See Why We Are Afraid of Islam, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner for some history of Islamic conquests and more. Our government, media and useful idiot false teachers do a great job of hiding this history from us.
I’ve had a couple queries about the upcoming History Channel special on the Bible.
I tend to be skeptical of anything on TV related to the Bible. The TV preachers are mostly false teachers, and the allegedly mainstream channels usually pull out all sorts of theological Liberals (read: non-Christians) and present them as mainstream experts.
Based on names supposedly associated with the production (Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, Della Reese, and more) I’m even more skeptical. But this interview with the makers made it sound like they were trying to be true to the text.
Having said that, it might be good to watch. Remember, just because we disagree with something on TV doesn’t mean we can’t use it as a segue to truths about the Bible. If the shows are realistic depictions of the text, then that’s great. Get people to talk about it. If there are errors, you’ll have a chance to point them out. Even if you don’t watch it you can ask people what they thought about it and take the conversation from there.
In short, use this as an opportunity to share the truth: The original writings of the Bible turned out just as God and the human writers wanted them to, and they have been passed down to us in a highly accurate fashion. Therefore, we should all study it carefully and seek to meet God on his terms, not ours.
Updates — Here are a couple reviews that go into more detail. Sounds like they took a lot of poetic license with the text.
One of the few things that nearly everyone agrees upon — conservatives and liberals alike — is that the sex-slave trade is immoral and should be stopped. There are a few liberal extremists that try to argue that prostitution is somehow empowering for women, but even most of them agree that kidnapping people or tricking them into slavery is wrong.
So what should be done? Here are some ideas:
Reduce the supply
1. Institute the death penalty for slave traders. Hey, it was good enough for the Israelite theocracy!
Exodus 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”
Seriously, there needs to be some serious consequences for something so evil. Put a few of them to death and that would save countless people from becoming slaves. Or at least make it life without parole.
2. Increase education for at-risk groups, so they know the scams the traders use (i.e., offering jobs as nannies in other countries, then taking their passports).
3. Expose and de-fund Planned Parenthood, because they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking.
Reduce the demand
1. Publicize the names and pictures of the customers and punish them.
2. Reduce access to pornography, which certainly fuels the demand for these girls.
Darwinists reflexively use the story of Galileo to advance the religious vs. science false dichotomy. That fails on two levels.
1. The Galileo story that people usually refer to has many mythical elements. And how many people can cite an example besides Galileo?
And as far as religious (or non-religious) beliefs getting in the way of science, who knows if Einstein’s presupposition of a static universe caused his error with the cosmological constant? After all, an expanding universe certainly gives more support to a theist model than a static one. That hypothesis cuts both ways. This happens often in science, such as the myth of “junk DNA” that went on for years because Darwinists assumed it without evidence.
2. Which is the more pertinent element of the Galileo story?
A. Some religious people were wrong while other religious people were right.
B. Those in power were wrong and abused their authority and those not in power were right.
People who use the Galileo example typically assume A, but I think it is B.
The August 2011 issue of Salvo (great magazine and web site, btw) had an article about a professor forced to write an apology to a student he had harassed in class over her unwillingness to believe in Darwinian evolution. He wrote a non-pology instead, “apologizing” for “appearing to denigrate” her beliefs and insisting that he hadn’t meant to offend her.
Worse yet, he had the gall to refer to Galileo. The girl’s lawyer replied to him noting the irony of the Galileo example. After all, who was the authority figure in this case and who was the victim? The professor was authority figure (the “Pope” of this situation) and he used his power to deliberately humiliate the woman taking risks in opposing the majority view. The professor cast himself as the hero, but the woman was the one challenging the orthodox position and standing up for free thinking.
P.S. The religion vs. science canard always reminds me of this gag from The Simpsons, where Lisa Simpson finds a phony fossil of what appears to be an angel. The judge presiding over a trial about the fossil said this:
As for science versus religion, I’m issuing a restraining order: Religion must stay 500 yards from science at all times.
Wow, these people are the gift that keeps on giving! The contrasts to the Tea Party couldn’t be more glaring. We could run these 24×7 for the next year.
And here’s another set of . . . uh . . . well-informed critics who are not sure if Al Qaeda is Worse than Evangelical Christians.
Then there are these jewels about Communism.
In a better world the mainstream media would ask these fairly obvious questions.
1. What percentage of total income tax receipts should the top 1% of earners pay? Now, they might say something silly like 100%, because their overriding motive seems to be coveting. But it would be interesting to see if they would say a figure higher than 38% (the actual amount).
2. Did you know that Barack Obama got 20% of his record 2008 contributions from Wall Street? Did you know that he is the largest recipient of Wall Street donations ever? Did you vote for him? Will you vote for him again?
3. Do you approve of violent means to make the top 1% pay their “fair share” and/or to overturn capitalism?
Dear OWS folks: Please, please, please don’t go away. The more attention we get on you the better. Nothing could advance conservatism faster than people learning more about you.
Please watch this, then share it, then considering using this approach yourself.
In 33 minutes it covers a lot of important ground in a powerful way. It shows how people are often ignorant of history (Adolph Hitler and the Holocaust) and how carefully framing what abortion really does can quickly change hearts and minds. There is also an excellent example of how to share the Gospel with people in a simple, compelling and accurate way.
WARNING: Viewer discretion advised — not for little ones.
Kudos to Ray Comfort and all those who put this together. It is very well done.
Here is a great timeline on the Solyndra scandal, courtesy of Verum Serum. It is already a little dated, though, as it doesn’t include how the Solyndra executives promised to testify yet are now refusing.
This is pure crony capitalism and political payoffs. It also highlights the foolishness of much of the Green movement. Hopefully this gets to where the mainstream media can’t ignore it (though MSNBC is trying by not mentioning it in prime time).
Note how the Bush administration rejected them but the Obama administration wasted half a billion dollars on them. Coincidentally, of course, a major Obama fundraiser and donor was involved on the Solyndra side.
Also see the timeline of how Obama is using GM (“Government Motors”) to manipulate the electorate.
One of the common refrains from the (allegedly) pro-science crowd is that science trumps religion and the Enlightenment period did away with all that religious nonsense. See They were so ignorant back in the Middle Ages that they just talked a lot about God and didn’t do any experiments … right?
… the actual record of scientific methodological practice in the Middle Ages shows this to be false. Ptolemy (c.90–168) was extensively involved in astronomical observation and optical experimentation.The Alexandrian Christian platonist philosopher John Philoponus (c.490–570) performed imprecise experiments to ascertain the truth of the Aristotelian contention that the speed of descent was proportional to the weight of a dropped body, discovering—contrary to Aristotle—that there was very little difference.
. . .
The bottom line is that scientific experimentation was widely recognized as useful from late antiquity throughout the Middle Ages, and experiments were performed when it was recognized that doing so could help to confirm or disconfirm a scientific claim; the experimental method, therefore, was not a distinctive of modern science. Bruce Gordon, Introduction to The Nature of Nature , (pp. 20-21)
Yes, Pollyanna. The movie. I watched it. (Short version of why: An agnostic employee said he’d start reading the Bible if I watched it. Let’s just say that the list of things I’d do to get someone to read the Bible is pretty long.)
It had some interesting religious themes. I’m not sure if it was what the producers intended or not, but they did a good job of showing the importance of balancing grace and truth. Karl Malden, the town preacher, originally gave exclusively hellfire-and-brimstone sermons, with only a passing reference to being born again. They weren’t necessarily untrue, just out of balance. There is nothing wrong with preaching the bad news — in fact, it is necessary. But you need to get to the Good News. In the same way, you can’t just teach about God’s love without people failing to realize that they need his grace.
It also showed the importance of reading the whole Bible. Just picking your favorite verses is a bad idea.
More importantly, it mocked those who don’t really believe that the Bible has the power to transform lives. The pastor and Pollyanna’s Aunt, the town leader, agreed on the harsh sermons because that was the best way to scare people in behaving for at least a couple days before the sermon wore off. That isn’t the theme of the Bible at all. It shows a distinct lack of faith in the power of God to transform people through his word.
The term “Pollyanna” is typically used to describe someone with an irrational optimism, but I thought the behavior of the character (an orphan of missionaries) was biblically grounded. She seemed to live out the meaning of turning the other cheek and of Philippians 4:12-13:
Philippians 4:12-13 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.
More bizarre scenarios driven by the administration’s Random Foreign Policy Generator (RFPG): Voting Present on Steroids: The Obama Administration Prepares to take Both Sides in the Libyan Civil War | RedState.
In other words, we’ve apparently (finally) learned enough about this group of rebels/al Qaedaterrorists/rapists–and–indiscriminant–killers/who-knows-what-else that we’ve been fighting alongside (primarily from 15,000 feet and up, of course) that the Obama administration is now ready to fight them, as well – an action which would, amazingly and dumbfoundingly, make the U.S. a participant in both sides of an Arab civil war being fought in the desert of North Africa. Just amazing.
The realization of who it is they rushed into war to support must be hitting Samantha Power, President Obama, and their band of merry humanitarian interventionists pretty hard. This is worse than waking up and finding the person you brought home last night required beer goggles about eighteen bottles thick to seem attractive. Rather, it’s akin to bringing home the already-not-so-hot girl who was hanging out alone in a dark corner of the bar, only to find out shortly after leaving with her that she’s actually a hairy-backed man man named Steve (or, in this case, something more like Abdul Hakim al Hasadi).
. . .
We bombed Qaddafi’s forces because they were killing civilians. So Qaddafi’s forces began dressing like civilians. So the rebels began killing civilians. So NATO is warning the rebels not to kill civilians, otherwise NATO will bomb the rebels. But the rebels are dressed like civilians.So NATO may end up killing civilians.
In other news, the administration continues to debate arming the rebels who are dressed like civilians. But Qaddafi’s forces are also dressed like civilians. So we may be arming Qaddafi’s forces who are killing civilians while we also bomb the rebels who are killing civilians and bombing civilians who really are civilians but look like Qaddafi’s forces who are killing civilians.
Who’s on first?
. . .
Meanwhile, as the Obama administration is warning those on whose side we’ve been fighting in this Libyan civil war that we may start bombing them, too, just for good measure – and as his administration is warning Congress it will ignore any bills they pass to restrict U.S. involvement in Libya, and as the Secretary of Defenseclaims we’re about to withdraw our fighters from combat and “hope” our allies will pick up the slack – calls are increasing for a full ground invasion of this North African desert country.
You only wish it was a 4/1 joke or an Onion piece.
As Jill Stanek noted:
“a predominantly White organization raises funds to help kill babies in a predominately Black city.” This seemed apparent by all the Caucasian attendees noted in the video as well as the party photos DCAF posted.
Anyone else wonder why the mainstream media doesn’t find that newsworthy, especially given their obsession with alleged TEA Party racism? On the surface, would that seem a bit racist to anyone? Is it a coincidence that Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist?
And false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie really hates the truth. See United Church of Christ Leaders Hail Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act.
Matthew Shepard wasn’t killed by hate speech or because he was gay. Even if he was killed for being gay it wasn’t like his killers just got back from a Focus on the Family “Love won out” conference. He was killed by thugs.
In a major irony that will be lost on fakes like Chuck, I support stronger penalties for the killers of Shepard and Byrd than they do. I’m OK with the death penalty but they oppose it. I guess they must hate gays and blacks, eh?
So we don’t need “hate crime / hate speech” legislation at all. Those laws are just trojan horses designed to silence opposing views and especially religious speech. It is a double assault on the 1st Amendment rights of Christians. Chuck doesn’t mind because he never teaches anything from the Bible (whether accurately or not) that the world would find unpopular.
Virginity in the NBA: Mission Possible — Great article about A.C. Green (former Laker)
NY nurse forced to assist in late-term abortion, career threatened — that’s courtesy of the pro-abortion crowd, thank you (yes, that’s pro-abortion, not pro-choice)
A history of who thought the world was flat and when they thought it — Guess what? It wasn’t the Christians or even the West in general. But I wonder why this myth persists? Uh, actually, I don’t wonder. It is one of those myths that helps advance a particular worldview. (Hat tip: Duane’s Mind)
The 6 Worst Abortion Arguments Jon Stewart made to Mike Huckabee— I appreciate Huckabee’s pro-life views.
YouTube allows almost any surgery video imaginable, like gastric bypass, gallbladder removal, toe amputation, appendectomy and brain tumor removal, and gross-out body parts videos like a buttock fecal fistula or peritoneal cancer – but not abortion.
Neither does YouTube have a problem with videos pertaining to the female anatomy like mastectomies, breast augmentations, hysterectomies or even baby deliveries – but not abortion, unless it is in the form of bloodless illustrations.
YouTube also seems to go out of its way to protect the abortion industry, particularly Planned Parenthood
When a nation turns its back on God–Romans 1:18-32 — terrific sermon by Four* Pointer. Check it out.
25 rich and famous athletes who went broke — bad advisors, greed and bad decisions happen to non-athletes as well. Lots of lessons there.
Taking back the schools — Now teachers are getting fired just for being conservative.
The Left’s stranglehold on education is going almost completely unchallenged, which is one of the Right’s greatest failings, and nothing less than a dereliction of duty by federal, state, and local Republican parties. No attempt to truly advance conservative ideas or repair the damage the Left has done to this country will be complete without a full-blown offensive to restore integrity, accuracy, and fair-mindedness to the schools. Millions of children are being taught to accept at face value false premises about our form of government, historical falsehoods presented as fact, a laundry list of supposed sins tarnishing the image of their country, and other core tenets of liberalism.
A transcript from a presentation by a GLSEN group (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) — Warning: Very graphic (though I can’t miss the irony that I reflexively warn adult readers of how gross this link is while at the same time these GLSEN leaders thought the conversations were completely appropriate for your kids). They claim to be all about preventing bullying, but read this link then know for certain what a despicable lie that is.
These clubs are revolting and have no use in schools. They use the Trojan Horse of being anti-bullying to get them in. But why have sex clubs just for that? All you need is a simple and thoroughly enforced anti-bullying policy: If you physically or verbally harass other students on or off school grounds you will have swift and serious consequences. It doesn’t matter if you are bullying because they are gay/straight/fat/thin/smart/dumb/pretty/ugly/etc., or if it is just because you are a mean jerk.
I defy Joanne and the other GLSEN defenders to go through every word of that link then come back here with a straight face and defend it and tell me again why I should believe that these groups are just about bullying. Then again, when people support perversions like this why should we be surprised when they lie about it?
You know you’ve won a debate on abortion when the pro-abort resorts to the worst kind of moral relativism and religious bigotry. When another commenter asked if the author accepted any intrinsic difference in the values of a calf fetus and a human fetus, the blogger replied:
There are two differences: Biologically, obviously a calf fetus is structurally different to a human fetus. And socially, the majority conventionally view humans as being of more value than animals.
But fundamentally, the way I see it is that we derive the social difference from our ability to relate to these different species. And we all have different views on the matter. For instance, monotheistic religious people tend to see humans as basically superior to all other lifeforms. Personally I have a far more complex view than that. Some people, such as vegans, don’t see any ethical difference at all between killing humans and killing animals.
What is even more sad is that the blogger was pretending to be taking the abortion debate seriously. It is amazing what people will say to justify the unjustifiable. They pretend to be pro-science but go into non sequitor mode as soon as you remind them of the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.
I recently finished Eusebius’ The Church History, translated and edited by Paul L. Maier. Eusebius is nicknamed the “Father of Church History” for good reasons. He traced its paths for the first 300 years after the resurrection. He quotes many people extensively whose writings we wouldn’t have otherwise.
It was dry in spots, but very informative overall. Eusebius has his critics and Dr. Maier highlighted various errors in his writings while still concluding that he was highly reliable. Some of the themes in the book could have been written today. Here are some highlights, a few of which are just interesting factoids and a few of which are very important.
- Clement (a Church Father) thought that the Book of Hebrews was written by the Apostle Paul but not attributed it to himself because, “In writing to Hebrews prejudiced against him [Paul], he wisely did not offend them at the start by adding his name . . .”
- The graphic depictions of the persecuted Christians were chilling. Some of the rulers spent a great deal of time coming up with more and more bizarre tortures and methods of execution.
- The persecution of the Christians were not a 24 x 7 x 365 Empire-wide affair. They were extremely serious in some places at some times, but there were various periods of peace and tolerance.
His sections on what was considered canonical were fascinating, especially in light of the weight that liberal scholars give to works like the alleged gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas, etc. There are really good reasons those weren’t considered as legitimate by the early church.
- The early church recognized heresies when they saw them and addressed them thoroughly.
Writings published by heretics under the names of the apostles, such as the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, matthias, and others, or the Acts of Andrew, John and other apostles have never been cited by any in the succession of church writers. The type of phraseology used contrasts with apostolic style, and the opinions and thrusts of their contents are so dissonant from true orthodoxy that they show themselves to be forgeries of heretics.
- Dionysius wrote, “I myself have read the writings and teachings of the heretics, polluting my soul for a while with their abominable notions, though deriving this benefit: I was able to refute them for myself and loathe them even more. ” Amen!
- Iranaeus (roughly 115 – 200 A.D.) was very clear that the Gospels were just the four in the Bible and were written by those whose names they bear.
- The early church was much more disciplined than the church today (at least in the U.S.). They would excommunicate and eject false teachers.
- He believed that Matthew and Luke were written before Mark (the conventional wisdom today seems to be that Mark was written first).
- The catalysts for the Gospels of Mark and John were fascinating:
When, by the Spirit, Peter had publicly proclaimed the Gospel in Rome, his many hearers urged Mark, as one who had followed him for years and remembered what was said, to put it all in writing. This he did and gave copies to a ll who asked. When Peter learned of it, he neither objected nor promoted it. Last of all, John, aware that the external details had been recorded in the Gospels, was urged by his disciples and divinely moved by the Spirit to compose a spiritual Gospel.
- He quoted a work titled Concerning the So-Called Gospel of Peter and some of the reasons it was rejected.
- He quotes Origen (185-254) as saying that “I learned by tradition that the four Gospels alone are unquestionable in the church of God. First to be written was Matthew . . .”
I also thought a bit about what wasn’t in the book that one might have expected to see:
- Only a couple passing references to Mary, Jesus’ mother, and absolutely nothing that would even hint at a serious role for her in Christianity (that is, nothing like the veneration from the Catholic Church).
- Nothing about the superiority of Rome and the Bishop of Rome – the role is mentioned, but not as if he was in control of the whole church or even gets more than one vote. Hosius, The Bishop of Spain, was charged by Emporer Constantine to provide directions on money given to churches.