Roundup

The Law of Unintended Consequences and its corollary, The Government Messes Up Everything It Tries to Fix, plays out again with ethanol production

Two years ago, the newly-Democratic Congress struck a blow for a greener planet by demanding a level of ethanol production based on current estimates of gasoline use.  This delighted corn farmers and ethanol manufacturers, and most everyone else assumed that little harm could be done by growing more corn and turning it into something other than food.  No one thought about what a recession might do to gasoline demand, or how a parallel Democratic push to force automakers to produce more efficient cars would impact the need for all of the ethanol Congress demanded.

Great.  Now food prices are higher, impacting the poor that the Democrats insist they care about.  And the government may force higher ethanol ratios which could damage your car and increase pollution.

My Continental.com itinerary page had a convenient option where I could have donated $12.37 to Sustainable Travel International, a non-profit organization  faux guilt relief scam, to offset the CO2 used for these flights.  Here’s a better idea if you like to give to groups like that: Send your money to me and I’ll send you an encouraging email to pump up your fragile ego.  Or better yet, donate it to a real charity and then release some endorphins.

Robin of Berkeley explains why the left hates Sarah Palin — Yep.  If they just disagreed with her ideas and explained why it would be fine.  That’s what we do with Obama.  Yet we’re called racist for that?!  I have never said anything remotely insulting of Obama like what Liberals do with Palin.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.

Theological Liberals’ ethnocentric views on display as they claim that African Christians are manipulated into claiming that homosexual behavior is a sin.  What frauds. 

A Massachusetts think tank has released a new report alleging that North American church renewal organizations are manipulating African churches and exporting hostile views of homosexuality.

“Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches, and Homophobia” has been authored by Political Research Associates (PRA), which labels itself “a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society.”

The organization says that its mission is to “expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights.” The PRA website lists projects promoting abortion advocacy, gay causes and challenging Christian right “theocracy.”

They are the real homophobes, as they are so fearful of the Politically Correct Police that they’ll deny common sense and the God they allegedly worship. 

I know many African Christians and they were very disappointed when they heard that some U.S. churches were blessing same-sex behavior.  There wasn’t even a hint of them thinking, “Gee, you Americans are so darn smart, perhaps we should re-think our position.”  It was more a reaction of bewilderment.

Maybe if the theologicaly Liberal folks were authentic Christians and took the Bible seriously they’d notice these facts:

  • 100% of the 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.

Humanists raise funds for good cause!

And the good cause is to tell everyone how good they are! 

I have no objection to them spending their own money to advance their worldview via their sign campaigns:

No God? …No Problem!

Be good for goodness’ sake.

Humanism is the ideas that you can be good without a belief in God.

I just see some inconsistencies.  What is their standard for good?  No lawgiver = no laws. 

And their premise is made of straw.  As Christians we know why they can do “good” — God’s moral laws are written on their heart.  You can do good by their definition even if you suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness.  I know lots of “good” atheists (by their definition, not God’s). 

Telling others how good you are probably isn’t one of those acts that goes in the “good” column.

According to an April 14, 2008 AD Barna study entitled, “New Study Shows Trends in Tithing and Donating”; in 2007 AD evangelicals Christians (one of three subgroups of Christians under consideration) donated a mean of $4,260 to all non-profit entities while atheists and agnostics provided an average of $467.

According to an April 25, 2005 AD Barna study entitled, “Americans Donate Billions to Charity, But Giving to Churches Has Declined”;

“In 2004…Barna’s national study found that the people least likely to donate any money at all were…atheists and agnostics…A quarter or more…failed to give away any money in 2004.”

Keep donating money for billboards and bus ads. We will feed, clothe and house the poor.

I know that some of the money donated by Christians goes to their churches, so one could claim that they benefit.  But the gaps there are huge.  And they get bigger when you compare Bible-believing Christians to others who check the Christian box.

Roundup

More Joe Isuzu messages on the health care bill.  Hey, if you push the start date out 4.5 years then the “10 year costs” look more reasonable.

Hat tip: Verum Serum

A false teacher moves on from God to the self help movement — Hey, that’s Doctor Juanita Bynum to you, buddy.

How Democrat policies cause corporations to outsource jobs overseas — When I was at HP / Compaq we sent tons of jobs overseas, largely due to the lower income tax rates. We could handle the wage differences because they were offset by logistics costs, but the tax benefits were too much to overcome.  This pro-union / pro-regulation / pro-tax administration will only make the job situation worse. 

Adam Lambert shows how it isn’t just about sex, it is about monogamous relationships.  Oh, wait, no he didn’t.  How classy of him to simulate oral sex on a show that kids watch, and how swell that ABC used his performance to promote the show.

Dr. Alveda King: Where are the pro-choicers in the case of forced abortion? — They have to try and hide things like this or it might make abortionists look bad.

Demographic Implosion Spurs Panicked South Korea to Enforce Abortion Ban — interesting.  I wonder if Europe will follow suit in time to avoid being completely overrun by Muslims?


funny pictures of cats with captions
see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Live blogging Thanksgiving

OK, not really.  But the day did get off to a nice start.  Fed the dogs and got back in bed, then they dug under the covers on both sides of me and fell asleep while I used my iPhone to read email, blogs, the Bible (Titus 3 — love it!) and my prayer list (the “My Prayer List” app).   Sweet!  Wish I could start every day that way.

Hope you all have blessed days with friends and family, and that counts for everyone who visits — even those with, uh, limited commenting privileges. 

Remember, there needs to be an object of your thanksgiving.  Otherwise, who are you thanking?  An old friend who became rich and famous thanked the universe for his success.  I’m sure the universe really appreciated his gratitude.

I’m thanking God — the one true God revealed in scripture.  If I never receive another blessing I’ve still received far more than I deserve or would dare ask for.

Roundup

From the give people the benefit of the doubt because you can always overreact later category, Kentucky Census Worker Officially Committed Suicide, The Left Completely Pwnd — He was truly committed to his cause, killing himself to make conservatives look bad. 

Richard Dawkins’ karma runs over his dogma.  Also see some other inconsistencies about his new anti-religion ads.

The two children chosen to front Richard Dawkins’s latest assault on God could not look more free of the misery he associates with religious baggage. With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, the youngsters with broad grins seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.

Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country’s most devout Christian families.

He said: “It is quite funny, because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children.”

He said that the children’s Christianity had shone through. “Obviously there is something in their faces which is different. So they judged that they were happy and free without knowing that they are Christians. That is quite a compliment. I reckon it shows we have brought up our children in a good way and that they are happy.”

Hat tip: Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee (one of the best blog titles ever!)

Lots o’ apologetics Podcasts — load up your iPod!

What a missed opportunity!  A character in the latest episode of House had to have 16 spleens removed and they didn’t use the best surplus spleen joke ever: “Well, he’s got some ex-spleening to do.”  I would have let them use it for free!

A good summary of the Great Global Warming Fraud

The Global Warming Fraud is one of the great scandals ever, using faked science to generate a worldwide political power grab, massive tax increases and job destruction and earning billions of dollars for its proponents — all with no exit strategy.  Not surprisingly, pro-abortion groups wanted in on the game to fund abortions around the world.

Via The Great Global Warming Fraud – Erick’s blog – RedState, here is what the GW proponents did, as revealed in their emails:

  1. Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.
  2. The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.
  3. The scientists block from the UN’s report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.
  4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.
  5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.

The liars were caught lying.  And aren’t these the folks who had the nerve to say we were as bad as holocaust deniers?  Where is the mainstream media?!  Why isn’t this front page, non-stop news?

Shocking: The NY Times won’t publish the emails.

Not so strange bedfellows: Evolutionists and Global Warming proponents

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?  This is really quite huge.  It demonstrates the lies behind the global warming fraud and that they are some of the techniques used by evolutionists to avoid competition with their worldview.  The Expelled! movie could have been made about GW alarmists as well.

It is hard to imagine a bigger story.  If the roles were reversed Hollywood would be firing up an Academy Award winning movie  highlighting the evil Right Wingers and their plot to fake evidence to destroy economies, expand government controls and take over the world.  Only in this case, it is the Left trying to do exactly that.  And they were busted. 

These scientists are frauds and liars and indirectly stole billions of dollars. 

I’m tagging this as a favorite for future use in reminding people that not all scientists are just noble, fact seeking purists.  The stain of original sin affects us all. 

Just one question: Will all the school kids who suffered through An Inconvenient Truth be told the real truth now?  Countless children were forced to watch the Inherit the Wind evolution propoganda movie as well.

Here’s another take on this critical story.

I borrowed stole these examples of the fraud from the Wintery Knight:

  • Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
  • Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
  • Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
  • Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI (Freedom of Information) request.(1212063122)
  • Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
  • Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
  • Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
  • Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]
  • Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
  • It goes on and on. There are FORTY-SEVEN of these.

Naivete can be so costly

You might think that Obama fans would have learned not to trust his promises.  He promised cooperation but is more radically Left than any President has been or hopefully will be.  Afghanistan was the “good war,” but he is doing everything he can to lose it (by doing nothing).  And on and on.

So why do people believe the health care fictions?

Even without the lies behind sneaking taxpayer-funded abortion to the health care ill it is still an awful idea.  People argue by anecdote with problems in the current system.  Conservatives agree and offer solutions that are ignored, such as tort reform and increased competition.  But people still want to turn control of this over to the Federal government knowing that it will be almost impossible to ever get it back.

I’m just pointing out what should be obvious: Eliminating insurance and giving all the power to the government is a bad idea and it is not a logical conclusion from the premise that insurance companies have flaws.  Using that logic, they should concede that since Medicare is already experiencing $60 BILLION in fraud that giving even more to the government is just begging for more fraud.

Or they should concede that stories of bad care with socialized medicine would make us stay with private carriers.

Perhaps the solution is a little more complicated than just turning over control to the Federal government and hoping for the best.

Some argue that health care is too important to leave to the private sector.  But what about food?  That is even more important.  By that logic the government would take over food production and more.

Questions for those wanting government to completely control health care:

  • Do you find government agencies to be more customer oriented than other businesses? 
  • Do you find their employees to be more qualified than those in the private sector? 
  • Do you get better service from monopolies or from businesses who must compete?
  • Do you get better service from contractors if you pre-pay or if they get paid when the work is done?

Roundup

The latest ACORN video.  But Fox definitely shouldn’t mention this in the news, right?

Breitbart to Eric Holder: Investigate ACORN, or else — As if the videos to date aren’t enough, there are more shoes to drop.  I’m with the author:

Principle over party, Attorney General.  Or your party gets hammered.  Your call.  Speaking as a Republican, I hope that you try to keep stonewalling; speaking as an American (which takes precedence), I suggest that you don’t.

Surprise!  Global warming proponents play the same as evolutionists do: “Your views aren’t science because they aren’t in peer reviewed journals and they can’t be in peer reviewed journals because they aren’t science.”  And if they if they do make it into a peer reviewed journal, then just insist that the peer reviewed journal is no longer valid.  Either that, or destroy whoever let the view in.  Voila!  How very scientific and ethical.  Heh.

More problems for Al Gore & Co., if only the media would report them and ensure that everyone who saw An Inconvenient Truth were aware of them: Global warming hysterics burned by predictions.

People are rightly outraged at fraud, but are wildly naive to think it only happens in business.  There is already a ton of fraud with the TARP funds and other government programs.  Who’d have thought that would happen?  I mean, just because a massive amount of money is thrown around with little controls, why would that attract bad guys?

Liberal media rep Norah O’Donnell tries to play “gotcha” with 17 year old — She interviewed her once, then gathered some data, then turned the cameras on.  But no media bias here, folks!  Now maybe Norah could question Obama & Co. over all their health care lies and broken promises of bi-artisanship.

Jesse Jackson: “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man” — I’d say you shouldn’t be pro-legalized abortion and call yourself a black man.

Take that, Jews. White House guts annual Hannakhah party; meanwhile, Obama wishes there were more Muslim holidays to celebrate — great commentary from my favorite gay Chicago bloggers

Who is a Christian? Who is a Muslim?

church.jpgFor many people the word “Christian” has lost or changed meaning.  It used to mean someone who was an authentic follower of Jesus.  Now it is often used as a synonym for nice, as in, “She’s a really Christian person,” or to describe someone who goes to church sometimes while rejecting the essentials of the faith.

Theological liberals tend to get very wounded if you imply that they don’t hold Christian views.  They’ve been in false-teaching churches so long and have such a low view of scripture that they think that is the way church is supposed to be.

It is ultimately God’s job to assess who truly trusts in Jesus and who does not.  I’m not qualified and wouldn’t want the job even if I was. 

Jesus did say that you will know them by their fruit and that we should make right judgments, so it is fair to examine people’s lives to see if they have evidence for their faith.  But mistakes can be made during fruit inspection.  We would have probably thought that Judas was the real deal and that the criminal on the cross was not. 

But it does seem fair to point out when self-described Christians don’t hold views that have historically applied to Christians, as shown in the Bible, countless creeds and denominational statements of faith.  The views of theological Liberals mock the cross and the blood of the martyrs who died — and who still suffer and die today — rather than recant their faith.

First, consider this conversation:

Me: I’m a Muslim.

Real Muslim: No, you’re not. 

Me: Really, I am, and I’m offended that you say I’m not.

RM: Do you believe the Koran is the word of God?

Me: No, of course not.  A man wrote it, and it has obvious errors like saying that a body double died on the cross instead of Jesus.  It was written hundreds of years after Christ, and even sources outside the Bible claim that Jesus himself died.  And don’t get me started about all the violence it encourages!  Why trust the Koran?

RM: Do you believe in Allah as the one true God?

Me: No.

RM: Do you like Jewish people?

Me: Yes.

RM: Do you eat pork?

Me: Mmmmmmm . . . bacon.

RM: You aren’t a Muslim.

Me: Yes I am! 

Sounds ridiculous, right?  Now consider this:

Me: Are you a Christian?

Liberal theologian: Yes.

Me: Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

LT: No, not a bit of it.  Even though it claims to speak for God roughly 3,000 times, I think those are all made up by people. 

Me: Do you think Jesus is God?

LT: No.

Me: Do you believe any of the miracles recorded in the Bible are true?

LT: Of course not.  I’m too smart for that.  Miracles can’t happen.  Writers made those up.

Me: Do you think Jesus is the only way to salvation?

LT: No.

Me: Do you believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead?

LT: No.

Me: Do you believe that we are created in God’s image and that we should protect innocent human life?

LT: Abortions for any and all reasons at any time are fine with God.  Jesus is pro-legalized abortion.  We get to decide who the real “persons” are.

Me: Do you look for opportunities to share the Gospel as outlined in the Bible?

LT: Of course not.  All religions (or no religions) are valid paths to God.  God loves us unconditionally.  We don’t need a Savior.

Me: Do you realize how radically different your basic views are from those of Christians throughout the last 2,000 years, especially to the countless Christians who died rather than recant their faith?

LT: Sort of . . . but we’re so much smarter than they were.

Me: Indeed.  But how can you claim to be a Christian?

LT: How dare you question my faith?!

Is the first conversation different from the second? 

I haven’t had that precise conversation with any liberal Christians, but it is a highly accurate composite.  Try it yourself.  You may find that their views are even more bizarre.  I’m almost certain that any of the “Jesus Seminar” members would answer the questions that way.  For example, I read a book co-authored by Marcus Borg (a member of the Jesus Seminar) and he held all the heretical views noted above and more.

These people may be decent citizens and friendly neighbors, but calling themselves Christians wildly distorts the meaning of the word.  I wish the frauds would be honest for once and officially switch to professing atheism or Hinduism, which are much more in line with their views.

Roundup

One type of finch evolves into a slightly different type of finch — Just a few more cycles and it will evolve into Angelina Jolie, or something along those lines.  Golly, I guess that proves macro-evolution once and for all.  My bad.  I’ve been wrong all along.

12 Rules To Govern And Live By For Destroying An Economy And A Nation — Great list by Dan.  If I didn’t know better I’d think a certain nation was dutifully following them all.

Great analysis of Bart Ehrman’s ironic and contradictory thinking

In the end, Jesus Interrupted can be best summarized as a book filled with ironies. Ironic that it purports to be about unbiased history but rarely presents an opposing viewpoint; ironic that it claims to follow the scholarly consensus but breaks from it so often; ironic that it insists on the historical-critical method but then reads the gospels with a modernist, overly-literal hermeneutic; ironic that it claims no one view of early Christianity could be “right” (Walter Bauer) but then proceeds to tell us which view of early Christianity is “right;” ironic that it dismisses Papias with a wave of the hand but presents the Gospel of the Ebionites as if it were equal to the canonical four; and ironic that it declares everyone can “pick and choose” what is right for them, but then offers its own litany of moral absolutes. Such intellectual schizophrenia suggests there is more going on in Jesus Interrupted than meets the eye. Though veiled in the garb of scholarship, this book is religious at the core. Ehrman does not so much offer history as he does theology, not so much academics as he does his own ideology. The reader does not get a post-religious Ehrman as expected, but simply gets a new-religious Ehrman–an author who has traded in one religious system (Christianity) for another (postmodern agnosticism). Thus, Ehrman is not out to squash religion as so many might suppose. He is simply out to promote his own. He is preacher turned scholar turned preacher. And of all the ironies, perhaps that is the greatest.

Hat tip: Alpha & Omega Ministries

Hungry Americans: Debunking The Hype — How many hungry are there?  What are the real problems?  Also see where Dinesh D’Souza has interesting reflections on this:

This book, some of his articles, and many of his speeches make the following point: “Indeed, newcomers to the United States are struck by the amenities enjoyed by poor people. This fact was dramatized in the 1980s when CBS television broadcast a documentary, People Like Us, intended to show the miseries of the poor during an ongoing recession. The Soviet Union also broadcast the documentary, with a view to embarrassing the Reagan administration. But by the testimony of former Soviet leaders, it had the opposite effect. Ordinary people across the Soviet Union saw that the poorest Americans have TV sets, microwave ovens and cars. They arrived at the same perception that I witnessed in an acquaintance of mine from Bombay who has been unsuccessfully trying to move to the United States. I asked him, Why are you so eager to come to America? He replied, I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat. Dinesh D’Souza

It’s a great time to brush up on your pro-life reasoning

With all the debate over the health care bill, abortion is back in the news.  Many people know it is wrong but don’t know how to present the case for life.  Please spend a little time getting educated and be ready to share the truth in love.  Lives are at stake.

Even if you are firmly pro-choice I urge you to review these resources.  The worst that could happen is that you learn more about your ideological enemy’s arguments.

If you only have time for one web site, go to Abort73.com.  They have a thorough, concise and easy to read site that takes you through all the major issues. 

Or go through the slides I use for training volunteers at CareNet.  And learn about what organizations like CareNet do for women in crisis pregnancies.  Or scan my posts in the Pro-life Reasoning category to the left.

Then see this fact based, winsome and reasoned defense of life by Kathy Ireland.  She went from pro-choice to pro-life after examining the scientific evidence.  Don’t just listen to the facts, note her compelling manner.

Then watch the O’Reilly interview with Abby Johnson, the Planned Parenthood Director who quit after participating in an ultrasound and seeing a human being lose its fight for life. 

Or search Stand to Reason for their many outstanding pro-life resources and articles.

Please take the time to get a little better informed.  You don’t have to know everything, but you can learn enough to easily defend the basics of the pro-life view.  Or you’ll at least have some resources to point people to.  And you can at least point out that while abortions may be legal it is a radical change to make pro-lifers fund them with taxes, and that the Democrats have consistently lied on this point.

P.S. Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape.  Why will the health care bill give them even more business?  Why haven’t they been de-funded already?  I’d rather fund ACORN than them.

Baal worshipers pray to convert Joe Lieberman

Or at least their views are remarkably similar to Baal worshipers.  They are actually a group of Jews, Muslims and (alleged) Christians

The letter, signed by 70 members of the clergy, posed this argument: “Whether from the words of Torah or the Gospels of Jesus, whether from the Talmud or the Koran — our traditions all are explicit and clear on one thing: We are commanded to seek the welfare and healing of all those in our midst, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable.”

I’ve read all of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible many times and can’t recall a single passage commanding us to lobby Caesar to take from neighbor A by threat of force to give to neighbor B. 

Yep, nothing like a bunch of pro-abortion clergy lecturing you about helping the “weak” and “especially the vulnerable.”  I’m getting all choked up here.

There was one true point:

I wouldn’t say that the Torah commands a public option per se, but I think our faith does require we have a debate about the best ways to improve health care for the underprivileged.

I don’t know if faith requires it or not, but of course we should have a debate.  The problem is that there are many great ideas being ignored (tort reform, more competition, tax benefits to employees so they can take coverage when they leave, etc.) because the Liberals don’t want to entertain those.  These religious folks set up the typical false dichotomy: Give all the control to Caesar or you are a greedy bastard who hates the poor.

No Christian should have been involved in such an enterprise.  It clearly breaks God’s command not to be unequally yoked on spiritual matters.  Then again, what do theological Liberals care about God’s commands? 

I don’t think Lieberman has much to worry about.  If he changes his mind it won’t be because these folks prayed, because Baal isn’t real.

Awesome? Really?

A Facebook status asked, “There are so many words to describe our God. Which would be your favorite?”

My word would be awesome — not because I use it a lot but because I use it carefully and sparingly.  The word is overused such that it has lost much of its power.  But I try to only use it to describe God. 

I checked my 1,224 posts on this blog to see how well I’ve done with that.  It came up about 6 times.  Two were within quotes of others (a comment from a prisoner who went through a Kairos weekend and a reference to the powerful force of U.S. military).

One was a reference to a Kairos team I worked with (“You were an awesome team to work with, and I don’t use that adjective very often.”)

One was about God and forgiveness (“Only an awesome God could wipe away a lifetime of sin and hatred by having the minister – who had presumably suffered from the prejudices of others – be the one to lead the man to Christ.”).

Only one was secular, in response to a gay person claiming they had no organized agenda (“You guys are the most awesome marketers I’ve ever seen.  Seriously.  You should all work for Fortune 50 marketing departments.”)

One was about Heaven (“Heaven will be awesome (I try to only use the word awesome to describe God and Heaven, so I mean that in the most powerful sense).”)

What is your favorite way to describe God?