Truth prevails again

The embryonic stem cell research debate is over. A few quotes (read the whole post):

"Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. "

Also:

"...what Bush got right was to insist, in the face of enormous popular and scientific opposition, on drawing a line at all, on requiring that scientific imperative be balanced by moral considerations. "

And finally:

"Providence then saw to it that the technique be so elegant and beautiful that scientific reasons alone will now incline even the most willful researchers to leave the human embryo alone. "

Read full post here!

What if?

Wow

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308740,00.html

"Finding five extrasolar planets orbiting a star is only one small step," Marcy said. "Earth-like planets are the next destination."

Read full post here!

Miracle football play

Read full post here!

Don't judge a book by it's cover

Read this article!

It's a shame when we miss out on meeting people that seem to offend (or scare) us with their appearance.


I can think of many people that I have met throughout my life that wouldn't APPEAR as if I could gain anything from knowing them, hearing their story and talking to them. In fact, I could probably LEARN.SOMETHING from them! There really is no telling what you'll find inside a person if you take the time to investigate. Stories like this one give me hope and remind me that God is in the business of redeeming the lost, not parading the proud.



Read full post here!

Paul v. Clinton

The former First "Lady" is a master at campaign corruption, and here's the proof:



Read full post here!

Musical Interlude

Things have been too crazy lately to post much to this site, so I'm taking a temporary break and will probably get going again in October, after our move. For now here are a couple of music videos for your viewing pleasure.

Casting Crowns - Does Anybody Hear Her? (We're seeing them live in a few weeks!)


Hillsong - Mighty to Save


Third Day - Cry Out to Jesus


There are more videos by these groups on You Tube, I encourage you to search and view them all. Blessings and peace.
Read full post here!

July 4, 1776

I'm not a well-versed student of American history, unfortunately. I suspect many of us should know more than we do. I have come across one piece of interesting history, though, as it regards the Declaration of Independence.

I've discovered the differences in Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the DOI, and that of the final copy approved by Congress on July 4.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=4

It's interesting to note two things:
1. They deleted the word "inherent" from the phrase "inherent and inalienable rights".
2. They deleted an entire portion that condemned slavery.

Not to put our Founding Fathers down on this our Birthday. Quite the contrary, I want to pay tribute to Thomas Jefferson and the original words he crafted in the cradle of our nation. However, I must admit some disappointment in discovering this piece of history, even as I marvel at the final draft and the impact it has had on the entire world.

Oh, if we had gotten off on a better foot than that. Can you imagine how different this country might have been if slavery had been abolished at the outset? No Civil War (probably), no decades of discrimination and hatred, no KKK, no burning crosses, no need for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Imagine the difference.

THIS IS MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY - "Words are powerful"

Also, here's a portion from The Works of John Adams, vol II on why the 33 year old Thomas Jefferson was chosen as the author:

"You inquire why so young a man as Mr. Jefferson was placed at the head of the committee for preparing a Declaration of Independence? I answer: It was the Frankfort advice, to place Virginia at the head of everything. Mr. Richard Henry Lee might be gone to Virginia, to his sick family, for aught I know, but that was not the reason of Mr. Jefferson's appointment. There were three committees appointed at the same time, one for the Declaration of Independence, another for preparing articles of confederation, and another for preparing a treaty to be proposed to France. Mr. Lee was chosen for the Committee of Confederation, and it was not thought convenient that the same person should be upon both. Mr. Jefferson came into Congress in June, 1775, and brought with him a reputation for literature, science, and a happy talent of composition.

Writings of his were handed about, remarkable for the peculiar felicity of expression. Though a silent member in Congress, he was so prompt, frank, explicit, and decisive upon committees and in conversation - not even Samuel Adams was more so - that he soon seized upon my heart; and upon this occasion I gave him my vote, and did all in my power to procure the votes of others. I think he had one more vote than any other, and that placed him at the head of the committee. I had the next highest number, and that placed me the second. The committee met, discussed the subject, and then appointed Mr. Jefferson and me to make the draft, I suppose because we were the two first on the list.

The subcommittee met. Jefferson proposed to me to make the draft. I said, 'I will not,' 'You should do it.' 'Oh! no.' 'Why will you not? You ought to do it.' 'I will not.' 'Why?' 'Reasons enough.' 'What can be your reasons?' 'Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can.' 'Well,' said Jefferson, 'if you are decided, I will do as well as I can.' 'Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have a meeting.'

A meeting we accordingly had, and conned the paper over. I was delighted with its high tone and the flights of oratory with which it abounded, especially that concerning Negro slavery, which, though I knew his Southern brethren would never suffer to pass in Congress, I certainly never would oppose. There were other expressions which I would not have inserted if I had drawn it up, particularly that which called the King tyrant. I thought this too personal, for I never believed George to be a tyrant in disposition and in nature; I always believed him to be deceived by his courtiers on both sides of the Atlantic, and in his official capacity, only, cruel. I thought the expression too passionate, and too much like scolding, for so grave and solemn a document; but as Franklin and Sherman were to inspect it afterwards, I thought it would not become me to strike it out. I consented to report it, and do not now remember that I made or suggested a single alteration.


We reported it to the committee of five. It was read, and I do not remember that Franklin or Sherman criticized anything. We were all in haste. Congress was impatient, and the instrument was reported, as I believe, in Jefferson's handwriting, as he first drew it. Congress cut off about a quarter of it, as I expected they would; but they obliterated some of the best of it, and left all that was exceptionable, if anything in it was. I have long wondered that the original draft had not been published. I suppose the reason is the vehement philippic against Negro slavery.

As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it but what had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before. The substance of it is contained in the declaration of rights and the violation of those rights in the Journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet, voted and printed by the town of Boston, before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams."

Read full post here!

"It's not WHAT you say, it's HOW you say it"

I don't know why I keep coming back to abortion related posts. I've never considered myself an activist about the topic! For some reason, I just keep reading things that I want to share. This blog post is from the Stand To Reason ministry, and it explores the difference between stating our opinions in a void and considering the impact of the words on those around us. I never want to hurt people when I share my theological, philosophical or comi-cal views on a subject, but it certainly can happen easily.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/06/why-i-chose.html

"I think part of this second article reveals why it's so hard to change people's minds about abortion after they've experienced one. Consider her reaction to a pro-life statement: When President Bush talked about "defending the life of the innocent," she could only hear him "calling [her] a baby killer.""

"She reacts strongly and fights against it, for she hears every word spoken for the unborn as an accusation against her, personally."

Wow. What a reminder to me to lead my life with a full measure of grace.

Read full post here!

The religion of Global Warming

Global Warming has become, like evolution, a theory that many have taken as cold hard fact, and even adopted it as their own religion. They want to end debate, and move on. However, there are reasons to question those who hysterically claim that we as humans are the cause for warming of the earth. Here is one noted Earth scientist who believes we're actually coming up on a period of significant COOLING.

The middle section of this article is full of data that supports his underlying claims, but I recommend reading the beginning and end of the article at least.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

A few pull quotes:

"We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C."

"The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change.""

"Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now."

"Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate."

"Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change."

"In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all."

"Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada."


Of course, none of this means that we shouldn't be about the task of taking care of our world, conserving energy in a reasonable manner and controlling pollution and emissions. This just makes good sense. The worldview perspective in my mind, is that we shouldn't spend enormous resources into trying to lower OR raise the earth's climate by 2C. Who knows what damage we could do by trying to play God and shift the climate up 1 or 2 degrees to where WE think it ought to be. God has the thermostat, let's just try to be good stewards and leave it at that.
Read full post here!

Abortion causing MORE illegitimacy?

Here is an interesting article from the WSJ editorials...

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010227



Here's the full article text (my comments embedded in italics):

BY JOHN R. LOTT JR. Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The abortion debate usually centers on the morality of the act itself. But liberalizing abortion rules from 1969 to 1973 ignited vast social changes in America. With the perennial political debate over abortion again consuming the presidential campaign and the Supreme Court, it might be time to evaluate what Roe v. Wade has meant in practical terms.

(I think it's a huge thesis, not to be overlooked, that abortion laws have "ignited vast social changes in America". Think about the implication of that position for a minute..."vast". Telling, really.)

One often misunderstood fact: Legal abortions just didn't start with Roe, or even with the five states that liberalized abortion laws in 1969 and 1970. Prior to Roe, women could have abortions when their lives or health were endangered. Doctors in some states, such as Kansas, had very liberal interpretations of what constituted danger to health. Nevertheless, Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977. But many other changes occurred at the same time:

• A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.
• A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.
• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.
• A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

Some of this might seem contradictory. Why would both the number of abortions and of out-of-wedlock births go up? If there were more illegitimate births, why were fewer children available for adoption?

As to the first puzzle, part of the answer lies in attitudes to premarital sex. With abortion seen as a backup, women as well as men became less careful in using contraceptives as well as more likely to have premarital sex (emphasis added). There were more unplanned pregnancies. But legal abortion did not mean every unplanned pregnancy led to abortion. After all, just because abortion is legal, does not mean that the decision is an easy one.

(This would be a good place to cite just how difficult the decision is to deal with AFTER the fact. The women who endure the tragedy of this procedure often regret it or deal with psychological ramifications to some degree. It's not something to be taken lightly.)

Many academic studies have shown that legalized abortion, by encouraging premarital sex (again, this fact is granted here), increased the number of unplanned births, even outweighing the reduction in unplanned births due to abortion. In the United States from the early 1970s, when abortion was liberalized, through the late 1980s, there was a tremendous increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock births, rising from an average of 5% of all births in 1965-69 to more than 16% two decades later (1985-1989). For blacks, the numbers soared from 35% to 62%. While not all of this rise can be attributed to liberalized abortion rules, it was nevertheless a key contributing factor.

With legalization and women not forced to go through with an unplanned pregnancy, a man might well expect his partner to have an abortion if a sexual encounter results in an unplanned pregnancy. But what happens if the woman refuses? Maybe she is morally opposed to abortion; or perhaps she thought she could have an abortion, but upon becoming pregnant, she decides that she can't go through with it. What happens then?

Many men, feeling tricked into unwanted fatherhood, will likely wash their hands of the affair altogether, thinking, "I never wanted a baby. It's her choice, so let her raise the baby herself." What is expected of men in this position has changed dramatically in the last four decades. The evidence shows that the greater availability of abortion largely ended "shotgun" marriages, where men felt obligated to marrying the woman.

(This is a shameful sub-plot to the abortion debate, that men have abdicated any responsibility to fathering, and more so that our society has allowed this. The breakdown of the nuclear family as seen in the absence of positive male role models, especially real "Dads", is in my view one of the key elements of degradation to our culture.)

What has happened to these babies of reluctant fathers? The mothers often end up raising the child on their own. Even as abortion has led to more out-of-wedlock births, it has also dramatically reduced adoptions of children born in America by two-parent families. Before Roe, when abortion was much more difficult, women who would have chosen an abortion but were unable to get one turned to adoption as their backup. After Roe, women who turned down an abortion were also the type who wanted to keep the child.

(I'm sure someone takes this to make the argument "well at least if a child is born, it's one that is wanted by the parents, thus reducing the number of orphans in America". I personally, find this irrelevant to the decision to terminate the unwanted child. The decision should come before the life is conceived.)

But all these changes--rising out-of-wedlock births, plummeting adoption rates, and the end of shotgun marriages--meant one thing: more single parent families. With work and other demands on their time, single parents, no matter how "wanted" their child may be, tend to devote less attention to their children than do married couples; after all, it's difficult for one person to spend as much time with a child as two people can.

From the beginning of the abortion debate, those favoring abortion have pointed to the social costs of "unwanted" children who simply won't get the attention of "wanted" ones. But there is a trade-off that has long been neglected. Abortion may eliminate "unwanted" children, but it increases out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood. Unfortunately, the social consequences of illegitimacy dominated.

Children born after liberalized abortion rules have suffered a series of problems from problems at school to more crime. The saddest fact is that it is the most vulnerable in society, poor blacks, who have suffered the most from these changes.

Liberalized abortion might have made life easier for many, but like sex itself sometimes, it has had many unintended consequences.

(Although this is widespread, the impacts can definitely be seen clearly in the black community: single-parent dominance, absent fathers, unsupervised children who turn to crime, etc. The same is true of all demographics. Is this only the fault of abortion? No, but the mindset of our culture changed when abortion became widely accepted after Roe. That mindset is one that offers sex without consequence or responsibility - and it has damaged our society greatly.)



Read full post here!

Not as simple as we think...

When it comes to issues like abortion, most people (like myself), know how they stand on the issue. It's not a new issue! And we occasionally pay attention to the latest court decisions that seem to direct the course of the national debate. One of the things that I'm realizing, however, is that it isn't as simple as being "pro-life" or "pro-choice" all the time.

I'm sure there are people who are 100% consistent on the issue, however most of us want to balance the issue with other considerations. That makes the debate less of a two-sided debate, and more of a continous spectrum on which many of us find ourselves leaning one side or another.

Here's an example:

See the video here

Read the article here

Appeals court decision here

One of my co-workers (perhaps you've seen this news lately, it's national and is going to the Texas Supreme Court possibly the US Supreme Court one day) is currently in a dispute with his ex-wife over what to do with 3 frozen embryos that they had fertilized at the local test-tube lab before they divorced. ASIDE: Now, before we go too much further with this, I will say that I wonder if we as a human race should be messing with this at all? Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. And I'll demonstrate why and backup this point later. I need to say also that I have great compassion on those who are having fertility issues, and I just can't imagine how tough that is. But I don't think my NOT having fertility issues exempts me from entering the debate and expressing my opinion on the matter.

Note: I'm not gossiping about my co-worker since this is on CNN.

So anyway....the couple agreed during their marriage that IF they were to divorce, the embryos would be destroyed. That was their mutually agreed to plan. Well, unfortunately, that's what happened, they divorced. However, the wife changed her mind about the embryos and decided she still wanted to preserve them (some may say "rescue them". In any case, she didn't stick to the contract).

So where do you side if you're the judge? Are you pro-life EVEN if the legal terms of the contract were perfectly clear and contrary (in my view)? Is it more important to uphold the terms of contracts (which seems to be lost in our culture) or to always protect the unborn life? Well, BOTH are important really.

This is where I do feel some compassion on judges and politicians which may be forced to vote or render decisions contrary to their own beliefs at times, and always to make tough decisions. It also explains why lobbying groups on both sides keep track of judicial decisions and lawmaker's votes and rate them on a percentage basis on HOW MUCH they are pro-life or pro-choice (e.g. 99% or 40%).

So here are my brief thoughts on both sides:

Man-for: He should have the right to remove consent and to NOT bear any children to anyone or to his ex-wife. Also, the contract was clear that in the event of divorce they’d be destroyed.

Man-against: He’s calling for them to be destroyed per the contract, which obviously I’m against as a pro-life believer.

Woman-for: She’s taking the pro-life stand, and I understand these are her children (embryos) too and she wants them preserved.

Woman-against: She can still have embryos formed with another sperm donor, why force her ex-husband to have children with her? I know he doesn't have to be legally responsible, nevertheless, they would be HIS children and that should require his consent shouldn't it? Also, she’s breaking the clear agreement in the contract.

So here are two bottom lines that are quite counter-cultural, but that I believe reflect my views on this situation from the "Christian worldview" perspective:

1. Artificially creating embryos leads to decisions about life that perhaps we were never supposed to be allowed to make.
2. Divorce destroys the lives of all involved (quite literally), and is too widely accepted in our culture.

I understand I'm stepping on a lot of toes by suggesting we shouldn't be doing this fertility stuff. I just can't stop the thought in my head that sometimes these medical procedures get us into tough ethical and spirtual debates that perhaps we weren't meant to be debating. I want you to know, if you disagree with me, that I don't want to sound like some cold-hearted guy who's completely detached from the ramifications of this. And I want everyone who wants to have a child to have one (or a bunch!). In fact, I'd be hard pressed not to consider the option myself if faced with the difficulties of conception. However, I'm trying to look at this from a "best-case" scenario and a 30,000 foot level. The truth is that thousands and thousands of embryos are being destroyed, and I am of the belief that they are human lives.

So, now, you're the judge. How do you rule?

Brad



Read full post here!

hitchens is not Great

Christopher Hitchens is the author of a new book entitled "god is not Great". The book is thoroughly critiqued by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts who also debated Hitchens personally. Because the debate was on a radio program, Pastor Roberts decided to write a blog series capturing more detailed discussion...

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/godisnotgreat.htm

A few quotes from the blog series (although I recommend reading it)

The bad news for Christopher Hitchens is that he gets a low mark for accuracy when it comes to his statements about the New Testament and New Testament scholarship. In fact, I found fifteen factual errors in this material. I also identified sixteen statements that show what I consider to be a substantial misunderstanding or distortion of the evidence, even though a few scholars might agree with Hitchens. That's why I distinguish between factual errors and misunderstandings/distortions, in an effort to be clear and fair.

If my evaluation is anywhere near correct, this does not reflect well upon god is not Great, since the New Testament material comprises only about 6% of the whole book. How many other errors fill the pages of this book? I'll let suitable experts answer this question. But the obvious implication of what I discovered is that Christopher Hitchens is not a reliable reporter of facts, probably because has not done his homework adequately. He is, after all, a brilliant man with an inquisitive and well-tuned mind. Given my evaluation of his errors in the field I know best, however, I'm inclined to question his statements of "fact" concerning many other things. And my disbelief is not a belief. It's a reasonable conclusion based on the facts of Hitchens's numerous mistakes and misstatements.

Also, one of the specific points of debate:

As I read god is not Great, and as I've read other things Christopher Hitchens has written, it's obvious to me that he has a good bit of familiarity with the New Testament Gospels. I'd even be willing to bet that he knows the Gospels better than many Christians. Thus I am at a loss for why he would say that they "cannot agree on anything of importance." Even allowing for a good bit of polemical freedom, such a statement is so plainly wrong that it cannot but undermine the reader's confidence in Hitchens's reliability.

If would be perfectly fair for Hitchens to have said, "The Gospels agree on many things about Jesus, most of which are fictions, and all of which are rubbish." Of course I'd beg to differ with the stuff that comes after "Jesus," but at least it would be a fair point for him to have made. But it just isn't right for Hitchens to say that the four Gospels "cannot agree on anything of importance."

Read on!
Read full post here!

Awesome

Here are some pictures I received in an email forward that are interesting.

Perhaps you've seen these before?

Of course, the purpose of this is to show the relative size of the planets and stars we are near, however what it doesn't give us a feel for is the scale of distance between them, and that I believe is just as humbling when attempting to comprehend something that far away (and calling it "near", relatively speaking). The universe truly is awesome. There's no other word for it.







Read full post here!

Al Gore and the search for reason

I never thought I'd link to an article written by a nutcase like Al Gore, but it's worth the read actually. I disagree with many of his factual points, especially his naive assumption that "hardly anyone now disagrees that the choice to invade Iraq was a grievous mistake." Keep dreaming Al, that will probably go down in history as the greatest thing America has done in decades, even at the hands of this bumbling idiotic president we managed to elect twice. However, I do agree with his points about the decay of reason and logic in the American discourse...if only he were himself as open to it as he proposes to be.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622015,00.html

A few comments on his "excerpts":

In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation. Individuals receive, but they cannot send. They hear, but they do not speak. The "well-informed citizenry" is in danger of becoming the "well-amused audience."

I totally agree, what's more they are usually not watching the news but some idiotic sit-com with the same tired jokes and plots done for the past 20-30 years. These dumb down the public, and are not even funny enough for a real audience so they throw that annoying laugh-track over them to make you THINK it's something other people are enjoying also.

As a result, our democracy is in danger of being hollowed out. In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. We must create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

IF ONLY AL GORE FOLLOWED THIS! He is leading one of the most manipulative movements in modern science! It's funny that he tells us that rejection of science is bad, but he won't even consider an objective, opposing view of why the earth's temperature fluctuates naturally from other notable scientists.

To understand the final reason why the news marketplace of ideas dominated by television is so different from the one that emerged in the world dominated by the printing press, it is important to distinguish the quality of vividness experienced by television viewers from the "vividness" experienced by readers. Marshall McLuhan's description of television as a "cool" medium—as opposed to the "hot" medium of print—was hard for me to understand when I read it 40 years ago, because the source of "heat" in his metaphor is the mental work required in the alchemy of reading.

I agree with this observation that reading something engages your mind in ways that TV doesn't, however that's why the internet is becoming the primary source of news and debate in the country (as he later points out in the article). The newspapers were too one-sided in their viewpoints, and thus they lended themselves easily to the propaganda that Mr. Gore is decrying.

Many young Americans now seem to feel that the jury is out on whether American democracy actually works or not.

Take them to Baghdad circa 1995, they'll see the light then!

The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet.

I hope he truly believe those words. And I'll expect him to fight just as hard to keep Townhall.com, WorldNetDaily.com, Redstate.com and the Drudgereport up and running right next to MoveOn.org. I'm sure his past flirtations with censorship are well behind him now.

Brad

Read full post here!

The warning signs of a "three tiered war"

Victor David Hanson has a good piece trying to show the rest of us the reality of the world we live in today. The media hasn't caught on yet, but have you noticed the number of small terrorist attacks or plots on our homeland lately?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2UxMTFmMDc2NGEwMzllZjgwOGUwOWVkMGU3OGFkZDM=

A very good article, worth the full reading.

Read full post here!

Antony Flew the coop

This is a follow-up to my previous post regarding the link between science and faith.

This is perhaps old news, but still worth noting. As of the past few years, Anthony Flew may be considered one of the greatest FORMER-atheists of all time.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html

Follow the links above to read more about his change of heart.

It's encouraging enough when someone who is generally open to God decides to let Him in, it's quite another event when one of the greatest outspoken enemies of God of the 20th century says he now believes in the existence of God. What could be the reason for such a dramatic shift? His explanation: he apparently “had to go where the evidence leads”, that "the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (Something Darwin would no doubt acknowledge as well)

But, wait?

I thought we just had to accept this all on faith?

Well, that's the point I'm trying to get at. Yes, there is a point where we allow faith to enter in (as in everything), but we should not throw out all of the perfectly good evidence that girds that faith, nor should we fail to educate ourselves about such evidence in order to defend the faith. Faith should follow a diligent study of the facts, then it is not an empty faith. Our faith should be a small step, not a leap. The faith we have is rooted in fact, in cold-hard TRUTH that even the worlds most notorious skeptics cannot obscure.

The study of science was indeed fathered by Christians such as Galileo, Pascal, Copernicus, Newton, etc. Their Christian worldviews are what fed their scientific method, the notion that the universe has a distinct order which can be observed and repeated. All other worldviews, including naturalism are thus incompatible with true science in reality.


Read full post here!

Earth 2.0

Does this affect your worldview?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070424/D8ON8OSG0.html

For many Christians, the notion that we are the only planet with life is crucial to a biblical worldview. After all, if there is life on other planets (and that remains a huge IF for now) there would be some question about the biblical story of creation in Genesis...or would there?

Consider:

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Notice "the earth" is singular, and it certainly appears to be referring to our planet, not many of them. Additionally, the planet God created (and would later create Man to rule, posessed dry ground and waters he called "seas".

So, Genesis 1 describes our planet, but does it rule out other planets? Verse 1 indicates that he first created the "heavens" which might be interpreted as the entire universe, including other potentially habitable planets.

So what about life? Well life comes in many forms, we know through Scripture that we are created in God's image and given dominion over the rest of creation. If we ever do discover life on another planet, my belief is that it falls under the "rest of creation".

The question that is really tough to answer would be: What if we discover intelligent life on another planet? That opens a can of worms that I don't believe we can answer through scripture.

After all, wouldn't that intelligent life also need and be offered a Savior?

Interesting questions to ponder.

Additional reading material (for better or worse):
http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_christianityspaceandaliens.htm http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506301.htm
http://baliset.blogspot.com/2005/10/can-i-be-christian-and-believe-in.html#links



Read full post here!

Java Jesus

What is the connection with coffee and the church today? We have somehow gotten the notion that Jesus is not truly high and lifted up, unless we are high and lifted up from a good ole cup o' joe on Sunday morning. Why does every church have a coffee bar or even an all-out coffee shop?
There are several churches in our area that actually have coffee franchises (Starbucks, Deidrichs) onsite. This only feeds my personal disgust with the Christian consumeristic mindset. Maybe these various churches are not actually doing wrong to provide coffee. Coffee is not inherently wrong. But, coffee is not a fool proof marketing tool that brings people to God. Only the Holy Spirit can do that! I can see that, perhaps, coffee provides an opportunity for fellowship, but come on....have we taken this too far? Can we not experience true Christian community without a tall decaf cafe mocha?

A friend and I were recently discussing this matter over e-mail. She served as a missionary in the Middle East for 2 years and I believe her husband served in Russia and then in the Middle East later. She shared this, "my husband says it's because Starbucks is more successful than the gospel so we trick people into being interested by providing a similar atmosphere. There are believers dying in the name of Jesus across the globe...dying for the spread of the kingdom and we sip coffee at church? Don't get me started." Yes, we are so into being hip and cool. Another of my concerns is the current move toward church growth movements and marketing ploys that devalue the essential message of Christ. Coffee is ok, but Java + Jesus is not necessary for salvation. And, we unshamedly spend (I too am guilty of this) $3 on a hot chocolate or latte, while missionaries around the globe are barely making ends meet trying to share the love of Christ to all. Have our priorities gotten out of whack? Shouldn't God's amazing grace, the sacrifice of Christ and the agape love of the church be what draws people into the light from darkness? Why isn't the church, God's people, the community of faith --- as warm and inviting as Starbucks and as sweet and rich as an overpriced cup of coffee? Shouldn't we, as Christians, give more to enable the gospel of Christ to be preached in all nations and take care of our own missionaries, pastors, etc?

One last thought, Brad has said that coffee at church gives the impression that you aren't even awake or aware when you come to church to worship God. Can we shake our caffiene addiction long enough to worship God? We need to be dependent on him, not a cheap legal stimulant.

Am I the only one who thinks Java + Jesus is a strange marketing ploy?

Read full post here!

Me Church

Watch this satirical video about the church today. Somehow we have gotten the idea that church is about ME not GOD.

Read full post here!

"hatching" a new life

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/05/japan.baby.hatch.ap/index.html
This is a difficult topic because I agree with what the community is doing to try to provide a place for parents of unwanted children to bring them, however it's just the situation as a whole that saddens me.We might agree that these "hatches" are certainly better than a bathroom in a shopping mall, or worse still - the garbage. But where is the humanity in any of this? How do the precious cries of a newborn not strike the chords of love and protection in even the most callous parent's heart? Not that our so-called "Christian culture" doesn't share it's own lack of respect for the sanctity of human life, but I believe the next to last paragraph does give some insight into this alarming trend in Japan:

With no law against abortions and no clear religious taboos in predominantly Buddhist Japan, the procedure is readily available and widespread.

I'm no expert in Buddhism, and frequently confuse the beliefs with Hinduism, but my understanding is that they believe in reincarnation - a view diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview of resurrection. Because they believe in reincarnation, life has less purpose, less value because it's only the state of one's consciousness at their death that will determine their rebirth. In contrast, the Christian view of life is that it is a sacred gift from God to be guarded and protected for the short time it is given.

How then do the Buddhists reconcile these selfish actions with their desire to improve their karma? Read full post here!

A jab to all the Christian haters

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55073

I just thought this was funny. But it is really getting old how frequently our government and many of our fellow countrymen refuse to openly acknowledge who the terrorists are. The guys who flew planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon were NOT the Gideons for crying out loud!

Note: This is satire. Read the full website to the bottom.

This website was setup by some folks who were upset about their local school's mock terror drill. It was the school's choice about who the terrorists would be that particularly drew the ire of the community...fundamentalist Christians. Yeah...there are so many Christians using car bombs and suicide bomb belts around the world. Given - there have been instances of lunatics using God's name in vain and doing unspeakable horrors, the classic example is the abortion clinic bomber. However, this is not on the nightly news EVERY SINGLE DAY, like those "inspired" by Islam. The simple truth is that Islam has been used to justify countless attacks upon innocent people around the World. But for some reason, American TV shows (with one recent exception) and movies usually portray a terrorist as a wacked-out Christian lunatic. If it were balanced with a true portrayal of the Christian faith, that might be one thing but it's the conscious OVERLOOKING of Islam and the conscious MISREPRESENTATION of Christianity that is just really making a lot of Chrisitians upset. And the signs of frustration are beginning to show. Read full post here!

The more we learn, the smaller we are

Anyone who tries to tell you that "no scientists are Christians" is a misinformed person at best, and at worst - delusional. On the contrary, a large percentage of scientists are not only Christian, but believe their work REINFORCES their faith. This journey has been true in my own life, through my study of human physiology and anatomy (as well as other sciences), I've learned an even deeper appreciation for the Creator. My college training is in Biomedical Engineering, which involves the application of engineering principles to the human body-machine. What I've learned and can prove through analysis is that the human body is designed. I cannot fill enough virtual space writing about the well-known complexity of the human body, and many others have already covered the topic sufficiently (just do a simple search). What amazes me most though, is the beauty of the creation, the way our bodies work in harmony within and also with the world around us.

This is an article by Dr. Francis Collins, director of the human genome project, and a Christian.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

The majority of his statements are very revealing and encouragingly accurate.

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible.

After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

Just a little umbrage with a few:

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

I'm always leery of this phrase "leap of faith" because it is so often associated with leaping AWAY FROM reason. So I just don't use it. It's very misleading. Faith in God is just faith. The leap is taken when we REJECT faith! It is but a small step to accept the truth of Christ. We are given abundant reams and mountains of tangible evidence for God's existence, power and majesty. We need only to allow ourselves to see the reality around us for what it is, rather than let our rebellious nature try to ignore the truth we are confronted with daily. Faith is only as significant and what you are placing your faith IN. Misplaced faith is meaningless, therefore I rely on the evidence of scripture and all the evidence science provides to testify to the truth of my faith.

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

First of all, there is NO - yes NO - proof that the common ancestor theory of evolution is based in any kind of reality. There are simply no fossil records to suggest, much less prove, that species evolve on a macroscopic scale (from one species to another). There are no transitional forms found in any archaeological archives that support this absurd theory, what's more you don't see any transitional creatures walking around TODAY. Is your neighbor a transitional species (well depends I suppose on if you live in California!)? However weird some people are, we're all human. Where is all the evolution today? Has it stopped, and when did it stop? The only basis for evolution in objective science is found in micro-evolution, which involves the adaptation of singular species within new environments. To put it simply, we adapt, we do not and will not become something brand new.

Just observing the world around me through the clean lenses of truth....

Read full post here!

FUNDamentals

http://news.morningstar.com/article/pfarticle.asp?id=188559

This is just a quick note regarding putting your money where your mouth is - so to speak. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not doing so! But this is something I'm looking into and hope to move toward. Imagine the influence to the free-market system if the entire Christian bloc (even the non-Christian moral majority!) united together and decided to invest morally. Read full post here!

A credit to your future

There's no question now. We've all lost our collective minds. What are we thinking??? Do we really believe we can have everything...for nothing? Here's a sample of what we've gotten ourselves into:

70% of us live paycheck to paycheck
In 1929 2% of homes were mortgaged, in 1962 only 2% weren't
Consumer debt has tripled since 1980
Barely half of Americans have saved more than $10,000 towards retirement
The American savings rate is now -0.5% (that's a negative sign there)

This means that for the first time since the Great Depression, we as a society are officially spending more than we make. I really believe that our country is setting itself up for a free fall. Now..I don't mean to sound like Chicken little. But, I really hope that this doesn't worry just me. Seriously. This is alarming, especially when we aren't in a depression. Quite the opposite, the economy is relatively good these days. We've recently broken records on Wall Street. But there are signs of trouble. So why is this happening? Well...we are all grown ups who haven't grown up: children, who want what we want, want it now and want it NOW! Isn't that it, in a nutshell anyway?

Credit cards are one of the worst things around in my opinion. The trap has been set. Some would say, "you should know the traps when you see them", which may be partially true. But it's still a trap by it's very nature. We've been trapped ourselves more than we ought to, and I don't blame the lender for my mistakes, but they really are wreaking havoc on our culture. They're not the only thing though: zero down, zero APR, cheap mortgage scams, a blitz of media marketing telling us we're not good enough without [whatever they're selling], and the list goes on.

In the checkout line, they want you to get the store credit card..."so you can save 10% on your purchase today". Aren't they kind? Even at the Christian bookstore they other day, Tiffany couldn't get through the check-out line with the items she selected without being marketed one more "special deal" on some CDs. Can't even a Christian retail store resist pressuring us to spend beyond our budget? Another friend of ours recently left a retail job where the official store policy required workers to pressure the sale until the shopper said "no" TWICE! The first no just really means nothing I suppose. Dave Ramsey usually lectures about the pitfalls of the 90-days "same as cash" scam, that results in payments at 24% interest 78% of the time. Face it...we are targets. Our money is a target, more specifically.

I don't know the answer to all of this.

I wish that I did.

It is clear though, that we cannot continue down this path forever, as a culture. We must get hold of ourselves and return to good biblical financial principles.

“The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant
to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7).

One of the worst things about this bondange, is that it limits our ability to be generous people. As in most things, it must start at home. It's not easy for us as a family, to be honest, but we're trying. We desperately want to stop renting and buy a home. But we know that won't make us happy in the end. True, it will be a blessing, and one that we look forward to. But, happiness is an unquenchable thirst. What will we "have to have" next? We are struggling, trying to pay off our remaining debt, save for a home, and for our futures. We are determined to stop the cycle of bondage that debt puts on families. It's won't be easy, we know, and it's PAINFULLY slow getting there. One thing I've noticed is that when faced with decisions, for some reason the harder path is usually the right one.

Read full post here!

The Reformation of Manners

William Wilberforce is the subject of a movie called "Amazing Grace" playing at a theater near you. He is generally credited with the movement to abolish slavery in the British empire. But, his legacy extends beyond the fight against slavery.

In addition to establishing mission societies to Africa and India, being a founding member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and many other local project and volunteer efforts, he also campaigned greatly for what he called the "Reformation of Manners". As noted in Mark Steyn's column in the Chicago Sun-Times:

Everywhere on the globe, for 5,000 years, the idea of human civilization without slavery was unimaginable. . . . What Wilberforce vanquished was something even worse than slavery,'' says Metaxas, "something that was much more fundamental and can hardly be seen from where we stand today: He vanquished the very mind-set that made slavery acceptable and allowed it to survive and thrive for millennia. He destroyed an entire way of seeing the world, one that had held sway from the beginning of history, and he replaced it with another way of seeing the world.''

Steyn writes reminding us that Wilberforce wasn't just fighting the parliament, but as much as the movie makes him seem to speak for "the people", in fact the people (i.e. the culture) were a big part of the problem. The streets of London and society were completely corrupt and bankrupt morally.

Then as now, citizens of advanced societies are easily distracted. The 18th century Church of England preached "a tepid kind of moralism" disconnected both from any serious faith and from the great questions facing the nation. It was a sensualist culture amusing itself to death: Wilberforce goes to a performance of Don Juan, is shocked by a provocative dance, and is then further shocked to discover the rest of the audience is too blase even to be shocked.

What we think of as "the Victorian era" was, in large part, an invention of Wilberforce that he succeeded in selling to his compatriots. We children of the 20th century mock our 19th century forebears as uptight prudes, moralists and do-gooders. If they were, it's because of Wilberforce. His legacy includes the very notion of a "social conscience"

Amazing guy. "Amazing Grace"...see it. Read full post here!

Let's just begin...

How does one begin a blog without seeming terribly ego-centric? In one sense the whole notion of blogging seems a bit self-absorbed, quite different from private journaling and keeping a diary for personal reflection. To share my thoughts with the world. Why would anyone else care what I think...about anything? I've pondered this question, and have no real answer except when I consider the following - why do I care what others think? My answer - because my perspective is limited. I can only occupy this local space around my body at any given time, and therefore the world around me is incredibly finite. So, I appeal to the perspective of others. Not for definition but in addition.

I'm beginning this blog really for myself to be perfectly honest, though I do hope that those of you I share it with will gain from it as well. I'd like to keep for myself a log of some articles I find interesting, and my thoughts about them at the time. I am no great writer, so my plan is to primarily link to articles and commentaries others have written and share my thoughts about them. I may also invite other authors to contribute to this blog as well if there is interest.

Why focus on worldviews? Well, put simply, that's all there is really. The crux of all news stories, in my opinion, is the competition of opposing worldviews. Politics, violence, legal matters, religion, etc - all events are the summation of the basic beliefs (i.e. worldviews) of the participants and witnesses to those events.

Without being too long-keystroked about it, let's just begin.

And I can think of no better way to begin than by sharing the words of Chuck Colson. Please read the linked article and feel free to comment.
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=1404

The Christian challenge today is not to be “us vs. them,” but to lovingly approach the world and say, “There are two battles going on, and we want to show you why our way is better.”

P.S. Here's Wikipedia's definiton of worldview. Read full post here!