twitter, for instance, said they would assassinate Mitt Romney. While they later said it was a joke, one suspects the Secret Service might not be laughing.

Biden’s position is in fact imposing. He is imposing the idea on people that the baby in the womb is included in the woman’s body and is not a separate body. For the sake of argument, he could be right about that. That needs to be argued. If this is a life, as Biden himself has said, then Biden is essentially saying that he believes this is a new life that has come into existence and he is opposed to abortion, but he will not stop it if a woman wants to do that, even though, as said, it is a new life.

Would the same apply to a toddler? Would Biden be personally against killing a toddler, but if a woman wants to do that to her toddler, well that’s her right? As has been said, there is nothing magical about the birth canal that suddenly makes the baby a new life. The question we could ask Biden is at what point does it become wrong to kill the life and why is it at that point since you hold that life begins at conception?

We also all impose our views on another person to an extent. Every law is the imposition of someone’s view. If I’m out driving, I cannot suddenly drive on the left side of the road here in America and respond to the police officer with “Don’t impose your views of driving on me!” Every law is built on some moral basis and it is declared that a society is better if it follows that moral basis than if it does not.

What are we saying about abortion? We are making a statement about life in relation to abortion. There are people who are saying to give out contraception so there will be fewer abortions and if it is not given, we will keep having sex and you will be responsible for the abortions.

No. We’re not. We’re not responsible for what someone else does. If someone wants to avoid pregnancy, then there are contraceptives out there they can use. There are natural family planning routes as well one can take for those who do not support contraception. However, if you have sex when it is prone to bring about pregnancy and you get pregnant, the person responsible is you and the person you had sex with. (This is assuming a natural case and not the case of something like rape) If you choose to abort, you are not forced to. You choose to. (All things being equal. I know there are sad cases where a husband or boyfriend or some other figure forces an abortion.) This is simply emotional blackmail.

What needs to be asked is if this is the kind of behavior we want to promote? Do we want to promote the idea that sex is a natural act just like any other act and can be done with most anyone and anywhere, or do we want to promote the idea that sex, while a natural act, is a sacred act that is reserved for those who have given the highest level of trust to one another? Do we want to say it should happen in marriage so that children born can be raised by their biological mother and father in a stable and committed relationship?

Biden’s own position has him doing an imposition on the baby especially. The baby is denied the right to exist in this world in the name of supposed freedom of the mother. We would not allow the killing of a toddler or a young child for that reason. Why do we allow it for abortion?

The rest of what Biden says is more into political aspects I will not get into. I simply wish to point out that Biden’s argument does not work. If life begins at conception, as Biden says, then Biden is saying he thinks the taking of innocent life should be legal. This is not a position a Christian should take. It would be interesting to see if they have not spoken out already what the RCC happens to think of Biden’s position. It could be someone might not be allowed to partake of the Eucharist.

In Christ,
Nick Peters