Roundup

Media bias part 4,987 — Let’s see, if it is bad that Dick Cheney defends the Bush administration by correcting Obama’s errors and the media considers that some sort of break with the alleged tradition of Presidents and VPs not criticizing subsequent administrations, where were they with unhinged Al Gore?

Federal hate crimes bill destroys civil liberties and constutional protections — This is a tragic consequence of the Leftist mentality that they must shut down any speech they disagree with.  It is rampant on college campuses and coming soon to a country near you.

Obama is on the direct path to socialized healthcare and the elimination of private options.  Good thing for us that some of his minions made the mistake of telling the truth a little too early.

Fun video about Capitalist Hugs (Hat tip: Stop the ACLU)

Roundup

Marshall Art has a good post on torture.  My $0.02 is that people can have some honest debates about whether waterboarding qualifies as torture.  But what is interesting about Obama’s soon-to-backfire political approach of appeasing the far Left is that the more the facts come out the worse the Democrats will look (i.e., those who knew of the waterboarding).

Side note: I find it endlessly interesting that virtually all the people who scream “Oh, the humanity” over waterboarding a few terrorists are equally zealous about advancing unlimited abortion “rights.” 

Quick quiz: Would you rather be waterboarded or crushed and dismembered without anesthetic?  I’ll take the former.

Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly? — A UK journalist sees what half of America doesn’t. 

Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

. . .

President Pantywaist’s recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans.

Albert Mohler on the homosexual agenda — He gets it right: You have to abandon the authority of scripture before following and advancing the homosexual agenda as so many “Christians” do.

Courage is far too rare in many Christian circles. This explains the surrender of so many denominations, seminaries, and churches to the homosexual agenda. But no surrender on this issue would have been possible, if the authority of Scripture had not already been undermined.

For your viewing pleasure: Stephen Crowder on Perez Hilton

“There is no homosexual agenda!”

Uh, except for this one, that the gay lobby, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry and liberal “Christians” follow to the letter.  I encourage you to read and share the whole article.  As much as its proponents try to deny there is an agenda, the truth is there for all to see.

Some samples:

On “hate crimes” laws: “Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.”

As seen recently with the Miss USA Pageant, they define “homophobia” as even the mildest disagreement with their views.  Calling someone a “dumb b*tch” and later wishing you had called her the “c” word is OK in Liberal-land, but agreeing with Obama that marriage is for a man and a woman is unforgivable, you hateful bigots!

And as always, the real homophobes are those who are so scared of the homosexual lobby that they abandon their common sense, their morals and their God rather than get called a name.  Eek!

On “hate thoughts” and “hate speech” laws: “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”

This is the inevitable conclusion of “hate crimes” laws.

On influencing public policy: “Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.”

On “same-sex marriage”:“Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

Hey, at least they were honest on that one.

On “gays” in the Church: “Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.”

I doubt that will be very effective when they face him one day.  And they will face him one day.  I seriously pray that they repent and believe before then.

More of their strategy:

Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.

• Give potential protectors a just cause.

• Make gays look good.

• Make victimizers look bad.

Sadly, theological liberals execute that approach all day, every day.  What tools.  All the varieties of pro-gay theology are horribly flawed.

Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step … with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. … Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. … [T]hat alliance can work for gays.

I expect it from the media and entertainment industries, but not from “Christians.”  People like Tony Campolo try to blame authentic Christians for addressing the issue and say that we should just focus on our own sins.  He completely misses the point, but it is a clever way to avoid the topic while the homosexual agenda rolls on.

Again, this isn’t about bashing gays as individuals.  I know plenty of gays and we get along well.  We don’t need to convert them from a particular sin before sharing the Gospel any more than we’d require anyone else to be sin-free before they get to hear the Good News.  But as a political issue, we should stand up for the truth. 

Don’t be fools, people.  Recognize what the agenda is and speak up!

Roundup

Good rebuttal to the Zeitgeist movie that denies Christianity and advances silly 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Greg Koukl points out the irrationality of evolutionists celebrating Earth Day 

No locust swarm stops short of denuding a field because it ought to “leave a bit for the crickets.  After all, we all have a right to be here.”  The logic of naturalism and the rules of evolution dictate human beings rape our environment, just as everything else does, not protect  it.

The moral obligations underpinning Earth Week activities simply do not follow from the naturalistic world view that embraces Darwinism.  It follows, rather, from a theistic world view in which God has created man as unique and given him responsibility over the Earth to care for it.  Earth Week makes sense for Christians, not for Darwinists.

Gardasil Moms: If one of those 32 dead girls or women was your daughter. . . — I wouldn’t rush out and get the vaccine for your girls just yet.

The Hidden Curriculum — “What do people learn from you about the Christian life? Sometimes it’s what you never intended to teach.”

Questions for Obama supporters — my favorite:

Obama was asked, “At what point does a baby get human rights?” His response: “. . . answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” Based on his leadership in opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama has demonstrated that he believes that a baby gets human rights at an unspecified time AFTER he or she is born.  My question to liberals: is infanticide acceptable?

Alonzo Rachel (aka Zo) speaking at the Sacramento Tea Party protest

The free-loader effect

The Pugnacious Irishman has a good piece on the problems of socialism and the free-loader effect.  Here’s an excerpt from a piece he analyzes:

. . . people are flawed and, outside of a family, a religious order, or a small group of friends, they will not continually work hard for the ‘greater good’ if they do not receive the fruits of that work themselves. As an economics major in college, I learned that this theory had a name: ‘the free-loader effect’. It is the natural tendency of people to do less and less work when they realize that they won’t see a proportionate increase in what they can get for it.

That concept is foundational to human nature but Liberals deny it again and again.  Unfortunately, it is a spectacularly expensive lesson that they keep re-learning.

Once when teaching a Junior Achievement class where the exercise was to create a society on a fictional deserted island, a 7th grade girl was adamant that people who did extra work should not get extra food or supplies.  I gave her several attempts to reconsider her position but she held fast.

At the end of the class I was passing out candy to everyone.  I gave the same amount to everyone since the class as a whole was well behaved enough that day (I’m such a Liberal!).  But guess who insisted — with all sincerity — that she should get extra candy because she participated more than others?  Yep, our resident Communist.  I kindly pointed out the inconsistency to her.  Hopefully the lesson sunk in.

Socialism and Communism just don’t work, people.  You can prove it in a Junior Achievement class or you can study history, but you don’t have to look far for the evidence.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before . . .

Planned Parenthood was caught on video for the sixth time for committing the felony of covering up sexual abuse.

It should have only taken one or perhaps two of these videos to generate Congressional action and a full-scale media investigation.  But no one on the Left seems to care!  I have never seen one Planned Parenthood proponent speak out against these serial felonies.

The alleged 14 year old was quickly and clearly encouraged to lie to cover up a relationship with a 31 year old.  This isn’t some rogue volunteer.  She had a clear script to work from and reflexively and unflinchingly gave her advice. 

What is so amazing is how brazen Planned Parenthood is on this topic.  They obviously aren’t even trying to stop it.  They were caught on audio doing the same thing years ago, yet here we are.

Watch it all.

Hat tip: Self Evident Truths

Roundup

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, violence hasn’t primarily stemmed from religion but against religion (the Roman Empire, Russia, China, etc.).  Read about the incredible violence in France in 1793.

Is it OK for Christians to marry non-Christians? — Short answer: No.  Click the link for a great story and conclusion:

The level of influence of a significant other in a non-platonic relationship greatly impacts your ability to achieve the vocational task that the Lord has set for you. My recommendation is to avoid engaging in any romantic relationship in which self-sacrificial service to the Lord is not the main focus. And remember, physical contact greatly reduces your ability to make objective evaluations.

Today, Christians treat the Christian life as a hobby that we engage in for our benefit. And this includes romantic relationships. One way of screening prospective mates is by assessing how well prepared they are to defend the Lord’s reputation, when it is called into question. An authentic Christian should care enough to have prepared to defend God’s existence and character in public.

The Folks At The Dallas Tea Party Are A Bunch Of Racist Whites! — Uh, except that they were not.  CNN and Janeane Garafalo must not have heard about this gathering.  Oh, they dislike President Obama, but because of his awful policies and not his skin color. 

Managing money in a financial crisis: Great advice from Randy Alcorn and others.

Brief thoughts on the latest “same-sex marriage” issues

A commenter on another blog repeated the claim that:

Same-sex marriage opponents, however, are arguing that marriage should be “limited to just us.” They frequently argue, as you do, that the law should be used to force other people to live according to their religious beliefs.

Some fictions never seem to die.  What supporters of traditional marriage typically argue is as follows:

  • “Same-sex marriage” is as logical as a square circle (“the same sex union of a man and a woman”).  That’s really all you need, but there is more.
  • These unions do not by nature or design produce the next generation.  (The typical response about infertile couples fails on several levels, such as that the government is not omniscient about such things and adoption is always possible.  Exceptions make bad rules.)
  • These unions can never provide a mother and a father to a child.  Never.  (This also addresses the “What about infertile couples” question.)
  • The same rationale used for “same-sex marriage” would also justify marriages involving polygamy, incest or bestiality.  And don’t say, “That could never happen.”  Did you predict twenty years ago that the Left would want to teach kindergarteners about “same-sex marriage?”

Therefore, while the relationships are legal and gays are free to love as they see fit, there is no reason for the government to endorse or affirm these relationships.  You could only claim that we were trying to force others to live according to our beliefs if we prevented the relationships completely (i.e., Middle Eastern Islam).

There is nothing unequal about only recognizing marriage between a man and a woman.  It is the only logical position to take.  Anyone holding an opposing view is either advancing the homosexual agenda or they have been fooled by it.

Total number of Bible verses used in those arguments?  Zero.  The claim of the Left is based on anti-religious bigotry and trades on the general lack of critical thinking in our culture.

The main religious issue is how legalized “same sex marriage” will infringe upon religious freedoms.  Despite the lies of the Left, this is a real threat and we’ve seen examples around the world and in the U.S. already.

[T]he widely respected UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who favors same-sex marriage, took time out to acknowledge that the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage are not “scaremongering.”

Of course, if anyone wants to know what the one true God says about homosexual behavior He was very clear:

  • 100% of the Bible verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

P.S. Who would have thought that Rick Warren would do a well documented flip-flop on Prop 8 and that the Osteens would (sort of) stand up for traditional marriage?  As a commenter there pointed out, Joel should have made it clear that one man / one woman marriage wasn’t God’s “best,” it was his only.  But he is a couple steps ahead of Warren.

Roundup

Great testimony by Supermodel Kathy Ireland — This is a must-watch video on multiple levels.  Not only is she a winsome ambassador for Christ but she gave a great pro-life viewpoint based on science and reason.  Very thorough, clear and compelling.  Wow.  Major blessings to her for standing up for her faith and for life, even though it has cost her financially.

I’m not sure if Huckabee would make a great President but his talk show has been impressive the couple times I’ve caught it.

Hat tip: Stand to Reason

Let the Humane Society blog know that you appreciate them using Rush Limbaugh as a spokesman.  Sadly, some haters want you to boycott the Humane Society for using Rush.  These people are so vile and mean that they can’t even stand for an ideological opponent to support a cause they (allegedly) care about.  The irony of the intolerance of the “tolerant” is lost on them.

Wouldn’t they look at it as an opportunity to see the good in Rush (by their definition)?  I think theological liberals like that have an intellectually bankrupt worldview but if they stopped being pro-abortion, for example, I would be the first to welcome them to the side of good (at least on one topic).

It’s official: Obama’s socialism will lead to fascism — In Obama-land, this is how they see the world:

  • North Korea?  Not a threat.
  • Iran?  Not a threat.
  • Al Qaeda?  Not a threat. 
  • Pro-lifers?  Big threat.

The smug reactions of the media to the TEA parties are typified in the video below.  Media bias?  What media bias?  And you can see images of the violent and evil (eeevil!) TEA party participants here and here.  I didn’t know two of my favorite bloggers were high level Republican Party operatives. 

Yep, these gatherings were nothing like the family-friendly fare you get at your average gay event (warning: graphic). 

Then there’s the ironically extreme racism of people like Garafalo and Olbermann.  This is good news, in a way.  They are scared that we’re fighting back and must rationalize away the success of the TEA parties.

Bibliolators?

One of the pet terms that theological liberals like to call authentic Christians is bibliolators, implying that we worship the Bible more than Jesus.  I imagine they release plenty of endorphins over their supposed cleverness but the pejorative fails on two levels.

First, it is false.  We don’t worship the Bible, we worship the God who revealed himself in the Bible.  When in doubt we side with the truth revealed in scripture (read in context, of course) versus the wisdom of the world.  We trust in its claims to speak for God and derive our knowledge of him through the means He chose.

Second, their dig implies that we worship whatever we  turn to for knowledge of God.  Since theological liberals make up their own version of god (small “g”) and use it to judge the Bible, then by their own reasoning they are idolizing themselves (or whomever they follow to arrive at their views).

Chance said it best:

I use the Bible as the final authority on my views (or at least try to). Apparently that makes the Bible my idol. If I make myself the final authority on my views, does that mean I worship myself?

Once again, a cheap rhetorical trick is used to demonize instead of doing the honest work of analyzing and defending scripture.  I suppose it is easier to do that, but it accomplishes nothing.  That is why I weary of liberal theologians and the endless fallacies they provide.  They’ll debate to a point, then when they realize they are losing they fall back on these ploys.  Then the circles begin.

My apologies . . .

 . . . to you readers for getting testy in the comments section this week.  If I would have just consistently enforced my commenting policy and/or avoided over-reacting it would not have happened.  My bad.

And my thanks to the brother in Christ who diplomatically pointed out my less-than-ambassador-like approach to me.  Much appreciated.

“Lights, Camera, Blasphemy”

These videos highlight the dramatic influence movies have had on public perceptions of Christianity. 

If you only have time for one, please watch the second (along with the last minute of the first).  It addresses the major errors in the movie Inherit the Wind, a pro-Darwinian evolution / anti-Christian propoganda piece about the “Scopes Monkey Trial” that has been shown to countless public school children in the name of “science.”  It is reprehensible and dishonest, with one premeditated lie after another designed to put Christians in the worst possible light and to make the atheists appear to be the nice, reasoned people.  Also see this with more background about William Jennings Bryan and common mischaracterizations about him. 

The same thing is going on these days with Al Gore’s infomercial An Inconvenient Truth.  Any school that shows either movie should have to follow it up with Ben Stein’s Expelled!

Hat tip: The Bumbling Genius

Just dial 911 for all your needs!

There seem to be more cases of ridiculous calls to 911 operators in the news lately, such as not enough shrimp in a meal or because McDonald’s was out of Chicken McNuggets.  I tend to ignore these stories, assuming that with over 300 million people in the country that a lot of truly stupid things will be done each day.

But The Bumbling Genius brought up a good point:

Latreasa Goodman is in trouble with the Ft Pierce police because she called 911 three times on March 4th because McDonald’s was out of Chicken McNuggets. At first glance this would seem outrageous, but this is one time I’m agreeing with the perp.

. . .

Granted, this is no reason to call 911 but consider her circumstances. She was probably educated in a government school where it was drilled into her head for six hours a day for practically her entire life that the government was the solution to all her problems. Furthermore she was likely not taught anything about how government works and what to do when a huge gigantic worldwide chain store basically steals her four dollars and ninety eight cents.

These callers seem certain that dialing 911 is a perfectly logical thing to do.  After all, Obama & Co. promise to solve all your problems, no questions asked!

Certainty

question-mark.gifI’m revising and re-running this in (dis)honor of the commenter who trotted out the straw man about the “supposed certainties of conservative-traditional Christianity.” Eek! 

———-

It seems I have have acquired a little Internet “fan club” that likes to dismiss me for being so certain about things.  I can’t miss the irony of them being certain that I am certain about some things, and them being certain that it is bad to be certain.  And their comments and posts reveal a high degree of confidence in their positions. 

It reminds me of a NY Times guy who said, “Certainty is the enemy of decency.”  He seemed most certain of this, so I appreciate him confessing to being indecent. 

It also reminds me of a lady at my church who chided me for wearing jeans to service once (I had a nice shirt on, but wore jeans because our Sunday School class was cooking gumbo after church for a fundraiser).  I was in a class with this lady a couple years ago and she had no issues with people spouting heresies about Jesus not being God, the Bible having lots of errors and there being many paths to Heaven besides Jesus.  But there is apparently at least one thing she is certain about: You shouldn’t wear jeans to church!  But she was pro-choice — especially when the unborn might be poor or unwanted — so I suppose she had her priorities in order, eh?  (I gave her a gracious way out by pointing out the gumbo situation.  And I chuckled when a visitor sat next to me and was wearing jeans.  Hopefully my fashion faux pas made him feel more comfortable amidst the suits and Dockers).

But the truth is, there are plenty of things I’m not certain about, and I’ve changed my views on plenty of topics.

Oh, I am quite sure about the essentials of Christianity: Jesus is God, He is the only way to salvation, the Bible is authoritative and reliable, etc.  I have studied these exhaustively and am quite sure of my positions.  That doesn’t mean I couldn’t be wrong, but it does mean I have a reason for my confidence.

But there are plenty of issues where I freely admit to being uncertain, or at least not completely certain (the particulars of predestination, for example) and there are plenty of issues where I have opinions but don’t care enough to divide over them (the particulars of baptism and communion, worship styles, etc.).  I’m actually pretty liberal as those things go. 

And while I go to a Methodist Church the Podcasts I listen to are almost all in different theological camps (Reformed or Bible Church/Baptist).  I’m sort of a Bad Methodist in that respect.  I have a lot of respect for Reformed theology and and am probably 60/40 Calvinist / Arminian.  But just mention Calvinism to most theological liberals and see how open minded and tolerant they are. 

So I focus on the fundamentals and am undecided or ambivalent on most non-essentials.  If they want to gig me for that, that’s fine.  But they should at least be accurate. 

There are all sorts of verses in the Bible pointing out how we can know things and are meant to know them.  Not all things, but many things.  One theological liberal once quoted the first part of this verse to emphasize how fuzzy things supposedly are:

1 Corinthians 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.

To his credit, he seemed to concede the point when I pointed out the rest of the verse:

Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Or how about this one?

John 8:31-32 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

I could go on and on.  Search for “know” in some Bible software and see how many passages point out this truth (there I go being certain again!). 

People who resort to attacks like this aren’t well suited for dialogue.  One even thought the piece I did on Who can understand the Bible? was fundy red meat — presumably because the passage I used showed how it was possible to understand the Bible.  I sincerely prayed that they would come to know the Truth and be set free. 

So the whole certainty straw man isn’t about dogma at all.  It is just another cheap trick to dismiss opposing views instead of debating them on their merits.

P.S. To state the obvious, when I write about something it is usually because I think I know something about it or have formed an opinion about it.  I don’t write pieces to tell you what I don’t know.  Does that seem so odd?