Trees For Lunch

Obamacare little more than thinly disguised Social Engineering

2012-02-10T06:53:00.001-08:00

If you have a moment and this sort of thing interests you, check out George Neumayr's latest offering which pulls no punches in describing the disasterous notion of Obamacare. Here's a snippet...

"On one level, Obama is nothing more than a glib and empty pol, who careens from focus group to pollster. But on another level, buried deep within his cold and rootless personality, he is a man of perverse tenacity, a convinced socialist and secularist who was trained long ago to run the ball into the end zone for radicalism...

Such a deluded Democratic president was bound to overreach disastrously. Obamacare is a "big f -- king deal," Joe Biden whispered into his ear. And it is -- an unconstitutional coup disguised as altruistic legislation that was rammed through Congress by reckless partisan hacks who hadn't even read it.

But the central planners and social engineers from Planned Parenthood had pored over the bill carefully. The passage of the legislation left them giddy with excitement, as they knew its unread provisions would soon turn into nooses for their religious enemies on the right."

Three cheers for Neumayr for calling out Obama and his mind-numbed minions on this deliberate coup on the constitution and the American people.

Mr 'Inevitable' has now lost 5 of 8 states

2012-02-09T06:17:00.000-08:00

I just thought this was interesting. From Jeffrey Anderson over at The Weekly Standard we read...

"When Mitt Romney won the Florida primary last Tuesday by 14 percentage points, how many people in America imagined that when Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota were contested just seven days later, he would fail to win in any of them? But it wasn’t just that Romney lost. In Minnesota and Missouri, Romney failed to get even half as many votes as the winner, Rick Santorum. In Minnesota, Romney also finished 10 points behind the second-place finisher, Ron Paul (with 5 percent of precincts still outstanding). Santorum beat Romney by lopsided tallies of 55 to 25 percent in Missouri and 45 to 17 percent in Minnesota. Moreover, he beat Romney by 5 points (40 to 35 percent) in Colorado, where Romney won by 42 points (60 to 18 percent) over John McCain the last time around.

In all, the “inevitable” nominee has now lost in 5 of 8 states.

Santorum’s 30-point margin of victory in Missouri was the largest margin posted by any GOP candidate so far this year. True, no delegates were awarded as a result of that vote, but a quarter of a million Missourians still showed up and made their opinions known (more than anywhere else except for Florida and South Carolina).

What’s more, of the five largest states that have held votes so far this year (in order, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, and South Carolina), Romney has won by 14 points, lost by 30 points, lost by 28 points, lost by 5 points, and lost by 12 points."

This race is just starting to heat up and we have a long way to go. For the first time in decades, the later states in the primary process might actually get to decide matters. I thought the following information from PJ Media was interesting though...

"•The NBC-Marist poll taken right before the Florida primary showed Romney leading Gingrich by fifteen points. They asked how voters would vote in a straight Romney-Gingrich race. In a two-man race, Romney’s lead became sixteen points.

•Public Polling polled Missouri voters and found in a four-way caucus race, Gingrich led 30% to 28% for Santorum and 24% for Romney. In a two-way Gingrich-Romney race, Gingrich held a scant 43-42% lead, while in a Santorum-Romney race, Santorum led 50-37%.

•In Ohio, PPP found a similar phenomenon. Gingrich led Romney and Santorum 26-25-22%

. In a two-man race, Gingrich only led Romney by a 42-39% margin, while Santorum would lead Romney 45-38%.

•While not a scientific poll, the blog Hot Air’s reader survey gave a picture of how supporters of each candidate would react to different scenarios. Gingrich held a 45-33% lead over Romney in the most recent site survey with Santorum drawing 22% of the vote. If participants were restricted to Gingrich and Romney, the margin for Gingrich would be 57-43%, but in a two-man race, Santorum beats Romney 61-39%.

All four polls illustrate the point that Santorum voters aren’t all going to break for Gingrich, and three of the examples suggest that Santorum would do a better job of picking up Gingrich supporters than vice versa. Is this polling noise or is there a reason for this trend?"

Piper: Why was it right for God to slaughter women and children in the Old Testament?

2012-02-08T07:52:00.000-08:00

In John Piper's recent article, he gives us his take on one of the more popular objections raised by skeptics concerning the claimed holiness of God...

"Was it right for God to slaughter women and children in the Old Testament? How can that ever be right?

It's right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die.

God is taking life every day. He will take 50,000 lives today. Life is in God's hand. God decides when your last heartbeat will be, and whether it ends through cancer or a bullet wound. God governs.

So God is God! He rules and governs everything. And everything he does is just and right and good. God owes us nothing.

If I were to drop dead right now, or a suicide bomber downstairs were to blow this building up and I were blown into smithereens, God would have done me no wrong. He does no wrong to anybody when he takes their life, whether at 2 weeks or at age 92."

The response by Piper reminded me of something Brother Gregg once stated during our respective criticisms of the intellectual ~~embarrassment~~ cowardice of Dr. Richard Dawkins refusing to debate Dr William Lane Craig...

"In attempting to comment or characterize actions of God we must start with the character of God. The first question that we must ask ourselves, does God have right to make such a command? The answer is yes. Why? God is absolutely sovereign. God, as both revealed in the Scripture and defined by His character or nature has the right to exercise His absolute supremacy in accordance with His divine perfections. God is infinitely elevated above the highest creature. He is the most high and is subject to no one. God is independent and does as He pleases, only as He pleases, and always as He pleases."

While I agree with the idea that God is above reproach here, I would like to contrast Piper's view that God is intimately involved in the finer details of such affairs by actually "taking life" with a theory advanced by author Vox Day in which he mentions his view on the matter. The belief that Piper appears to hold to is referred to as "omniderigence" by Day...

"I certainly did not invent the concept(omniderigence), I merely constructed the word to describe it. It is a word I considered to be required for describing the logical and theological fallacy of those who interpret omniscience + omnipotence to equal X, X being the singular source of will and action in the universe.

It summarizes the popular idea of God as a detail-oriented puppet master and Man being without free will, merely playing out his assigned role in God's grand master Plan. This notion of an encyclopedic Plan reduces every being, great and small, to insignificant sock puppets in God's grand self-amusement, a concept which strikes me as not only psychologically nonsensical but bordering on the unbearably silly.

Despite its popularity, omniderigence is, in my opinion, a demonstrably anti-Biblical concept. The fact that God knows the number of hairs on a head or when a sparrow dies does not necessarily require Him to personally pluck them out one-by-one, or strike down the sparrow on the oak tree instead of the one on the birch."

I would only add one final thought. A certain apologist (I don't recall right now exactly which one) once stated that God, assuming He exists, is a very different creature than us human beings. And since He is quite different, and eternal, then it follows that maybe He has a much different view of death than we fallible humans do in this plane of existance. We seem to be caught up in the here and now and often view events from the standpoint of this temporary existance. What if God is going to make everything allright for a particular person and 'dry every tear' 500 years from now? Or a thousand? Just thought I'd throw that out there for discussion. Feel free to leave your thoughts below.

Obama muzzles Catholic chaplains

2012-02-07T05:43:00.000-08:00

As Obama's poll numbers plummet, it seems that in the waning days of his soon to be one-term presidency that there is a greater urgency to implement his ideals for a leftist utopia. Why worry about violating Freedom of Religion and Free Speech rights when you have a shot at remaking society?

"The Obama administration has been accused of telling Catholic military chaplains what they can and cannot say from their pulpits after the Army ordered Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners from their archbishop.

The Secretary of the Army feared the letter could be viewed as a call for civil disobedience.

The letter called on Catholics to resist the policy the Obama Administration’s policy that would force institutions affiliated with religious groups to provide coverage for birth control, sterilization and “abortifacients.” The Catholic Church believes the mandate represents an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told Fox News Sunday the Army violated its chaplains’ constitutional rights by barring them from reading the letter – calling for resistance to the contraceptive coverage mandate.

“The Army and the Obama administration said they couldn’t even issue the letter to complain about the Obama administration’s plan on this policy,” Santorum said, calling it a violation of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

“This is the problem when government tells you they can give you things,” said Santorum, a Catholic. “They can take it away but even worse they can tell you how they are going to exercise this new right consistent with their values instead of the values guaranteed in the Constitution.”

For a better idea of what of Archbishop Broglio's letter contained, just click here. The increasingly authoritarian stance of this administration imposing it's will on Americans is troubling and its no wonder that Americans fear the reelection of Obama by a 2 to 1 margin.

A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation

2012-02-06T06:47:00.000-08:00

"For all the hype in republican circles about getting behind the eventual nominee, the MSM seems to be pretty quite about these recent poll results...

"Minnesota looks like a toss up with any of the four candidates having some shot at winning. Santorum holds a small edge there with 29% to 27% for Romney, 22% for Gingrich, and 19% for Paul...

Tuesday has the potential to be a big day for Rick Santorum. In addition ... a Missouri survey we conducted last weekend found him with 45% to 34% for Romney and 13% for Paul. Given how quickly things have moved in this race I wouldn't assume Santorum still has that lead, especially given the momentum Romney has after big wins in Florida and Nevada. But nevertheless it looks like Santorum has a decent chance at wins in Minnesota and Missouri, and a second place finish in Colorado. 72 hours from now he may have supplanted Gingrich as the top alternative to Romney."

I say let this whole thing play out and may they best man win. It will only make for a stronger candidate and I don't think Santorum has even hit his stride yet.

Mittleberg on the Problem of Evil and Suffering

2012-02-04T13:34:00.001-08:00

A recent article over at Christianpost.com highlights 7 Points of Light as put together by apologist Mark Mittleberg. Although they are not in any particular order, I will highlight a few of them for discussion here if anyone is interested.

"First point of light: the world is as Jesus predicted
Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble;" it's good to know that we follow a Savior who really gets it – who sees this fallen world for what it is, and who (contrary to many other religious leaders) tells us the truth about it."

Skeptics often fail to realize that if humans, through their own strivings, could attain a scientific, secular utopia where evil and suffering do not exist, this would provide evidence to disprove the existance of God. Instead, it is just as Jesus said it would be.

"Second point of light: evil was not created or caused by God
The Bible is clear: God is not the author of evil. But he did create us as real human beings with the ability to love and follow him … or not. Unfortunately we chose the "not," and brought sin and evil into the picture.

Third point of light: the cause behind most suffering is human
While it doesn't remove the pain, it can be important to remind people who are tempted to shake their fists at God for the suffering in the world that the vast majority of human pain has been inflicted directly or indirectly by other humans."

Apparently, God did not set out to create robots, but humans. Along with creating humans, He gave us the capacity to utterly accept Him or reject Him. It seems that God is not into coercion and one may accept or reject him based on the existing evidence, general revelation or special revelation. Since we have this capacity for such a wide range of reactions to God and His plan for us, people are capable of many different things ranging from good to evil.

Check out all of the points Mittleberg raises and feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment box below.

(Above image- Ugandan madman dictator, Idi Amin)

Republican Science

2012-02-02T06:18:00.001-08:00

Writer David Klinghoffer's latest offering highlights the divide between Republicans and Democrats insofar as how the two groups think scientific theories should be viewed and and the role they should play in our daily lives...

"What's wrong with Republicans, anyway? Scientists and journalists offer a variety of diagnoses. Some say a backwoods element in the population has abandoned the Enlightenment, a result of poor education or religious fundamentalism or both.

Other experts find no convincing sociological explanation and opt for a more scientific (or scientific-seeming) approach, pointing to faulty brain chemistry. A forthcoming book title by journalist Chris Mooney says it all: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality...

In coverage of the evolution debate, for example, Darwin defenders have convinced many journalists that only two sides exist: Darwinists themselves versus advocates of a naïve Scriptural view that insists the world is just thousands of years old.

But most Americans understand that a more credible view exists, one that accepts a history of life going back more than 3 billion years but that doubts blind Darwinian forces can account for life's development, seeing, instead, evidence of purpose and design.

There is a persistent sense that we are being manipulated by fellow citizens who use the prestige of the word "science," coupled with the technique of the excluded middle, to intimidate us in service to a political agenda. Not just any political agenda, but one that violates our own experience of who, as human beings, we really are.

At stake is an anthropological view that, on "scientific" grounds, equates humans with animals who climbed too high in their own estimation and need an attitude adjustment. In this picture, government plays the role of zookeeper. We need our modes of transportation and industrial production tightly constrained, our diets controlled, our claim of possessing marks of divine intention or favor firmly denied, our offspring available immediately from conception to be consumed for medical research...

..It's not "science" that we deny but this effort to redefine man in the name of science that we resist."

The entire article is a great read if you have the chance to peruse it in it's entirety.

Meanwhile, over at the DI, their staff has put together a list of 50 peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting the theory of Intelligent Design. Feel free to bookmark that one for the next time you encounter the snarky, internet materialist who tries pushing the fallacy that 'there is no peer-reviewed science' when it comes to Intelligent Design.

Komen Foundation beginning to smell the coffee

2012-02-01T07:43:00.001-08:00

Great news today from our friends over at CBN. It seems that radical femi-nazi doctrine is beginning to lose hold over at least one institution...

"The Susan G. Komen Foundation, the nation's leading breast cancer charity, is severing financial partnerships with some Planned Parenthood affiliates.

The move from the foundation comes as Congress investigates whether Planned Parenthood improperly used public money for abortions.

"While it is regrettable when changes in priorities and policies affect any of our grantees, such as a long-standing partner like Planned Parenthood, we must continue to evolve to best meet the needs of the women we serve and most fully advance our mission," the foundation said in a statement issued Tuesday.

Founded in 1982, Komen has invested more than $1.9 billion in breast cancer research, health services and advocacy. Its Race for the Cure fundraising events have become a global phenomenon."

I realize that they said only 'some' Planned Parenthood affiliates would be affected, but we'll take what we can get at this point. I could never understand why an organization that is so committed to helping women would contribute to another organization that, at the same time, is actively and selectively destroying women.

Malkin: Santorum for President

2012-01-30T07:56:00.000-08:00

If you get a chance, check out the latest article from Michelle Malkin in which she lays out her argument in favor of electing Rick Santorum for president. In it she she accurately decribes (IMO) the other candidates in the primary race and highlights way the obvious choice should be Santorum. The article is filled with numerous links supporting her position and you can spend an hour checking them all out.

Mark Steyn summed it up accurately last week in reference to the current crop of candidates running for the GOP nomination. To paraphrase, he basically said that he wished Calvin Coolidge was running for the GOP nomination, but for whatever reason (chiefly among them that he's been dead for 80 years) he has decided not to throw his hat in the ring this time. These are the four candidates we have. These are the ones we have to choose from. Let's get behind one of them and defeat Obama!

Thank You Georgia!

2012-01-28T10:16:00.000-08:00

Finally a state has the cahones to stand up to the legal bullies utilized by Obama...

"In the courtroom of Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, sworn testimony was delivered rapid-fire over two hours to the effect that Obama is not qualified to have his name on the 2012 presidential ballot because his father was not a U.S. citizen, which precludes him from being a “natural-born citizen,” a clear, unambiguous requirement of the Constitution.

Obama refused to honor a subpoena to attend the hearing, produce records answering the charges or even send legal representation to dispute the evidence. Instead, they sent a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp suggesting the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.”

In response, Kemp warned Obama and his counsel that if they chose not to participate in the proceedings, “you do so at your own peril.”

The judge is expected to rule in the case shortly. However, he has little choice but to issue a default judgment in favor of the challenge – potentially removing Obama from the ballot in Georgia in November.

That would be an astonishing development to the major media in this country that have collectively scoffed at and caricatured the notion that there is any doubt as to Obama’s eligibility."

Already the blogosphere is abuzz as to whether the excuse of health or family will be offered up for Obama's soon-to-be abrupt exit from presidential politics. I find it particularly hilarious that the supposed 'scientific evidence based' left competely accepted on face value the Obama nativity account without ever asking for solid evidence on the matter. It's particularly side-splitting because they made John McCain jump through hoops to demonstrate his eligibility.

Obama alienating the Catholic Left

2012-01-25T07:34:00.001-08:00

Liberal Catholics reliably voted for a complete unknown in 2008 and were hoping for the best. It seems that now some are coming to the realization that they've been had and that the person that they put in office isn't quite so hopey-changey as they desired and instead is ramming mandatory birth control/sterilization coverage by employers down their collective throats. Conscientoius objector? Not allowed in the New World Order of Obama...

"The liberal Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, blogged that he "cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience"—and he urged people to fight it. Another liberal favorite, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., has raised the specter of "civil disobedience" and vowed that he will drop coverage for diocesan workers rather than comply. They are joined in their expressions of discontent by the leaders of Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, which alone employs 70,000 people.

In the run-up to the ruling, the president of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins, suggested a modest compromise by which the president could have avoided most of this strife. That would have been by allowing the traditional exemption for religious organizations. That's the same understanding two of the president's own appointees to the Supreme Court just reaffirmed in a 9-0 ruling that recognized a faith-based school's First Amendment right to choose its own ministers without government interference, regardless of antidiscrimination law.

A few years ago Father Jenkins took enormous grief when he invited President Obama to speak at a Notre Dame commencement; now Father Jenkins finds himself publicly disapproving of an "unnecessary government intervention" that puts many organizations such as his in an "untenable position."

Here's just part of what he means by "untenable": Were Notre Dame to drop coverage for its 5,229 employees, the HHS penalty alone would amount to $10 million each year.

The irony, of course, is that the ruling is being imposed by a Catholic Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, working in an administration with a Catholic vice president, Joe Biden. A few years back the voluble Mr. Biden famously threatened to "shove my rosary beads" down the throat of those who dared suggest that his party's positions on social issues put it at odds with people of faith. Does he now mean to include Mr. Winters, Cardinal Mahony and Father Jenkins?"

Barry is doing a wonderful job of alienating a core group that supported him in 2008. One thing that liberals never seem to like to admit or are completely oblivious to is the authoritarian streak inherent in alot of liberal policies and ideas. Their ideas aren't popular to begin with and the only way they can implement them is through judicial rulings and presidential orders rather than any sort of debate and subsequent voting by congress.

A day with Senator Rick Santorum

2012-01-23T05:45:00.001-08:00

The Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach was the setting yesterday for a visit by presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who attended the morning worship service and delivered about 20 minutes worth of remarks...

"His (Santorum's) remarks there focused on his personal journey as a Christian, which he said infused his overall views.

"Faith plus family equals freedom in America," Santorum said. "So many ways the brokenness that we see in America is the brokenness of the foundational pillars that we see in society…. I'm the candidate who understands the foundation upon which everything else is built, and that's faith and family.

"If you want to fix the economy in this country, let's do something about fixing the families in this country," he said.

He also said many of the nation's ills, including economic difficulties, would be fixed if men and women got married before having children. He has a long history of opposition to issues important to gays and lesbians, and he repeatedly emphasized his opposition to gay marriage.

Santorum, who is strongly anti-abortion, detailed his years-long fight to outlaw the procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

Earlier Sunday, Santorum said he has no intention of dropping out of the Republican presidential race."

The Shark Tank.net has put up a video of Santorum's remarks at the church that I was privileged to attend yesterday. As the field of potential republican candidates now stands at four, it is becoming increasingly clear that Santorum is the best candidate still standing. I agree with Santorum about 90% of the time on a variety of issues. However, he doesn't seem to have Gingrich's long line of extra baggage, seems more firmly grounded in conservative principals than Romney, and doesn't subscribe to the 'Blame America-Isolationist' stance adopted by libertarian Ron Paul that doesn't play very well outside his circle of fervent supporters.

Here's to hoping for a long and fruitful electoral process in which the candidates debate and offer up solutions and a number of states weigh in with their thoughts on the issues rather than just the first few in line.

EDIT: A special shout-out to Tea Party Ft Lauderdale which was well represented at yesterday's service. Such a 'Rainbow Coalition' on public display would be enough to give Jesse Jackson conniptions! HA!

On MLK and Homosexuality

2012-01-19T05:52:00.000-08:00

As I have previously mentioned, the Gay Left has done a masterful job at selling people on the fallacy of comparing the drive to redefine 'marriage' to the struggle for civil rights during the decade of the 1960's. While the Pink Hand pushes this faulty comparison, one thing they never seems to be asked is to produce a single person who has ever left behind the 'black lifestyle' to heal emotional pain while the list is nearly endless of those who are no longer homosexual.

A recent Christian Post article takes a look back at the man who was the most iconic figure of Civil Rights era, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and examines in his own words what Dr. King thought about homosexuality. In a letter published in a 1958 edition of Ebony magazine a young reader expresses that he has same-sex attractions and and this was Dr King's reply...

"The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King responded in the 1958 column. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it."

So we don't see Dr King telling the young man to embrace a homosexual identity, calls his same-sex attraction a 'problem' and then suggests that he can be delivered from such desires. Somehow I don't think this will go over well with the Wayne Besen/Dan Savage/Lady Gaga crowd, but since when were they ever concerned with facts to begin with?

""I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he [MLK] did not take a bullet for same-sex unions" Rev Bernice King, daughter of MLK

A Refreshingly Honest View of How an Atheist Perceives Morality

2012-01-17T06:16:00.001-08:00

For those who are Political Science/Pop Philosophy enthusiasts like myself, today's in-depth article by Robert P. Kraynak is pure gold. In it, Kraynak takes a close look at the writings of American philosopher and atheist Richard Rorty. Kraynak demonstrats brilliantly how atheists are basically moral parasites, absorbing the morality of the culture they live in. For example, check out this quote from Rorty that Kraynak mentions...

"With intentional irony, Rorty describes people like himself as “free-loading atheists.” He also displays exquisite sensitivity to human dignity in making this admission: he imagines “a child found wandering in the woods, the remnant of a slaughtered nation,” and asks if such a lost person should have “no share in human dignity.” He explains:

'..it does not follow that she may be treated like an animal. For it is part of the tradition of our community that the human stranger from whom all dignity has been stripped is to be taken in, to be reclothed with dignity. This Jewish and Christian element in our tradition is gratefully invoked by free-loading atheists like myself.... The existence of human rights, in the sense in which it is at issue in this meta-ethical debate, has as much or as little relevance to our treatment of such a child as the question of the existence of God. I think both have equally little relevance'.

Rorty’s point is that seeing a lost child wandering around as a naked, shivering homeless person inspires in him a strong sense of moral duty to “reclothe” that person with dignity (an elegant phrase), but not because he believes in God or in Kantian moral duties and rights. His justification is that he is part of a community of moral traditions inherited from Judaism and Christianity, which teaches us to care for a homeless person like the Good Samaritan would do. The problem is that our belief in God or rationally grounded moral duties turns out to be relevant after all: we have and need these beliefs, too, because we have been so taught by “the tradition of our community.” Rorty argues that we can subscribe to parts of our inherited traditions simply because they are inherited, but offers no grounds for why we can adhere to some parts and not others. He is thus a “free-loading atheist” because he lives off of the moral inheritance of the biblical tradition without contributing to it, and even while undermining it."

Kraynak goes on to point out the authoritarian streak prevelent in atheism through Rorty's musings..

"..'When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists ... we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank....

I do not claim to make the distinction between education and conversation on the basis of anything except my loyalty to a particular community, a community whose interests required re-educating the Hitler Youth in 1945 and required re-educating the bigoted students of Virginia in 1993. I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [free from moral authoritarianism] about my handling of my fundamentalist students. Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.... It seems to me that I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause. I come from a better province.'

Rorty’s technique is to use disarming candor in referring to himself as a benevolent Nazi rather than a rational educator, and in admitting that he is not free of moral authoritarianism. The effect is to shock or lull the reader into overlooking the contradiction between claiming his views are merely contingent on his accidental upbringing (namely, that he comes from a different province than Nazis or his bigoted students) while also claiming that he is “benevolent” rather than “vicious” and serves a “better cause.” In other words, Rorty says that he imposes his political views on others simply because he is more willful, while also claiming that his views are objectively better than Nazi ideology or religious fundamentalism. Yet he feels no obligation to give a rational justification for the moral superiority of his beliefs: he simply enjoys the luxury of imposing justice without foundations."

There is ALOT of information in the Kraynak article and if anyone would like to offer up their thoughts on it, please feel free to do so in the comment box below.

The Blunt Truth Re: The Removal of Homosexuality from the list of Diagnostic and Statistical Mental Disorders by the APA

2012-01-16T06:44:00.000-08:00

The sad fact of the matter is that homosexuality was depathologized by the American Psychological Association in 1973 NOT through the results of any sort of research or groundbreaking experiments, but through pressure, intimidation and threats levied at the group by radical gay activists. If anyone is in doubt about the preceding sentence, then they are welcome to cite the specific study (or studies) at the time that the APA based their decision on. I can save you the trouble of looking though, because such studies/experiments simply do not exist. Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays (pfox.org) has a highly informative and detailed article about those on the front lines of such discussions at the time and I encourage everyone to check it out if they get the chance.

I would like to thank Ryan Sorba for putting together a great entry on the subject. Check it out at his blog if you get the chance. Here's a brief exerpt to whet your appetite...

"Despite being discredited in April of 1993 by the official journal of the American Psychological Association, American Psychologist, ('Life long hard-left political activist, psychologist and UCLA professor Evelyn') Hooker’s is the only study discussed in the APA’s 2003 amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, the United State Supreme court case which suspended the power of states to enforce anti-sodomy laws. Even today, more than fifty years after its publication, and fifteen years after its being exposed as contrived, her study is the only paper referenced in detail on the main website of the American Psychological Association in its discussion of “Gay” and “Lesbian” issues, as it attempts to make the case that there is no evidence for an association between Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD), Adult Same-Sex Intercourse (ASSI), and psychopathology.

The controversial claims of Hooker garnered her almost instant recognition within homosexualist circles, and in the wake of the Stonewall riots in 1969, as politics began to trump science, militant activists increasingly relied on Hooker’s study to support their demands that the APA remove homosexuality from the DSM."

It has been said that in the upcoming years, the church will increasingly become leaner and moved more towards the periphery of society as it continues to speak truth to power, no matter how inconvenient said truth is to those who don't wish to hear it. The Gay Left is doing a masterful job in arguing their position from a historical standpoint by comparing the advancement of the extremist homosexual agenda with the civil rights struggles of the 1960's when the comparison couldn't be any more faulty if they tried. All such activists need are people to rally around their cause utilizing emotional rather than factual arguments and they can experience success. Given that the majority of leftist talking points are based on emotion rather than FACTS, such activists already have a built-in audience of uncritically thinking lemmings to peddle their nonsense to and convince that they are somehow advancing 'rights' when nothing could be further from the truth.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Mike Goeke hit one outta the park with his latest entry over at Baptist Press as to how the church should consider and proceed on the topic of homosexuality. Link

The Faulty Comparison Between Mormonism and Orthodox, Mainstream Christianity

2012-01-14T09:13:00.000-08:00

In an online debate not long ago, I was basically asked if I believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, then why not Mormonism. I basically followed up that question with the fact that none of the eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection and post-mortem appearances ever recanted or changed their testimony and the same cannot be said for the earliest followers of Joseph Smith/Mormonism. If I had thought about it a little more, I would have added that there has been exactly ZERO evidence ever unearthed by archaeologists that supports the Book of Mormon's 'Ancient America' account.

Columnist Mark Shea however, over at the National Catholic Register does a masterful job of delineating where one can have a reasonable faith when it comes to Christianity and the claims made by Mormonism.

"As to the comparison with Mormonism, there are three problems:

First, Joseph Smith is the sole witness to the claims he makes. Everybody else is a true believer, but does not themselves claim to have seen Moroni or the rest of it. In the case of Christ, there are over five hundred eyewitnesses. That’s a lot of opportunity for somebody to crack under threat of torture or murder and spill the beans on how the whole thing was (as it had to be if false) a lie and a fraud. Nobody ever did.

Second, where is the St. Paul of Mormonism? He’s a very anomalous figure and hard to explain apart from an encounter with the Risen Christ.

Finally, the apostles didn’t just die martyr’s deaths, they lived martyr’s lives. Joseph Smith, in comparison, grew in wealth and power (not to mention that manly dream of multiple wives) right up until he went down (guns blazing) in a gunfight with the mob that came to get him. One looks in vain for the traces of the apostolic martyrs hacking away at their persecutors with swords. Indeed, the gospels actually record (again and again) the embarrassing vignette of Peter whacking off Malchus’ ear in order to make clear that this sort of thing was Conduct Unbecoming an Apostle.

It’s one thing to die as a sucker for a lie told by Joseph Smith (as some Mormons did). It’s quite another thing to die for a lie told by oneself (as the apostles did if the Resurrection is false). Joseph Smith, blasting away at his enemies, shows us how liars die. The apostles, going with dignity to a variety of awful deaths, show us how honest men die."

Check out his entire article if you have the time to do so, especially if you have an interest in apologetics. It's so wonderfully written and I didn't even get to quote the parts in it in which he demolishes many of the common arguments raised by the so-called 'New Atheists'.

(Above image: Deseret blue flag)

3:16

2012-01-10T04:32:00.000-08:00

GetReligion.org is reporting that in the 2009 BCS Championship Game, quarterback Tim Tebow wore the verse John 3:16 on the black tape under his eyes and Tebow has said that this is his favorite Bible verse. Tebow wearing that particular verse in this all important college game caused approximately 92 million people to google [John 3:16] and eye messaging was soon afterward banned for all players. Can't have people sharing any Good News now, can we?

In last Sunday's highly improbable overtime victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers, quarterback Tim Tebow passed for 316 yards in leading the Denver Broncos to victory. Coincidence? Maybe.

Tebow completed 10 passes in accumulating 316 yards in Sunday's upset win. Not 9 passes or 11 passes, but 10. Thus in the all important important statistic of his average yards per completion, Tebow averaged 31.6 yards per completion. Coincidence? Maybe.

Apparently the the overtime period of the game drew a 31.6 televison rating. Coincidence? Awww, c'mon man!

EDIT: Now Baptist Press is reporting that Pittsburgh's time of possession for the game was 31 minutes and 6 seconds. You can't make this stuff up.

The Mainstream Media's Anti-Christian Template: Catholicism

2012-01-09T06:45:00.000-08:00

One of the prevailing templates utilized by the drive-by, mainstream media is to portray Catholic priests as largely prone to pederasty and the sexual abuse of minors. If one is in doubt concerning how effective the media's ongoing Jihad against Christianity has been in stigmatizing Catholic priests, simply read this exchange that Archbishop Timothy Dolan had with a man while waiting at an airport. An article out today contains an interview with author Dave Pierre who as written extensively about the acutely uneven coverage in the media concerning priest abuse scandals when compared to similar stories coming from other professions. Here are some of the highlights from the interview...

"I would frequently look at the Los Angeles Times. A number of years ago, I noticed that the paper published a very large, 3,800-word piece on the front page about decades-old abuses that were alleged to have been committed by Catholic clergy in remote villages of Alaska. Indeed, many of the stories were heart-wrenching, painful, and tragic. However, months later, the shocking story of a Southern California teacher who may have molested as many as 200 children was buried on page B3. I soon began to notice a trend: the Times was often giving front-page coverage to stories about Catholic priests alleged to have committed abuse decades ago. Meanwhile, arrests of public school teachers for abuse happening today were often not reported or buried in the “news briefs” section. The double standard was glaring.

Just a few years back, 13 administrators at the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) received an office memo stating that police had arrested an assistant principal and were “investigating allegations that he had an unlawful sexual relationship with a minor.” Yet a few months later, the district reassigned this principal to another school—where he raped again. None of the 13 administrators whose names were on that memo lost their jobs, and the local media did not seem too interested in reporting this fact. And in another incident at the LAUSD, two administrators pleaded guilty and no contest, respectively, in a court of law to the misdemeanor of failing to report the suspected rape of a 13-year-old girl at their school. Where are they now? They are still working at LAUSD—with promotions. It is not hard to imagine that if these episodes had involved the Catholic Church, the national media would have had quite a field day. Instead, few people outside of Los Angeles are even familiar these stories."

These are just a couple of examples and the cited article contains many more. I don't doubt that clergy should be held to a higher standard than many of us, but so should anyone who is entrusted with caring for children. I doubt such anti-Christian bigotry is going away anytime soon, but kudos to Mr. Pierre for shining a light on the practice of unfairly characterizing Catholic priests.

Is Rick Santorum anti-gay?

2012-01-07T09:36:00.001-08:00

It seems that CNN and other news outlets are trumpeting the report that Rick Santorum was booed by some members of the audience while speaking recently at New England College.

"One man asked Santorum about his opposition to same-sex marriage, which is legal in New Hampshire. The candidate quickly picked a fight with the crowd, which seemed to support same-sex unions.

"So anyone can marry anyone else?" Santorum asked, swiftly turning the conversation to polygamy. "So anyone can marry several people?"

The crowd objected and tried to talk over him.

"I tried," he offered reporters as he left the conference center."

I don't really see Santorum's answer as trying to change the subject from gay marriage to polygamy as some outlets are characterizing the exchange. I think that Santorum was merely trying to ascertain from his inquisitors if they thought that there should be any limits whatsoever as to what should define the term 'marriage'. It could be argued then, that if any of them thought there should be at least some level of exclusivity in what constitutes marriage, then Santorum then feels the same way, there being only a matter of degree as to where the terminator line for such exclusivity should be drawn.

Meanwhile, in a refreshingly open and honest exchange with "moronic, liberal ass-clown" Chris Matthews, former Santorum staffer for 10 years and openly gay man Robert Traynham, thoroughly rejected the idea that Santorum is in any way personally against gay people, insisting that he was 'openly out' with Santorum.

"An interesting interview with Robert Traynham, Rick Santorum's former aide of ten years appeared on today's Hardball with Matthews. Traynham tells Chris, "I was openly out to him." and then goes on to defend Rick's character and beliefs. An important interview considering the angle the media and the Democrat Party will take in trying to sink Santorum's campaign."

Check out the 3 minute video on the above links I provided if you have the time. Traynham seems quite passionate in his defense of Santorum and after working with him for 10 years, you would think he would have some idea as to whether Santorum is in any way homophobic and the evidence seems to bear out that he decidedly is not.

Well thought out defense of traditional marriage from Catholic World Report

2012-01-06T07:18:00.001-08:00

While browsing the internet today, I came across a well put together piece at The Catholic World Report by Mark Brumley. Among the arguments concerning marriage that I encounter on the World Wide Web are from more Libertarian friends who seem to think that 'government should get out of the marriage business altogether.' I will list some of the better points raised by Brumley (IMO) below...

"Those libertarians and conservatives who argue in favor of so-called privatization of marriage do not adequately consider a key point regarding it: the public interest in government encouraging couples who engage in procreative kinds of acts publically and legally to commit themselves exclusively and permanently to one another and, by implication, to their offspring, should they have any. The legal institution of marriage encourages such commitment between sexually-active heterosexual couples.

Why does government have a stake in this? Because it has a stake in encouraging the parents to provide a stable, loving, committed relationship as the morally best environment for raising children. Government has a stake in encouraging couples together to raise their children and to provide examples for their children of parental relationship. Children, after all, are the future of the state. They provide the foundation for society’s future success or failure, so government has an interest in encourage certain behaviors in relation to children and in discouraging others."

The entire article is a good read and Brumley gets more into the child-rearing aspect further on in it. One of the most important first steps in taking on Leftist bigots who enjoy stifling rational discussion through feel-goody, appeal-to-emotional rhetoric is to immediately take emotional arguments off the table and get down to verifiable, empirical evidence. Once that occurs the anti-free speecher is then diminished to the poorly informed, mindless lemming that they are. That doesn't necssarily mean that they are bad people, just that they swallowed hook-line-and-sinker a poorly thought out position based on emotionalism rather than actually thinking the issue through to it's logical conclusion.

Are atheists mean-spirited?

2012-01-05T05:30:00.000-08:00

I'm sure there are plenty of tatheists out there who really could not care less that there are other people out there that believe in God, it's just that I don't run into alot of them on the internet. Much more often, I encounter the snarky know-it-all types who oftentimes refuse to answer hard questions concerning their own, pet beliefs when confronted with serous questions that challenge them.

In a recent article in World magazine, Janie B. Cheaney examines some of the circumstantial evidence that atheists tend to be self-absorbed and mean-spirited...

"Can I prove that atheists tend to hold a low view of mankind? There's plenty of circumstantial evidence. One is the position they stake out for themselves as more intelligent, courageous, and honest than the general run. Two is an argument that pops up frequently in skeptical circles: If God were such a creative genius, wouldn't He have done a better job? Especially with humans? Three is the scarcity of benevolent works founded by atheists. I'm sure there are some, but their names don't spring readily to mind like, say, Samaritan's Purse, Catholic Charities, and the hundreds of hospitals named for a Saint.

Seen on Answerblog.com: "How do atheists express their love for the rest of humanity?" Answer: "You don't need religion to express love, you complete idiot. Why are all your questions so ignorant?" Genuinely warmhearted atheists exist, but warmheartedness is not the first descriptive quality that comes to mind. The more vocal ones betray themselves sooner or later: To reject God is almost always to despise people."

The above quotation reminds me of a past entry by Vox Day who related..

"The atheists with whom I do have a problem, and for whom I regularly demonstrate a great deal of contempt, are the liars, the cheats, the deceivers, and the malicious. If one genuinely believes that religion is a crutch for the weak and psychologically needed, what does it say about those who are so eager to kick that crutch out from under those who clearly need its support? And, as an armchair intellectual, I find their willful ignorance of history, religion, and philosophy to be as astonishing as it is irksome. Intelligent? I don't even consider them to be educated. To claim that religion either causes war or is an important strategic element of war is to be every bit as ignorant as the apocryphal Flat Earth proponents so often cited; the significant difference being that the Religion Causes War Society not only exists but is even willing to expound their ludicrous and historically illiterate arguments in public."

The Ongoing Gayification of Abraham Lincoln

2012-01-04T06:22:00.000-08:00

Mark Judge has a fabulous article out today concerning the interesting choice for director of the upcoming Steven Spielberg movie about the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. It seems Mr. Spielberg chose radical gay director Tony Kushner to direct the biopic and let's just say that Kushner's past dealings with supposed 'history' have been a bit slanted to say the least. For instance, Judge mentions that in Kushner's 1993 play Angels in America, he has the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg visit an elderly Roy Cohn on his deathbed and admonishing him, even though history bears out that she and her husband Julius had been truly guilty of espionage.

Judge surmizes what he expects the film to contain concerning Lincoln...

"Kushner, like most liberal fanatics, is a preacher and a zealot. His form of liberalism, like so much liberalism today, is coercive. He won’t be able to stop himself until he has Lincoln in bed with another man and is able to convince the audience that Lincoln’s marriage to Mary Todd Lincoln was a betrayal of his real self and a duet to the virtually Stone Age morality of the 1860s. It will be another version of the hetero-domestic hell of dippy women and screaming toddlers in “Brokeback Mountain.” There will be plenty of other ham-fisted political messaging. We’ll see the ghoulish, toothless redneck Southerners, who will be the Nazis of the film and the stand-ins for the modern GOP. There will be the saintly slaves, whose beatings and misery will be graphic and reinforce our guilt over Evil America. There will be breathtaking battle scenes thanks to Spielberg. And above it all, the first and greatest gay progressive to occupy the White House, Honest Abe."

Let's all hope judge is wrong on this one. However, given Kushner's past record of accomplishments, I'm not holding out much hope that Judge being incorrect will actually wind up being the case.

Is London tilting more Christian?

2012-01-03T05:27:00.001-08:00

At least in this more secular part of Europe, there seems to be a trend to move back towards the Church...

"..slowly but surely, the St Mary’s congregation seems to be swelling. Over the last 12 months, attendance at the main Sunday service at the church (where my wife Martine is curate) has risen by nearly 20 per cent, from around 95 to 115. Though much of this is down to Harvey’s hard work and charisma, the growing popularity of St Mary’s is part of a much wider and very striking phenomenon.

Church attendances, in freefall for so long, have started to rise again, particularly in Britain’s capital city. Numbers on the electoral rolls are increasing by well over two per cent every year, while some churches have seen truly dramatic rises in numbers.

Change is afoot. For many years it was accepted that Christianity was all but dead, an anachronistic relic of the past whose foundations had been destroyed by modern science and rationalism, before being left behind by the cultural and sexual revolution of the Sixties. The figures seem to bear this out."

And thank goodness for that. Its sad that one of the premier nations in all of Christendom had to abandon the faith that sustained her for all those years only to begin realizing that secularism is so cold and empty and at least the Church offers hope.

Demolishing the idea that 'there's no such thing as an ex gay'

2011-12-30T10:05:00.000-08:00

"NPR should have tried to find individuals that were not 'ex-gay for pay.' Truth Wins Out always challenges journalists to find such people and they come up empty handed," he wrote on his group's website. "This speaks to the fact that there is no genuine 'ex-gay' movement, just a high-dollar, politically motivated marketing campaign to create the appearance that such people exist in large numbers." Wayne Besen, Link

That ex gays abound is an undeniable fact. I would only agree with the idea that there are no 'ex gays' if it is meant in the context that nobody is actually 'cured' of alcoholism. A condition as such still might require active participation on the part of the recovering alcoholic to avoid ruining their life through alcohol. Likewise, homosexuality can be viewed as a problem that is quite complex for the person dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction that can be attributed to a wide variety of factors. However, if Mr Besen or anyone else would like to know if there really are people who have left the homosexual lifestyle behind and are glad they did so, perhaps they might want to speak with such courageous people as...

ex homosexual Michael Glatze

ex homosexual Joe Dallas

former lesbian Jeanette Howard

former lesbian Luanna Hansberger

former lesbian Sandra Aslesen

former homosexual Stephen Bennett

former lesbian Linda Jernigan"

former lesbian Christine Sneeringer

former lesbian Charlene E. Cothran

ex homosexual Phillip Tucker

ex homosexual Nathanael Flock

ex homosexual Richard Weller

ex homosexual Tim Wilkins

former lesbian Melissa Fryear

former lesbian Melinda Selmys

former lesbian Jackie Clune

former lesbian Linda Wall

former lesbian Abigail Meadows

former lesbian Cindy Hinsch

ex homosexual James Hartline

former lesbian Janet Jenkins

former lesbian Teresa Britton

ex homosexual Greg Quinlan

former lesbian Shereka Ford

former lesbian Janet Boynes

former transexual Walt Heyer

former homosexual Stephen Black

former lesbian Yvette Schneider

former lesbian Kristin (Johnson) Tremba

former homosexual James Wimbush

former lesbian Melanie Spinks

former homosexual Deacon Remnant

And on and on the list goes. These names were accumulated with just a perfunctory seach, could you imagine if one sat down and really analyzed the issue for a considerable length of time? I hope we can finally rid ourselves, once and for all, of the idea that there 'are no ex gays' and diminish the amount of hateful bigotry leveled against former homosexuals who are brave enough to speak the truth. The above list should provide a starting point for anyone truly interested in finding some that actually exist.

Iowa: Romney 25% Paul 22% Santorum 16%‏

2011-12-29T04:58:00.000-08:00

This has GOT to be the best news of this young campaign season. It's music to my ears!

"In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since

Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns.

According to the survey, 11% are backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 9% are supporting Rep Michele Bachmann, and 1% are backing former Utah Gov. and former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, who's spending nearly all his time campaigning in New Hampshire.

Santorum is campaigning on a shoestring budget, but he's visited all of Iowa's 99 counties and has made a strong pitch towards social conservative voters, who are very influential here in Iowa on the Republican side. Wednesday Santorum was up with a new radio spot on Hawkeye State airwaves touting endorsements by social conservative leaders. His pitch may be starting to pay off.

"Most of Santorum's gains have come among likely caucus participants who are born-again or evangelical, and he now tops the list among that crucial voting bloc, with support from 22% of born-agains compared to 18% for Paul, 16% for Romney, and 14% for Gingrich," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland."

Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Romney and even Gingrich and Paul have had their moment in the sun and surged in the polls, if even briefly, why not Santorum?If youre a conservative and you have a long checklist of conservatives you want in a candidate, Santorum would have alot of checkmarks next to his name. I don't think for one moment that there is a 'perfect' candidate, you can always find something wrong with someone's record. But Santorum has been consistently conservative on a variety of issues.

".. a lot of folks who are very concerned that between Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry and myself, that we're going to split the conservative vote and someone like a Gingrich or a Romney or now even a Paul could end up winning the Iowa caucuses, and we could be left with someone who's not particularly conservative as the standard bearer of the party.

And there were a lot of conversations. Several people called me and said, would you consider maybe getting out and supporting someone else? And we're going to call the others and do the same.

My response to that is let the people of Iowa vote. This race isn't going to be over
after one caucus. This is a long process.

Let the people decide who the best person to carry the conservative banner is. I believe that they are going to select me, and I feel very confident about that. But you know what? If it's somebody else, that's fine." Rick Santorum, 12/21/11 Link

Despite evidence, Left still enamored with Alger Hiss

2011-12-27T06:27:00.000-08:00

Mark Judge has a wonderful article that provides yet another perspective into the mindless lemming mindset of the fringe Left. Despite overwhelming evidence, Leftists still consider Alger Hiss (above) to be some sort of martyr for the liberal cause, unjustly prosecuted by mean, old conservatives. Besides Hiss, Whittaker Chambers exposed alot of subversives...

"But here's the thing: the people Chambers named were, in fact, guilty.

They include Henry Collins, employed at National Recovery Administration and later the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA); Lee Pressman, assistant general counsel of the AAA. John Abt, chief of Litigation for the AAA from 1933 to 1935, assistant general counsel of the Works Progress Administration in 1935, chief counsel on Senator Robert La Follette, Jr.'s from 1936 to 1937, council to the Communist Party USA, and special assistant to the United States Attorney General, 1937 and 1938; Charles Kramer, employed at the Department of Labor National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); Nathan Witt, employed at the AAA and the NLRB. George Silverman, employed at the Railroad Retirement Board; Marion Bachrach, sister of John Abt; John Herrmann, who introduced Chambers to Hiss and was an author assistant to Harold Ware (who ran the communist cell in Washington) employed at the AAA; Nathaniel Weyl, Donald Hiss, and Victor Perlo of the War Production Board and later the Departments of Commerce and Treasury.

Either by their own admission or released records, all of these people were revealed to be communists acting against America."

I doubt that history will correct itself in this matter. As to why they cling to an alternate version of reality, I think the last line of Judge's artiicle sums it up nicely for thise who really believed that the Soviets were on to something back then. "To the left, Hiss still represents the Future. It's a faith that, to the Godless, won't ever die."

The Catch-22 of Radical Feminist Pro-Aborts

2011-12-24T07:59:00.001-08:00

To witness the contortions in which pro-aborts would have to stretch the imagination and twist truth on this topic would be laughable if the subject matter were not so serious....

"U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, a Republican from Arizona, has filed a bill that would accomplish those ends. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act would criminalize sex-selection abortion in the United States, subjecting physicians who perform such abortions to fines and imprisonment for up to five years. Organizations that perform sex-selection abortions would forfeit federal funding under the proposal. Women who seek the abortions would be exempt from prosecution.

The sad irony is that the same technological advances that have bolstered the pro-life cause -- ultrasound images -- have promulgated sex-selection abortion. Parents may now more easily determine the gender of their unborn child, and opt for an abortion accordingly...

Yet leftist groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have blitzed Franks' bill, calling it an attempt to circumvent access to abortion. "This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

That argument carries weight with the far-left spectrum of the pro-choice cause, but it won't fly with the general American public that decidedly supports restrictions on abortion. The logic isn't even coherent: How is ensuring that more females are born discriminate against women? On the flipside, how does aiding the termination of unborn females help women's liberation?"

I really don't see how they can squirm their way out of this one. We already know that such practices are carried out in highly secular Scandinavia and also in Vietnam. I wonder what made femi-nazis think for one moment that the cause that they so screechily and ardently support would not eventually amount to political hari-kari for thier own membership?

(Above: Baby development at 9 weeks)

Gay Activist Supports Supervisor Demoted Over Pro-Traditional Marriage Remarks

2011-12-23T08:30:00.000-08:00

Gay activist Peter Tatchell has spoken out in support of a fellow Brit Adrian Smith who was demoted by his employer for remarks he made on his private Facebook page...

"Smith’s Facebook comment went on to state that he felt civil unions were a state issue but that those unions excluded Christian marriage.

"The bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women if the state wants to offer civil marriage to same-sex then that is up to the state; but they shouldn't impose its rules on places of faith and conscience,” he wrote on Facebook.

Tatchell will testify on Smith’s behalf because he feels that Smith has done nothing wrong.

“He expressed an opinion. He did not personally discriminate against anyone. There is no evidence that he has treated any of his gay housing clients adversely,” Tatchell wrote...

However, despite Tatchell’s strong backing for Smith, other members of the LGTB community have strongly supported the harsh punishment.

Tatchell disagrees: “If a gay employee was treated this harshly by a Christian organization for writing pro-gay comments on their personal Facebook page, there would quite rightly be an outcry and accusations of homophobia. Why, then, are some lesbian and gay people supporting such a harsh penalty for Adrian Smith?”

I would like to thank Mr. Tatchell for being a voice of clarity and reason in this blatant attempt at free-speech bigotry by Smith's employer. Some of the most deluded people in the entire universe are those who actually believe that by advocating/supporting gay marriage, they are somehow 'standing up against discrimination of a repressed minority'. Nothing could be further from the truth and such mindless, robot lemmings are only aligning themselves with a certain segment of the gay population that actually wants gay marriage when opinions on the topic within the gay community are hardly monolithic. ( Click here and here for examples.)

"Marriage was the most liberal institution known to man. It opened its arms to the ugly and the homely as well as to the beautiful and the stunning. Was it defined as between a man and a woman? Well, yes, but only in the sense that a cheese omelet is defined as an egg and some cheese — without the least intention of insulting either orange juice or toast by their omission from this definition. Orange juice and toast are fine things in themselves — you just can’t make an omelet out of them." Link

Will Rick Santorum turn out to be this primary season's Mike Huckabee?

2011-12-22T05:27:00.000-08:00

Tony Lee informs us of some of the latest developments affecting Santorum's campaign in the Hawkeye state in the day's leading up to their caucus to be held on January 3rd...

"The Family Leader, an influential social conservative organization in Iowa that has a lot of sway with Iowa's key Evangelical voting bloc, decided not to endorse a candidate today. Two of its most prominent leaders though, CEO Bob Vander Plaats and Policy Director Chuck Hurley, endorsed former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, citing Santorum as the candidate who has most prominently linked the strength of the nation's economy to strong families.

Vander Plaats and Hurley both referred to Santorum as the potential "Mike Huckabee" of the Iowa caucus. Huckabee, who won Iowa's caucus in 2008, often, as Santorum has done, spoke constantly about how strong families and strong economies are interrelated.

"I saw him as a champion for the family on the campaign trail," Vander Plaats said. "He always brought the issues of the day back to the family."

Vander Plaats also said that he called Santorum after his third place finish in the Ames Straw Poll this summer to tell him to stay in the race because his voice was needed.

"I've never seen a caucus like this," Vander Plaats said. "People are going from one candidate to another in a ten minute period, figuring out where to land."..

“I believe Rick Santorum comes from us, not to us,” Vander Plaats said. “He’s one of us.”

A strong showing by Santorum in Iowa would certainly make things more interesting for those of us tiring of Romney/Gingrich talking points. Why not Santorum? Bachmann, Romney, Cain and Gingrich have all seen their stars rise, if only for a little while, in popularity polls and I wouldn't be suprised if Santorum gets his shot at the limelight being that there are still alot of people who haven't made up their minds yet or if they have, they're not too committed in their choices. I would definately consider voting for a Bachmann-Santorum presidency, irregardless of which name is at the top of the ticket. Link

Anglican Fever! Catch it!

2011-12-21T05:28:00.001-08:00

This article caught me by suprise and if its accurate, then perhaps we will be witnessing a growing phenomenon within the Christian church...

"For decades young people have flocked to seeker-friendly churches that feature culturally relevant services and a casual environment.

Now, a new denomination that emphasizes tradition and centuries-old sacraments and practices is drawing them in.

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) officially began in 2009 with hundreds of congregations that severed ties with the Episcopal Church...

While the congregants are casually dressed, the service has a more formal, liturgical feel and the students that CBN News spoke with say that's exactly what they like.

"I love the emphasis on Scripture. I love that we read four long passages every Sunday so you really ingest a lot of scripture each Sunday," said Andie Roeder, who studies at Moody Bible Institute.

"And I love the way it's interactive so there's a call and a response and you get to pray back and forth," she said...

Archbishop Robert Duncan dubbed the movement "Anglican fever" in an address to the Lausanne Congress last year.

CBN News spoke with Anglican leaders who are witnessing college communities springing up, from Florida to Massachusetts and beyond.

A possible reason for the growth is the authenticity. Many congregations in the new denomination gave up buildings and property in order to break from the Episcopal Church and its increasingly liberal theology.

One of the worst cases happened in Binghamton, N.Y., where the Episcopal Church evicted the Good Shepherd congregation and then sold its property to a mosque.

Rector Matt Kennedy found out about the new owner while he was driving by the old property and saw a crane taking down the steeple.

"It was very sad," he said. "Because it is a place where generation after generation the gospel had been preached."

"People have come to know Jesus Christ, people have been brought from darkness into light and now it has been sold to a group that promotes the darkness," Kennedy added."

I have often thought that such qualities as a definative direction, a rich tradition and strong sense of liturgy are what young people are craving in their spiritual lives. It's easy to offer up a type of folksy worship in which there is great emphasis on accessibility of the pastor and a down to earth image is contrived. However, I am of the opinion that people, and especially young people desire structure in their worship and they like knowing that there is a sense of permanency in their style of worship that goes back with a wonderful tradition stretching back for centuries in their praise of God and fellowship with other Christians.

More on the passing of Hitchens..

2011-12-20T05:17:00.001-08:00

The recent death of writer and atheist Christopher Hitchins is spawning a number of great articles for consumption in atheist/theist debate circles. Author Cal Thomas (above) who is more often a political correspondent, weighs in on atheism and it's shoddy belief system...

" C.S. Lewis, once an atheist and thus conversant with the subject, wrote after his conversion, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Some people exist, however nervously, believing that this life is all there is. The late singer Peggy Lee put the result of such faith this way: "Is that all there is? If that's all there is to life, then let's break out the booze and have a ball, if that's all there is."

Why contribute to charity, or perform other good deeds? Without a source to inspire charity, such acts are sentimental affectations, devoid of meaning and purpose. If survival of the fittest is the rule, let only the fit survive.

That was the sentiment of Ebenezer Scrooge before his visitation by those three spirits and his subsequent transformation. Let the poor and starving die, he said, "... and decrease the surplus population." Who is to say such a notion is wrong without a standard by which to judge wrong.

To object to God is to create morality from a Gallup Poll. In Gallup We Trust doesn't have the same authority."

The Southwestern Journal of Theology is now coming out with a series of essays, the intention of which "offers pastoral and intellectual advice for combating the new atheism" put forward by such writers as the dearly departed Mr. Hitchens, Dr. Richard Dawkins and others. Dr. William Dembski is one of the contributors to the essays and provides us with the following...

"The more virulent atheists might better be called 'anti-theists,'" writes Dembski, research professor of philosophy at Southwestern. "They not only deny that God exists but also hate Him. Yet whence this hatred of a nonexistent entity? 'There is no God and I hate Him' seems a strange position to take."

More common than the "anti-theist" is the "Christian atheist," who admits that God exists but lives as if He does not. Whatever the form of atheism at hand, Dembski notes, the "challenge in confronting atheism is ... to bring those who deny God to repentance and faith, thereby closing the moral gap between them and God. In the end such moral transformation will always be the work of the Holy Spirit, ... (but) every act of divine grace presupposes the means of grace by which God makes that grace real to us."

Perhaps Mr. Hitchens is looking down with great amusement and favor over all of the discussion and robust debate that his passing initiated. Hopefully some of the more intellectually honest atheists out there will listen to the arguments advanced by theists and come to accept such a position in spite of Hitchens' protestations to the contrary.

Could Christopher Hitchins be in Heaven?

2011-12-19T04:42:00.000-08:00

Could arch-atheist Christopher Hitchens be in Heaven? His Anglican brother, Peter Hitchens recently wrote that "he no longer held hope to convert his brother, whom he described as having "bricked himself up high in his atheist tower, with slits instead of windows from which to shoot arrows at the faithful.""

Russell D. Moore raises an interesting point in today's edition of Baptist Press concerning the potential for where the deraly departed Mr. Hitchens is possibly spending eternity...

"..I'm not sure Christopher Hitchens is in hell right now. It's not because I believe there's a "second chance" after death for salvation (I don't). It's not because I don't believe in hell or in God's judgment (I do). It's because of a sermon I heard years ago that haunts me to this day, reminding me of the sometimes surprising persistence of the Gospel.

Fifteen or so years ago, I heard an old Welsh pastor preach on Jesus' encounter with the thieves on the cross. The preacher paused to speculate about whether the penitent thief might have had any God-fearing friends or family members. If so, he said, they probably would never have known about the terrorist's final act, his appeal to Jesus, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42). They never would have heard Jesus pronounce, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).

These believing family members and friends would have assumed, all their lives, that this robber was in hell, especially dying as he did under the visible judgment of God (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). They would have been shocked to meet this man in the Kingdom of God. "We thought you were in hell," they might have said, as they danced around him in the heavenly places.

That sermon changed everything for me about the way I preach funerals for unbelievers. Now, death bed conversions are very rare. Typically, a conscience is so seared by then, so given over to the darkening of the mind, that the Gospel rarely is heard. We shouldn't count on last-second repentance.

But, however rarely, it does happen, and who knows? Perhaps you have relatives who, in the last seconds of breath, breathed out a silent prayer of repentance and faith. You might be as surprised as the thief's believing cohort."

Christopher Hitchens certainly was an interesting fellow. I'm sure that the former adjunct professor had some time to contemplate his fate in his final days. I hope for his sake all of the bombastic diatribes he launched against Christianity were mere bluster to sell books and that he examined his heart with a clear mind during his final days. Either way, he now knows the truth and may God rest his soul.

Virginia says Nein! to Gay Adoption uber alles

2011-12-16T06:51:00.000-08:00

Its only fitting on a day that Rep. Allen West (R-FL) makes note that Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels (above) would be 'very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine', that a Virginia State Board of Social Services would stand up to the bullying tactics commonly utilized by the Gay Left.

"The Virginia State Board of Social Services voted against proposed regulations Wednesday that would force faith-based adoption and foster agencies to act against their religious beliefs and provide adoption services to gay and lesbian couples.

The decision angered homosexual activists who submitted 2,500 comments in April supporting the regulations. The vote also encouraged officials who believe faith-based adoption groups should have the religious liberty to follow their convictions.

In a 5 to 1 vote, the Social Services board decided not to add extended discrimination protections to final regulations set to begin May 2012. The extended protection would have banned selective service based on “sexual orientation, gender, age, religion and political beliefs disability and family status.”

Wednesday's vote was the second time the board rejected the extended discrimination clause. It was first voted down in April by the same margin.

Currently, Virginia law does not allow unmarried couples to adopt nor does it recognize gay marriage. As a result, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli advised the board in an April memo that it “lacks the authority to adopt this proposed language.”"

Hurrah! for speaking up for decency and common sense. Apparently the ~~agitators~~ activists' tactic to make them Vote 'Till They Get It Right was ineffective in this case.

Poor Gov. Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin is another case though. It seems that the effort to recall him as governor after the backlash he experienced while battling public workers unions is going on full tilt. Recall petitions would be considered valid even if they are signed by 'Adolph Hitler' or 'Mickey Mouse' so long as they are properly dated and have an Wisconsin address.

EDIT: In his latest entry titled Who hates Rick Santorum?, Molotov Mitchell smacks down the behavior of one of, if not THE biggest gay bullies on the planet, Dan Savage. Its definately worth watching. Link

Will Anomalocaris eyesight prove to be daunting for Darwinists?

2011-12-15T05:54:00.001-08:00

If an important component of Darwinian theory is that "the highly complex species of today gradually evolved from earlier, simpler organisms" then Anomalocaris is an anomaly of the highest order (see video animation here). A recent article points out how highly complex the eyes of Anomalocaris and anything comparable is seldom seen in nature to this day...

"Bizarrely, the eyes of Anomalocaris were positioned on stalks on the side of the animal's head. The popular science media are abuzz about a recent discovery -- published in Nature and based on fossils found on Kangaroo Island, South Australia -- that Anomalocaris possessed compound eyes similar to those that modern insects and arthropods have today. The only difference is that Anomalocaris had even more lenses per eye (according to the Paterson et al. Nature article, as many as 16,000 hexagonal lenses per eye) than most of those modern groups do. These remarkable eyes (which presumably would have required a reasonably advanced brain) would have afforded the creature very sharp vision..."

The above article goes on to quote a New Scientist article which states...

"Very few modern animals, particularly arthropods, have eyes as sophisticated as this," says Paterson. Houseflies, for instance, have a mere 3000 lenses. The only comparable species are some predatory dragonflies that have up to 28,000 lenses in each eye."

I'm sure that the leadership within the Cult of the Dead Scientist is already scrambling to reassure their adherents concerning this latest problem this poses for their ~~preferred fairy-tale~~ beliefs. Perhaps something along the lines of finally junking Natural Selection in favor of Biased Mutation or Genetic Drift will keep the congregation happy and sufficiently obfuscate the matter for the time being. And if all else fails, they always have Genetic Flow that they can appeal to. How convenient.

The Next Tim Tebow?

2011-12-14T04:46:00.001-08:00

While Tim Tebow Mania currently grips both the sports world and pop culture, it is duely noted that Tebow is the son of Baptist missionaries who wears his faith on his sleeve. Less talked about in the past week is that this year's suprise winner of the Heisman Trophy, Robert Griffin III, hailed from a historically Baptist university (Baylor). Jim Denison informs us on the background of this up and coming, superstar Christian athlete...

"This year Griffin led Baylor to upset TCU, Oklahoma, and Texas on the way to a 9-3 record, their best in a quarter-century. He has set 46 records during his college career. He recently won the Davey O'Brien Award, given to the nation's top quarterback, and now he is the first Baylor player to win the Heisman.

Griffin earned his bachelor's degree in three years, finishing with a 3.67 GPA in political science. He will finish a master's degree in communications next spring, and plans to attend law school. He is also expected to be a top-10 pick in next year's NFL draft.

Robert Griffin is known on the Baylor campus for his faith as well as his football skills. He attends University Baptist Church, where my oldest son attended worship while a student at Baylor and Truett Seminary. God has entrusted him with a unique combination of outstanding intellect, NFL-quality ability, and world-class speed. And he has been an excellent steward of his gifts."

Hopefully this is a trend in sports where faith and character are upheld as virtues to be admired by fans young and old alike rather than the tired, old bad-boy image so often times offered up in it's place. Getting back to Tebow, one media personality had this to say recently about Tebow's affect on the opposing teams he faces...

"..a little while after the Denver Broncos beat the Miami Dolphins in Miami. One of the linebackers for the Dolphins is a guy named Karlos Dansby, who used to play for the Arizona Cardinals, and according to Karlos Dansby, what happened when the Broncos played the Dolphins in week seven was this. Dansby said that the Dolphins saw God working through Tebow and, in the process, Dansby became closer to God himself.

Karlos Dansby, linebacker for the Miami Dolphins, said, "Us losing to Tim Tebow the way we did, we seen it first hand. Young man is blessed. Young man has a special anointing on him. And for God to show himself in that game the way He did, through the guy He did it through, it opened a lot of guys' eyes on our team. And it brought a lot of guys closer to God, so like I said, everything happens for a reason. ... My hat goes off to Tim. And God working through him like that, it opened up a lot of eyes. He’s a blessed young man and I wish him much success the rest of his career." Karlos Dansby. He said that on the Jim Rome Show." Rush Limbaugh, 12/12/11

Parker: 'When Santa Claus Decked the Arian Heresy'

2011-12-13T05:11:00.000-08:00

James Parker III has a brilliant article regarding the original St Nick that provides some background information on one of the important saints of the early Christian church. I'll provide a brief segment here to get your attention...

"One of the most interesting stories connected with him was his role during the Arian controversy. St. Methodius asserted that "thanks to the teaching of St. Nicholas the metropolis of Myra alone was untouched by the filth of the Arian heresy, which it firmly rejected as death-dealing poison." (Arius, of course, asserted that Jesus was a created being and had not existed from all eternity.)

One weak tradition has him actually attending the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, when Arian doctrine was rejected. The story goes that he got into a heated debate with Arius himself about whether there was a time when the Word (Jesus) did not exist. Nicholas strongly disagreed.

The debate ended suddenly when Nicholas punched Arius then and there on the floor of the council. This gives new meaning to the ditty: "He's making a list and checking it twice, he's going to find out who's naughty or nice."

The mental image of Santa Claus punching Arius on the floor of the Council of Nicea with Emperor Constantine looking on fundamentally changes the way one ever sees Santa Claus again. While I might not agree with his methods, I certainly admire his passion for Christological orthodoxy and doctrinal purity."

I'll take this tough, old saint over the corporatized, sissified version of Santa currently on offer any day.

Is Hitch Ready to Flip?

2011-12-12T05:33:00.000-08:00

Mark Judge posits that it's possible that arch-atheist Christopher Hitchins is close to accepting faith in God. Judge cites a Vanity Fair article in which Hitchins seems to reject 'a popular aphorism attributed to Nietzsche: “Whatever doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.” '...

"After enduring chemotherapy and radiation treatments that made swallowing unbearable and left his entire body a rash, Hitchens rejects Nietzsche’s slogan. “In the brute physical world,” Hitchens writes, “and the one encompassed by medicine, there are all too many things that could kill you, don’t kill you, and then leave you considerably weaker.” Hitchens speculates that some maladies are so devastating that it may be better to have not lived, while acknowledging that sometimes we push through the pain and reach the other side glad that we hadn’t given up...

Perhaps Hitchens’s admission that Nietzsche might have been wrong, even about something small, will lead him to a healthy curiosity about Christianity. Up until now, Hitchens has had nothing but bile for Christianity and all religion — including the religion of Marxism, which Hitchens, a former leftist, eventually admitted could not survive “the onslaught of reality.” But Hitchens’s attacks on religion were always propelled by the kind of fury that one usually finds in zealots and former believers; it’s always the ex-Catholics (Maureen Dowd, etc.) who are the hardest on the Church."

Time will tell if Judge's theory proves correct. The whole article is a great assessment of Hitchins and his writings. I personally think that Hitchins is too well vested in his own, pet beliefs to turn any time soon. But who knows? I hope that Time is a luxury in which Hitchins has in abundance in order to weigh his own flawed theories and beliefs against solid logic and reason and believe.

A day with Dr. Gary Cass

2011-12-09T05:47:00.000-08:00

Blanche Ely High School was the scene of an effective Flash-Mob For The Truth about Islam yesterday as supporters of the organization DefendStudents.org flocked upon the area, distributing flyers to the high school teens as they were leaving school for the day. I had the honor of participating in yesterday's events and it was a blast. Our group, led by Dr. Gary Cass, was made up of about 15 people from various entities including churches and Tea Party affiliates around Broward county that are quite concerned with the creep of radical Islam.

We staged beforehand at at a local church where Dr. Cass shared pointers with us as to how to most effectively carry out such a campaign for truth given that Dr. Cass has performed such outreaches various times in the San Diego area. The whole event went off without a hitch. Members of local law enforcement community stopped by and, although they seemed a bit bewildered in that they probably never encountered Americans exercising there 1st Amendment right to free speech in such a way, were polite and let the distribution of flyers go on unabated. The students and parents were overall quite receptive in that very few flyers were seen discarded on the ground. In order to see a copy of a similar flyer that was distributed just click here. Among the many points raised by the flyer that you can be almost certain is never discussed in any of the student's social studies classes are the following...

Iran's former 'Supreme Leader', the Ayatollah Khomeini had sex with a 4 year old girl.

Khomeini in doing so was only following in the footsteps of the prophet Mohammed who had the audacity to engage in such outright perversion as marrying his 6 year old niece.

Mohammed referred to blacks as "raisin heads" (Hadith, vol. 1:662, vol. 9:256)

Muslims continue to enslave people to this day.

One would be hard pressed to find a more hate-filled, intolerant group of people on planet earth than the Gay Left, however radical Muslims take the cake on that distinction using a number of different metrics such as beheadings, honor killings and suicide bombings. The approach utilized by Dr. Cass involves targeting the young minds around the areas of the most radical mosques in America order to present opposing viewpoints to the whitewashed image of the World's Most Dysfunctional Religion so commonly crammed down our collective throats by a compliant and milquetoast media. The tide has only begun to turn people, and the good guys are winning.

EDIT: The above photo is a stock photo and not from yesterday's event. I have added Dr. Cass' DefendChristians.org website to my blogroll on the right if anyone is interested in more information on the group.

12 Nurses stand up to Obama

2011-12-08T07:25:00.000-08:00

Cathy Ruse reports that one hospital in New Jersey is getting more flak than they bargained for when they decided to compel healthcare workers to participate in abortion procedures, "their personal religious or moral objections" be damned...

"Under a new hospital policy, nurses in the “same-day surgery unit” at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey must participate in elective abortion cases even against their personal religious or moral objections. If ever there was a violation of conscience rights, this is it.

Myriad federal laws exist to protect the conscience rights of health care professionals, denoting their right not to have to “assist in the performance” of abortions or, indeed, to perform any religiously or morally objectionable procedure. The laws prevent the federal government, and state and local governments receiving federal funds, and even federally funded health entities, from discriminating against nurses or other providers who object to performing or assisting in the performance of abortion.

Yet the hospital is fighting back, asserting that as long as it does not compel their “direct” involvement in an abortion, the policy is beyond legal reproach.

It is easy to imagine a spirited debate over where the line should be drawn: If the nurses do not wield the instruments that actually kill the child, are they really participating? What if they hand them to someone else? What about sterilizing them? What if they are required to do prep work, such as assisting with anesthesia, or post-op and cleanup?"

The article mentions that the nursing field is considered more of a calling or vocation than a job. I cannot understand why the hospital is so inclined to trample on people's personal beliefs. That Obama is an extremist supporter of abortion, even to the point of infanticide, is beyond a doubt, and for what? A few measly votes from the farthest Left fringe? To say that this administration supports personal freedom is a joke.

Cal Thomas asks, 'What's so bad about adultery?'

2011-12-06T04:48:00.000-08:00

Cal Thomas examines the importance of fidelity as it relates to society in his most recent article....

"What is marriage? Is it something for the convenience of the U.S. Post Office for orderly mail delivery, or is there a Higher Authority behind it?

For most people, marriage is a sacrament with "rules" firmly established by God and when followed these rules benefit married couples, their children and society.

Among the main requirements of marriage is fidelity. "Forsaking all others" is the phrase contained in the Christian marriage vow. Divorce has become widely accepted (though not to the Author of marriage) as a sometimes "necessary evil," but adultery remains for most people what it has always been: a betrayal.

It's not just a religious concept. Ask a person who is married but does not believe in God how he or she would feel about a cheating spouse and you most likely would get the same response you would receive from one who does believe in a higher power: anger and profound disappointment."

I think we can all agree with Thomas's assessment. Monogamous marriage is the very bedrock upon which our society is based upon, no matter how others may try to redefine it. Thomas goes on in the article to relate the problem society has with adultery as it relates to the current primary campaign for president...

"Once, divorce was a political "kiss of death." Now we are debating whether adultery should carry a similar penalty. One shudders to think what might be next.

Ultimately, what voters must decide is this: Does a presidential candidate's personal flaws rise (or fall) to a level that inhibits his ability to do the job of president?

Put another way, if you are about to have surgery, do you care if the doctor is a cad, or do you care more whether most of his patients are alive and well?

With the multiple challenges Americans face and with the choices presented to us, if the country is to be made well, voters may just have to sacrifice the ideal for the pragmatic."

While some may criticize Newt Gingrich's personal life, we now know that the 'He Served His Dying Wife With Divorce Papers on Her Hospital Bed' rumor to be completely false, albeit difficult to shake for Gingrich. Americans that had no problem voting for someone who lowered the bar when it came to their personal life like Bill Clinton may soon have to ask themselves if they would vote for a Republican whose personal life is less than pristine and see if the same standard of 'who cares what he did in his personal life' still applies.

Can I Get My Science With a Side of Agnosticism?‏

2011-12-05T06:13:00.000-08:00

Scientist Daniel B. Botkin reflects on the growing number of assertions of certitude amongst certain scientists and the science fetishists as to what their god can do...

"I was one of many scientists on several panels in the 1970s who reviewed the results from the Viking Landers on Mars, the ones that were supposed to conduct experiments that would help determine whether there was or wasn't life on that planet. I don't remember anybody on those panels talking in terms of absolute certainty. Instead, the discussions were about what the evidence did and did not suggest, and what might be disprovable from them and from future landers.

I was also one of a small number of scientists—mainly ecologists, climatologists and meteorologists—who in the 1970s became concerned about the possibility of a human-induced global warming, based on then-new measurements. It seemed to be an important scientific problem, both as part of the beginning of a new science of global ecology and as a potentially major practical problem that nations would have to deal with. It did not seem to be something that should or would rise above standard science and become something that one had to choose sides in. But that's what has happened...

It is helpful to go back to the work of the Wright brothers, whose invention of a true heavier-than-air flying machine was one kind of precursor to the Mars Landers. They basically invented aeronautical science and engineering, developed methods to test their hypotheses, and carefully worked their way through a combination of theory and experimentation. The plane that flew at Kill Devil Hill, a North Carolina dune, did not come out of true believers or absolute assertions, but out of good science and technological development.

Let us hope that discussions about global warming can be more like the debates between those two brothers than between those who absolutely, completely agree with Paul Krugman and those who absolutely, completely disagree with him. How about a little agnosticism in our scientific assertions—and even, as with Richard Feynman, a little sense of humor so that we can laugh at our errors and move on? We should all remember that Feynman also said, "If you think that science is certain—well that's just an error on your part."

A good starting point in dialogues between strict materialists and theists would be the recognition that scientists work with unproven assumptions and to deny that flies in the face of reality.

Donohue: Secularism becoming 'militant'

2011-12-03T08:06:00.000-08:00

In a recent interview, Catholic League President Bill Donohue summed up what he believes to be the current state of affairs concerning relations between the Christians and secularists....

"“Secularism has become militant,” ... “Many elites are taking an aggressive secular approach. They have lined up against the Catholic Church and other Christian churches particularly for their stand on moral values.”

Donohue pointed to New York where gay ‘marriage’ was passed without debate or exemptions for clerks who objected to having to grant such licenses. He also noted the closing of Catholic adoption and foster care agencies since they were unable to comply with laws forcing homosexual adoptions.

“The real big one,” he added, “is the [Health and Human Services] of the Obama Administration.” The forcing of abortifacient and contraceptive coverage in private health care plans under penalty of fines was described by the Catholic League President as the Obama Administration “on a full court press to shove its values down the throats of the Catholic Church.”"

In the same article, Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis and now the head of the Vatican’s highest court stated "“it is a war” and “critical at this time that Christians stand up for the natural moral law.” Should they not, he warned, “secularization will in fact predominate and it will destroy us.”.

Yet further proof that the Christian tolerance that fostered free speech in this country is turned on it's head and used as a wapon against the very institution from which it sprang forth from. In order to support this assertion of mine concerning the origination of freedoms we enjoy here in America, I will quote a transcript from historian Dr. Charles Hull Wolfe...

"As a result of their initial obedience, the Israelites became a free people-the first free people in history. As Moses said, they were to "proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof" (Lev. 25:10)...In God's good time, through Jesus Christ, God not only fulfilled the Old Covenant but confirmed and universaized the Law, and showed men how to obey it better-by receiving Him as their Lord and King . Even more, Christ showed men how to be free-by being governed by Him from within, instead of being tyrannized by men from without! In turn, St. Paul, who knew that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" took the gospel and the principals of the Mosiac Covenant Westwardagain from Israel across the Mediterranean to Greece and to Rome.

Soon other believers took it Westward once more-to England and then to Ireland. In the Year 432 A.D., Patrick-using a Latin document known as "Liber Ex Lege Moisi" i.e. Book of the Law of Moses, in cooperation with the irish leaders whom he had converted, made the Ten Commandments the foundation on which Britons would base their civil law. In 890, King Alfred-the only monarch the english ever called "the Great"- made the Mosaic decalogue and Jesus' Golden Rule the basis of the code of the law for England and the foundation of British freedom.

in 1215, Archbishop Stephen Langton, drawing on Britian's heritage of Bibl-based law, framed the Magna Cartra. A forerunner of the U.S. Constitution, it asserted the God-given rights of the English people and the Christian Church and is remembered today for its contribution to freedom under law."

For those truly interested in this subject, a more in-depth explanation is available by clicking here.

Pro-Life=Good War, Traditional Marriage Support=Bad War?

2011-12-02T08:44:00.000-08:00

David French writes.....

"I’ve seen this reality on college campuses. Speak to conservative college students and you’ll generally find enthusiastic pro-life support and deep ambivalence about — if not outright hostility to — preserving traditional marriage. Younger conservatives want to talk about life. They don’t want to talk about sexuality. In the larger culture, support for life is growing, with the percentage of Americans identifying as pro-life now in rough parity (and sometimes exceeding) the percentage of Americans calling themselves pro-choice. And while there’s no question that the media has long exaggerated public support for same-sex marriage (marriage amendments keep winning in state after state), there’s also no question that general polling trends are decidedly negative."

I do believe that free speech bigots are doing a masterful job at cutting off public debate on the matter by utilizing the Big Lie approach when describing their opponents. So much so that in the linked article by French, there is a quote from Tim Dalrymple who states...

"As an editor and director for a large religion website now, I can tell you: It’s substantially easier to find Christians and evangelicals to write on the abortion issue than it is to find ones who will write on same-sex marriage. Academics in particular are terrified that anything critical of homosexuality or same-sex marriage will come up before hiring or tenure committees. One of the first subjects we addressed in our “Public Square” at Patheos was the same-sex marriage debate, and nearly every person I approached to write on the topic had to ask himself or herself: “Am I willing to give up the next job, the next promotion, the next award, because of my views on this topic?”"

French raises an interesting point towards the end of his article in which he weighs the influence of over a decade of 'no-fault divorce' has had over the traditional idea of marriage as being a covenant rather than a contract. Perhaps he is right when he says that we should begin with restoring marriage to it's rightful covenant status rather than merely a piece of paper. It's becoming more and more clear every day that the demonization of gay marriage opponents is drowning out the arguments that highlight the negative effects that gay marriage will eventually have. Based on what is happening in the arena of public debate on abortion, then perhaps, as French says, " courage, persistence, and truth can turn the tide."

The so-called 'Hiddenness of God' Part II: Dispatches from an intellectually-dicey atheist

2011-12-01T04:51:00.000-08:00

And the winner of the 1st Annual Caias Ward Award for Intellectual Dishonesty is..... Justin Vacula! Congratulations pal! (Caias, you were 1st runner-up and Tricia Woodcock wound up in 3rd place) Place your Caias high upon your mantle of accomplishments my friend. You earned it.

It seems that Justin can write an entire entry on the so-called hiddenness of God but when asked.....

"So you would argue that if a huge, gigantic, and beautiful sky-god was absolutely visible, audible and communication with people here on earth, that it would in no way cause "psychological pressure" to "do some act against [people's] will ". I don't wish to define your position for you here, but would you argue for or against this idea? "[?]

Yes or no, for or against, pretty please, with sugar on top. We already agree on the definition of coercion. If by 'sky-god' you seek further clarification, then let's say that I'm talking about the God of the Holy Bible."

What clenched this victory for Justin over Caias was when Justin poured it on at the end and blocked me from 2 different sites from asking him a direct question pertaining specifically to something he wrote. Even though Caias had to be asked a simple, one-sentence question requiring a yes/no response 6X before answering it, Caias only sought to be my the intellectual bitch by taking the easy way out and blocking me rather than answering a straight-forward question on one site. Kudos to you both though. I'm in awe of your respective intellects.

Me personally? I would have conceded the point had I been in Justin's position. He had several options of which none of them, I imagine, must have seemed particularly savory to Mr. Vacula. Concede the point, deny the obvious that it would fit the textbook definition of 'coercion', come up with an imaginative new definition of the word 'coercion', or argue in favor of coercion. Justin, I fully realize that you dedicated a lot of text to explaining your position, but none of it related specifically to the direct question I posed to you and I do not feel that I should have to defend arguments I did not raise or points I did not make. What are you going to do in the highly unlikely event that you ever debate someone the likes of a William Lane Craig? Block him? Ignore the question? 'Tis to laugh. That the intellectually-dodgy atheist slithers back to his echo chamber where he can preach to the closed-minded choir and not have to answer hard questions concerning his position is only par for the course in these types of discussions.

EDIT: GCT posits the following (albeit with no corraborating evidence) Quote "He (Justin) has answered it, multiple times, in multiple wordings."

I'll tell you what. If anyone can show where Justin answered my question in any of the evasive, non-pertinent responses he provided, I will take back every word of this entry. Please note that this offer is conditional upon Justin having actually answered the specific question I posed to him. For instance, Justin could have responded to the above question by changing the topic and asking me how we would discern such a manifestation as being from God or from alien technology and I could have answer him by saying 'Blue'. Although it can be considered a answer, it does not answer the specific question posed to me in this example. Good Luck!

The so-called 'Hiddenness of God': Dispatches from a clueless skeptic

2011-11-29T06:08:00.000-08:00

Justin Vacula recently posited yet another, unique ~~nail in the coffin~~ pearl of wisdom to bolster his atheistic worldview, an argument concerning the so-called 'Hiddennes of God". Such arguments are nothing new and basically boil down to, 'if God exists, then why can't He manifest Himself in a manner that I can see him?'. Theists can argue that if one studies the fine-tuning of the universe to allow for life on this planet or if one were to examine the probability of specifically-coded DNA sequences arising by random chance, that the fingerprints of a Creator God are all over His creation. And yet, if I open my window in the morning and look outside, I don't actually see God Himself. In fact, there are no widespread claims that anybody is seeing God.

One big reason put forward by philosophers for God not manifesting Himself (assuming for a moment that He exists) is that God unmistakeably and clearly showing Himself to all would then diminish the overall amount of free choice we have when deciding what we would like to do. That is to say, that such a powerful manifestation would amount to coercion on God's behalf and God would rather that we behave and make our choices absent any sort of psychological pressure on people that such an appearance would entail.

One thing Mr. Vacula cannot deny is that people behave differently when they perceive they are being watched. That's not just me saying that as a general obeservation but, a cursory search would indicate, it's also what Newcastle University, UCLA and sciencemag.org are saying. I doubt that Mr. Vacula can deny that.

While involved in an online discussion recently, a certain clueless skeptic (MS) offered up the following 'questions' on this subject that I will attempt to answer....

1)Does not the bible 'record' such instances of God as visible, audible, etc? eg. Moses, the early Israelites? Were the Israelites coerced into accepting the covenant? Perhaps, and under yo...ur view, definitely.

The Isrealites were freed from captivity by the Egyptians and God made a covenant with them. God did lay down ground rules (laws). However, this is not like the topic of Justin's entry in that Justin is wondering why "-- since it is the case that theists profess God wants everyone to believe he exists – God simply doesn't unequivocally reveal himself so that persons can 'enter into a relationship' with God, no longer doubt, stop fighting one another because of religious differences, and go to Heaven."

However in looking at your question, it seems to me that the only alternatives would be that God's laws are revealed by someone other than God or that they are not revealed at all. That's a case you would have to make to convince me that either is preferable and the reasons you would think that is so.

As to when God actually WAS audible to the Israelites, exactly how did that work out?

2) Does not the threat of eternal hellfire amount to a coercion of worst order?

I find it only fair that we are forewarned of the consequences of our actions. It is explicitly stated that there are consequences for not obeying God's laws. A truly evil god would never reveal that there were consequences for certain actions until we stand in judgement and by then, it's too late. I doubt that you would argue that not knowing would be the better option here. There are two points I would like to bring up at this moment.

1) The temporal eminence of the threat. I think we could both agree that if we were to be held up at gunpoint by a robber and our wallets demanded of us, we would perceive such a threat as quite eminent and thus we would be coerced do something against our will like give our money to a stranger. However, if the robber said something to the effect like, "I have a blowdart in my hand and if you are shot with it, there is no antidote and you will die in 50 years", then we would assess things differently than if the threat were much more immediate as in the first example in which a firearm is used.

But, let's say that I concede that the threat of Hell alone, in and of itself, would still take away any free will in this matter, we would still have to examine another factor concerning the threat.

2) The epistemic eminence of the threat. What I mean by that is people do things everyday that can get them killed, but yet they do them anyway. For this reason, we see advertising campaigns urging people to "Buckle Up!" their seatbelts when getting in to automobiles and to quit smoking. It's not that people who smoke or don't use their seatbelts don't believe that they can die because these things, it's that somehow, if these things are shouted out from the radio/movie screen/computer screen/tv screen loud enough and especially, often enough, they can send a powerful enough message that can potentially alter behavior.

I would assert that if God were to "unequivocally reveal himself", make Himself known and constantly repeat the eminence of a threat, then THAT would be 'coercion of worst order'. Either you are Justin are free to tell me why this would not be the case.

3) Am I coerced into being in a relationship with other persons just because they are visible, audible, and present to my senses?

No. I assume that you are in relationships with people (assuming that you are), because you want to be.

This is ludicrous. If God expects a relationship, it is only natural that he would disclose his existence in an unmistakable way

I think you are either ignorant of, or forgetting the fact that such a revelation as described by Justin is not the only way we receive revelation from God. If either of you are willing to accept that personal revelation is a possible option, it would go a long way towards actually having a meaningful discussion here.

4)What's wrong with some general sense of 'psychological pressure' -- i.e. the pressure brought about by being compelled to acknowledge the existence of something

I think you were quoting me here. What I actually asked Justin was 'So you would argue that if a huge, gigantic, and beautiful sky-god was absolutely visible, audible and communication with people here on earth, that it would in no way cause "psychological pressure" to "do some act against his or her will "[?] which is a textbook definition of the word 'coercion'.

Rather than actually answering this question directly, Justin (I'm sure you were just going to mention MS) simply changed the subject, a point we will examine in our next blog post.

Leftist Intolerance of Freedom of Religion

2011-11-28T10:03:00.000-08:00

"If you look at the history from the mid-1960s, we've gone from a request for toleration to an imposition of intolerance. We've gone from a quest to understand others to a determination to close down those who hold traditional values." Newt Gingrich (above)

Timothy P. Carney's article from today highlights how the secularist Left is steadfastly against religious freedom. No matter how much they bandy about such terms as 'tolerance' and 'inclusion', the end result shows that it is quite Orwellian for them to do so....

"Social liberals claim they promote tolerance, preventing oppressive Christian conservatives from "imposing their morality" on everyone. But the state of the culture war in America today is almost exactly the opposite: The secular Left is using the might of government to make it harder for religious people to live their own lives according to their faith.

Nancy Pelosi, who regularly and loudly declares herself a faithful Catholic, last week belittled Catholic hospitals: "They have this conscience thing," she sneered about the hospitals that want to be free not to abort unborn babies. How ironic that Pelosi and like-minded liberals call themselves "pro-choice."...

Obamacare gives us the latest case study. The bill gave the secretary of Health & Human Services unprecedented power to regulate insurance plans, while also forcing individuals and employers to buy health insurance. Department Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a rule outlawing any new insurance plan that doesn't fully cover the cost of all contraception, including "morning-after" pills that can also cause abortions.

The rule included a conscience exemption for "religious employers," but it defined "religious" so narrowly that it applies to virtually no one. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote that "not even the ministry of Jesus and the early Christian Church would qualify as 'religious'" because they served and preached to non-Christians.

Belmont Abbey College is a Catholic college in North Carolina that was founded by Benedictine monks. In all likelihood, the "religious employer" exemption won't protect Belmont Abbey, and the school will be forced to buy contraceptives for its students, in violation of the Church's teaching.

College President Bill Thierfelder wrote in a memo, "As a college, we find our center in Jesus Christ. Not only in our teaching, but also in our actions. Our policies must mirror our beliefs -- we simply cannot do what we believe is morally wrong."

He added, "We are not imposing our beliefs upon anyone else. We respect the constitutional right of all faiths to freely exercise their religion. We simply want that constitutional right given to us as well."

I wish Belmont Abbey College all the best in their fight against anti-Christian bigotry. I would suggest to them that if they wished the blessings of the Obama administration while in holding on to religious values, then perhaps they should support Sharia as this seems to be the cause celebre when this administration mulls over who the winners and losers are going to be when it comes to support in matters of faith.

The Unmitigated Disaster That Would Have Been Henry Agard Wallace

2011-11-26T05:06:00.001-08:00

Fresh off of last night's viewing of Captain America (Note: We rated it 'Very Good', but not quite 'Great') I approach today with a renewed interest in 1940's geopolitics. Today's article by David Stokes reminds us of how thankful we should be that Franklin Roosevelt left Henry A. Wallace (above, left) off of the ticket when he ran for his last term of president and instead replaced him with Harry S. Truman. Some facts raised by Stokes in his article to buttress his main point are..

"...if Franklin Roosevelt hadn’t dumped Mr. Wallace from the ticket in favor of Harry S. Truman that year, the post-World War Two world would have been significantly influenced by a pro-Communist lackey for the Soviet Union, who once suggested that “if we could practice eugenics on people. We could turn out a beautiful golden race.”

"Henry Wallace was the highest-ranking nut ever to serve the Republic. He was known to think not only out of the box, but also far from reality. Consider some of the strange and embarrassing letters he wrote to a self-styled Russian mystic named Nicholas Constantin Roerich, things like:

“My Dear Guru: The search, whether it be for the lost world of Masonry or the Holy Chalice or the potentialities or the age to come is the one supremely worthwhile in objective. All else is Karmic duty. Here is life.”

Translation? No clue—but that’s the point, the guy was clueless.

"Quite frankly, everything we know about Henry A. Wallace from the 1948 campaign suggests that U.S. foreign policy would have been one surrender after another to Soviet European hegemony. In fact, in 1946 and while serving as Secretary of Commerce under Truman, Wallace advocated cooperation with the Soviets in spite of overwhelming evidence that the Communists had every intention of dominating Eastern Europe. This was in a speech delivered at Madison Square Garden in New York. Truman fired Wallace shortly thereafter."

The article by Stokes is an interesting read for those interested in American history. It focuses on a man scarcely remembered and whose name sits practically undisturbed upon the ashbin of history, and yet he was, quite frighteningly, a mere heartbeat away from being sworn in as leader of the free world.

Nancy Pelosi is lying

2011-11-23T04:42:00.000-08:00

Bob Beauprez informs us....

"Because of ambiguities in the language of the ObamaCare legislation, House Republicans brought forward H.R. 358, The Protect Life Act, in October 2011 to preserve Conscience Clause protections for health care providers and to restate the ban on federal taxpayer funding for abortion. The legislation was consistent “with the original Stupak Amendment” according to Joe Pitts (R-PA), a sponsor of the bill, as well as the co-author of the original Stupak Amendment offered in the House during the ObamaCare and supposedly affirmed by Executive Order signed by Barack Obama to pacify pro-life Democrats prior to the passage of ObamaCare.

The pro-abortion crowd renamed the bill the “Let Women Die Act.” Pelosi characterized the legislation as “savage” and said, “When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health-care providers do not have to intervene, if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.” Pelosi made the outrageous claim even though H.R. 358 contained exceptions as found in the landmark Hyde Amendment for “abortions performed due to the child’s conception in rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.”

The Protect Life Act passed the House on Oct. 13, 2011 by a 251-172 margin, with just 15 Democrats voting with the Republicans. There are about 90 Democrats in the House that list “Catholic” as their faith, so Pelosi wasn’t the only Catholic Democrat that voted contrary to Church teaching. Thus far, Harry Reid has blocked the Act from a vote in the Senate."

So just remember this when the Left goes on about how the pro-life crowd wants 'women to die'. The most obvious reason that Pelosi seems to object that Catholics have this 'conscience thing' is because apparently she entirely lacks one. One of the hardest, prevailing myths to debunk among the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is the one concerning women dying en masse of back-alley, coathanger abortions but it appears that that one is going the way of the dodo as well. It finally appears that the pro-life movement is starting to turn the corner and this holiday season I am quite thankful that this appears to be the case.

David Lose gets it completely wrong

2011-11-22T05:57:00.000-08:00

I would invite the more discerning readers here to examine the article by Mr. Lose and see if you can spot the 9th grade level, appeals to emotion that he makes while trying to convince others of his point of view. I don't have time to go through them all here, but I would like to address at least one point that he brings up in his article...

"..while it may be true that the verses calling homosexuality an abomination, for instance, should be considered temporary and contextual, one needs to question whether this law (and many others) was just at any time or under any circumstances."

In relation to homosexuality, I am not aware that this sin was somehow rescinded. My mind goes back to about a week ago when I came across this article by pastor and author Trevin Wax (pictured above) which neatly and adeptly goes straight to the heart of the matter. In it, Wax imagines an interview taking place between a talk-show host and an evangelical pastor. I especially like how Wax drew up the dialogue when the imaginary host turned the conversation toward Christianity somehow being "radically intolerant" of homosexuality...

"Host: So how do you reconcile the command to love all people with a position on homosexuality that some would say is radically intolerant?

Pastor: (smiling) If you think my position on homosexuality is radical, just wait until you hear what else I believe! I believe that a teenage guy and girl who have sex in the backseat of a pickup are sinning. The unmarried heterosexual couple living down the street from me is sinning. In fact, any sexual activity that takes place outside of the marriage covenant between a husband and wife is sinful. What's more, Jesus takes this sexual ethic a step further and goes to the heart of the matter. That means that any time I even lust after someone else, I am sinning. Jesus' radical view of sexuality shows all of us up as sexual sinners, and that's why He came to die. Jesus died to save lustful, homo- and heterosexual sinners and transform our hearts and minds and behavior. Because He died for me, I owe Him my all. And as a follower of Jesus, I'm bound to what He says about sex and morality.

Host: But Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality outright, did He?

Pastor: He didn't have to. He went to the heart issue and intensified the commands against immoral behavior in the Old Testament. So Jesus doesn't just condemn adultery, for example, as does one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus condemns even the lust that leads to adultery, all with the purpose of offering us transformed hearts that begin beating in step with His radical demands.

Host: You say he condemned adultery. But he chose not to condemn the woman caught in adultery.

Pastor: That's right, but He did tell her to "go and sin no more."

Host: But who are you to condemn someone who doesn't line up with your personal beliefs about sexuality?

Pastor: Who am I? No one. It's not all that important what I think about these things. This conversation about homosexuality isn't really about my personal beliefs. They're about Jesus and what He says. I have no right to condemn or judge the world. That right belongs to Jesus. My hope is to follow Him faithfully. That means that whatever He says in regard to sexual practices is what I believe to be true, loving and ultimately best for human flourishing -- even when it seems out of step with the whims of contemporary culture."

Check out the entire article when you get a chance as it provides some great examples as to how Christians can respond when they are faced with these types of questions.

No Mr. Lose, the sinfulness of homosexuality was not just a passing fad that somehow became more acceptable when homosexuals became more involved in politics and the media. The same would apply if promiscuous teens or those involved in beastiality had better PR and greater representation among lobbyists and the television/film industry. Sex, that is to say any sex, outside of the covenant of marriage is outside of God's plan for us and it is a sin. The Bible is clear on this.

Holder Needs to Resign-Now

2011-11-21T05:01:00.001-08:00

Why isn't anyone in the MSM reporting that Michelle Bachmann now makes the 52nd lawmaker to call for Holder's resignation?

"Minnesota congresswoman and Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann told The Daily Caller late Friday that she thinks Attorney General Eric Holder should resign immediately because of Operation Fast and Furious.

Bachmann is the first presidential candidate, and the 52nd member of Congress, to demand Holder’s immediate resignation. “Attorney General Holder should resign because of the mismanagement of ‘Fast and Furious,’” Bachmann told TheDC. “As the nation’s top law enforcement officer, he bears the responsibility for the actions of his department.”

Bachmann went further with this statement than with her previous position on Holder’s job performance. On October 10 in New Hampshire, she told TheDC: “There needs to be a full investigation. And surely he should resign … if the facts prove to be what they appear to be.”"

None of this is newsworthy of course, because Obama is a democrat and liberals can only excoriate republican attorney generals. Criticism of their own is verboten apparently.

D'Souza: 'Why We Need Earthquakes'

2011-11-19T05:29:00.000-08:00

During my recent debate with Justin Vacula, he brought up the problem of so-called 'natural evil', asking why natural disasters occur. Insofar as the example of earthquakes occurring that Justin brought up, I linked an article quoting the director of the German Space Research Centre Institute of Planetary Research and chairman of European Space Agency’s scientific advisory committee, Tilman Spohn. Spohn notes ...

"It is an idea growing in popularity among planetary scientists. Says Spohn, “plate tectonics replenishes the nutrition that primitive life could live on. Imagine a top surface that is depleted of the nutrition needed for bacterial life. It needs to be replenished, and plate tectonics is a method of achieving this.”

Spohn found that the further he delved into the issue, the more important plate tectonics seemed to be for life. For example, it is believed that life developed by moving from the ocean to the kind of strong and stable rock formations that are the result of tectonic action. Plate tectonics is also involved in the generation of a magnetic field by convection of Earth’s partially molten core. This magnetic field protects life on Earth by deflecting the solar wind. Not only would an unimpeded solar wind erode our planet’s atmosphere, but it also carries highly energetic particles that could damage DNA.

Another factor is the recycling of carbon, which is needed to stabilize the temperature here on Earth. Spohn explains, “plate tectonics is known to recycle carbon that is washed out of the atmosphere and digested by bacteria in the soil into the interior of the planet from where it can be outcast through volcanic activity. Now, if you have a planet without plate tectonics, you may have parts of this cycle, but it is broken because you do not have the recycling link.”

It has also been speculated that the lack of tectonic action on Venus contributed to its runaway greenhouse effect, which resulted in the immense temperatures it has today."

I personally thought using so-called 'natural evil' as an argument against the existance of God to be absurd, and on a couple of different levels. Last night while surfing the net, I came across this article by Dinesh D'Souza (above) which deals with another objection that skeptics might raise. D'Souza quotes "Rare Earth, a 2003 book by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee that traces the myriad conditions required for life to exist on any planet. In a sense, the authors—an eminent paleontologist and an astronomer at the University of Washington in Seattle—are discussing the "anthropic principle," which specifies the degree to which our planet appears fine-tuned for complex life." D'Souza goes on to note...

"Why didn't God devise a world that didn't require plate tectonics and consequently one that wouldn't have to put up with earthquakes?" In other words, surely God could have made a universe that operated according to a different set of laws.

Ward and Brownlee's answer to this is as simple as it is devastating. Such a world could have produced life, but it surely could not have produced creatures like us. Science tells us that our world has all the necessary conditions for species like Homo sapiens to survive and endure.

Our planet requires oxygen and a warming sun and water in order for us to live here, and we appreciate this, even though we recognize that people can get sunstroke and drown in the ocean. So, too, it seems that plate tectonics are, as Ward and Brownlee put it, a "central requirement for life" as we know it.

This is not to suggest, as the scientist and philosopher Leibniz once argued, that ours is the best of all possible worlds. But ours may be the best of all feasible worlds, at least as viewed from a human perspective."

So there you have it, earthquakes are necessary for life. It also appears that hurricanes serve a purpose too. Gravity occurs through natural processes and bad things can concievably come about because gravity exists, but nobody is going around arguing that the planet would be better off without gravity.

The important thing to keep in mind, as philosopher Peter Kreeft once mentioned, is to be there for people when bad things occur in their lives. To be Christ for them as God's love shines through us as we comfort them in their time of need and despair.

Mark Shea on McQueary's reaction

2011-11-17T05:50:00.000-08:00

There have been recent articles concerning how Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary (above, left) reacted to the 2002 incident in which a former Penn State coach was allegedly seen abusing a young boy at the university's athletic facilities. It seems that some say he didn't do enough, and yet McQueary is now stating he did more than was previously reported in the news.

Mark Shea over at Catholic and Enjoying It! has weighed in on McQueary and I thought his analysis was interesting....

"But though lots of combox warriors are quite adept at fantasizing about how bravely they would have behaved and how vile Mike McQueary is in comparison to their brave selves, how they would have taken a baseball bat to Sandusky had they caught him in flagrante, the reality is that, if the Milgram experiments are any indication, a huge percentage of people are pretty well programmed to avoid trouble with authority figures rather than open a can of whupass. Sorry, but that’s the stuff we fallen humans are made of, as our first Pope learned when he confidently declared, “Though everyone else deny you, I will never deny you.” Indeed, despite the flattering and heroic picture so many Laptop Ninjas have of themselves, righteously battling evil with flawless martial arts moves and utter rectitude like Buffy and Angel, the real picture of fallen humanity given to us by revelation is that of the apostles in Gethsemane on Holy Thursday: big talk, sleepiness while Jesus sweats blood, a brief show of bluster and bravado against the wrong person (resulting in a severed ear) and then bolting, ass-saving panic such that one of the disciples peeled out of his clothes and ran off naked rather than defend the innocent from evil authority figures. That story is painful to read because that story is a paradigm, not an isolated incident. It has been replayed again and again down the centuries and we chicken shits in comboxes boasting about our courage over Those People Over There know it damn well. That’s why we talk so big.

So I look at McQueary and think, “There but for the grace of God go I.”"

It's important to keep in mind that at least McQueary did something and I fear if backlash is too harsh against him, then other potential whistleblowers would be reluctant to come forward in the future. Hindsight is always 20/20 and I think we could all agree that we should be fully aware that such evil exists in the world and that we might have to some day react to it in an appropriate manner.

The Black Robe Regiment‏

2011-11-16T04:47:00.000-08:00

While the historically illiterate and the spiritually blind seem quite content in displaying their willful ignorance for all to see, David Barton reminds us of one of the most important motivating players on the scene that called for the American Revolution and influenced America's founding documents which made her the freest country the world had ever known....

"The Black Robed Regiment was the name that the British placed on the courageous and patriotic American clergy during the Founding Era (a backhanded reference to the black robes they wore). [1] Significantly, the British blamed the Black Regiment for American Independence, [2] and rightfully so, for modern historians have documented that:

"There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763." [3]

It is strange to today's generation to think that the rights listed in the Declaration of Independence were nothing more than a listing of sermon topics that had been preached from the pulpit in the two decades leading up to the American Revolution, but such was the case.

But it was not just the British who saw the American pulpit as largely responsible for American independence and government, our own leaders agreed. For example, John Adams rejoiced that "the pulpits have thundered" [4] and specifically identified several ministers as being among the "characters the most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential" in the "awakening and a revival of American principles and feelings" that led to American independence. [5]

Across subsequent generations, the great and positive influence of the Revolutionary clergy was faithfully reported. For example:

As a body of men, the clergy were pre-eminent in their attachment to liberty. The pulpits of the land rang with the notes of freedom. [6] The American Quarterly Register [MAGAZINE], 1833

If Christian ministers had not preached and prayed, there might have been no revolution as yet - or had it broken out, it might have been crushed. [7] Bibliotheca Sacra [BRITISH PERIODICAL], 1856

The ministers of the Revolution were, like their Puritan predecessors, bold and fearless in the cause of their country. No class of men contributed more to carry forward the Revolution and to achieve our independence than did the ministers. . . .

[B]y their prayers, patriotic sermons, and services [they] rendered the highest assistance to the civil government, the army, and the country. [8] B. F. Morris, HISTORIAN, 1864

The Constitutional Convention and the written Constitution were the children of the pulpit. [9] Alice Baldwin, HISTORIAN, 1918

Had ministers been the only spokesman of the rebellion - had Jefferson, the Adamses, and [James] Otis never appeared in print - the political thought of the Revolution would have followed almost exactly the same line. . . . In the sermons of the patriot ministers . . . we find expressed every possibly refinement of the reigning political faith. [10] Clinton Rossiter, HISTORIAN, 1953

The American clergy were faithful exponents of the fullness of God's Word, applying its principles to every aspect of life, thus shaping America's institutes and culture. They were also at the forefront of proclaiming liberty, resisting tyranny, and opposing any encroachments on God-given rights and freedoms. In 1898, Methodist bishop and church historian Charles Galloway rightly observed of these ministers:

"Mighty men they were, of iron nerve and strong hand and unblanched cheek and heart of flame. God needed not reeds shaken by the wind, not men clothed in soft raiment [Matthew 11:7-8], but heroes of hardihood and lofty courage. . . . And such were the sons of the mighty who responded to the Divine call." [11]

And on and on it goes. Click on the above link for the complete story, it's quite extensive and thoroughly footnoted. While some are arguing for an complete removal of religion and religious views from the public square, I would wager that they are completely unaware as to the important role that the Christian religion provided to make such a discussion even possible.

EDIT: In case anyone wishes to debunk that which Barton has put forward, I would suggest by starting with the sources he cited while compiling his essay...

"[1] Boston Gazette, December 7, 1772, article by "Israelite," and Boston Weekly Newsletter, January 11, 1776, article by Peter Oliver, British official. See also Peter Oliver, Peter Oliver's Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion, Douglas Adair and John A. Schutz, editors (San Marino California: The Huntington Library, 1961), pp. 29, 41-45; Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 334; and Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), pp. 98, 155.

[2] Alpheus Packard, "Nationality," Bibliotheca Sacra and American Biblical Repository (London: Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1856), Vol. XIII p.193, Article VI. See also Benjamin Franklin Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), pp. 334-335.

[3] Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), p. 170.

[4] John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. III, p. 476, "The Earl of Clarendon to William Pym," January 20, 1766.

[5] John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1850), Vol. X, p. 284, to Hezekiah Niles, February 13, 1818. See also John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1856), Vol. X, pp. 271-272, letter to William Wirt, January 5, 1818.

[6] "History of Revivals of Religion, From the Settlement of the Country to the Present Time," The American Quarterly Register, (Boston: Perkins and Marvin, 1833) Vol. 5, p. 217. See also Benjamin Franklin Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), pp. 334-335.

[7] Alpheus Packard, "Nationality," Bibliotheca Sacra and American Biblical Repository (London: Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1856), Vol. XIII p.193, Article VI. See also Benjamin Franklin Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), pp. 334-335.

[8] Benjamin Franklin Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), pp. 334-335.

[9] Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1958), p. 134.

[10] Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1953), pp. 328-329.

[11] Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville, TN: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), p. 77."

10 Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher re: Design

2011-11-15T07:05:00.000-08:00

William Dembski (Ph.D) has put together an interesting list of ten questions one could ask their biology teacher re: design. You can click on the link and peruse it at your leisure, but I thought I would cite a few of what I thought were some of the more interesting ones...

"In trying to understand biological systems, molecular biologists often need to “reverse engineer” them. Is this evidence that the systems were engineered to begin with?

What evidence would convince you that intelligent design is true and neo-Darwinism is
false? If no such evidence exists or indeed can exist, how can neo-Darwinism be a
testable scientific theory?

How do we account for the complex information-rich patterns in biological systems?
Where did they originate?"

And on and on they go. The official high priests of the psuedo-science known as evolutionary biology never asks itself these highly pertinent questions.

The Curtis/Vacula Debate, Does the Christian God Exist?: Final Statements

2011-11-13T15:14:00.000-08:00

As we wrap up or first of what I hope would be would lead to other debates, I would like to respond to some of the points raised by Mr. Vacula in in his 2nd rebuttal.

JD mentions a “fallen world” as an explanation/justification for malaria, AIDS, Indian Ocean tsunamis,and the like and says that “these things came about after the fall.”

More specifically, JD offered this up as a basic tenant of Christianity to show why Christians believe these things are the way they are. Whether or not they are 'justified' to be around would be another discussion. But suffice it to say that's it's all part-and-parcel of basic Christian theology. If Justin is unsure of the circumstances surrounding the fall, then I would suggest that he explore the faith that he left for answers to some of the hard questions that are sometimes raised in reference to particular elements of Christian faith.

JD notes that these events such as earthquakes never occurred because the alleged fall. Are we supposed tohonestly believe that earthquakes, for example, are some sort of 'recent (?)' phenomena that only started happening when humans 'came on the scene?'

Off-hand, I don't have a detailed answer for this. I don't mind looking into this further to see what the experts say. That being said, I really don't think this topic is a major point of contention among Christian theologians.

Consider earthquakes – theresult of moving of tectonic plates. Were tectonic plates in such a manner that they only started shiftingas they do today because of 'the fall?' One would assume that it is more reasonable to believe thatearthquakes always happen and have nothing whatsoever to do with human action

If you like, go to the link I embedded in my first rebuttal in the words 'plate tectonics'. It explores a new theory being bandied about that stating that plate tectonics are necessary for the formation of life.

Further, even if it is the case that egregious suffering exists because of the actions of humans, how is compatible with an omni-good god?

Three questions here. What constitutes 'egregious' suffering? Is it univerally understood to be 'egregious' across different cultures? Also, 'is all suffering bad'? I read something recently that physical trainers, dentists, etc. would disagree with the last question and I'm sure if we put our heads together, we could think of other examples.

JD believes, of course, that God set the natural laws of the universe...and this is one of the biggest problems regarding theists and the problem of natural evil. A supposed omni-good god created such laws that guarantee human suffering. As I said, we should not expect such things from an omni-good god

But you see, over the course of these exchanges, we haven't even defined what a 'good' God would be like. We live in a world in which gravity exists. Let's say, for example, a large coconut fell out of a tree as I was passing under it, striking me in the head and causing an injury. Is this evidence that God is not good? Which one should be eliminated in this scenario, gravity or the possibility of being of being hit by a falling object in which God would interject himself into the equation in every instance in which the possibility exists?

These questions are a bit more profound than slapping the tag of 'evil' on something without first defining what we mean by it. It's my understanding that the question of pain and suffering hasn't been debated in the finer philosophy departments for years. It seems that these things don't constitute a valid argument against the existance of God and at best, it could be said that 'the existance of pain and suffering is poorly understood by many people' and that's about it.

JD wonders what I mean when I use the term evil and seemingly objects to my use of the term

My specific statement was 'I notice that Mr. Vacula made the huge leap of terming these things 'evil' without ever explaining how he arrived at that conclusion. At no point does he explain the criteria that must be met in order for any of these things to be defined as 'evil''. I don't 'object to his use of the term, rather I asked for some clarification.

I don't understand what this has to do with my argument and this seems quite silly. Persons 'on the street' know very well what persons mean when there is talk about the problem of evil and the term 'problem of evil' has widely been understood throughout history

Actually, I don't understand why you term things as 'evil' without explaining why they are evil. If we are to use 'person[s] on the street' to gauge these things, what do we do when the 10 people I randomly polled out on the street if something qualified as truly evil were disproportionately lunatics with the ability to function in society? Or staunch moral relativists who aren't prepared to refer to anything as 'evil'? Or heavily influenced by pagan, pre-Christian culture that (incredibly) is held up as some sort of oasis of culture and reason but the facts bear out were shockingly brutal, murderous and callous?

Are not the Sermon on the Mount, the Decalogue and the Book of Titus more helpful in determining good and evil than random imbeciles on the street who might not know anything?

JD says that I believe evil counts toward evidence against an objective good

JD did nothing of the sort. JD said the exact opposite when he wrote 'I would posit the fact that Mr. Vacula views these things as 'evil' counts towards evidence that an objective good exists by which we can gauge these things. And if that objective good exists, then what is it?'

I'm willing to give Justin a pass here in that maybe he read something a little too fast, but the facts are, A) I asked if an objective good exists, by which B) Justin can base his terming certain occurances as 'evil' and he provides nothing of the sort and basically punts on the question like so many good atheists have done before him.

JD says that “a strict materialist would simply look at these things and shrug.” JD poses, here, a false dichotomy and a 'loaded' version of 'strict materialism. 'Why should it be the case that 'strict materialists' ought to simply shrug?

OK, I'll clarify. A strict materialist would not blame God for a natural disaster. But then again, how would Justin convince a strict materialist if such an occurance came to pass that it is 'evil'? It can be 'unfortunate', a bit 'sad' and a number of other number of adjectives, but why 'evil'?

Regardless of how we codify morality or talk about what is undesirable, the evidential problem of natural evil still exists for the theist. It is not 'up to me' to give an accounting for morality or explain why I wouldn't 'just shrug' at natural disasters.

Actually it is. You termed a natural occurance as 'evil' and yet you have not explained why this is so.

JD seems to 'blame the victim' here when referring to natural disasters (seemingly taking theresponsibility away from god). He says, “Should […] they carry at least part of the blame if it affectedthem or their loved ones? […] Did anyone put a gun to their respective heads and force them to live in a flood plain? Is it God's fault if they didn't do their homework?”

Actually, let me give you a much more pointed example to see if you actually understand. If I notice that a building is smoldering and I decide I'm going to sleep there tonight and during the night it becomes completely engulfed in flames and I wind up either seriously hurt or dead as a result, is that my fault or God's and why?

The main problem, though, is that seemingly no matter what people do or no matter where people move, natural disasters will occur...and there's not enough room, finances, etc for everyone to move to safer areas

I would phrase it like this, 'a natural disaster can occur most anywhere'. Now, if we have a mere quarter-inch of light falling rain (which we need for life on this planet) and no wind at all, yet I skid on the pavement, hydroplaning into another car causing injury to another, is it God's fault for inventing rain or my fault for not driving with caution? What do we give up here? Cars? Physics? Personal responsibility? Water being wet? Which one Justin?

This next one is my favorite though, on 2 different levels.

It is not the fault of omni-evil god that so many people have to experience goodness so much, but rather it is the fault of humankind. No one puts a gun up to the head of those living in the prosperous secular democracies of Sweeden and Denmark! These people instead should just move to third world countries and suffer!

1) I never claimed that all natural disasters are preventable by humans. I merely asked 'Do humans bear any responsibility at all in these equations whatsoever?'. Justin, can I enter into a building that's on fire, get burned, and then blame God? Or am I at least somewhat subject to the decision I just made and if so, to what degree?

2) Justin brings up 2 shining examples of "prosperous, secular democracies' (Norway and Sweden) without ever noticing that both of those nations are well within the area of the world formally referred to as 'Christiandom' for many centuries in which the factors that led to these countries enjoying such a high standard of living were put into place, completely ignoring that secularization is the relatively recent exception throughout their history.

JD objects to my mention of animal suffering and asks why I settled simply on animals. He suggests that it might be the case that plants experience pain (!). JD suggests that I might be moresympathetic toward animals than plants because animals have faces or brains (and some other considerations). I don't see why this is being brought up. Let me, for sake of argument, admit that plants do indeed feel pain. This further demonstrates my point! The omni-good god that JD believes inhas even more of a problem because he created plants that feel pain! How can we got about livingwithout 'killing' and consuming plants, one would wonder. Why wouldn't omni-good god simply'design' the universe in a different way?

Actually, JD pointed out your appeal-to-emotion fallacy by invoking poor widdle animals and asked why not object to vegetables being eaten also, a question you still haven't answered. I guess a better question would be "Why do we have to eat living things at all?' but you never framed your inquiry as such because it would then lose it's fallacious appeal to emotion. Such reasoning to me is as quite ridiculous. I mean, it basically boils down to 'Why aren't more bunny rabbits dying of old age' and 'Y kan't wee awl jus' eeet roks?', which are questions that hardly seem theological in nature and and are occurring at a whole level of intellect apart from me .

JD says that Satan is the god of the world to address my second and third arguments, but I don't seehow this is relevant.. if JD wants to appeal to the Bible and Satan, he needs to show that Satan exists

JD was merely showing how such matters fit into the framework of a Christian worldview to account for the way the world is and to demonstrate that it is at least consistent.

Finally, JD says “Christians generally do not seek supernatural explanations except perhaps on originof life discussions...” I don't 'buy' this for a moment. Consider the Nicene Creed which alone containsmany supernatural claims: God made everything, God incarnate was on earth, Jesus raised from the dead, Jesus ascended into Heaven, [Heaven exists], there will be a judging of the living and dead, the Holy Spirit exists, the sacrament of baptism can 'forgive sins,' etc. While this claim is obvious anecdotal, although it can easily be verified, individual Christians use God in part of explanations for receiving promotions at work, finding car keys, answering prayers, performing well in sports events,receiving Grammy awards, and so much more

Christians do not typically seek supernatural explanations for events that occur in the physical world. Christians do not believe that God[s] give them promotions their employer does, that demons lost their car keys, that they did, that God didn't personally write the Grammy winning song, that they did.

JD attempted to shift the blame away from God to humans (or to somewhere else) in order to respondto my evidential argument of natural evil. Such explanations fail because God ultimately allegedly designed the laws of the universe and could have made the universe in such a manner than egregioussuffering via natural disasters didn't exist. Additionally, God is supposed to be all-loving, so why wouldthis be the case to begin with?

Two things come to mind here..

1) I never attempted to entirely 'shift the blame' to humans but merely inquired to what extent ( if any) are humans liable for the decisions they make. It seems you refuse to answer this question.

2) If there were to be another installment of this debate, my question to Mr. Vacula would be, 'How would you design the world any differently if you had the ability to do so?'. I would be interested in his answer and then we could take it from there.

Justin also seems to be ignorant of one of the more basic tenents of Christianity insofar as our purpose and meaning here in this plane of existance. It certainly isn't for us to expect pain and suffering to go away any time soon because we know we will always have these things on this planet till Christ's return. The purpose of our meaning here is to "to glorify God", so that we may "enjoy him for ever". I feel that I am on fairly certain ground in stating this being that it is contained in both the Westminster Confession (read: Calvinist) and the Methodist church (read: Arminian). The elimination of such things as poverty and wars would serve to negate the existance of God and no amount of secularism interspresed with humanism and evangelical atheism is ever going to change that.

In order to read Mr. Vacula's closing statements, just visit his blog at JustinVacula.com

Thoughts on the Penn State-Joe Paterno abuse scandal

2011-11-11T06:53:00.000-08:00

My thoughts concerning the recent contraversy over the firing of Penn State University head coach Joe Paterno are as follows.

Before I begin I just want to state up front that I am a huge fan of the university's football program. I have lost count as to how many times I made the trek to Happy Valley to watch the Nittany Lions play and cheer them on to victory. The number of players I got to see in action at the collegiate level before turning professional reads like a laundry list of the best athletes in the business and I still have the Penn state logo on a refrigerator magnet in my home despite not having lived in that area for many years. If we are indeed tribal creatures by instinct, then my blood runs Blue and White.

For those of you unfamiliar with recent events as they unfolded at the university, I would ask you to take a look at the image of the person above. He is a monster by the name of Jerry Sandusky who stands accused of at least 40 criminal charges involving the sexual abuse of minors. I realize that he hasn't been convicted of anything as of yet and I am all for due process, but the sheer amount of accusations trickling in against him is quite damning and I expect he will either be found guilty or attempt to plea bargain during the legal process. Sandusky however, has not worked as an assistant coach/defensive coordinator for the Nittany Lions since 1999 when he retired after 30 with a program that experienced two national championships ('82 and '86) during that time.

When it comes to head coach Joe Paterno, this is basically what we know happened 12 years ago at the football team's complex at the university.

"...a graduate assistant saw Sandusky sexually assault a naked boy, estimated to be about 10 years old, in the locker room of the Lasch Football Building on campus. The grad student and his father reported what he saw to Paterno, who immediately told [Athletic director, Tim] Curley, prosecutors said.

Curley and [Penn State vice president for finance and business' Gary] Schultz met with the graduate assistant about a week and a half later... Nothing happened.

"Despite a powerful eyewitness statement about the sexual assault of a child, this incident was not reported to any law enforcement or child protective agency, as required by Pennsylvania law," [Attorney General, Linda] Kelly said.

There's no indication that anyone at school attempted to find the boy, or follow up with the witness, she said.

Curley denied that the assistant had reported anything of a sexual nature, calling it "merely 'horsing around,'" the 23-page grand jury report said."

On the face of it anyway, it would seem that Paterno and Curley were aware that what took place constituted more than 'horsing around'. After all, who bothers to reports mere horseplay to a high-ranking univesity official? Yet Paterno was faced with one of four possible outcomes when presented with the information that he received.

He could have engaged in lying and deceit to prevent the discovery of evidence and ultimately the truth. Nobody is alleging this of Paterno though.

Instead of engaging in an active campaign to cover up the scandal, he could have received the information from the student assistant, nodded thoughtfully and then have done absolutely nothing about it and kept the informnation to himself. We know that this wasn't the case

We know that Paterno decided to at least do something, in this case he 'immediately' informed the atheletic director. This constitutes 'passing the buck' and is a far cry from option #4

All concerned should have directly notified prosecutors/the police. This would have been the best of all possible outcomes available to the victims and Paterno, but we know that Paterno, Curley, the graduate assistant, named Mike McQuery, and McQuery's father did not notify them.

Upon going with the third option, Paterno threw away the opportunity to be remembered as a coach who helped raise millions of dollars over the years for education and charitable groups. I also doubt that he will be remembered for having an admirable rate of student-atheletes graduating.

I don't want to hang this all on Paterno though. It now appears that there was a police investigation concerning Sandusky in 1998, however charges were never filed and the District Attorney involved with the case mysteriously fell off the face of the earth in 2005.

Furthermore, McQuery was 28 years old at the time he witnessed the abuse he reported. I doubt a man that age really needs to go to his dad first rather than campus police. After Paterno reported the incident to Curley and the interview took place between AD Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz with McQuery, (Schultz is the head of the university department that is charge of oversight of the campus police) apparently the decision was made to handle things internally and there is no record that Paterno was involved in making this decision.

Additionally, if Paterno is fired for not doing enough, why is McQuery allowed to remain in his current position as an assistant coach for not doing enough as well? It seems that the shoddy logic of this type of reasoning is becoming apparent and McQuery will not be on the sidelines this weeked in the game against Nebraska.

One thing we cannot discuss on this blog is that nasty scandal the shook the football program at Penn State five years ago.

Or one that occurred ten years ago.

Or twenty, twenty-five or even forty-five years ago.

That is because these incidents do not exist, a rare feat in today's age in top level college sports programs.

But all of that is swept aside now and the only thing that Joe Paterno will likely be remembered for is not doing enough to report the matter. I'll give Vox Day the last say on this. My heart goes out to the victims and I'm so devastated that I'm sickened to my stomach over this and I thought his analysis was spot on....

"I think it is totally irrelevant that Paterno didn't go to the campus police because I see no reason to believe they would have investigated the manner any more seriously, or been less inclined to cover up the matter, than the Penn State administration. They report to the administration after all, and more importantly, they already knew about Sandusky...

Moreover, consider the way police forces around the country cover up most of the crime, including rape, that occurs on college campuses. Still, if Paterno shouldn't have gone to the Penn State police, he absolutely should have gone public and spoken to the media after it became clear that the university administration intended to sweep Sandusky under the carpet as they and the police had done previously. Paterno should have threatened to resign then, but failing that, he should have resigned immediately once the media storm began. In fact, I have some serious questions about this story erupting so soon after Paterno broke the all-time coaching wins record, as it appears someone with links to Penn State was waiting until that happened before going public about Sandusky. There will be more nasty revelations coming, that is almost guaranteed."

(Above image: the cover of Jerry Sandusky's book Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story published in 2001)

The Curtis/Vacula Debate, Does the Christian God Exist?: 2nd Rebuttals

2011-11-10T20:31:00.000-08:00

Upon reading Mr. Vacula's first rebuttal, my thoughts on it are as follows... (His rebuttal can be seen at his website JustinVacula.com

he (JD) states “However, all I've done so far is raise two arguments in favor of a generic god.” I disagree. All that JD has done is mention some statistics about the supposed 'finetuning' of the universe and the 'improbability' of abiogenesis...and it simply doesn't follow from 'the universe is fine-tuned' that 'a creator god exists.' This argument appears to boil down to what is called 'an argument from ignorance' : I can't explain phenomena x, therefore god. Why should we be justified in positing a creator god as an explanation just because we can't explain a phenomena?

I would state that it's reasonable to believe in God's existance and the arguments in favor of it are better than the arguments against.

That's it. Reasonable to believe. William Lane Craig has credentials from "Wheaton College (B.A. 1971), graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984)" and yet with all of his training and education, Dr. Craig's arguments basically boil down to that there are better arguments in support of God's existance than against it, and audiences tend to overwhelmingly agree if exit polls from debates are to be believed. I'm not a theologian with my little Bachelors degree in Political Science and I cannot have Mr. Vacula prove the non-existance of God any more than I can snap my fingers and summon Him up for analysis and observation. I contend that the arguments favor the existance of God. A skeptic can always find something to be skeptical about. Justin then goes on to criticize my argument by positing....

Regardless, the fine-tuning argument fundamentally rests on a misunderstanding of probability. Instead of looking at the 'fine tuning' situation as 'the chances of this particular variable are so low,' consider auniverse that we can't even quantify the size/vastness of. Shall we say, that out of an entire universe, that life arising somewhere is improbable? I think not. Somewhere, someplace, life seems to be inevitable – consider all of the stars that 'die' that can 'create' situations conducive to life and all of the moons, suns, planets, etc. When we think of life, we think of carbon, but imagine all of the other possibilities that are not based on carbon!

And yet Justin offers up exactly zero evidence that any of these things are true and actually exist and thus he relies on mere hypotheses and theoretical scenarios. Is Justin, through the lack of any solid scientific evidences here, accepting the alleged existences/possibilities of these things by (dare I say it?) Faith?

This, again, is an argument from ignorance: 'I can't explain a phenomena, therefore God.' While abiogenesis is a difficult topic to think about, it simply does not follow that abiogenesis never occurred

I simply stated that there is no evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred. Justin says that it "simply does not follow that abiogenesis never occurred" and offers up no support of this statement.

This is similar to the universe in a way. The big bang model is an adequate model to explain the origin of the universe, but other questions remain surrounding the big bang and 'what [if anything] caused the big bang.' Although, perhaps, there is not a particular consensus about these questions (if there even is an answer), we don't doubt that the big bang happened (or that the universe exists)

I do not doubt that the Big Bang model is adequate to explain the origin of the universe and I find it can be completely compatible with a Biblical worldview.

When scientists operate, they operate under the banner of methodological naturalism: they assume that all that exists is the natural world and make claims about the natural world in order to do research and advance our understanding of the natural world. Instead of accepting supernatural explanations, as I outlined in my opening statement, we should look for naturalistic explanations instead because such explanations have great explanatory power in addition to naturalism being inductively justified

But Justin does not offer up any reasons as to why methodological naturalism is a far superior arbiter of truth by comparing it to other types of evidence that seem to be excluded here. Science is a wonderful tool for determining some truths and not nearly as effective for others and is fraught with all of the pitfalls conceivable when it is utilized by frail, politicized, agenda-driven human beings. For example..

Can scientific evidence be planted somewhere?

Can scientific evidence be manipulated to achieve a desired end?

Why are court systems always ready to admit eyewitness testimony but scientific evidence only if the judge allows? Probably because of the ever changing nature of science and models that are accepted today are frequently discarded tomorrow.

I recall one recent debate in which one party brought up the existance of opakis. They are notoriously wary of humans and science doubted their existance for many years until finally their existance was confirmed, despite multiple, reported sightings over thise years. Wouldn't science have been better served by accepting testimonial evidence from eyewitnesses in this case?

Now on to Justin's objection's concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

A lack of explanation for, say, the experience of the apostles, the rise of the early church(which seems to be an argument here although it doesn't have a heading), the empty tomb, the womenr eporting, and lack of explanation (!) of the body of Jesus does not lead us to the conclusion that the Christian god exists

Is Justin fully aware that Christ Himself repeatedly stated he was divine? If it could be shown that he did rise from the dead, wouldn't that be an argument in favor of the Christian God who, by definition, is Jesus Christ actually existing?

Can we honestly and reasonably say that because a miracle happened, we can know the source of it or even distinguish what we think is a miracle from advanced technology we are unaware of?

If the gospels are taken as a whole, Jesus predicted in advance, at least on five separate occaisions, that he would rise from the dead. Wouldn't that help narrow down what the 'source' was?

Further, why even assume a source or say a miracle happened instead of saying “I don't know how to explain this.” How can we ever be justified in bridging the epistemic gap from “I don't know” or “A specific [or any] supernatural source is responsible for this phenomena?

I am perfectly willing to consider any naturalistic explanations for Christ instananeously healing the sick, raising the dead and Himself rising from the dead. With 2000 years of hindsight, I hope Mr. Vacula can offer up at least one, possible naturalistic theory.

a major problem here with the resurrection arguments, is that JD is using historical information to arrive at a theological conclusion

Why can't JD use historical evidence to reinforce his faith and discuss it with others?

Is a miracle a probable event? I think not...and I am sure JD and my audience would agree; we simply don't see other examples of resurrections throughout history and are very, very, very, very inductively justified in assuming that persons don't come back from the dead

Thus a miracle would help explain such an event if it actually took place, right?

..how can we say a miracle is the best explanation for any given phenomena when miracles raise more questions than they answer (what was the source, how can the laws of nature be violated/suspended, how can something non-physical interact with something physical, why would this happen here and not elsewhere, etc) and go against what we know about the world (we understand that people don't come back from the dead and have no other examples of resurrection). An explanation of “god did it” doesn't add to our understanding – and thus should be rejected as an explanation

I disagree. The Septuagint Old Testament was written three centuries before Christ was born and we can chronicle that Jesus of Nazereth fulfilled the prophecies contained therein. In reference to the coming Messiah we're talking on the order of, at minimum, 300+ of them. This belief need not be dogmatic and all are invited to search if it is true and to vigorously compare such predictions and fulfillments to other religions.

If JD accepts this information for proof of Jesus' resurrection, I wonder why he does not accept similar claims made by Muslims

Because the prophet Mohammed received any 'revelation' that he had alone, in a cave, and with no other eyewitnesses.

Mormons

Because a couple of alleged 'eyewitnesses' changed their faith later in life and also changed their testimonies. Check the link I provided on this in my opening statement for more.

Heaven's Gate members

Because I view suicide as being stupid and counterproductive and scripture is against it. Do not be a fool--why die before your time?" (Ecclesiastes 7:17b)

Unless you would like to try and convince me otherwise, of course.

Scientologists

Because their methods have been debunked by science numerous times.

Sathya Sai Baba followers

I had to look that one up. Apparently he claims to be reincarnated and I personally don't accept the concept. There might be other points of disagreement as well but I haven't looked into their practices really.

The fact is, Justin is making the common atheist error here of lumping all religions in together as if the were of equal weight when nothing could be further from the truth.

If atheists who gather at the 2012 Reason Rally arrive at a consensus that they believe so strongly that the natural world is all that exists that they all commit suicide at the National Mall following a speech from, say, James Randi, would this be evidence that naturalism is true? Of course not

I am unaware of any of the apostles or early church fathers calling for mass suicide to demonstrate that Christianity is true. So I do not agree that the comparison is accurate. Again, we are talking about eyewitnesses or people personally aquainted with them.

Willingness to die for a belief, or actually dying for a belief, doesn't show that the belief is true

The apostles that I mentioned actaully knew whether Christ rose from the dead or not. In this way it was more than a belief. They didn't read it from a book or come to this knowledge second hand and had to be brainwashed by it.

the women being at the empty tomb fit well into Gospel themes. For example, the marginalization of Jesus, Jesus' life being a mystery, Jesus identifying with the marginalized, and more temes seem to fit well with the women, so perhaps this is why the Gospel writers used the women in a nrrative

And I would contend that it would have been flying in the face of reason to do so being that their testimony was unacceptable at the time and would have counted agaisnt the credibility of the veracity of the event.

Also interesting is the fact that several of the Gospels have different messages regarding theempty tomb: was Mary Magdeline a witness (John 20:1)?, was it a group of women (Mark 16:1 andMatthew 28:1 have different women)?

If all four gospels lined up on every single fact, there would undoubtedly be accusations of copying from one another. In reference to the alleged discrepencies, historian Michael Grant concluded that the narratives do have differences, however.."if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."

I believe that and if you would like to examine this topic from a reliability standpoint, I think it would be interesting.

JD also mentions the growth of the early church and seemingly argues that the growth of the church points to the fact that Jesus' resurrection is true. It simply does not follow. As I previously mentioned,there are all sorts of 'believers' around the world especially in the light of claims that we don't believeare true. Consider Islam and Hinduism, for example. JD and I don't believe Allah or several Hindu godsexist...and we also realize that many followers of these religions exist. Why, then, should the case bedifferent with Christianity?

The reason I mentioned this is because in the very early church, people in Jerusalem would have known if there was an obvious competeing claim as to what happened to the body of Jesus and they chose to join the church.

Anyway, let's assume that the empty tomb is a historical fact for sake of argument. “Jesus raised fromthe dead” simply does not follow from “Jesus' body was put in a tomb and then later the body was no longer there”

This doesn't mention multiple post-mortem appearances. It's not like they 'lost' the body or something.

Just because persons were saying things does not mean that such things were true (even if many persons believed such a claim). Once again, simply look to Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc. Persons believe the story of Joseph Smith and there are somany followers! Mormons will tell you that there's no explanation for the golden plates and that persons have verified the accuracy of Smith's claims just like Christians will say

And Christians overwhelmingly reject Mormonism and Islam as competeing claims. We've already gone over this. Their evidence sucks. I would like to compare the evidence for the Resurrection against the evidences for any of these other religions. We would need a whole new debate to do that though.

AP: 'Miracle' at Castle Rock, church defies arson

2011-11-09T16:24:00.000-08:00

The members of Castle Rock United Methodist Church and the Associated Press are calling it a miracle, and they aren't even Catholic...

"The pastor of the United Methodist Church in Castle Rock (pictured above) says it's a miracle her church survived an attempted arson in which fires were set in six places in the building.

Fires were started early Sunday on artificial flowers, a table cloth, cardboard boxes and the pastor's desk. All burned out without spreading.

Pastor Vonda McFadden told The Daily News it seems the century-old church was divinely spared. One fire burned up to an old Bible but left the book untouched. Another fire was stopped by a framed picture of Jesus.

The Sunday service for about 70 worshippers was held amid the strong smell of smoke. McFadden preached forgiveness."

Of course, the strict materialists that stop by here would never accept such a thing as a 'miracle' to explain such an event. At what point of lighting fires would the term 'miracle' apply in a case like this? If he had set seven fires? eight? Twenty?

Let's just all rejoice, believer and non-believer alike, that this didn't go horribly bad and have a much worse outcome. Can I get a 'highly improbable' people? How about a 'statistically unlikely'? How about an A-men?

The Curtis/Vacula Debate, Does the Christian God Exist?: 1st Rebuttals

2011-11-08T20:43:00.000-08:00

This post will constitute my first of two rebuttals that will take place in the debate between me and Justin Vacula. In order to see Justin's rebuttal to my opening statement (which appears below this thread), just visit his website at JustinVacula.com

While perusing Mr. Vacula's opening statement there were a few items that caught my attention and I will list them for his consideration and comment.

Can one honestly believe that malaria, AIDS, Indian Ocean Tsunamis, Chilean earthquakes, andthe like are the work of an omni-good god?

While we are discussing the concept of whether the Christian concept of a god exists, it is important to bear in mind that these things occur, according to orthodox Christian doctrine, because we all live in a fallen world. These things came about after the fall, this world/plane of existance isn't paradise, and the existance of these aforementioned items only serve to reinforce and help prove that contention. If the narrative was such that these things did not exist, then it would seem contradictory that they do, however, that is not the case.

I contend that 'natural evil' – earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, tsunamis, animal suffering, and the like – is incompatible with belief in an omni-good god and serves as a defeater to Christian belief

I notice that Mr. Vacula made the huge leap of terming these things 'evil' without ever explaining how he arrived at that conclusion. At no point does he explain the criteria that must be met in order for any of these things to be defined as 'evil'. I would posit the fact that Mr. Vacula views these things as 'evil' counts towards evidence that an objective good exists by which we can gauge these things. And if that objective good exists, then what is it?

A strict materialist would simply look at these things and shrug. An earthquake causing destruction? A seismic event that is the result of plate tectonics, and why did they make the decision to live near a fault line anyway? Should they be shaking their fist at God or do they carry at least part of the blame if it affected them or their loved ones? Same goes for a flood wiping out a bunch of houses and displacing hundreds, the materialist would think that it's the result of a meteorological event such as heavy rain. Did anyone put a gun to their respective heads and force them to live in a flood plain? Is it God's fault if the didn't do their homework? Do humans bear any responsibility at all in these equations whatsoever?

Again, by what standard are these things termed 'evil'? If a tsunami occurs out at sea and hardly anyone notices, is it 'evil'? If a tornado doesn't actually kill anyone, but does delay my flight out of Tulsa for an hour and a half, is it 'evil' or merely a 'nuisance'? If a hurricane causes some property damage and minor abrasions, is it 'evil' or just 'not very nice'?

I do hope that some measurement for clarification is offered up by Mr. Vacula to help us understand how he determined this. And furthermore that any clarification put forward isn't based on anything so highly subjective as personal feelings, experience or opinion. Because after all, we know that these things indeed vary greatly from person to person. We'll see.

In addition to human suffering, an egregious amount of animal suffering exists – ecosystems thrive because animals kill other animals, often in a slow and painful fashion. Does this seem to be the work of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing being?

You know what? That's quite interesting. I don't recall that I have ever heard of the so-called suffering of animals objection that Mr. Vacula raises as being a valid argument against the existence of God.

But I wonder if we actually know how much these animals are truly 'suffering'. For instance, some animals inject a numbing venom so their prey doesn't feel the pain of being bitten. But setting aside the uncertain level of pain that some animals feel when being eaten by others, I would like to know why Justin simply settled on animals. I mean, who is going to stand up for the vegetables? What was the criteria considered when the animal kingdom got the big 'thumbs up' for approval that their experiences were valid and those of plants are not? Recent research would suggest that plants are suffering too.

"When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage to the plants. Inside the plant, repair systems are engaged and defenses are mounted, the molecular details of which scientists are still working out, but which involve signaling molecules coursing through the body to rally the cellular troops, even the enlisting of the genome itself, which begins churning out defense-related proteins.

Plants don’t just react to attacks, though. They stand forever at the ready. Witness the endless thorns, stinging hairs and deadly poisons with which they are armed. If all this effort doesn’t look like an organism trying to survive, then I’m not sure what would. Plants are not the inert pantries of sustenance we might wish them to be.

If a plant’s myriad efforts to keep from being eaten aren’t enough to stop you from heedlessly laying into that quinoa salad, then maybe knowing that plants can do any number of things that we typically think of as animal-like would. They move, for one thing, carrying out activities that could only be called behaving, if at a pace visible only via time-lapse photography. Not too long ago, scientists even reported evidence that plants could detect and grow differently depending on whether they were in the presence of close relatives, a level of behavioral sophistication most animals have not yet been found to show."

So why do plants get the short end of the stick here? They seem to have an awareness of whats going on. And lest you think that a diet of mushrooms would solve the problem and let you off the hook, the above article contains a link explaining how fungi are even more closely related to us than plants are. (provided evolution is correct) So I guess they are 'off the table' so to speak, also.

I don't wish to make my opponent's arguments for him, but are animals used in this argument against God because they have faces and perhaps we are more sympathetic towards them for mere sentimental reasons? Or perhaps because they have brains? The above quoted author brings up the example of Jellyfish which "can be really tasty when cut into julienne and pickled, [and] have no brains, only a simple net of nerves, arguably a less sophisticated setup than the signaling systems coordinating the lives of many plants" and asks "How do we decide how much sensitivity and what sort matters?"

Since Justin brought up this line of argument, I will assume that he has carefully thought through his position on the matter and will await for him to tell us just where the terminator line is as to whose suffering is uplifted and who the ultimate losers are to be in these scenarios.

If the amount of good in the world renders belief in an omni-evil god unreasonable, why doesn't theamount of suffering and death in the world render belief in an omni-good god unreasonable?...we are equally justified in believing that of evil in the world demonstrates that there is not a good creator god.

I don't believe that my opponent has a rudimentary understanding of one of the more basic concepts of Christianity, namely, that according to widely accepted, orthodox belief, the God of this world is not the Creator God. This is made quite clear in 2nd Corinthians 4:4 "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God". There are various other passages that confirm this and I admit that I'm a bit puzzled that my opponent was (seemingly) unaware of this doctrine.

Premise One: Naturalism, the philosophical belief that all that exists is the natural world, is very inductively justified.

Premise Two: If naturalism is very inductively justified, we are justified in rejecting any supernatural explanations.

Premise Three: The Christian god is a supernatural explanation.

Conclusion: We are justified in rejecting belief in the Christian god.

I would like to turn this discussion back towards Christianity (or the 'Christian God'). Exactly where did Natural Law come from and was it in fact a necessary prerequisite that lead to methodological naturalism and ultimately sytematic science? Christians typically do not seek supernatural explanations except perhaps on origin of life discussions and numerous scientists seem to hold their faith concerning where the first living, reproducing organism came from with equal ardor. As one man put it, "Supernatural intervention plays no role in Natural Law, except to have set the ground rules".

EDIT: 2nd rebuttals are to be posted on our respective blogs on Thursday night.

Yet another sign that the apocalypse is upon us..

2011-11-08T09:04:00.000-08:00

Nothing says that you are a complete pagan/heathen like sacrificing your child on the Lord's day...

"Regardless of one’s personal or political views on abortion, most people on both sides of the aisle would probably take issue with a clinic marketing coupon deals on the procedure as nonchalantly as if it were a manicure or spa-facial. On Monday, LifeNews reported that a coupon promising discount Sunday abortions for a “limited” time only, was issued by the Orlando Women’s Center – as if they were advertising a “fire sale.”

Do we really need such prompting? This is beyond sad and makes you wonder where our sick society is heading with such complete callousness as this.

The Curtis/Vacula Debate, Does the Christian God Exist?: Opening Statements

2011-11-06T16:51:00.000-08:00

This debate came about through a series of emails between me and atheist Justin Vacula. In order to see Mr. Vacula's opening remarks, please visit his website at JustinVacula.com.

In our opening statements we are to limit ourselves to a maximum of five main points. I will attempt to to abide by that rule in order to streamline this discussion as much as possible and avoid plunging into any senseless rabbitholes.

For me personally, the answer to the question 'Does the Christian God exist?' would be a resounding 'yes', I believe that He does. Let me attempt to lay out what I think are five good reasons why I believe this is so. Please note that my beliefs are not limited to these five reasons, but after no small amount of consideration, I decided to use these in my arguments for the purposes of our discussion here.

#1. The fine-tuning of the earth's position in our solar system. There are numerous criteria that must be met in order for this planet to sustain life. Our moon must be positioned precisely where it is in order to slow the earth's rotation. If it were not for the moon then we would have 6 hour days and high, sustained winds[1] of approximately 500 miles an hour and thus life would be much less likely to form and survive. If our planet were to be located a mere 5% closer or further away from the sun, then the three states of water that exist (liquid, frozen and vapor) that are so necessary for life on earth would be much less likely to "prevail"[2]. Additionally, If the earth did not have the large, outer planets in our solar system protecting it, we would be bombarded much more by space debris such as meteors.[3]

These are just a few of the supposed 'coincidences' that led to habitability on this planet. A couple others that could be added are our location within a 'co-rotation radius' that is to say, between the spiraling arms of the Milky Way[4] and the earth's 23.5 degree tilt on it's axis that prevents much greater tempurature extremes in our summers and winters [5]. I believe that if one considers the mathematical odds of all of these factors lining up in an arbitrary manner, the statistical probability as such would appear to be quite remote if not practically impossible. If Mr. Vacula would like to utilize mathematics to demonstrate the likelihood of these factors all coming about randomly through undirected processes, I would invite him to do so.

This brings us to the next point I would like to bring up...

#2. The possibility that life first arose on this planet through completely random, undirected processes is so low that it constitutes an argument against such an occurance.

Or as one well known writer put it..

"There is zero evidence that abiogenesis ever took place, robustly imagined mechanisms for it notwithstanding. To claim that because there was no life before, but there is now, ergo abiogenesis occurred, is the very sort of philosophy that science has largely come to supplant." [6]

In support of the remote possibility of life occurring as such, I would like to quote this professor who offered up his thoughts on the matter...

"..the mathematical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that nobody still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. Even if you optimized the conditions, it wouldn't work. If you took all of the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the fastest rate possible and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it." [7]

So as you can see, it would appear reasonable that one could believe that these two things had an intelligent first cause directing a desired outcome.

However, all I've done so far is raise two arguments in favor of a generic god. What makes me think that Christianity is unique here? Aren't there other religions that also have their own creation account? Out of the other competing claims out there, why is it that I believe the Christian God is responsible and the ultimate source of truth?

For me anyway, the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazereth is evidential enough. After considerable study, the scholar NT Wright has written that the resurrection and post-mortem appearances of Jesus of Nazereth are "in the same category, of historical probability so high as to be virtually certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70".[8] In fact, according to one author, "The textual case for the historical Jesus is orders of magnitude stronger than the one for the historical Alexander the Great..There are no primary sources for Alexander and the most trustworthy of the five secondary sources was written by Arrian approximately 470 years after Alexander’s death."[9] And practically nobody doubts the historicity and accomplishments of Alexander.

You must admit, if someone suffered a very public and horrific death and then came back to life three days later, that would certainly constitute a miracle. For my other three points, I would like to offer up what I think are the best evidences for the Resurrection.

#3. The apostles were transformed. Following the crucifixion and interment of Jesus of Nazereth we read that the remaining apostles at least believed he was dead and they had little reason to believe otherwise, prior predictions by Jesus not withstanding. The apostles then became aggressive proclaimers of the Resurrection of Christ and despite facing hardships and terrible martyrdom, there is absolutely no record whatsoever of any of them ever changing their story in the least. There was nary an Oliver Cowdery or David Whitmer among them.

#4. Why do the gospel accounts record that it was women who had found the tomb empty? This is especially interesting in light of the fact that the testimony of women was not considered to be admissible in those times in the Ancient Near East. This is hardly suprising given that attitudes haven't changed that much over the millenia in this part of the world.

If the empty tomb account was simply made up, wouldn't if have made much more sense to have the apostles there at the tomb in this case and (additionally) not making them look like such doubters and failures that even Peter refused to stand up for his faith when asked about it by a young servant girl?

As an interesting aside (I really don't expect Justin to address this), this leads to another question stemming from the opposite end of Christ's earthly existance, the account that it was shepherds out in the field who were among the first people recorded to herald the birth of Jesus. Why would the writers of the gospels use them in this narrative if the testimony of shepherds was not admissible either during this period of time in the Ancient Near East?

This hardly seems like a firm foundation for "the Christian church, which is the largest institution or organization that has ever existed on the face of the earth, with membership easily passing two billion people by the end of this decade. Nothing comparable to her or even close has ever existed before. The Grand Canyon wasn't caused by an Indian dragging a stick, and the Christian Church wasn't created by a myth."[10]

In reference to the women discovering the empty tomb (along with shepherds heralding the birth of Christ), maybe there was something at work here in addition to the Son of God becoming flesh here on earth to make our relationship right with God. Perhaps as a byproduct of this happening, God wished to see the existing order of doing things shaken up and irrevocably changed.

The last point I would like to raise in support of the resurrection would be..

#5 The complete lack of any widespread, competing claims from the 1st century A.D. as to what happened to the body of Christ. If it wasn't a bodily resurrection, then what happened? There simply is no sort of 'Solly and Biff from Haifa spirited the body away on the Saturday night following the crucifixion and dumped the body in the Mediterranean. And thus Jesus of Nazereth sleeps with the fishes.' There's nothing remotely like an accepted, competing account from the time and thus applying Occam's Razor in this instance, the earliest, most widely accepted version of events would tend to be the correct one in this case.

I'll give Dr. Jerry Newcombe the last say on the topic of the empty tomb.

"Historians-secular unbelieving historians-tell us that the Christian Church began in Jerusalem in 30 A.D. [It could have been 33], the year Christ was killed and that she began because the apostles began to preach that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. You strip everything else away from their preaching, their main message was that Christ rose from the dead (e.g. Acts 2:23-24)

..many adherents to many religions can travel to the place where the founder of their religion is currently entombed and say, "Here lies the dust of our estimable founder." You cannot say that about Christ. He was not in the grave. He is risen. For 1,700 years there was virtually no contraversy that the tomb was empty. The Jews didn't deny it. The Romans didn't deny it. Nobody denied it until just recently. With our vast "rear view mirror" wisdom, we look back through more than 1900 years and we decide, "Oh, the tomb wasn't empty." Too bad those who were there couldn't have been so smart."[11] (Emphasis mine)

[1] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=104
[2] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Water
[3] http://people.hofstra.edu/lois_miceli/modules/SOLARS1.html
[4] http://www.reasons.org/location-location-location-research-reveals-fine-tuning-solar-systems-position
[5] http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast03jul_1/
[6] Day, Vox; http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/lecturing-butterfly-collector.html
[7] Bradley, Walter, PhD. Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University (interview)
[8] Wright, NT; The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003
[9] Day, Vox; The Irrational Atheist pg. 116, 2007
[10] Newcombe, Jerry, DD. Sunday school notes, 10/30/11, The New Presbyterian Church, Pompano Beach, Florida
[11] Ibid

EDIT: I forgot to mention, our respective 1st rebuttals are going to be posted on Tuesday night.

Liberals and Mohammedans: Making children the world over miserable together‏

2011-11-05T06:12:00.000-07:00

Yes folks its true. We just can't go around giving gifts to the most dirt poor kids around the world. That just might mean that we are following Christ's command to 'Love thy neighbor'.....

"The Air Force Academy apologized Thursday night after it was accused of religious intolerance for promoting Operation Christmas Child – a program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said military commanders crossed the line when they promoted the gift program, sponsored by Samaritan’s Purse, an organization run by Franklin Graham.

Operation Christmas Child said they expect to send more than 8 million shoe box gifts to underprivileged children in 100 countries. Around 60,000 churches and 60,000 community groups in the United States are participating.

MikeyWeinstein, of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said an evangelical Christian message is also included in the boxes.

“This is a proselytizing entity of Franklin Graham,” said the group’s president, Mikey Weinstein. He filed a complaint on behalf of 132 Academy personnel including two sets of Muslim-American parents."

Thanks imbeciles. I'd really like to see somebody defend this lunacy. Exactly WHAT is this 'message' that is included in these boxes? Telling some kid that receives nothing all year and is lucky to even eat that they are important to someone? What next? That they actually matter and have value? We can't have that now, can we?

EDIT: While the Obama administration is curiously absent from weighing in on this contaversy, it has no problems telling the WWII memorial that FDR's prayer cannot be included. Link

The best article on the Herman Cain contraversy you will find

2011-11-04T06:36:00.000-07:00

Trust me, I visit numerous news sites and blogs and pour over entries from all types of pundits on a regular basis. Since allegations from the 1990's started coming up this past week concerning Herman Cain's conduct while serving CEO of the National Restaurants Association (ironically enough, about 12 hours before he was to address the National Press Club for the first time), this has got to be BY FAR the most informative article on the entire debacle. It's extensive, well written, informative, contains some points that other media outlets didn't cover and is even-handed in it's coverage. By all means, feel free to weigh in with your thoughts on this contraversy in the comment box below. Here's a brief snippet of the linked article from The Hayride...

"This thing could be a great opportunity for a transformational moment, and Cain’s campaign could well have led the way to a discussion that would greatly benefit the country. It’s somewhat analogous to the opportunity Obama had early in 2008 when the nation found out he’d spent 20 years in a church led by an anti-American charlatan who regularly trashed white people and bastardized the country’s history as a key element of his ministry. Naturally, Obama mucked that moment by throwing his “typical white person” grandmother under the bus, though he got away with that thanks to the media’s happy acquiescence in the faux racial-healing propaganda offensive. But a presidential candidate who isn’t a typical white person and whose qualifications as a candidate include a demonstrated ability to generate achievement in large organizations and who then points to old allegations of an arguably minor import as a reason why we’re killing ourselves with intolerance toward each other in our daily dealings would be perfectly placed to capitalize on it. And in doing so, said candidate would cement himself as a uniter on the national scene."

ADDENDUM: Additionally, check out this video response from Cain supporters. I think it can be an effective message but you be the judge.

EDIT: Politico runs 90 92 stories on Cain in 5 days, and counting...

Ward: 'Religion answers the factual questions science neglects'

2011-11-02T05:24:00.000-07:00

There's an excellent article in today's Guardian regarding the faux 'war' between science and religion. You can click here for the entire article, but here's a brief snippet...

"A huge number of factual claims are not scientifically testable. Many historical and autobiographical claims, for instance, are not repeatable, not publicly observable now or in future, and are not subsumable under any general law. We know that rational answers to many historical questions depend on general philosophical views, moral views, personal experience and judgment. There are no history laboratories. Much history, like much religion, is evidence-based, but the evidence is not scientifically tractable...

Claims that the cosmos is created do not "trespass onto" scientific territory. They are factual claims in which scientific investigators are not, as such, interested. Scientific facts are, of course, relevant to many religious claims. But not all facts are scientific facts – the claim that I was in Oxford last night, unseen by anyone, will occur in no scientific paper, but it is a hard fact. So it is with the miracles of Jesus, with the creation of the cosmos and with its end. The interesting question is not whether religion is compatible with science, but whether there are important factual questions – and some important non-factual questions, too, such as moral ones – with which the physical sciences do not usually deal. The answer seems pretty obvious, without trying to manufacture sharp and artificial distinctions between "hows" and "whys"."

Is Newt Gingrich a viable candidate?

2011-11-01T06:00:00.000-07:00

Throughout most of the summer and up until quite recently, the poll numbers indicating support for a Gingrich presidency were hovering in the low, single digits. Those numbers are recenty starting to tick upward ever so slightly as Tony Lee recently observed...

"In a volatile election cycle, Gingrich has battled his way back into contention, rising to third place in several national and state polls on the force of his ideas and breadth of knowledge of how Washington does and does not work. After nationally televised debates and local town halls, Gingrich has made voters want to give him a second look, especially after he speaks emphatically about American Exceptionalism and about bureaucrats and unelected judges who threaten to undermine it."

Gingrich answers some of the tough questions facing anyone who would like to lead this nation in the linked Human Events article. And kudos to Gingrich and Herman cain agreeing to an unmoderated Lincoln-Douglass type of debate. Today's televised debates seem to be moderated disproportionately by media figures whose political leanings skew leftward.

John Hawkins cuts to the heart of the matter by spelling out why a Gingrich candidacy is so appealling to conservatives...

"Over the last fifty years, the three most important politicians to the conservative movement have been Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich. Goldwater got the ball rolling while Reagan and Newt proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that conservative governance would work in the real world.

Newt's books and columns have been consistently conservative, his public comments have been consistently conservative, and his debate performances have been consistently conservative. As a matter of fact other than perhaps Michele Bachmann, Newt is the purest movement conservative on the stage. If you're a conservative who wants someone who represents your beliefs in the White House, you couldn't do much better than Newt Gingrich."

I wholeheartedly agree with Hawkins on the above statements as few people in American politics are a solidly conservative as Gingrich. Hawkins goes on in the article to present his idea that Newt's personal baggage isn't as bad as it seems at first glance. Perhaps so, but it's a given fact that the MSM never treats faux pas by conservatives the same as those by leftists and thus I don't think Gingrich would receive anywhere near the lack of attention and abscence of inches of type as were curiously not devoted to Al Gore or John Edwards.

How Freedom and Democracy are Intertwined with Christianity

2011-10-31T05:40:00.000-07:00

There are two great articles out today highlighting the correlation between democratic freedom and Christianity. First, Ben Kinchlow (above) writes...

"President George Washington, in his 1776 farewell speech, issued one of the gravest warnings in American history:

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

He continued:

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education … reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington clearly understood the folly of attempting to substitute education for morality (the quality of being in accord with the standards of right and wrong).

Liberal-oriented educators and intellectuals insist that our children can make moral choices in a vacuum. Their position is that choices can be made without regard to any absolute standard of right and wrong. The argument for situational ethics (any decision depends on the situation you are in) presents our youth with a shifting morality as the basis for making decisions. The fact of the matter is, however, that the intelligentsia make these assertions without due consideration of the end results.

Absent religious principles (which, in Western civilization, are taken from the Judeo-Christian Bible), what, if any, are the standards of right and wrong? Who sets them? Has it become merely a matter of opinion? And if so, whose? What, one could reasonably ask, is the foundation upon which we base our actions and order our society?"

Kinchlow's article goes on to argue, like others before him, that the very foundation of Western civilization, and the freedoms we enjoy in it, are in fact, based on the Bible, and rightly so.

Vox Day's latest offering points out how the Left is abolutely clueless when it comes to the history of Western civilization...

"Being for the most part historically illiterate, few intellectuals are prepared to admit that modern representative democracy and the basic concept of individual rights are 18th century phenomena that were the byproducts of a Christian society. They prefer to attribute both institutions to the Enlightenment, despite the fact that it was the Enlightenment that led directly to the revolutionary horrors of the French revolution and it is the Enlightenment that presently serves as the inspiration for the anti-democratic authoritarian bureaucracy of the European Union.

It is written that a house divided against itself cannot stand. In like manner, an intellectual movement cannot reasonably be considered the cause of two diametrically opposed conceptual phenomena.

And it will become increasingly difficult for intellectuals to deny the connection between Christianity and democracy as the recognized, even celebrated, post-Christianity of Europe has been closely followed by European post-democracy. The development of European post-democracy is much less recognized, is not at all celebrated, and yet it is in some ways further along than the more widely reported continental post-Christianity."

For all of the hand-wringing about Christianity being a 'repressive' religion, one wonders what the world would look like without it's influence.

"Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention .... In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united. ”

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other .... They brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion." Alexis de Tocqueville

Making 'intolerance' their god

2011-10-25T06:04:00.000-07:00

Recent news articles seem to be reinforcing specific groups one must be tolerant towards while ignoring the plight of others. First, we read in Thomas Sowell's column from today...

"Back in the 1920s, the intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic were loudly protesting the execution of political radicals Sacco and Vanzetti, after what they claimed was an unfair trial. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote to his young leftist friend Harold Laski, pointing out that there were "a thousand-fold worse cases" involving black defendants, "but the world does not worry over them."

Holmes said: "I cannot but ask myself why this so much greater interest in red than black."

To put it bluntly, it was a question of whose ox was gored. That is, what groups were in vogue at the moment among the intelligentsia. Blacks clearly were not.

The current media and political crusade against "bullying" in schools seems likewise to be based on what groups are in vogue at the moment. For years, there have been local newspaper stories about black kids in schools in New York and Philadelphia beating up Asian classmates, some beaten so badly as to require medical treatment.

But the national media hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Asian Americans are not in vogue today, just as blacks were not in vogue in the 1920s.

Meanwhile, the media are focused on bullying directed against youngsters who are homosexual. Gays are in vogue.

Most of the stories about the bullying of gays in schools are about words directed against them, not about their suffering the violence that has long been directed against Asian youngsters or about the failure of the authorities to do anything serious to stop black kids from beating up Asian kids.

Where youngsters are victims of violence, whether for being gay or whatever, that is where the authorities need to step in. No decent person wants to see kids hounded, whether by words or deeds, and whether the kids are gay, Asian or whatever."

Indeed, for a more recent example of "Red Trumps Black", even within the black community, Dennis Prager reminds us that "In 2009, nine left-wing Democratic congressmen, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, visited Fidel Castro in Cuba and came back awestruck by the dictator. They even refused to meet with one of Cuba’s leading pro-democracy dissidents, Jorge Luis Garcia Pérez, an African Cuban."

But insofar as gays being the preferred mascots of the media elites these days, one need look no further than the recent case involving a New Jersey school teacher...

"In New Jersey, the Township of Union Public School District has suspended a special education teacher named Vicki Knox because she sat in her own home, on her own computer, and expressed her Christian faith on her personal Facebook page.

After seeing a quasi-shrine that had been erected at her school, honoring Harvey Milk, Neil Patrick Harris, and Virginia Woolf for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History month, Knox expressed disapproval of “homosexuality based on her Christian faith.”

Just think of it – although the Bible unequivocally denounces practicing homosexual behavior, groups like Garden State Equality (GSE) have come out against Knox as if she invented Christianity’s teaching on homosexual practices, and they’re actually calling for her to lose her job.

Said Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein: “I find what she wrote on Facebook endangers the learning atmosphere for students beyond repair and violates the school district’s own policy of a safe and comfortable environment for all. She’s no longer in a position to teach in the classroom because she will make many students fearful of her hatred.”..

This point is made even more poignant when one considers the fact that Knox went out of her way to say that she prays for those who are persecuting her and tells them that God loves them (which is now apparently the same thing as expressing “hatred”)."

Which leads to a question I have asked before, is there any criticism of the gay lifestyle allowed whatsoever? Check out some of the comments from self-identified gays in the link for the above article. It seems that even members of the gay community are themselves concerned about such anti-Christian bigotry. Kelly Boggs explains why the teacher was within her rights as an American citizen to expess her opinions...

"It really does not take a constitutional scholar to understand the simple, straightforward wording established by our nation's founders.

First, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Put simply, the phrase makes it clear that the government must not pass legislation forcing a person to practice or pay homage to a particular religion. In other words, the state will not establish an official religion or church.

Second, "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the simplest of terms this statement makes it clear that the government will not seek to restrict an individual's practice of his or her faith. A person is free to believe, or not to believe as the case may be, as he or she desires.

To sum up the two parts of the opening portion of the First Amendment, when it comes to the practice of religion in America, the government will not tell citizens that they "must" or that they "can't."...

It would seem that when a public school seeks to keep students or teachers from respectfully expressing religious beliefs that the government is telling them they "can't" exercise their religion or the freedom to express their beliefs.

It does not require a juris doctor degree to understand the plain language of the First Amendment."

On the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate William Lane Craig, 2 responses

2011-10-24T05:13:00.000-07:00

On the topic of atheist Richard Dawkins recently refusing to debate Christian apologist William Lane Craig, brother Gregg Metcalf who blogs over at Gospel Driven Disciples was kind enough to share his thoughts on the topic. Brother Gregg's response is as follows...

"I have been assigned to provide “your exegesis on Dr. Dawkins' characterization of Deuteronomy 20:13-15” in regards to his refusal to debate William Lane Craig.

First, Dawkins characterized Deuteronomy 20:13-15 by this statement, “You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God’s commandment, in Deuteronomy 20:13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder ... You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God.”

It appears that Dawkins characterizes this section as a command of God commit genocide. Genocide is defined as “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1969)

Secondly, I think that we may be starting in the wrong place. In attempting to comment or characterize actions of God we must start with the character of God. The first question that we must ask ourselves, does God have right to make such a command? The answer is yes. Why? God is absolutely sovereign. God, as both revealed in the Scripture and defined by His character or nature has the right to exercise His absolute supremacy in accordance with His divine perfections. God is infinitely elevated above the highest creature. He is the most high and is subject to no one. God is independent and does as He pleases, only as He pleases, and always as He pleases.

My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. (Isa 46:10) He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; none can stay His hand. (Dan 4:35) But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased. (Psalms 115:3)

God yields His sovereignty anyway He wishes and does not answer to any man. Job found that out when God chose to refine him through a bitter season. As Job questioned his dire circumstances and treatment God never provided him with an answer. Through a series of questions God demonstrated to Job that he did not have the qualifications or character to question God and to call God to an account of His actions.

It is obvious as one studies both Scripture and the character of God that God never exercises His absolute sovereignty apart from the other “attributes” of His nature. His sovereignty is never exercised apart from justice, mercy, love, holiness, righteousness, grace, and/or kindness. God is not arbitrary or capricious. God always acts perfectly and in unison with all of His divine attributes.

When God gave the command to the nation of Israel in Deuteronomy 20:10-15, He had every right to do so. He had the right and operated within the perfection of His nature when He killed all the inhabitants of the earth save eight souls in the ark. He had the right and acted within the perfection of His nature when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone.

In Deuteronomy 20:10-15 God gives the command to Israel as the armies advance upon a city to call for peace, in other words to summon the city to make a peaceable surrender. If the city surrendered and submitted then the residents became servants to Israel. However, if the city refused to surrender and submit and attempted to fight against Israel then God commanded Israel to besiege the city. If God chose to allow Israel to prevail in battle then Israel was to kill the males and take the women and children captive.

As horrid as that might sound to Mr. Dawkins, this was the prerogative of a supreme and sovereign God. These actions may seem harsh and outrageous to Dawkins and to us. We are not God. We are finite and God is infinite in all of His perfections. We may not understand His acts or His ways at times. We may even pray for a different course of action or outcome, but God is sovereign and does as He pleases.

I think the text is clear and doesn’t need the judgment of Dawkins or the seemingly rewrite by Craig.

“Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples,” Craig explained.

"It is therefore completely misleading to characterize God’s command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair,” he concluded.

Deuteronomy 7:1-4 states,

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than yourselves, and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly." (ESV, emphasis mine)

God is fully within divine and absolute perfection when He called for the death of these people. The penalty for sin is death. The soul that sins shall die. Death was not always “old age.” When God called for the death of these people and Israel put them to death, they were simply receiving what was due and just.

As I conclude my assignment I shall add a couple of ideas for thought. First, I know of no command, mandate, or directive that an unbelieving sinner must debate anyone. As a matter of fact I don’t even see the value of a debate. It is true that each believer is to be ready to give an answer, a defense, or an apology for what we believe, but I don’t know ifthat same mandate applies to the wicked and the lost.

Secondly, God charged Israel once with the indictment that they had erroneously and sinfully concluded that God was like them. We cannot “start” with a premise of what is fair or unfair, right or wrong, just or unjust and judge the actions of God in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. God is sovereign, full of perfection and will always act in accordance with His divine nature for His glory and our good.

Although we as God’s people today have no mandate to commit genocide against any racial, political, or cultural group, we cannot judge God or His actions as wrong, sinful, inhumane, or against our sense of justice. Otherwise, this is the height of pride and arrogance. My characterization of Dawkins reasons for refusing to debate is that he has placed Himself above God, and made Himself a judge of God and His actions and that is the epitome of pride and arrogance in a sinful, wicked, man in need of redemption."

I thank brother Gregg for his unique and well thought out analysis of this issue. My thoughts on the contraversy are as follows....

It seems that Richard Dawkins has had to stoop to feigning fake moral hand-wringing in order to avoid debating arch-apologist William Lane Craig. While I would surmize that the main reasons that he is avoiding such a debate are because, as Dr. David Berlinski has described, that Dawkins is a 'crummy philosopher' who 'lacks the rudimentary skills to meticulously assess his own arguments' and this would be laid bare publicly in a most embarrassing manner. Also that that debating WLC did not work out very well for the likes of Dr. Peter Adkins and Sam Harris.

However the fact that Dr. Dawkins has raised a poorly constructed argument to rationalize adopting the Run-and-Hide Method of Argumentation in this instance by claiming God condones 'Genocide' is monumentally stupid, even by his own lofty standards. In specific, Dawkins claims to have a problem with the instructions found in Deuteronomy 20:13-15.

"When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. " (NIV translation)

As Brother Gregg mentioned in his response, we should start from the beginning. If were to read just slightly ahead in this chapter of scripture, you would see in verse 18 that if the Israelites do not attack these peoples, then "they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods". Since the Book of Leviticus chronicles the horrific religious practices of these people ranging from all manner of sexual depravity to the human sacrifice of young children, one can see why the people of the Ancient Near East would be much better off not absorbing their practices. There is indication that such practices were starting to seep into other cultures and this did not bode well at all for the region.

One thing I would like you to consider is the very distinct option (that I heard raised by Dr. Norman Wise at a lecture recently) that a society can become so completely and utterly depraved that it can reach a point where there is no turning back.

A point in which there is no societal cure.

Nor a remedy of any kind.

Their morally reprehensible attitudes and perversions can be so thoroughly ingrained from top to bottom of a society that change is not possible and the most likely outcome would then be for their attitudes to start affecting surrounding cultures. Therapy did not exist at the time and I doubt they would have listened anyway.

Additionally, God waited for many years for these peoples to renounce their ways before extolling judgement upon them. They had every opportunity to change, and yet they refused, or as this writer describes for us...

"Thus Canaan had, as it were, a final forty-year countdown as they heard of the events in Egypt, at the crossing of the Reed Sea, and what happened to the kings who opposed Israel along the way. We know that they were aware of such events, for Rahab confessed that these same events had terrorized her city of Jericho and that she, as a result, had placed her faith in the God of the Hebrews (Josh. 2:10-14). Thus God waited for the "cup of iniquity" to fill up -- and fill up it did without any change in spite of the marvelous signs given so that the nations, along with Pharaoh and the Egyptians, "might know that he was the Lord."

I can only guess as to why Dawkins concentrates on this particular passage from Deuteronomy when, if he wanted to wail about the destruction of certain peoples, then the judgement that befell certain 'cities of the plain' would seem much more likely a candidate for criticism as entire towns were made to disappear from the face of the earth through natural disasters. However, to use an example that utilized fire and brimstone to achieve it's ends would deprive Dr Dawkins of all of the lurid and vivid imagery that the word Genocide conjures up in the mind, complete with internment camps of poor souls, wasting away and awaiting The Big Dirt Nap while the outer perimeter is patrolled by whatever equivalent the Ancient Near East had to Shutzstaffel guards. Fire and brimstone just don't cut it in this sense and would not be nearly as useful to Dr. Dawkins in committing his pet appeal to emotion fallacy.

We know that when fallible man was put in charge of carrying out God's judgement rather than a natural disaster that these people were not wiped out.

"That many of the Canaanites continued in the land even to the days of Solomon, we have the fullest proof; for we read, 2 Chronicle 8:7 "All the people of the land that were left of the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, who were left in the land, whom the children of Israel consumed not, them did Solomon make to pay tribute to this day." Thus Solomon destroyed their political existence, but did not consider himself bound by the law of God to put them to death."

Dr Dawkins, I would encourage you to examine God's written word with something other than a mind that is completely closed and through the clouded lense of poor, militant, evangelical atheist apologetics and that you embrace the faith of your youth. He is waiting for you now and would like to see all come to repentance...

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30

Perry, Bachmann, Romney: Obama's Decision to Leave Iraq 'Political"

2011-10-22T05:34:00.001-07:00

Reaction from the campaign trail to the announcement that the US would be withdrawing military forces from Iraq by the end of this year was swift.

“The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government,” Romney said in a news release. “The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.”

“President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women,” Romney continued.

Texas governor Rick Perry also questioned the motives of the president’s decision.

“I’m deeply concerned that President Obama is putting political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment by announcing an end to troop level negotiations and a withdrawal from Iraq by year’s end,” Perry said in a statement. “The President was slow to engage the Iraqis and there’s little evidence today’s decision is based on advice from military commanders.”

Minnosata Congresswoman and GOP candidate Michele Bachmann struck a similar tone, calling the announcement “a political decision and not a military one.”

“It represents the complete failure of President Obama to secure an agreement with Iraq for our troops to remain there to preserve the peace and demonstrates how far our foreign policy leadership has fallen,” Bachmann said in a news release. “In every case where the United States has liberated a people from dictatorial rule, we have kept troops in that country to ensure a peaceful transition and to protect fragile growing democracies.”

I watched the CBS Evening News tonight and there was hardly any (if any at all) mention of the Obama administration's failings in negotiations with the Iraqi government and instead the entire matter was treated as a victory and a political coup for the Obama administration. As it turns out, it seems that The Guardian was more even-handed in their coverage than the US press was...

"John McCain, one of the leading foreign affairs specialists in the Senate and Obama's Republican opponent in the 2008 White House race, said: "Today marks a harmful and sad setback for the United States in the world. I respectfully disagree with the president: this decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."

...One of the sticking points in the negotiations with Iraq was a US demand that American forces remaining in the country after December would enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as they do now. The Iraqi government, conscious of public anger over many controversial incidents involving US troops and defence contractors over the last decade, refused.

The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis."

Leave it to Obama to play up the failure of US policymakers to help secure a volatile region of the world on his watch as some sort of victory on his part. I am all for slowly drawing down the number of US troops in the region over the next few years and I only hope there isn't a Post-Soviet Size Hole of a vacuum left after the last of America's most precious resource come home in December.

Trivia Question: How many tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq were quietly airlifted out of Iraq three years ago to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and eventually Canada?

A. 150 tons
B. 200 tons
C. 550 tons, or
D. 0 tons

Click here and here for the answer.

The Fairy Tale of the Walking Whale

2011-10-20T05:14:00.000-07:00

The most amusing thing about this most recent discovery is that it is an absolute given that the science fetishists will either A. try and rationalize this complete change of the evolutionary timeline in whale development or B. Downplay the discovery as if they had their doubts about the entire timeline all along...

"In an article titled "Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica", the Associated Press reports that paleontologists have found "the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered," which is about 49 million years old. As we've discussed here on ENV in the past, whale evolution has faced problems because of the short timescale (~10 million years) allowed by the fossil record for whales to evolve from fully terrestrial mammals to fully aquatic whales. As Richard Sternberg has argued (see here, here or here), the many anatomical changes necessary to convert a land-mammal to a whale could not take place by Darwinian evolution even in 10 million years. There just isn't time. But this new fossil might imply that the amount of time available was actually less than 5 million years.

Until now, the whale series went something like this:
Pakicetids (fully terrestrial): ~50 mya
Ambulocetids (semi-aquatic): 49 mya
Remingtonocetids (semi-aquatic): 49 mya
Rodhocetus (a Protocetid, semi-aquatic): 47 mya
Basilosaurids (fully aquatic): 40 mya

So under the previous timeline, Darwinian biologists didn't have to worry about accounting for the origin of fully aquatic whales until about 40 mya. This new find pushes fully aquatic whales back to 49 mya. Now the timeline looks something like this:

Pakicetids (fully terrestrial): ~50 mya
New Fossil Jawbone (fully aquatic whale): 49 mya
Ambulocetids (semi-aquatic): 49 mya
Remingtonocetids (semi-aquatic): 49 mya
Rodhocetus (a Protocetid, semi-aquatic): 47 mya
Basilosaurids (fully aquatic): 40 mya"

Dr David Berlinsky mentions the monumental obstacles that evolution would have had to overcome in this particular example in this short, two minute video from a couple of years ago. I admit that I found such claims to be highly dubious from the start and it seems that my suspicions were proven correct. (Above: So-called whale predecessor Pakicetus)

"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859 and 1984 editions), p. 184. Link

The Pink Swastika inspires hate crime act

2011-10-18T07:04:00.001-07:00

Really. Read it for yourself...

"A Christian school in Illinois reported its glass entry door being smashed by bricks with hateful messages on them early Saturday morning.

The vandalism, recorded by Christian Liberty Academy’s security cameras, came on the eve of a banquet being hosted by the academy, a school run by the Church of Christian Liberty in Arlington Heights. The event, planned by Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), was designed to discuss the homosexual activist agenda, and to honor pro-family activist and author of The Pink Swastika, Dr. Scott Lively.

AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera, Church of Christian Liberty Pastor Calvin Lindstrom and the Chicago Independent Media Center received an email from the perpetrators of the attack a few hours after the incident. The email reads, “If this event is not shut down, and the homophobic day trainings do not end, the Christian Liberty Academy will continue to be under constant attack."

...The bricks thrown at the school’s entry door had hateful messages written on them, such as “Shut down Lively” and “Quit the homophobic s---!” Other notes threatened both the school and the church with more violence if they continued to host "homophobic" guests."

Here is the link for the entire, cited article.

Exactly where are to free-thinking, open-minded and allegedly 'inclusive' champions of free speech on this matter? For those of you who are not familiar, The Pink Swastika was a book I examined here and offered up for discussion on my blog and is one off the most viewed pages here of all time at Trees For Lunch. (Click here for the link to The Pink Swastika Part II)

Basically, The Pink Swastika posits that the leadership and membership of the NSDAP skewed highly disproportionate in the percentage of it's homosexual (butch, as opposed to femme) membership.

Lest you dismiss such a charge like this out of hand, this assertion is supported by no less than Walter C. Langer, psychoanalyst for the OSS, (which was the indirect forerunner to today's CIA) and author William L. Shirer, whose impeccable and exhaustive work on the subject of Nazi Germany The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is the standard to which all other works on the topic are measured and judged.

Rather than attempting to disprove anything contained in the book by Lively utilizing facts, it seems much more important for the Pink Hand (or if you prefer, Gay Inc.) to silence rational discussion through, (dare I say it?) Nazi tactics of intimidation. If anything, this only lends further credence to Lively's propositions as the Gay Gestapo cannot tolerate any dissent from the Happy=Gay, pre-approved party line. It is becoming increasingly obvious that no criticism of the gay lifestyle is allowed whatsoever in the Liberal New World Order.

On Obama, race, and Fast and Furious

2011-10-14T07:42:00.000-07:00

Obama begins playing the race card and the primaries haven't even heated up yet...

"At a forum on American Latino Heritage, President Obama goes through a litany of ideas that he is for, including his new stimulus, and ends with "none of this matters to Republicans in the Senate." One of those ideas is believing America is "a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where they come from, should have a chance to succeed."

Click here for a transcript of Obama's remarks.

On a related note, if anyone is still under the delusion that the election of Obama would help bring about a post-racial society, then Thomas Sowell's latest article is a great read and a real eye-opener for the selectively myopic. Sowell mentions the release of the blockbuster, new novel titled Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department by former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams. He concludes the article by stating...

"The Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder has not only turned a blind eye to blatant evidence of voter fraud, it has actively suppressed those U.S. Attorneys in its own ranks who have tried to stop that fraud.

Even in counties where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of people legally entitled to vote, Eric Holder's Justice Department sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil -- if the end result is the election of black Democrats. It has become the mirror image of the old Jim Crow South.

This is an enormously eye-opening book which makes painfully clear that, where racial issues are concerned, the Department of Justice has become the Department of Payback. A post-racial society is the last thing that Holder and Obama are pursuing."

If I may be so bold as to make a prediction, I think Attorney General Holder can expect to have the opportunity to closely examine the undercarraige of a large bus very soon if Obama's words are being interpreted correctly...

"Maybe no one noticed, but he actually threw Eric Holder under the bus on the “Fast and Furious” gunrunner program saying he had confidence in Holder; this remark was a set up. He knows that Holder is on his way out and he pitched a curve to Holder when he said, “both he and Holder would be “very unhappy” if guns were allowed to pass through to Mexico in a way that could have been prevented.”

Obama is pretty confident his backside is covered in the “Fast and Furious” gunrunner program and he definitely knows that he just dealt Holder a losing hand."

EDIT: Townhall.com is wondering aloud as to whether or not Obama knew about "Fast and Furious" even before Holder did.