It is a common assertion in our modern society that a person’s personal beliefs should not matter when it comes to matters of public affairs. This is especially true for their religious beliefs. Well, setting aside the fact that true Christians seem to be an exception to this rule, let me use a story I found to illustrate why a person’s religious beliefs cannot be separated from their public life.
Here is the story:
Why Ben Carson doesn’t believe in hell
And here is just one pull quote from the story, but it is a very telling quote:
He [Carson] also does not believe in hell: “I don’t believe there is a physical place where people go and are tormented. No. I don’t believe that,” he says.
OK, if a person does not believe in hell, then how can they claim to believe in Jesus? Jesus taught that hell is real. So, anyone who dismisses the reality of hell is dismissing Christ’s Gospel? So how can they claim to be a Christian? Well, before we answer that, let’s make sure Carson actually believes he is a Christian. This story will help:
Ben Carson Opposes His Christian Denomination’s Stance on This Key Controversial Issue
In this story, Carson makes a telling comment:
Carson emphasized during the AP interview that, though he believes that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is right for him, he does not focus too intently on denominational affiliation and, instead, focuses in on his faith.
“The reason that there are like 4,000 denominations is that people have looked at this and said, ‘Let’s interpret it this way. Let’s interpret it this way,’” Carson said. ”Sometimes they get caught up in that and forget about the real purpose of Christian faith.”
The ‘real purpose of Christian faith‘ is to teach and accept Christ’s Gospel message of salvation! But Carson has made several comments that demonstrate he has dismissed Christ’s Gospel and replaced it with one of his own making. The statement in the first story about denying the reality of hell is one such example, but there are others. From the Blaze story:
“I don’t see any reason why women can’t be ordained,” Carson told the Associated Press in a recent interview.
Jesus said He and the Father are in perfect agreement; and in the Old Testament, the Father (Yahweh) gave the duty of priesthood to males and only males. Now, this is not sexism. If one reads the Bible, one will find that God simply assigned certain roles to the different sexes, but God’s word makes it clear these roles are not connected to the worth of the sexes. God sees men and women as having equal value.
So Carson has created a different Jesus and a different Gospel message to suit his personal sensibilities. The Bible specifically says that anyone who does this is to be accursed. Still, most people will read this and dismiss it simply because they believe none of this has any bearing on Carson’s ability to hold public office — and they will be very wrong! Simply put, here is what Carson’s religion tells about his qualifications to hold public office:
By calling himself a Christian, then dismissing Christ’s Gospel, Carson has shown us that he feels free to dictate to God!
Now, understand what this means: the only way to do away with hell is to be above God! The only way a person can change Christ’s Gospel is to be of a higher authority than God! And by redefining the meaning of Christ’s Gospel, Carson is putting himself above God. This is the very essence of the man of lawlessness.
So, if Carson feels he has the authority re-define Christ and to re-write Christ’s Gospel — essentially, to dictate to God — then what reason do we have to believe he will hold to and uphold/defend our laws as they were intended? If Carson feels the liberty to simply ‘re-interpret’ God’s Word, what is to stop him from ‘re-interpreting’ any of our laws, least of all the Constitution? The founders told us they included oaths in our legal system so that a person would feel obligated to God to uphold their duty to the People and the law faithfully. But if Carson doesn’t even fear God enough to obey God’s Laws, if Carson believes he is empowered to just re-write them to suit his desires, then what is to stop him from doing the same with man’s laws?
Finally, before you think I am making much to do about nothing, remember: Carson has already said he sees no problem with taking away your Second Amendment rights. If a person will remove your right to self-defense, history shows that taking your right to life is just a short hop away.
The Oil for Your Lamp 
Reblogged this on The Rio Norte Line and commented:
If you support Ben Carson — even if you are not religious — you might want to read this before you vote for him.
Joe,
I think you are making much to do about nothing, taking this too
personal for a candidate that is not the nominee. Dr. Carson
does not have the power and support to take away my Second
Amendment Rights as President.
Although I had positive intentions about supporting Dr. Carson,
I have done the necessary evaluation of Dr. Carson and Senator
Ted Cruz and have come to the conclusion that I am more in the
ideology (stated policy commitments) of Senator Ted Cruz.
EdwardS
EdwardS,
I could have written this about many people. At one time, I could have written it about myself. Carson is just a prominent individual. Now, you might be right regarding Carson and the Second Amendment, but that was just another illustrative example specific to Carson. I was writing about a principle. If a person has no qualms creating their own god, or worse, re-making Christ or re-writing God’s Word, then we have no reason to believe they will conduct themselves any differently if they are elected to public office.
Naturally, you are free to still disagree, and I respect that. All I ask is that, if you disagree, please make sure you disagree with the point I am actually trying to make. I wasn’t picking on Carson, I have written about this very same issue in connection to Beck, as well
Joe,
It’s not so much that I disagree, we are both philosophical (logical)
persons of History, but I would like you to consider the changes we
encounter during the life process.
After reading Dr. Carson’s first two books, I can understand his
change since writing these books. Our ideology is under
constant attack by others who view us as opponents (enemies?)
to what they consider the truth (their philosophy).
I do agree with you that a person’s ethical, honest and trustworthy
past living experiences are the measure we have to accept to
predict future actions.
I expect your opinion and that of others that post here will cause
me to expand my research on each subject we discuss.
My interest in “The Word” has evolved into a never ending search
for The Truth, which has improved my life since taking on this
journey.
EdwardS
Well said, my friend 🙂
Your theological point is well made, but it is a fine point. Rather than a physical place, Hell is part of the afterlife – a spiritual place whose attributes are not clear to us.
With respect to Dr. Carson’s candidacy, let us consider the larger picture. America’s problems are all traceable to its moral/spiritual decline. This was promoted by the liberal/progressive left. For any of America to continue into the future, moral leadership is required. We have been divided and set against each other, with people of color being eagerly recruited by Farrakhan, Islam, and Black Lives Matter. Ben Carson is the only candidate with ‘street cred’ and an inspiring life story. He alone can make a significant contribution to pulling those groups back into the American mainstream. His deficiencies in military strategy can be covered by competent military advice, if the military has not been purged beyond usefulness. His foreign-policy should first be to replace the State Department in its entirety with people of honest Christian conviction, and then have them conduct themselves and their embassies in a moral and ethical manner; not taking bribes, arranging business deals, or overthrowing people. America was called into being to be a moral and ethical example of what applied Christianity can accomplish in the material world.
Ben Carson is the best chance for avoiding a race war. Ted Cruz will not be as credible with people of color – he sounds ‘too white’ as they would say. He would make a fantastic VP, presiding over the Senate to keep the establishment of both parties on the Constitutional straight and narrow.
Marco Rubio has some appeal to minorities, but his liberal immigration policy will hurt them the most. His fling with the Gang of Eight shows that he is easily co-opted by other power-seekers. Not good.
Carly would make a good Cabinet member, probably not Sec of State due to her speech on Iran which you excerpted.
Rand Paul for Sec of Treasury.
The rest are just there because the establishment wanted to flood the zone with ringers, and Trump blew them away.
Trump and his stand against Islam may carry the election if there are any more terrorist strikes, voters just don’t like being slaughtered. Even liberals want to live to fight another day, and Hillary doesn’t make a credible case for survival.
I fear that Cruz is the only hope of getting the ‘conservatives’ and for sure the ‘evangelicals’ to the polls. ANYONE else on the top of the ticket will reduce turnout for the GOP. This is the GOP’s fault, but it is what will happen. I say this because it is what has been happening for decades now…