Sunday message

With a new job and a new schedule come adjustments, especially in sleep patterns.  Thus I woke up just for the tail end of David Jeremiah's sermon this morning (though I didn't stop there), but it was the most important part for me.  Dr. Jeremiah was talking on the subject "God is Love", and how He loves everyone- even those who haven't accepted His Son and found their salvation. He reminded us of Romans 6:23:  "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."  You see, God loves us even though we haven't accepted this gift; the rub being we cannot enter heaven without it.  But because He loves us, He will wait a LONG time before giving up on us.   "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."  2 Peter 3:9.  And because of that, I had to review how I pray.

You see, I have never been slack myself about engaing with atheists.  But whether it is responding to the infinitely silly question from one blogger:  "Okay, Creationists, why didn't God give us the ability to travel in space?" (Yup, actual question asked); or  trying to get past the notion that a "real" God should think and reason as we do, it is hard to get an atheist to really listen.  Many consider that they "already know it all", claiming "I've been brought up in a church/I've read the Bible, along with the Quran, etc." and refusing to believe that there is more to it than that.  Because you cannot get them to understand that God wants more than that, He wants a personal relationship.  That's when they go into "Easter Bunny mode" generally.  And even if you are willing to play the "what if" game with their beliefs, they will not extend you the same courtesy; any reasoning you use, they will dismiss without even hearing, "but if God exists", and tell you they won't continue the conversation because you are deluded.

And yet I try, not trying to make a point, but because God cares about them- and so should I.  I don't know how many times I have said, "I do this because I care about you," only to be met with the attitude, "I don't need your caring because God doesn't exist.  If I gave them a gift they didn't need at a birthday party, a reasonable person would say, "That's okay, thanks for the thought." Because they would accept the caring that went into it, whether it was the right gift or not.  Care about an atheist this way, and because God is in the equation, you get, "You've done nothing for me."  But they are the free thinkers.

And I bring this up not to attack them, but to explain my state of mind during these set-tos.  I don't get pissed for myself (though I do get mad for God's sake at blasphemy), or get a case of hurt pride.  But I get frustrated, and depressed.  Because Satan has chosen to erect a wall of "I can't hear you" in these people, and they will not listen, even when you use the same rules of logic they profess to follow.  It hurts.  And I am confessing right here that, in times when you are constantly barraged with groups putting up anti-God billboards, when our President tells us Muslims kill Americans because Christians are evil, when it seems half our population lives to kill and rob and rape before they can be killed or robbed or be raped,   it just doesn't seem worth it to care about these people anymore.  And you begin to pray that God finally gives up on them and brings His judgement this day, this hour.  "Look at them, God, you can't save them if they won't hear.  Isn't it time to just bag it all?"

I'll admit to that prayer at least once a month.  But when I put together my golden, logical case for ending it all, what God hears is,  "God, you are being foolish.  You love these people but they will never love you.  Why waste your time?"  Which is me making three mistakes.

First, God is never foolish.  And He's certainly not foolish because He " is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness".  He waited 2,000 years on my undeserving ass.  Was that so foolish?
Second, I am judging others as irredeemable.  If God wants to send out both combines to get the masses and gleaners afterwards to get the bits and pieces, who am I to judge how He tills his farm?  It's not like I'm the choicest ear off the stalk.
Third, it's not a waste of time if one person gets to avoid eternal damnation.  Ask the person who doesn't avoid it.

Lately, I have prayed keeping in mind the story of the widow and the corrupt judge from Luke 18.  For those who don't remember, it goes like this:

"1Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’

4“For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care about men, 5yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually wear me out with her coming!’”

6And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

 

 

Another way the bold verse is put is "Avenge me against my Adversary", and that is the prayer I have been praying for myself and others.  Because the Adversary is Satan, and this prayer, to me, is the same as the line from the Catholic Prayer to St. Michael, "...defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil."  When I pray for the judgement day, I have to make sure it is because I am asking God's will be done, and not because I have mistaken the people around me for the Adversary.  Better then to pray, "Avenge them, Lord, against THEIR adversary."  I don't have to heap hot coals on their heads.  I just desire for them to hear.

 

Just some fun stuff.

Ever since I saw someone else's post about all the fun ways people find you on search engines (actually, it was here at One Odd Duck- you should read this, it's hilarious) , I've been keeping more of an eye on the searches that lead people here.  Some are unusual but explainable, like "Marty Brennaman bulls#!t" (from his birthday shave.  More people were interested in the thing he didn't mean to say than what he actually did.), and fudergong (What's that?  read here.)  And never a month goes by without somebody wanting to look at this Silver Convention picture:

...although no one has ever accepted my challenge to explain just why they are (or this is) so darn popular!  Silver convention in the second biggest search draw I have all time, and leads the third search (Rikuzentakata, the Japanese city I featured after the quake/tsunami) by about 250.

Lately I have been getting searches from desperate porn seekers, in which google takes their request and mangles it into things that might be on my posts in a far different form.  For example, here's a sentence or two from a recent post:

"...This was so steep, a couple that was running uphill were bent over trying to run. The husband said, "Hello!" The wife said, "Help!"


Google massaged this into an acceptable find for the search "Wife Bent Over."

Another one was searching for "Baby Breeze Penthouse".  Apparently he was looking for Baby Breese, a model in Penthouse Magazine.  But he did pause long enough on my site to look at this:

...which was part of a post I did in which I mentioned that it was too hot to go for a walk, but we did anyway because there was a nice breeze... and later pointed out that we saw a baby bunny.  Where the penthouse comes in, who knows.

In the meantime, after a long pause, I'm getting some scam-emails again.  On the 8th, Mr. Peter Morgan of Lloyds of London wanted to let me know I was getting a £450,000 settlement for having been a scam victim.  On the 10th, someone who found me lurking job sites looking for work Offered me a job.  Mr. Rica (first name Costa?) said I would be dealing with "international funds", I'd work 2-3 hours a day to start, and make $2,300 + commision to start, 3K once I passed probation.  Signed it, "Faithfully Yours, HR Recruiter."

Then two days ago came the Rev. Frank Bute Ego, Manager of Benin's Western Union office (and isn't it nice that Benin's WU office has a member of the clergy working there?), telling me that, yet again, I was to be compensated for being a "scam victim".  I guess all of these compensation funds are retroactive to whenever you get stupid enough to fall for them.  Anyway, he informs me that the IMF is working with the FBI, "America security leading team", to send me $950,000 dollars at a rate of $4,500 a day.  They're just waiting on my info to fill out my "Clean Bill Record Certificate" before all that money comes tumbling in.  Thank GOD I fell for a scam, eh? Oh, did I mention that this one begins, "Attention Dear"?  That Rev. Frank is just a sweetie!

But the winner for most imaginative this time around goes to Thomas Volva (does this sound like a Seinfeld joke to you?) who had this curious request for me:




Attention:

I was shocked when i saw your surname today. I really want to know if

that is your surname.
It is important i know!

I hope to hear from you.

Thomas Volva.
Assistant Manager GTB
London, United Kingdom.

Of course, since Thomas sent it to "undisclosed recipients", I'm a bit puzzled at what surname he's referring to.  Maybe I should just reply, "Yep, that's me, last name Recipients."

Okay, that's it for now.  Oh, Oh wait!  There was a news item I wanted to mention.  It seems that the atheists are now removing those billboards I wrote about earlier in the week.  Apparently they were surprised by the outcry against them (another strike against "simply sensible") and may or may not have been asked by the billboard company to remove them due to threats against either or both the company and the group.  I am genuinely sad to see them come down, and here's why:

1.  They were designed to draw such threats, so that the atheists can take 'em down and complain about free speech, or use the incident in a "look what we did" way the next time a dispute about a Christmas display comes up.  Gotta be smarter than this, people!

2. It is, after all, their free speech right to put them up.  Whether you look away, throw rotten tomatoes at 'em, cover them over with graffiti, put up an intelligent response on a nearby billboard, those are your rights too- and a helluva lot smarter than making threats AKA giving them what they want.

3.  If they are going to put up something so completely moronic, why not let them?  The longer it stays up, the more people will look and say, "hey, that's pretty stupid!"

4.  They had the money spent, now they'll probably get a pro-rated refund.  Why on earth do you want to put money BACK in their hands?

Okay, now I'm done.  See you next rant!

Chris is going to agree with Atheists??!?

In a way, yeah.  But let's set the stage here.  In anticipation of the coming political conventions, an atheist group has bought billboards near the sites, in order to "Take religion out of the political discussion."  In fairness, they have two different ones- an anti-Mormon one at the Republican site for Romney, and an anti-Christian one for Obama (why they bother I don't know) at the Democratic site.  Here, let me show you the "AC" one:

Okay, now everybody pull their claws in, and I'll explain what I agree with, and why.

First of all, in my discussions with atheists, I have constantly been rebuffed when I ask them to "Imagine for a minute that there is a God."  Why these free-thinking individuals refuse to play along, you'll have to ask them.  Well, I'm going to try to be an example to them by "putting myself in the other guy's shoes", so to speak.

First, let's tackle "sadistic god".  I assume that this comes from not only the wiping out of the fallen world by the Flood, but also the encouragement to Joshua to eliminate the Canaanites.  I imagine that if you look no deeper into things, you could probably make this assumption.  But what is not taken into account is the "imagine you are God" scenario.  Imagine you are God- soveriegn, omnipotent.  And as such, you want worshippers.  Not just robots, but worshippers who do so even though they have a choice.  Now imagine, given the choice, these creations of yours choose to reject you.  Despite the fact of several godly teachers along the way, closer to God than any Billy Graham of our day- men like Seth, and Enoch, Methuselah, and Noah- mankind chooses to listen to another teacher.  This teacher, Cain, who was given every opportunity to choose God, EVEN AFTER killing his own brother- goes off with a grudge against God and teaches people to reject him.  If you were God, would you be putting up with this?  If you went to the dog pound today and bought a puppy, and all this puppy did was poop on the floor and bite the kids, despite constant training, would you keep him?  And yet, God waited until there were eight people left who believed- and one of them turned out suspect- before He did anything.  But that's sadistic.  Same with the Canaanites.  They accepted a teacher with a grudge- Ham, who thought laughing at his holy father was appropriate- and they became a lazy, inbred people who were a poison to all around them.  Their idea of worship was tossing kids into the fire!

Next, let's look at "useless saviour".  Again, I can see where they get this, right from the Bible.  Because they do not believe in God, they do not believe the divinity of Jesus.  Paul said,   " ¹³ If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. ¹⁵ More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. ¹⁶ For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. ¹⁹ If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. " (I Corinthians 15).

Ah, but there's the rub- WHAT IF IT'S TRUE?  The one thing I will never comprehend about an atheist is their refusal to deal with one hypothetical question-  If you are right, I do no harm to anybody in believing in God.  I die, I'm done.  But if I'm right, you are so screwed!  Wouldn't make sense to believe in God, on the off chance He exists, than to refuse to believe and burn all your bridges?  Or to put it another way, which is more sensible- take the path which has a 100% chance of being okay at the end, or the one that only has a 50% chance?  But instead, not only do atheists refuse to believe, but they are active evangelists in getting others not to believe.  Makes you wonder if somebody has an agenda, hmmm.....  That "teacher with a grudge" sure gets around, doen't he?

Third, we have the 30,000 versions of truth- which I assume is a slap at all the denominations.  This one I don't agree with so much because it relies on a diluted version of the word "truth".  But for the sake of playing along, we'll conceed the point.  With two caveats.  One, back to the if God scenario, God would have to realize to create non-robot worshippers, He'd have to make individuals.  With differing opinions, and ways of looking at life.  Wouldn't it make sense that He might allow them to evolve different gathering points, so that each can approach Him from the direction he/she is coming FROM?  Two, as I've said many times to no real effect, churches on earth are built from man's conception of God's will- and as such, flaws can seep in.  The common bond of all faithful churches was, is, and always will be, as paul said, Christ, and Him Crucified.  So, you can say, 30,000 truths... or you can say One Truth.

Fourth- "Promotes hate, calls it love".  Okay, again, if you imagine yourself outside the faith, you might see this.  But let's just take the classical battleground for this statement-homosexuality.  Let me make two things perfectly clear at the outset.  First, I believe that homosexuality is both a choice and a sin.  Two, I subscribe to the axiom "love the sinner,  hate the sin."  If I am an unbeliever, I am more likely to believe that there is not choice involved-"a homosexual is what I am, not a choice."  As such, "I" would be inextricably linking my person with the sin.  Therefore, I can easily see how Christians who hate homosexuality can be seen as hating homosexuals, if the homosexual sees it as a part of them instead of a choice.  I can see it, I just don't agree with it.  I have nothing against any gay person, and no, I won't go through a litany of those I know to prove it.  Suffice it to say, I don't beat them, paint graffitti on their doors, or treat them any different than I would anyone else.  But, I will fight to keep my child and any others I can from being taught that what I see as a sin is "normal".  Yes, that's hate- hate of the sin.  If those who want to identify themselves by the sin they commit think that means I hate them, sorry.

Finally, simply reasonable- oops, here I have to disagree.  Atheists function much like a religion yet deny the validity of religion.  They name themselves free thinkers and yet refuse to say, "What if..." And they insult 78% of the population to make a point about political unity.  Nope, I'd have to say, even when I "put myself in their shoes", that dog just don't hunt.

There is something weird at the end of this post...

...but I've got a few things to talk about before I get there.  No peaking!

#1, I have been tangnetally involved in a discussion over at Pastor Jeff's Ramblings that wandered into a discussion with a "faithful" (you'll get the joke in a minute) follower of his who argued that even proof of Jesus' rising from the dead would not constitute proof of His Divinity.  You see, he is an atheist (I hope the description fits, he's rather sensitive about these things) and will accept nothing other than first-hand proof that God exists.  Unfortunately, as with most atheists, the evidence of faith is excluded to the point of derision.  I don't want to get into the whole battle here, just two small parts of it.

One of those involves that in the interests of merely pointing out that his mindset is covered in the Bible without trying to start a whole thing, I posted the verse from Luke at the endof the Lazarus and the Rich Man parable- when Abraham tells the rich man that, if they don't believe Moses and the prophets, they would not believe even if one should rise from the dead.  Somehow, this verse made him state that I was terming him a liar.  After scratching my head, I asked him how that was.  He said that if he saw a miracle, he'd believe.  I responded that, out of respect for his already based opinions, I have know way of knowing that's true unless we watch a miracle together.

You see, this gentleman had got sensitive with Pastor Jeff over Jeff trying to extrapolate what he believes in order to carry on the conversation, and then the dude tells Jeff that the problem with most Christians is "They try to tell me what I think."  Even when trying to be respectful of the guy, he was antagonistic.

For my part, I explained to him we had two different belief sets, accepting different kinds of evidence.  The element of faith is accepted evidence in mine, while it is not in his.  At which point, he said that he thought we were at a dead end, and I agreed.  On the Pastors end, he mentioned that their were certain concepts that people like this fellow were afraid of, faith being one of them.  He replied (naturally) we was not afraid of the concept of faith, but he refused to deal with it in a spiritual connotation because of the "religious baggage" it carried.

In other words, unless you cut the heart out of the word, he wouldn't recognize it.  Because accepting spiritual faith as a concept meant that he wasn't looking at all options; by deleting it, his worldview still held sound.  Which at last brings me to my two points.

I do not believe that a miracle would convince this man.  For the simple fact that miracles happen all the time in this world.  Call them coincidence, etc., they are out there.  What he probably meant to say is that he would believe IF the miracle happened right before his eyes, and IF it was a miracl of the sort that would prove Christ's divinity. Two problems with that will probably keep it from ever occuring.

The first is that Jesus is the Bread of Life.  Spiritual food.  Even when He was on earth, miracles were performed solely for the HUNGRY- those that had FAITH enough to believe He could do as He said.  Though I cannot speak for Jesus, I'd say the evidence is pretty clear that Jesus isn't going to grant a miracle to someone who simply isn't spiritually hungry.

The second comes up when one argues, "What about Thomas?  He demanded the same kind of proof and received it!"  Very true.  However, Thomas was coming from a position of HOPE.  Thomas wasn't trying to prove his world view, nor was he daring God to do something.  He was HOPING that something he longed to believe was true.  Again, evidence suggests that Thomas would have never had the opportunity to put His hands in the Nailprints if his attitude was, "Prove that You are God."  Thus, I do not believe that a miracle would convince Pastor Jeff's follower of anything.  But the one thing that could make it happen even though all this is the reason Jesus allowed it to Thomas- He had a job for Thomas.  And that is between Jesus and this man.

________________________________

And if you've scrolled down this far looking for the weird thing, hang on because I've got one more quick story to tell.  Last night, the Detroit PD got a bomb threat at Comerica Field during the Tigers game.  As it was the third such threat this week, all false alarms thus far, they didn't evac the stadium, but searchd quietly and found no bombs.  They should have checked the bat rack in the Angels' dugout.  Mike Trout, Mark Trumbo, Alberto Callaspo, Kendrys Morales, and some guy named Pujols all hit home runs in a 13-0 rout of the Tigers.  I think the Tigers would disagree with the "no bombs" diagnosis.

________________________________________

If you are still here, here's what you've been waiting for.  Last night around 11 PM Scrappy and I took a walk.  Across from the park, a car pulled up to us.  Two men wearing gas masks were in it.  The driver asked me if I knew where ground zero was.  I laughed and said "Ground Zero?"  He said, "Yeah, we're trying to find it," and drove away.  They come out early in this neighborhood.

The proper battle, well fought

The Charlotte, NC, police department has joined the ranks of the PC, at the urging of our good friends at the ACLU.  The officers that volunteer as chaplains at public events have been told not to pray to Jesus at invocations.

A pastor/officer named Terry Sartain got the phone call from Major John Diggs, who said it was a matter of respecting "all denominations".  Terry asked, then, how was he supposed to pray?

"Pray a secular prayer," he was told.

sec·u·lar

   /ˈsɛkyələr/ Show Spelled[sek-yuh-ler] 

adjective

1.

of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

2.

not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.

 

 

“Even when I wasn’t a Christian – in my past – I didn’t even know what a secular prayer was,” he said. “Why even pray if it’s to the one who’s in the room? That could be anybody.”

 

How easy it would be just to comply- to avoid naming names.  To put in phrases that convey the meaning without saying.

 

The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”(that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:8b-10)

 

Do you think that the atheists and the ACLU don't know this?  This is another attempt to get Christians to gut their own faith in order to "conform".

 

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos. (Tao Te Ching 38)

 

You can look at the ACLU's attack on Jesus as "the defense of unbelievers against the society's dominant religion" if you want.  Or you can say, well, the Jews will just ignore them and the Muslims would kill them, so the Christians are the only "good target".

Or you can look at it as Satan manipulating the faithless to attack the one true faith.  Why else is it so important to remove the Name of Jesus?

 

So Sartain asked the police department to withdraw his name from consideration for future public prayers.
“I didn’t really need to do that as a chaplain,” he said of the public prayers. “I still wanted to have the influence with the police officers and their families.”

In other words, better to serve Jesus Christ with integrity than to bow to those who want a faithless faith.

No protests, no banners.  No lawsuits, no scenes.  Just a decision to serve God as God wants to be served.  It's a skill, as I've said before, that we have lost to the TV generation.

We burn Korans rather than teach the Bible.
We defy the government to put nativities up, and string our houses with colored lights surrounding a tiny ceramic creche.
We mail death threats to doctors and stand with pickets at abortion clinics rather than teaching our children the value and meaning of human life.
We pour Holy Water on roads rather than pouring prayer upon the travellers.
We keep one eye on the dates some "christians" give for the end of days rather than opening the Book and seeing that no one knows the date, only the Father. (Matt. 24:36)

Our weapons are not, nor were they ever supposed to be, protest signs, cigarette lighters, hateful letters, or ceramic dolls.  Our weapons are to be poorness of spirit, sorrow for others, meekness, a taste for righteousness, mercy, pureness of heart, peacefulness, and the ability to take insults and persecution in serving Jesus.

 

Sartain said it’s apparent that “Christians for the most part are targeted in these days that we exist in.”
“As Christians in the United States of America – what we are saying as believers – is we want the same rights and privileges as everybody else,” he said. “Let the playing field remain level.”

Day #1 of the End of Arden... plus something really stupid

As we walked out to the car this morning, there was a gentle rain starting, with a roll of thunder far in the distance.  One minute later it was cats and dogs with lightning everywhere.  Lovely.

At work, it was unusually solemn.  Like nobody really knew how to start things off.  Everybody with under 200 hours (including the new cutters) got the golden toe Friday, so it was especially quiet in my area with new cutter (call her J) gone.  We pretty much were having the smartass olympics at our end for the last 3 weeks, with cameo appearances by mechanic "Joe" who was developing an interest in J.  One after another, people wandered over and chatted about the situation throughout the day, and though it was still kinda sad (I told my boss I didn't know if I needed a grief counselor or an anger manager, or just something more distracting than work), things started to relax.

Best line of the day:  I was asked why cushions I cut 1500 of last week didn't have corners cut out.  (Answer: They don't get corner cut-outs.)  "Well, the sewer said they got corners, and we don't have the pattern in the book".  Later, I came up to the lady and said, "Given that heart failure is an apropriate alternative to finding another job, I wasn't looking at having the coronary right off the bat!"

J texted Joe and said, "Tell Chris I miss him."  I said, "Text her, 'Back atcha- and are you hungry yet!' "  (J would say "I'm hungry!" every morning between 7 and 7:30 without fail.)  Later, she texted Joe "Tell Chris, 'Sing it!' " (Another of our favorite running gags, usually said when the company CD player was playing somebody's cheap knockoff of Beat It.)  That made me laugh loud and really cheer up- until I heard the next lines on the song playing:

You can't be 20, on Sugar Mountain
though you're thinking that you're leaving there too soon
you're leaving there too soon...

Arriving home, we had a "parcel at the office" note.  Scrappy and I decided to hoof it down there to see what it was, as it wasn't raining yet.  But thanks to Mr. I-must-check-out-every-insignificant-scent stopping to take a poop that I thought I might have to midwife, we got wet most of the way home.  Perfect ending to the day.


__________________________________________

Now comes the something really stupid.


Jake Naman knew something was about to happen.
The 18-year-old from Redlands, Calif., was sitting inside a cavernous building in Seattle waiting to hear from Dan Savage, the founder of the “It Gets Better” anti-bullying campaign.
Savage had been invited to speak to several thousand high school journalists attending a national conference hosted by the National Scholastic Press Association and the Journalism Education Association.
Naman, who is a yearbook photographer at Arrowhead Christian Academy, thought Savage was going to talk about his anti-bullying campaign. But the Christian teenager soon learned that Savage had a very different message for the students.
“I hope you’re all using birth control,” Savage told the teenagers as he began his remarks. From there, he regaled the young people who stories about his husband, describing how he looked in a Speedo. At one point, Savage imagined what it would be like with his husband on stage – telling the kids that they would have to pry him off his partner.

Naman was growing increasingly uncomfortable with the tone and tenor of Savage’s remarks. There were more lewd comments, profane words and innuendo. And then, Savage said something that made Naman take notice.
“The Bible,” Savage said with a elongated pause.
“”The very second he said the Bible and paused, I knew it was going to get ugly,” Naman told Fox News. “It was about to be a bashing.”
And Naman was absolutely correct.
“We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people – the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation,” he told the young students. “We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things.”
Some will say what happened next took courage – but Naman said he was simply following the prompting of the Holy Spirit. And the entire moment was captured on a video that has now gone viral on YouTube.
The 18-year-old Eagle Scout and captain of the high school track team rose to his feet – and walked out – passing by hundreds of other students who were cheering the anti-bullying advocate’s profanity-laced rant.
“I felt like in my heart I couldn’t just stay there at all,” he said. “It was a really weird feeling I just had to get out. I didn’t want to cause a scene but I really could not stand to be in that room anymore.”
Jake Naman said he felt – bullied.
“If Dan Savage had gotten up there and said ‘God hates homosexuals and they’re all going to hell,’ there would have been huge outrage from that crowd,” he said. “As Christians we get the other side of that. When our faith is attacked like that – we are ridiculed for taking a stand against it.”
Naman thought that he was the only person who walked out – but when he got to the lobby – he learned that was far from the case. Arrowhead’s entire yearbook staff followed his lead – including his 16-year-old sister.
“I was shaking,” Julia Naman told Fox News. “I saw my brother pop up and leave and I took off after him.”
So did 17-year-old Haley Mulder.
“I never felt more hurt, felt persecuted,” Mulder said. “For me, my faith is what I Want to be defined by. For someone to say it was B.S. is really hurtful. I felt put down and bullied because of my faith.”
And then it got worse for the Christian teenagers. Savage directly targeted them with his remarks.
“You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible,” he said. “It’s funny as someone on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back.”
Naman said a number of the girls began crying. He said it seemed like such a safe environment “But then Dan Savage went off and it didn’t seem that way anymore.”
“He had a position of power as a speaker and he was using that against a group of students who had never done anything to him,” Naman said. “I would consider that bullying.”
“He was completely insulting and degrading our faith,” his sister said.
Mulder said Savage needed to practice what he preaches.
“I felt it was ironic coming from a person who was talking about not bullying,” she said.
In all about a hundred students walked out of the speech, but Naman said many others wanted to. He said some Christian teenagers felt intimidated and were afraid of what might happen if they had left.
Still, the 18-year-old said one thing was certainly obvious – “The majority of the students did not support us at all,” he said.
Savage issued a partial apology over the weekend, saying he was referring to the walk-out as “pansy-assed” and not the students. However, he stood by his profane references to the Bible.



And there you have it, all the intellect and courage of the atheist movement.  I know, before you comment, that many atheist don't act like this in real life.  But a lot do.  Put a kind comment on the Freedom From Religion Facebook page and see what it gets you.  So tell me- would you want to support an anti-bullying campaign led by this "gentleman?"  Point being, there are people who genuinely believe that there is no God, that logic and science tell them so.  But they are being led by those who live their lives to attack "something that doesn't exist."  And I know that their are those who would say, "I just want to make sure my children aren't exposed to the brainwashing of Christians."  But you'd rather cheer this guy.  Something's wrong with the picture, dudes.

Nativity scene epilogue

Being the fair person that I am, I posted my "friendly warning " form last time on Freedom From Religion's facebook page.  Of course I got the usual explanations that I'm the one who misreads the US Constitution, the typical list of insults that these so-called intellectuals stoop to, the same old attacks on FoxNews, who provided the story link, one "and what's up with Nixon?"  But the one I really loved was this from Miss Julie Merrill-Quinn:


""frindly advise!" The only thing that link got right is SCIENTIFICALLY a tomato is a fruit."

But at least I can spell "friendly", eh?  Still, Julie, you'll be happy to know that your post has caused me to formulate Martin Laws #s 5 and 6.

#5- Never debate with people who would put a tomato in a fruit salad (didn't think I'd catch that, did you?)

#6- I have no need to celebrate reason- I have a REASON to CELEBRATE!

Nativity Scenes

Since this seems to be the hot topic of the season, as usual, and with a monstrous week of shipping, OT, and probably not a lot of hanging out here (at least coherently), I thought I'd briefly hit on the subject.

Just got done with a "discussion" on the subject on another blog.  Actually, the whole thing started with the host posting a link to a response to Rick Perry's blundering campaign ad about "we can have gays in the military but can't have God in school, etc.  Another fellow chimed in after me, and brought up at the end of his post the nativity topic.  I stated:

" I think that when a town OVERWHELMINGLY wants a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, they have a right to do so. If a minority doesn't like it, they have the right to do just as you did- drive on by. This is supposed to by a government of the PEOPLE (i.e. the majority of the people) where the rights of minorities are RESPECTED- but not minority rule. I've had atheist pseudo intellectuals tell me that the government is there TO elevate the minority in the face of the majority (not surprising seeing the side of the fence they're on), and I will disagree to my last ounce of freedom with that."

I thought I made my point clear- if a town is united in its desire for a Nativity, they should have that right.  Here's the responses I got.

The Toledo phone book yellow pages lists churches on EIGHT PAGES! Toledo has HUNDREDS of Christian churches! And you still need a religious display on government property to affirm your faith? How profoundly sad!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My faith does not require religious scenes to be constructed on public lands. I feel sorry for you that your faith is so weak. There are not enopugh Christian churches to affirm your belief. That is profoundly sad!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious displays belong at religious facilities, not on government land. Period.

So, I am profoundly sad and weak in faith because I think that a town that agrees to put up a scene should not be deterred because of one or two objectors.  There are plenty of things I object to that I have to drive by, and I don't call the Wisconsin chapter of Freedom From Spinach (for example) and get them to sue the crap out of the 95% of the populace that doesn't object.  Because it's NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS and I can always drive on by.  So here are my clear and concise opinions on the topic.

#1. In most towns, There shouldn't be any problem with NOT putting a scene on Gov't property.  After all, The Great Commission doesn't get accomplished by nativity scenes.  Mind you, this does NOT apply to football games and high school graduations.  I don't care how you want to slice it, those are extracurricular activities, and if a graduate wants to speak from the heart, that should be allowed.  Faith in God does NOT abolish free speech.  But as far as displays, etc, I'm easy.

#2.  HOWEVER, if a town has a long standing tradition of Christmas displays on public ground, I do not think that it is fair, reasonable, or constitutional to abridge that right in the name of a handful who think their eyes will dissolve or whatever.  If they want to fight it, have a referendum.  If the objectors total, say 20%- and NONE of them are protestors from out of the community- then, move it.  Otherwise, get a life.

#3.  We must keep in mind that there is a difference between the casual skeptic or agnostic, or even the honest atheist, and the evangelical atheists who run things like Freedom From Religion, who will give you all sorts of excuses like, "All the bad things, wars, persecutions, etc., are because of religion, and I want to eliminate it altogether so that my children can build a utopia a la John Lennon".  Never you mind that there is a big difference between faith and religion (which I've argued with these people a million times and they REFUSE to acknowledge it), nor how the world has changed- and not for the better- since God was "taken out" of our schools.  You cannot argue with this mindset, because they have invested too much of themselves in denying God to cover their own sinful lifestyles.

 Sometimes, you HAVE to stand up and fight;  but I have to agree with my opponant on the other blog- if you've got churches galore within a stone's throw of the court house, this is probably not a fight worth picking.  Too bad he was too busy calling me "profoundly sad" to see that agreement.  But that wass because, despite the other things he said in his posts, the honest truth of his point was, he wants NO God on NO government property whatsoever.

I often think of how these people will fare before God at the Final Judgement.  Sometimes I think it would be entertaining to watch them stand before God and try to convince Him that He doesn't exist.  But then I stop myself and say, remember what happens to the loser in that argument.  And that, my friend, is profoundly sad.

Sunday message

First, though, to my amigos in the Great Postcard Campaign, they are on their way!!!

Anyway, I got up this morning thinking it would be a great idea to lead into Christmas by looking at the prophecies about the coming Messiah.  Now, I'm really good at taking my concordance and beating raw facts from it.  Putting moving meaning to it is what separates me from effective preachers.  So I looked up my facts and then got dressed, hooked up my earphones to Turning Point with David Jeremiah, and off Scrappy and I went.

Along the way, Dr. Jeremiah read from a poem that got to me.  The basics are, the speaker is a sorrowing sinner, looking for a means to lift the burden from their soul.  This person fashions "a lash of remembered sin" to whip themselves with.  But it does them no good; and in desperation they turn again to Calvary.  Looking into the eyes of the dying Jesus, He says to them, "What you see as scarlet, I see as white as snow."  With that, the lash disappears and the burden is lifted.  Just for a moment, that spoke to me and my throat choked up.  And I was reminded that dry facts are great, but it's how God sees them that is important.  Dry facts hand me the lash; His mercy evaporates it.

Gotten that far, let me try the "dry facts " portion.  The first prophecy of the Messiah is in Genesis 3- the judgement God proclaims on the serpent.

 ¹⁵ And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”   

The first thing we pull from this is that, at the moment of Eve's sin, the world became divided.  "Enmity between you and the woman" does not mean everybody hates snakes.  The serpent is Satan; the enmity is between humankind and Satan.

Second thing is "and between your seed and her Seed".  The "seed" of the serpent, Satan's "offspring", are not a race of serpents, nor are they demons.  The serpent's seed are the unrepentant of humankind.  However, the Seed of the woman (note the capitalization) is Christ.  The enmity is between sinful man and Christ.  Thus, Joshua, we explain your hatred of all things Christian.  You see my friends, I have an atheist acquaintance who feels that, as an atheist, it is not only his choice to disbelieve God, but his duty to fight against, tear down, and mock Him (or if you prefer, the "belief" of Him) at every opportunity.  I posit that someone who simply doesn't believe in a god should have no real drive (other than to be left alone by preachers) to attack the belief in others.  But that is not the case, and it is the enmity of God's curse so long ago that makes it so.

So where do believers fall into this?  At the "heel."  You see, a "serpent" cannot strike the Head; it is beyond his reach.  So he has to strike at the heel.  What is the "heel" of Christ?  The word for heel is the same one that we draw the name Jacob from.  Jacob, the birth name of Israel, the name taken on by God's People.  So in the battle of enmity between Christ and Satan, we are the "heel " which he strikes- because it is the only means to strike at Christ that he has.

And Christ Himself?  He strikes at the "head" of the serpent- Satan himself.   The verse never says that the head removes the heel from the field of danger.  His perspective is the destruction of the head- by the salvation He brings.

A quote Dr. Jeremiah uses is, "God whispers to us in good times, talks to us in trouble, shouts at us in pain.  Pain is God's megaphone for a deaf world."  So many times I hear, "A loving God wouldn't do this or that". Sometimes I say it myself.  But, the catch is, he would allow it.  Because the making us white as snow for the next life is more important to Him than anything in this one.  He won't reverse the enmity.  He won't remove the heel from the serpent's bite.  But He will take the lash from our hands.  Atheists like to think we're the end product on earth of evolution, the peak of what is and thinks.  Jesus wants us to be the heel.



Atheist holy day

From an e-mail I got today... Got to hope this is true!!!





Florida Court Sets Atheist Holy Day!
Gotta love this Judge!

You must read this......a proper decision by the courts...for a change.

FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY
In Florida , an atheist created a case against Easter and Passover Holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening t o the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays..."
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."
The lawyer said, " Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."
The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fool’s Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day.
Court is adjourned..."
You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!


This is too good not to forward!

The funny side of the end of the world: Trivia about Harold Camping

1.  His middle name is Egbert.  Which is not damning, but certainly amusing.

2. He believes that the "church age" has ended, all organized churches are apostate, and advises his followers to just get out.  Good grief, don't get caught in a church when Jesus returns!

3. He believes that, based on the obscure Hebrew phrase "qara shem", that Adam actually fathered Seth, Seth actually fathered Enosh, and Lamech was Noah's real daddy, but all the rest were "reference patriarchs", i.e. actually separated by other ancestors not worth mentioning.

4. No Hell!  If you're a sinner, you just cease to be at death.  Sounds like partially following atheist doctrines, making him half-athed.

5.  His radio network, Family radio, is still offering promos expiring on the 28th- one week after anyone wanting them (or able to give them out) are supposed to be gone.  Entrepreneurship goes on in Heaven?

6. The closest station to us carrying family radio is WOTL out of Toledo.  Google thought I meant WTOL, the main AM station there, but I had to insist on the "backwards" version.  Go figure.

7.Since the church age is over and all churches are apostate, he has over the years either dropped or heavily deleted any programs that give aid and comfort to organized denominations.  Between that and the fact that most of his stations are non-commercial, you gotta wonder just what programming they DO have.

8. Just so you know, the world was made in 11,013 BC, the flood (which is a historical fact when he needs it to be and an allegory when necessary) was in 4990 BC, and Jesus died on the cross on Friday, April 1st, 33 AD.

9. Yes, he did already predict the apocalypse once before, for September of 1994.  In the book about that one, 1994?, he did say, "...but I could be mistaken."  Not so this time... I guess he neglected the disclaimer in his old age.

10. To understand Camping, first understand he says that organized churches are failed because they use "doctrines and hermeneutics" to interpret the Bible.  Second, understand that he says both that the Bible is the complete Word of God, but not all of it need be taken literally.  Third, the reasoning behind #2 is that if Jesus spoke in parables, and Jesus is the Word of God, and the Bible is the written word of God, then much of the Old Testament can be taken as parables as well.

11. Because of this he can combine the factual flood's date of 4990 BC, the parable flood's "seven days more and I shall make it rain", and 2 Peter's "A thousand years is as a day", and get that 7000 years after the flood is 2011, and with similar ironclad mathematics figures the 6 PM today target.

12. Camping's actual education was a B.S. in civil engineering.  Other famous civil engineers include the late Osama bin-Laden, Mahmoud Iamanutjob of Iran, Gen. Curtis Le May ( 1968 running mate on the American Independent ticket with Gov. George Wallace), and Sir Thomas Crapper, the alleged inventor of the flush toilet.

13. Heaven's gonna get busy- he estimates 200 million raptured today.

14.  Of course, he hadda take away all his wiggle room- the 6 PM he referred to is local time, sweeping across the globe.  Earthquakes were supposed to follow the clock like a set of dominoes.  The closest he's been at 11 am our time is a 5.3 that hit Luzon in the Philippines at 1:08 PM local.  No estimates in yet on the disappearances there.


15.  People that show their character in a crisis.  The Seattle Atheist group is raising money to help earthquake victims- and if nothing happens, the funds go to a camp to teach critical thinking to children.  Locally, Joshua attended "Post-rapture looting" according to Facebook.  There's class for ya.

Easter sermon

I've been debating on how to do this post and what to say for a good long while this morning.  A lot of times, I come into these things thinking, how do I present this to the non-believers who so desperately need to hear it, and I think it might distract me from being able to help those who aren't "seeds cast on the hard path".  So bear with me as I ramble a bit.

Despite the fact that we celebrate the Resurrection today, I find myself drawn to the story of the Exodus and its parallels to the life of a Christian.  For example:  It was only after 400 years of gradually increasing slavery that the Hebrews realized that they should seek God's help.  They called out to Him and He answered in HIS TIME- a journey that took 40 years to make Moses a prince of Egypt, 40 years more being humbled.  Similar to Jesus, who left one life in the Glory of Heaven for another as a humble, inconspicuous carpenter, before finally assuming His ministry of freeing the people.  Somehow, though, Moses does not exactly play Jesus in the allegory- more like a pastor of influence, or the section of the soul that knows instinctively to seek and follow God.

By signs both miraculous and disputed, the people- representing the proto-Christian- work their way to the step of faith needed to cross the Red Sea so that God can slam the door of slavery to sin behind them.  From this point on, sin becomes a choice, not an ingrained, hardwired part of one's DNA.  But does it prevent sinning? HA!

Time has to go by (again, God's time) as the "old man" (represented by Moses and his generation) is replaced by the "new man" (represented by Joshua and his single-minded pursuit of God's mission).  Only once the "new man" is completely in charge is the Christian able to enter the Promised Land.  Neat, huh?

But along the way, we hit the golden calf.  And that is something I've always struggled to figure out until lately.  First, let's look at what is driving the Hebrews at this point, and see how they are things the proto-Christian also faces. One, they are driven by their needs and wants.  Instead of going to God for their needs, it was constantly, "We have no water! We have no meat! Moses, you suck!"  They were more concerned with the perceived need than trusting in God to deliver, even when God showed them (through the quail that made them sick) that sometimes what we don't get isn't any good for us.  Two, they are driven by impatience.  God takes time to set things up for our lives- and boy, has my life been a continuing example- and they were not inclined to wait.  "Aaron, do something!"  And Aaron, like many pastors today, did something- he began to shape the concept of "God" to the demands of the people instead of remaining faithful to WHAT HE KNEW TO BE TRUE.  Third, they were driven by incomplete knowledge of the situation.  "As for THIS FELLOW MOSES, we don't know what has happened to him" (Exodus 32:1).  It was only through their relationship with their leader that they maintained contact with God, and so if the leader falls, the sheep are scattered.

And so, Aaron, led by a misguided emphasis on what the people wanted, designed what they wanted.  The calf was not a false idol; he designed them to be an "artist's conception " of God.  And it satisfied the demands that people had of God-  it was real and tangible; it fit their limited conceptions; and, as the later revelry proved, it allowed them to do what they wanted.  How like many of man's religions, including the teachings of some "Christians" (examples:  Dove Outreach's insistence on provoking the Muslims, Westboro you-know-who's insistence that God hates people instead of sin, and this new gig about "a loving God would have no need for a Hell".), as well as the atheist mindset that has to have a tangible in front of them, that they can conceive without the dilemma of accepting that some things are beyond their conceptions and always will be, and frees them up to be "free thinkers" who can find random aberrant examples to explain why it is natural to be a homosexual.

But what did Jesus bring us?  First, He brought us something that had to be accepted by faith.  Despite the fact that He showed them all along what the scriptures said must happen, and explained it to them over and over, they were unable to immediately accept the impossible happening right before them.  His resurrection was not a "tangible", not at first.  Second, it was beyond their conception, and like the early Hebrews, remained that way in spite of evidence, until the Spirit came to them at Pentecost.

 Moses, God bless him, was involved in the politics of the day.  Despite his devotion to God, he was dealing with the complaints of the people, the infighting with other "leaders" even the family squabbles with Aaron and Miriam.  It was only under the focused on God leadership of Joshua that they moved forward.  We too, have to accept the "impossible" on faith, wait on God's timing, and unchain our relationship with God from our ability to "conceive" Him, if we want to move forward.

Here's an example of that.  I was tuned into Redeemer radio  (the Catholic station) on Good Friday, when I heard a q-and-a show where a lady described that her nephew and his wife had become evangelicals, and had been talking to the couple's daughter about Christ.  The lady and her husband were a Catholic/evangelical split, but had formed an agreement not to press the issue.  The nephew's evangelism was causing a schism in the family, and she wondered what to do about it.  The host told her it was "unfair" for the nephew to do as he was because Jesus came to bring peace and unite us.  To which I said, "That is a golden calf; it is man's conception of God."  In Luke 12, Jesus says, " Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. ⁵² From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. ⁵³ They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”  And this is PRECISELY the situation for which He said it.  Too many Christians want that golden calf, letting them be huggy-feely with sin, and not responsible for doing what they know they ought to (like Aaron).  But that was the OTHER thing that Jesus brought with Him out of the grave- the elimination of the ability to say "what do we do now" in the face of your responsiblities.

Sunday sermon

Today, Ed Bousman talked about Acts 3-4, where Peter healed the lame beggar. It was interesting to me that he pointed out the two groups of people who questioned the miracle. One was the Saducees, and the other the priests (Pharisees). The Saducees, he said, were those who only believed what was in the books of Moses, i.e. Genesis through Deuteronomy. What he didn't mention- at first, was that they were also distinguished as not believing in the ressurection of the dead. This is tantamount to no faith at all, because Paul in I Cor. 15 says:

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

If they believed in God, it was a god they might as well not have. If God created us only to have us live this life, and upon having faithin Him, to then die and that's all she wrote, then there IS no point to it. Atheists believe faith is the presence of self-delusion. If there was no ressurection, they would be right.

The other group, the priests, they believed in the entirety of the Word of God ( the Old testament) but they failed to grasp the point of it. God gave the law to show man that, because he was incapable of keeping it (James 2:10- For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.), he had to depend on God for salvation. Their take was that it COULD be kept, and if one didn't it was because it wasn't explicit enough. So they expounded and expanded the law, to the point where you were breaking the law by accidentilly kicking a seed into a crack on the Sabbath since you "planted a seed" which was "work". So they worshipped God, but it wasn't right worship because they didn't understand Him.

This is much the situation that exists today. Unbelievers who reject the ressurection and thus God, and followers of false beliefs, seeking a way to earn their place in eternity. In between was the man who was healed, called into question by the priests and Saducees because his healing brought into question their beliefs. I should phrase that differently; they did not question their beliefs even then, even exposed as flawed. They merely worried at the effect on the beliefs of those who listened to them. And so it is today. In Acts 4:14 we see the same attitude of the atheists out there:

But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16 “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”

If you can't beat them, shut them up. Ban the Bible was a popular way of expressing this years back when I went to Promise Keepers with a friend. He wisely kept me from tilting with the protesters, but I asked myself, why does God let these people even show up here? Then we went into the arena, and the echoes of the entire crowd singing How Great Thou Art thundered down the hallways. And I understood: where else could He put these protesters and have 10,000 men right there to PRAY for them?

Just like He put the beggar at the Temple- where His men could find him. What is hard to understand is that between the beggar and the priests and the Saducees and the protesters, there is NO difference. The crowd of protesters had among them Pharisees who had thought out but mistaken ideas; Saducees, whose commitment was to have everyone deny the existance of God as they do; and perhaps, somewhere in the group, a beggar, spiritually lame, looking for "money" from the masses, who through our prayer got something far more precious- the ability to walk. The Saducees would try to pass him off, run him out; it would be easy for them to say he was just suffering from a delusion- they weren't the ones who suddenly were healed.

To close, as I read in Isaiah, I found a marvelous 1,200 year old description of today's intellectual elitists. From Isaiah 41:

21 “ Present your case,” says the LORD.

“ Bring forth your strong reasons,” says the King of Jacob.
22 “ Let them bring forth and show us what will happen;
Let them show the former things, what they were,
That we may consider them,
And know the latter end of them;
Or declare to us things to come.
23 Show the things that are to come hereafter,
That we may know that you are gods;
Yes, do good or do evil,
That we may be dismayed and see it together.
24 Indeed you are nothing,
And your work is nothing;
He who chooses you is an abomination.

February Flotsam on Sunday

Okay, among the things on my widely-scattered mind today:

1. In researching other things today, I was looking into a set of stats put forth by David Barton about some of the negative trends in society since the 1962 decision to ban school prayer. You can look at them for yourselves if you like; I was drawn to the rebuttal by a chap going by the name of Abemore who accused Barton of "spreading twisted lies" by selectively presenting his charts. Of course, in the typical vein of evangelical atheists, he starts it out with the pronunciation that Barton "is an idiot" (that bastion of credibility of the liberal fringe- insult, insult, insult); then he goes on to select the one chart he CAN try to overthrow statistically- the spike in venereal disease since the decision. While he does make two valid points- first, that the spikes are closely tied to occurrence of major wars; second, that Barton did not show how those rates have since dropped off- he fails to note two other things that puncture his bubble. One, he does not note that the spike Barton referred to started after major involvement in Vietnam and second, that its peak came 3 years after we were OUT of Vietnam. Not to mention the fact that this peak ran MUCH higher and was already starting from a higher base.The fact that that indicator later ebbed does not invalidate Barton's hypotheses, it merely shows that the symptoms of societal debasement can be mitigated over time- if not the decay itself.

Abemore does not bother to contest anything other than the VD chart, stating that one chart overthrown is basically all charts overthrown- Apparently assuming that the "war" must also have been the cause of higher murder rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, and lower SAT scores. In a sidelight, he also references another of his statistical breakthroughs that claims a connection between being religious and higher rates of divorce. To manage this, he makes the assumption that because Christians have a special relationship with God, that if God exists they should have a supernatural protection from divorce. He sites stats that show that basically everyone has similar divorce rates, therefore Christianity is somehow invalidated. Not surprising since his assumptions about that special relationship between Christians and God are completely wrong; the nature of that relationship focuses on forgiveness and personal responsibility to avoid sin. Atheists refuse to grasp that the Nature of God is such that man's failure does NOT equal God's failure. Also, I find it curious that Abemore's VD chart only includes Gonorrhea and not AIDS, which would have eliminated the dip over the years involved. Mustn't slay our sacred cows, I suppose.

2. I also learned this morning that there is a strong statistical link between legal and Illegal immigration- they rise and fall together. The Center for Immigration Studies states that much of this is because increased legal immigration not only encourages others to try to enter, but the backlogs at INS because of this forced the impatient to cross the river without waiting. What started out this chain reaction? Well, you start with the Hart-Cellar act of 1965 which changed the requirements for immigration from being a person who can positively contribute to society (which, I might add, Mexican law still IS) to a basic quota system; since we were in the era of civil rights, let's give civil rights to everyone, whether they are citizens or not. And this abomination we can lay squarely at the feet of Ted Kennedy, whose first assignment as a Senator was to work this bill through. Being the prescient paragon of rightness that he was, Ted predicted,"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset...Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

This I find sadly amusing. Consider this from this very day's Journal Gazette article about the "diversity" in the McKinney-Hessen Cassel census tract in SE Ft. Wayne:
The official census tract breakdown is 653 whites, 726 blacks, 483 Asians, 183 Hispanics. While the tract's population increased 14 percent since 2000, it was mostly from Hispanics and Asians. Non-Hispanic whites in the area declined 28 percent, and blacks dropped to a lesser degree.

Again, not surprising from the man who wanted to put McDonald's out of business for making kids fat. What did you top out at before your illness, Ted?

Oh, and BTW, Illegals in the USA were estimated at just over 500,000 in 1969, shortly after Hart-Cellar passed. That amount had doubled by 5 years later; that number in turn tripled by 1980, and even that number more than doubled by 2000. But our "ethnic mix" is still the same as it was in 1965. That's what Ted said, and I believe him. ;<)

3. My ESPN baseball team got autodrafted this morning. Being a Reds fan (my second team behind Oakland), I was less than thrilled to see I got Adam Wainwright (who is not only a Cardinal but just got scheduled for Tommy John surgery and will miss the whole year) but his teammate Colby Rasmus (which should make KC laugh since he knows I cannot stand Rasmus). Needless to say, I am ejecting both of them ASAP.

4. Robbie Gordon just wiped out on lap 34. Good. That man should have his car impounded and be issued a tricycle in the name of public safety. Now he's weeping about Marcus Ambrose bumped him. Karma from last week's a bummer, huh, Robbie?

5. I see Quaddafiduck's sons told the UN that all the stories of massacres in Libya are "overblown". I think they got ahold of some of those drugs al-Qaeida is passing out to the anti-Duck protesters.

This is why they don't believe in God???

My facebook page sees fit for the last two days to choose as "top news" that some comedian-cum-philosopher won a "cultural humanism" lifetime achievement award. Good for him. I have no problems with groups I'm not aligned with choosing any character they want to honor, though I am mystified that FB thinks it's so important TO ME. But in looking into the deal (which I almost always end up regretting) I found this little ditty on why Christianity should be rejected.

Arguments Against Christianity
There are at least eight insurmountable problems within the extant evidence that each independently refute the Christian doctrine of a divine Jesus:

Jesus' endorsement of the murderous immorality of Yahweh in the Torah;

Jesus' doctrine of "eternal punishment" in the "eternal fire" of Hell;

Jesus' failure to claim actual divinity;

Jesus' failed prophecy of his imminent return;

Jesus' failure to competently reveal his doctrines (concerning e.g. salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet) in his own written account or that of an eyewitness;

Jesus' failure to perform miracles the accounts of which cannot be so easily explained as faith-healing, misinterpretation, exaggeration, and embellishment;

Jesus' failure to attract significant notice (much less endorsement) in the only detailed contemporaneous history of first-century Palestine;

Jesus' failure to recruit anyone from his family,
any acquaintance from before his baptism,
a majority of Palestinian Jews, and even
some of those who heard his words and witnessed his alleged miracles.

An omnipotent omniscience benevolent deity competently attempting a revelation would have foreseen and corrected all of these problems. The existence of any one of them implies that Christian doctrine is false.

Okay, all my Christian followers should stop laughing now, and let's go through this.
1. WTF is the "murderous immorality of Yahweh"? Are we referring to the wars fought to remove the Canaanites, I assume? Yes, God could have overcome that and chose not to. Why? #1, the people Israel were at a stage that it had to be proven to them that they could not get right with God on their own. They had to be given concrete rules, and find out that they (not God) were incapable of keeping them. Since they proved that they were generally incompetent even as they waited for said laws to make it down the mountain to them, it became obvious that they would never survive even the influence of the ridiculous pagan religions around them. The Canaanites were an exceptionally, ridiculously depraved lot. God ordered a strict separation, and yes, even extermination, of them. This becomes "murderous " in the eyes of those who attack the faith. But if you believe in a sovereign, perfectly Holy God, you see that 1) Paul said that all nature shows the manifest presence of God, so the Canaanites, like all of us, were without excuse. 2) They had been judged by a Holy God whom they rejected, and found wanting. If you recognize that God exists, and that He is the creator, then He has the right to judgement, and that is neither murderous nor, if Jesus is the manifest Word of this God, does it require refutation on His part.

2. Here is the humanist problem- if they're wrong, they go to Hell. No matter their "ethics" or "moral code based on reason and the good of mankind", etc. If Jesus would condemn them to perdition, he must be evil. The basic sin of Satan in the past and the Anti-Christ in the future- making oneself god. If God is creating a people unto Himself, and this people are not to be robots, and thus have to have a choice, there has to be a consequence for the wrong choice.

3. Another WTF. What could be more clear than John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I AM".

4.Mathew 24:36 clearly states that only the Father knows the day and time. And if the 13 billion years that scientists ascribe from the big bang to now can be 7 days in the eyes of a God who is the maker of, and thus beyond, time, how does the arguer (one Brian Holtz) propose to define "imminent"?

5. Here I can only challenge that "competently" is defined in terms of the author's own prejudices and desires. Otherwise I can only assume his trolley has chugged on around the bend, because, once again, Jesus' doctrines seem pretty clear to me.

6. How about water into wine at Cana? Or two rounds of loaves and fishes? Or, for that matter, walking around alive after His brutal death- something witness by over 500 people?

7. Christianity only became widespread after Constantine in the 300s AD. And most "contemporary" historians would have considered it an insignificant offshoot of Judaism, and likely lumped the two together. Reason would tell us this; but he who first cried for reason is often the last to apply it.

8. a) His mother was at His side at His death and at His grave at the Resurrection morning. Two brothers wrote epistles in the Christian cannon, and James His brother was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Mr. Holtz should go a little deeper into the Word than just the dust jacket.
b) First, His ministry BEGAN at His baptism, and second, the Gospels never mention ANY such acquaintances, so how does one know? We do have the mention of the synagogue at Nazareth, but if you read the whole passage, you'll see why that is the exception that proves the rule. If you use reason, that is.
c)The Word of God constantly talks about "the remnant" being saved. The Jews were prophesied BY GOD to reject Jesus. This dog don't hunt.
d)And now, in a crated world in which His manifestations are clearly evident so that people are without excuse, still many reject Him. What's your point?

An omnipotent omniscience benevolent deity competently attempting a revelation would have foreseen and corrected all of these problems. The existence of any one of them implies that Christian doctrine is false.

The key word in the above quote is "would". In actuality, this should be "could", because "would" implies that the knowledge forces corrective action. the truth is, while God is certainly capable of this corrective action, He chooses not to because it does not fit His plan. Plus, even if you take this whole thing as an exercise in debative literature, Holtz is guilty of so many lack-reads, mis-reads, and inserting his own prejudices into his interpretations that this whole thing has the structure of Swiss cheese and the smell of Limburger. One would think a philosopher with a background in computer science like Holtz would have a grasp on one thing leading logically to another, like a program. Unfortunately his reasoning is more on the GIGO theorem.

Mark, ch. 4, New International Version

11He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

Reasons to believe... or not.

As I listened to a pastor this morning, I began looking at the many ways we can come to belief, taught through the Resurrection story. First, of course, is hearing the Gospel. Whether from angelic sources as Mary Magdalene (Matt. 28:1-8), or mortal (John 20:17-18, Luke 24:33-5), the point is hearing the Good News. Second, through knowledge of the Scriptures, as the disciples heading to Emmaus learned (Luke 24:13-32). If one is not too busy trying to find ways to nitpick and twist the Word of God, as the Pharisees and Saducees did, the truth can become apparent here too. Third, by "finding the empty tomb," as Peter and John did (John 20:1-10). This is the essence of belief without seeing; they came thinking to see a closed cave, a dead body, the signs of death. Instead, they saw the open tomb, the empty bier, the folded and arranged wrappings- in other words, the signs of life. They were able to see beyond their expectations. And fourth, by personal revelation, as in Thomas' case (John 20:26-9). Sometimes even those touched by God are too stubborn to submit to anything else.

On the other hand, we see in Matt. 28: 11-5 the guards being bribed to say that the body was stolen- to lie to accomplish disbelief. We can use this as a lesson about the reasons for disbelief, if we realize that the chief priests are symbolic of Satan and his motivations, which is no stretch considering John 8:33-4 ("You are of your father, the Devil..."). First let's consider why the guards would accept the bribe (why people accept the lie). While we can and will see other subordinate reasons, the two main ones are in the passage:
v. 12; When they had assembled with the soldiers and taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers...
Which means they get their desires out of it. Rejecting God means not having to deal with a conscience beyond nuisance level. I can do what I want.
v. 14; "And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure."
In other words, no consequences. "Imagine there's no heaven/it's easy if you try/ no hell below us/above us only sky..."
Beyond these, there are as I said some important subpoints.
1. Belief in Christ "takes away freedom"; but it's a freedom to bondage. Some people think the definition of free thinking means removing God from all consideration. But look at John 11: 47-8:
"Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, "what shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will take away both our place and nation."
They were afraid that the belief in Christ would take away the freedom they had, even though that "freedom" was being ruled by the Romans. Just so, free thinkers wish to be free of the concept of God to think as they will, even though this "freedom" is actually bondage to sin.
2.There is a certain fear of believing in Christ; over and over, the Gospels say that the leaders wanted to kill Christ "for fear of the people". Why would they fear the people? Because the people's belief would expose the fraudulent "faith" that gave them their power. To learn about Christ is to strip from me my false beliefs; if I want to maintain them, I must avoid knowing Him.
3.Belief in Christ changes one's concept of reality. In Matt. 26:63-66, the priests ask Jesus if He is the Christ of God; He answers yes, and they reject the answer, accusing Him of blasphemy. They couldn't cope with His answer, for that would expose their sin before God. To maintain everything they believed, they had to reject Him. Just so, many who don't want to believe are just too comfortable in their personal world view to allow Him to change it.
4.Belief is a personal insult. In John 18: 19-23, we see the priests question Jesus on His doctrine; His answer, basically, was go to those who believe and ask them. The officer's response shows that the priests were insulted by this. Many free thinkers it would seem think that belief in God insults their intelligence. This goes back to pride, the original sin.
5. The passage in John 8 gives several more similar reasons. In vv 32-39, they throw up tradition, as if their Abrahamic heritage makes them better. In v. 41, they defend themselves with self-righteousness. and from v.52 to the end, they refuse to acknowledge that Jesus, as God, is greater than them. This is something I've seen in many conversations. They cannot conceive of a God with greater motivations and different moral codes than they themselves have. Therefore, they try to apply their standards to God's actions, and come to the conclusion that...
6. He's insane. In John 7:20, 8:48, and 8:52-3 they accuse Jesus of "having a demon", even though many of them had seen Him cast demons out, and Jesus Himself logically proved you can't cast demons out and have one as well (Matt. 12:22-30). But His ways are so"crazy", as Thomas Jefferson said:
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."
To which Paul answers in 1 Cor. 1:23-4:
23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
7. It gives others a knowledge they don't have. In Luke 4:24-30, Jesus explains to the People of Nazareth their disbelief by telling the stories of non-Jews such as the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian. They became furious and tried to stone Him at the mention that somebody beyond themselves might be gifted with knowledge of God. It reminds me of the violent attack of evolutionist/big bang theorists against scientists who work from a Christian POV. Here's an example from the AP:
Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky.
Published December 17, 2010
Associated Press
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – An astronomer argues that his Christian faith and his peers' belief that he is an evolution skeptic kept him from getting a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky.
Martin Gaskell quickly rose to the top of a list of applicants being considered by the university's search committee. One member said he was "breathtakingly above the other applicants."
Others openly worried his Christian faith could conflict with his duties as a scientist, calling him "something close to a creationist" and "potentially evangelical."
Even though Gaskell says he is not a creationist, he claims he was passed over for the job at UK's MacAdam Student Observatory three years ago because of his religion and statements that were perceived to be critical of the theory of evolution.
Gaskell has sued the university, claiming lost income and emotional distress. Last month a judge rejected a motion from the university and allowed it to go to trial Feb. 8.
"There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position," U.S. District Judge Karl S. Forester wrote in the ruling.
Gaskell later learned that professors had discussed his purported religious views during the search process. Gaskell told the AP in an e-mail that he didn't grow frustrated, but felt "one should not allow universities to get away with religious discrimination."
University scientists wondered to each other in internal e-mails if Gaskell's faith would interfere with the job, which included public outreach, according to court records.
The topic became so heated behind the scenes that even university biologists, who believed Gaskell was a critic of evolution, weighed in by citing a controversial Bible-based museum in Kentucky that had just opened.
"We might as well have the Creation Museum set up an outreach office in biology," biology professor James Krupa wrote to a colleague in an October 2007 e-mail. The museum was making national headlines at the time for exhibits that assert the literal truth of the Bible's creation story.
Science professors cited a lecture Gaskell has given called "Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation," which he developed for "Christians and others interested in Bible and science questions...," according to an outline of the lecture. Gaskell told the AP he was invited to give the lecture at UK in 1997, and organizers had read his notes.
The wide-ranging lecture outlines historical scientific figures who discuss God and interpretations of the creation story in the biblical chapter Genesis. Also in the notes, Gaskell mentions evolution, saying the theory has "significant scientific problems" and includes "unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations," according to court records.
Gaskell was briefly asked about the lecture during his job interview in 2007 with the chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michael Cavagnero, according to Gaskell's deposition. Gaskell said he felt that questions related to religion during the job interview were "inappropriate."
"I think that if I had a document like this and I was advocating atheism ... I don't think it would be an issue," he said of his lecture.
Science professors also expressed concern that hiring Gaskell would damage the university's image.
An astrophysics professor, Moshe Elitzur, told Cavagnero that the hire would be a "huge public relations mistake," according to an e-mail from Cavagnero in court records.
"Moshe predicts that he would not be here one month before the (Lexington) Herald-Leader headline would read: 'UK hires creationist to direct new student observatory.'"
University spokesman Jay Blanton declined to comment Monday because the litigation is pending.
Gaskell said he is not a "creationist" and his views on evolution are in line with other biological scientists. In his lecture notes, Gaskell also distances himself from Christians who believe the earth is a few thousand years old, saying their assertions are based on "mostly very poor science."
Gaskell was uniquely qualified for the new position at the University of Kentucky, according to court records, because he oversaw the design and construction of an observatory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He also advised UK during the building of the MacAdam facility. He currently teaches at the University of Texas.
His attorney, Frank Manion, said scientists at UK were too quick to place Gaskell on one side of the creation-evolution debate.
"Unfortunately too many people get hung up on the idea that you have to be one extreme or the other," said Manion, who works for American Center for Law & Justice, which focuses on religious freedom cases. They say "you can't be a religious believer and somebody who accepts evolution, which is clearly not true. And Gaskell's a perfect example of that."
I think it's hilarious/ludicrous that I keep hearing how atheists are persecuted in the USA when every day you see examples of nativity scenes being removed, ten commandment plaques being taken down, school outreaches being shut down, public prayers banned, licence plates on private vehicles being denied,and lawsuits to remove In God We Trust from our money being filed. Atheists like to quote Thomas Jefferson in their attacks, but somehow always forget he also said this:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. "
The attacks on Christianity in the public realm only go to prove what I have listed here. If there was just an honest unbelief involved, they would have the same view as Jefferson. To feel the need to attack Christianity, they are aligning themselves with those who Jesus spoke of in John 8:42-4:
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires.