Hello, Mohamed,
[My blog response on Mohamed's website --link to it is on the right side of my blog page.]
I am a lowly woman, a grandmother and a Christian, in America.
I believe the Bible is an accurate historical account of God's involvement with man, his highest creation.
I believe that Jesus Christ was sent from God to save us from our sins. Our deeds need not be weighed on the scales of good and evil. We can know we are saved for eternal life with God because of what Christ did on the cross.
He is the Passover Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. His life outweighs our sins on the scales. When Abraham went to sacrifice his son out of obedience to God, God provided a lamb in place of the child for the sacrifice.
In Jesus Christ, God provided the lamb for the world --all our sins. We are no longer under the curse of death and the burden of our sins. We are not going to be weighed and found wanting--as to whether our deeds were good or bad. Instead, Jesus paid the debt for our sins--and we choose to be as good as we can out of love and obedience to Him. We agree with Him and His Word about the definition of right vs. wrong.
You said you believed the Old and New Testaments as well as the Koran--but the Koran changes the story of Jesus --and says Jesus did not die for our sins and rise from the dead. Yet the whole New Testament is very convincing. The first Christians believed this very thing --and were willing to die for this truth--because many of them had witnessed His miracles, His death and His resurrection. They knew Jesus was more than a prophet.
Then Mohammad (blessed be His name, you would say) says HE, himself, is the greatest prophet --that HIS written version of Jesus' life and ministry should be believed --even though he was not there and he himself did not rise from the dead.
Why should you believe Mohammad instead of those who wrote as eye witnesses about Jesus, the true Prince of Peace --who never told anyone to "kill the infidel." Who never referred to Christians as swine and Jews as apes --which references were recently found in new Saudi textbooks for Muslim school children.
I heard the fellows on your blog [see my blog list links at the right] challenge you to denounce the 9/11 tragedy and Osama. Did you do that? I don't think you did.
[Today, Mohamed, did criticize murder of civilians on his blog.]
You just continued to defend Islam and denounce bad Muslims generally.
I think you would rightly fear reprisal from other Muslims if you name Osama as a bad man and denounce the events of 9/11. Am I right about this? I suspect there is much to fear in your own mosques --from fellow Muslims.
Did you deny that many Muslims DO oppress women according to Koranic teaching? that women do not have drivers' licenses in Saudi Arabia, is that true? that Iran is doing more than defending itself --but oppressing its young people and women terribly. (see this week's Newsweek? magazine--an article by an Iranian woman reporter.)
Iran would use the bomb to annhilate Israel; their leader threatened Israel in a speech. He denies their right to exist. So does Palestine.
I don't think Iran is just interested in self-defense --I think they are dangerous to the world if they have nuclear energy.
We, on the other hand, are not. Granted we shot off the first A bombs and ended war with Japan--whose military leader wanted to keep fighting --but after the bombs, the emperor surrendered. They did attack us first. They were not going to quit. It was against their sense of honor to surrender. They were very cruel to our prisoners of war, forcing them to march to their deaths. It took those A bombs to stop them.
I think america would be very reluctant to use such bombs again --but some are so weary of the middle east and their hatreds --they say to make the whole area into a parking lot. I don't say that. It's not right to say that. It's not CHRISTIAN to say that. But the whole world is getting weary of Islamic terrorism and wishes the rest of the peace-loving Muslims would have peace with each other and take care of their own criminals.
Nice to meet you. I wish you well in your studies --and hope you will open your mind to discuss these issues I raise.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Monday, September 10, 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
COLSON on God & Government: e.g. Terri Schiavo's Death
Charles Colson, former Nixon White House aide, founder of Prison Fellowship after his own years in prison for the Watergate coverup, has a book titled God & Government . It's an update of his former book, Kingdoms in Conflict.
Colson was not a Christian until after the Watergate problem. Many Christians in D.C., however, were his friends and witnessed to him of their faith. He read C.S. Lewis's book, Mere Christianity, and came to believe --and he had a spiritual experience that assured him that the Gospel of Christ was true.
He then wrote his own book, Born Again, which I would recommend as much as C.S. Lewis's book for the God-seeker. It's about his own journey to faith in God and Christ.
In his newly released book (above,) Colson observes that Christians today are under fire and labeled as "theocrats, fascists, and bigoted demagogues."
His book advises Christians on how to more winsomely represent God's truth in the public square and attempts to equip us to think "Christianly" on the issues of the day--and communicate that thought in an effective manner.
Colson gives an example about a prominent congressman who was invited to a medical school in his state to discuss the Terri Schiavo case. What follows is from Colson's article about this in Jubilee, the publication of Prison Fellowship.
He let the angry med students complain about governmental interference in this case. And let them vent and ask their questions first.
Then he said, "let me explain. Terri...was not on life support. What was done was to remove a feeding tube. Whatever state she was in, she was simply being fed." Did anyone question that, he asked? No one did. Then he drew from lecture series speakers Princeton Prof. Robert George and U. of Texas Prof, J. Budziszewski, both Christians.
He reminded the students that there was a nursing home nearby where some patients had to be fed for various reasons. He asked if they would object if the nursing home decided to stop feeding the patients, [to starve them,] and if the government should step in and force it to continue to feed its patients? Absolute silence.
Much of the opposition to his position was thus diffused."
Colson continued in his essay to report that Christa Lilly, a woman in Colorado, just awakened from a 6 year coma. Lately, we have been hearing more and more about the brain's ability to re-route itself --and procedures to help people with Parkinson's. Yet, the pressure is on regarding the high costs of caring for patients who seem to be no more than "vegetables." So we are not done yet with the problem of euthanasia for those who are in comas or seem to be brain dead --but are nevertheless living.
Request Colson's new book at 1-877-478-0100
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Colson was not a Christian until after the Watergate problem. Many Christians in D.C., however, were his friends and witnessed to him of their faith. He read C.S. Lewis's book, Mere Christianity, and came to believe --and he had a spiritual experience that assured him that the Gospel of Christ was true.
He then wrote his own book, Born Again, which I would recommend as much as C.S. Lewis's book for the God-seeker. It's about his own journey to faith in God and Christ.
In his newly released book (above,) Colson observes that Christians today are under fire and labeled as "theocrats, fascists, and bigoted demagogues."
His book advises Christians on how to more winsomely represent God's truth in the public square and attempts to equip us to think "Christianly" on the issues of the day--and communicate that thought in an effective manner.
Colson gives an example about a prominent congressman who was invited to a medical school in his state to discuss the Terri Schiavo case. What follows is from Colson's article about this in Jubilee, the publication of Prison Fellowship.
He let the angry med students complain about governmental interference in this case. And let them vent and ask their questions first.
Then he said, "let me explain. Terri...was not on life support. What was done was to remove a feeding tube. Whatever state she was in, she was simply being fed." Did anyone question that, he asked? No one did. Then he drew from lecture series speakers Princeton Prof. Robert George and U. of Texas Prof, J. Budziszewski, both Christians.
He reminded the students that there was a nursing home nearby where some patients had to be fed for various reasons. He asked if they would object if the nursing home decided to stop feeding the patients, [to starve them,] and if the government should step in and force it to continue to feed its patients? Absolute silence.
Much of the opposition to his position was thus diffused."
Colson continued in his essay to report that Christa Lilly, a woman in Colorado, just awakened from a 6 year coma. Lately, we have been hearing more and more about the brain's ability to re-route itself --and procedures to help people with Parkinson's. Yet, the pressure is on regarding the high costs of caring for patients who seem to be no more than "vegetables." So we are not done yet with the problem of euthanasia for those who are in comas or seem to be brain dead --but are nevertheless living.
Request Colson's new book at 1-877-478-0100
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Friday, September 7, 2007
Good bye, America???
I got this in email -- no author indicated. Immigration is not my greatest fear. I hope Governor Lam and Victor H. Davis are mistaken.
Subject: Goodbye America??
FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ THIS AND LEARN TO UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS BETTER THAN EVER.
FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ AND LEARN FROM A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT.
Please take the time to read this. It should frighten you!
We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall! and that an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.
Here is how they do it, Lamm said:
First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.
Lamm went on:
Second, to destroy America, invent multiculturalism and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
Third, We could make the United States an Hispanic Quebec without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony.
Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.
Lamm said, I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.
Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.
My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology. I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
My sixth plan for Americas downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent.
People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. E. Pluribus Unum
From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the pluribus instead of the Unum, we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.
Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of diversity. I would find a word similar to heretic in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking.
Words like racist or xenophobe halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of Victimology, I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed.
Finally he said,
Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book, Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness.
Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate diversity. American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book,1984. In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building:
"War is peace,
Freedom is slavery, and
Ignorance is strength."
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream....
Those who cannot learn from history, are doomed to repeat it!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Subject: Goodbye America??
FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ THIS AND LEARN TO UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS BETTER THAN EVER.
FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ AND LEARN FROM A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT.
Please take the time to read this. It should frighten you!
We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall! and that an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.
Here is how they do it, Lamm said:
First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.
Lamm went on:
Second, to destroy America, invent multiculturalism and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
Third, We could make the United States an Hispanic Quebec without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony.
Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.
Lamm said, I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.
Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.
My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology. I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
My sixth plan for Americas downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent.
People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. E. Pluribus Unum
From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the pluribus instead of the Unum, we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.
Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of diversity. I would find a word similar to heretic in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking.
Words like racist or xenophobe halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of Victimology, I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed.
Finally he said,
Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book, Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness.
Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate diversity. American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book,1984. In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building:
"War is peace,
Freedom is slavery, and
Ignorance is strength."
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream....
Those who cannot learn from history, are doomed to repeat it!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Yes, I'm Back! Light-bearer, not Muck-dweller!
Here is an example of liberal-speak against Christians:
Unfortunately, fundamentalist zealots wish no part of 'coexistence.' They are patently certain that THEIR religion, THEIR God, THEIR theology is the only one.
And they will kill to defend it.
A local Ohio blogger posted this as a comment on his blog, www.Man with the Muck-Rake.blogspot.com. He also referred to religious right Christians/social conservatives as the most dangerous people on the planet.
He deleted my rebuttals, of course --because he really is NOT a champion of co-existance and proves it daily. He is also wrongly certain that people like me think "our religion , God and theology are the "only one."
As for saying we will kill to defend our religion. Well, some of the faithful WILL go to war to defend religious and other freedoms --but will not kill to eliminate dissent and people of other faiths. We don't want any part of hastening their departure into a Christless Eternity.
We know our theology/religion/God is not the only one. The only TRUE one, yes, but there are many false theologies, religions and gods.
As for "co-existence," that is my definition of tolerance --add "peaceful" as an adjective.
For Muck-raker, the former Liberal Democrat, tolerance and co-existence are synonyms with AGREEMENT. If you disagree regarding religion, morality/ homosexuality --and probably politics, you WILL be deleted on his blog. My son and I have been the only voices of dissent who dare enter his arena. I have to conclude his deletions are because our rebuttal comments are too good. Otherwise, why not let others read them? It's people who want to make sure their blog promotes only THEIR view who censor opposing viewpoint. They don't want any light to shine on their muck. That's his right in America --to censor his own blog opposition --but he wouldn't do it if he truly believed in co-existence and tolerance as he claims--and if he had effective rebuttal to make opponents look fallacious in their thinking.
I find deletions troubling for the implications regarding the bloggers' view of free speech. If they will stifle dissent on their blogs, would they vote for the stifling of dissent? Will they pay for the ACLU's efforts to change history, eliminating our national religious heritage, stifling religious expression and free speech on public property, removing the influence of ministers and politically incorrect Biblical preaching from the public airways, the military, the houses of government? How far would he go in his censorship --if he could have such power?
Censoring one's blog (apart from vile and profane language and endless, copied spam) means the blog-host does not believe in free speech and has no tolerance for opinions other than his own. This is not a person to put into a classroom, on a judge's bench, or into government service. Such a person is the epitome of intolerance--while protesting hypocritically that the other side refuses to "co-exist."
This is a classic example of Paul's admonition to "judge not--because you do the very same thing" --in this case, the blogger refuses to "co-exist" while claiming that Christians don't believe in coexistence.
If this weren't so sad --and also dangerous, it would be amusing. And I have tried to have a sense of fun in the disagreements --for which I was labeled as wrongly "sarcastic" --by a master of sarcasm in the blogosphere -- one who admits he himself sprinkles his blogs with a "smidgeon of sarcasicity."
The left wing of American culture seem to be pots calling the kettles black. But what's new?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." --the Bible
Unfortunately, fundamentalist zealots wish no part of 'coexistence.' They are patently certain that THEIR religion, THEIR God, THEIR theology is the only one.
And they will kill to defend it.
A local Ohio blogger posted this as a comment on his blog, www.Man with the Muck-Rake.blogspot.com. He also referred to religious right Christians/social conservatives as the most dangerous people on the planet.
He deleted my rebuttals, of course --because he really is NOT a champion of co-existance and proves it daily. He is also wrongly certain that people like me think "our religion , God and theology are the "only one."
As for saying we will kill to defend our religion. Well, some of the faithful WILL go to war to defend religious and other freedoms --but will not kill to eliminate dissent and people of other faiths. We don't want any part of hastening their departure into a Christless Eternity.
We know our theology/religion/God is not the only one. The only TRUE one, yes, but there are many false theologies, religions and gods.
As for "co-existence," that is my definition of tolerance --add "peaceful" as an adjective.
For Muck-raker, the former Liberal Democrat, tolerance and co-existence are synonyms with AGREEMENT. If you disagree regarding religion, morality/ homosexuality --and probably politics, you WILL be deleted on his blog. My son and I have been the only voices of dissent who dare enter his arena. I have to conclude his deletions are because our rebuttal comments are too good. Otherwise, why not let others read them? It's people who want to make sure their blog promotes only THEIR view who censor opposing viewpoint. They don't want any light to shine on their muck. That's his right in America --to censor his own blog opposition --but he wouldn't do it if he truly believed in co-existence and tolerance as he claims--and if he had effective rebuttal to make opponents look fallacious in their thinking.
I find deletions troubling for the implications regarding the bloggers' view of free speech. If they will stifle dissent on their blogs, would they vote for the stifling of dissent? Will they pay for the ACLU's efforts to change history, eliminating our national religious heritage, stifling religious expression and free speech on public property, removing the influence of ministers and politically incorrect Biblical preaching from the public airways, the military, the houses of government? How far would he go in his censorship --if he could have such power?
Censoring one's blog (apart from vile and profane language and endless, copied spam) means the blog-host does not believe in free speech and has no tolerance for opinions other than his own. This is not a person to put into a classroom, on a judge's bench, or into government service. Such a person is the epitome of intolerance--while protesting hypocritically that the other side refuses to "co-exist."
This is a classic example of Paul's admonition to "judge not--because you do the very same thing" --in this case, the blogger refuses to "co-exist" while claiming that Christians don't believe in coexistence.
If this weren't so sad --and also dangerous, it would be amusing. And I have tried to have a sense of fun in the disagreements --for which I was labeled as wrongly "sarcastic" --by a master of sarcasm in the blogosphere -- one who admits he himself sprinkles his blogs with a "smidgeon of sarcasicity."
The left wing of American culture seem to be pots calling the kettles black. But what's new?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." --the Bible
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Major Annoyance or Oxymoron--Christian Democrats
My church magazine has an article this month suggesting ever so subltly, without naming the parties, that the Democratic party is more Christian in its views/agenda than the Republicans --whose main agenda of importance to conservative Christians, the article says, is family values, i.e. abortion and homosexuality. I deny that charge.
The writer reminds us, unnecessarily, that the Bible champions charity, compassion, social justice, and care for the poor, etc. implying that the Democratic party is the party of THESE virtues and the other party is not. Care for the environment and belief in global warming was emphasized in another article --without mention of the also credible opposition to the global warming ideologues and their theories and remedies.
Listen, it's Bill Clinton who tax-deducted a dollar for every pair of used underwear he gave to charity --before he was president. I suppose he can deduct a much higher value now, especially if they're unwashed. It was Al Gore whose taxes revealed he'd given a pittance to charity as vice-president, as I recall. It was George Bush who saw the value of faith-based institutions (including schools, prisons, re-hab and homeless programs) and their work among the disenfranchised, disadvantaged, etc. and said they should be as elegible for government aid as secularistic/atheistic (a-religious) groups whose track records tend to be less effective --or even destructive like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.
As for the super rich democrats, like celebrities, if they give away 50% or more of their fortunes in taxes they won't miss it --so they think the modestly, moderately well- off entrepreneurs and job-creators should be taxed to their eyeteeth, too --for the sake of the poor and Big Government redistribution of wealth. When you own an energy-guzzling house like Al Gore's or John Edwards', you can (apparently) afford to tell everyone else to tighten their belts, pay higher taxes to give raises to gov't employees and to support those who goofed off in school, made multiple babies with people to whom they weren't married, got addicted to meth, nicotine and alcohol, and now are suffering the consequences.
The social conservatives give more per capita to charity and religious institutions (which are always charitable) than any other group in the nation. They work with countless people who are the poor for reasons described above. They see transformation of lives harmed by drugs, alcohol and sexual immorality. They have ministries to everyone's children, youth and the poor. And we DO believe in government help to the needy. We just don't like this class warfare exacerbated by Democratic Party rhetoric --this sense of entitlement.
A friend of ours was seeing a young lady with great financial needs. He gave her a large sum of money specifically to help her pay her bills and get on her feet--and she went out and bought a fancy TV with it--though she already had a decent, working TV. He asked her why she used the money that way and she said, "I felt I deserved it --I deserve nice things." He's not seeing her any more--i.e. not to date her.
Lack of compassion is not the reason why conservatives advocate social policies which encourage responsibility and initiative. Many of the welfare-dependents acquired self-respect with jobs and education because of welfare reform led by social conservatives in the early 90's. Social conservatives did lead the abolition movement in England and U.S. Social conservatives are the ones wanting the church to be the agency that helps the poor --instead of the gov't --because the church deals with the root problems of so much poverty in America. Most poverty in our country IS rooted in our family life/sex life --and the lack of effort in education for many --the lack of family support, encouragement, structure, discipline, good priorities for money, etc.
It was Bush that advocated mega-bucks for AIDS meds and abstinence education in Africa. He's the one wanting to be lenient (merciful) to the illegal immigrants who have been here contributing to the economy, whose descendents are legally here by birth. I've been interested in this debate and don't think full citizenship with voting rights SHOULD be granted to the illegals--but the workers' permits might be a good idea. We shouldn't completely exonerate illegal immigrants letting them vote and determine the social policy in this nation. It's enough that we've been educating their kids and treating them in our hospitals. Bush is a realist, however, in visualizing how it would look for millions of Hispanic residents to be forced to evacuate the country. The majority may clamor for that now, but when it started to happen the media would highlight the sadness of families having to send Grandpa back to Mexico for his crime of illegal entry.
No more time to rant today.
The nation on this 3rd of July needs to remember the Lord and petition to bring our hearts into conformity with His. That includes a recognition that social justice (compassion, equal opportunity and hand-ups for the needy--REAL help) and family values are both important. And I think the conservatives realize this --whereas the democrats still believe gay and abortion wrongs are right.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." "God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it." --the Bible
The writer reminds us, unnecessarily, that the Bible champions charity, compassion, social justice, and care for the poor, etc. implying that the Democratic party is the party of THESE virtues and the other party is not. Care for the environment and belief in global warming was emphasized in another article --without mention of the also credible opposition to the global warming ideologues and their theories and remedies.
Listen, it's Bill Clinton who tax-deducted a dollar for every pair of used underwear he gave to charity --before he was president. I suppose he can deduct a much higher value now, especially if they're unwashed. It was Al Gore whose taxes revealed he'd given a pittance to charity as vice-president, as I recall. It was George Bush who saw the value of faith-based institutions (including schools, prisons, re-hab and homeless programs) and their work among the disenfranchised, disadvantaged, etc. and said they should be as elegible for government aid as secularistic/atheistic (a-religious) groups whose track records tend to be less effective --or even destructive like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.
As for the super rich democrats, like celebrities, if they give away 50% or more of their fortunes in taxes they won't miss it --so they think the modestly, moderately well- off entrepreneurs and job-creators should be taxed to their eyeteeth, too --for the sake of the poor and Big Government redistribution of wealth. When you own an energy-guzzling house like Al Gore's or John Edwards', you can (apparently) afford to tell everyone else to tighten their belts, pay higher taxes to give raises to gov't employees and to support those who goofed off in school, made multiple babies with people to whom they weren't married, got addicted to meth, nicotine and alcohol, and now are suffering the consequences.
The social conservatives give more per capita to charity and religious institutions (which are always charitable) than any other group in the nation. They work with countless people who are the poor for reasons described above. They see transformation of lives harmed by drugs, alcohol and sexual immorality. They have ministries to everyone's children, youth and the poor. And we DO believe in government help to the needy. We just don't like this class warfare exacerbated by Democratic Party rhetoric --this sense of entitlement.
A friend of ours was seeing a young lady with great financial needs. He gave her a large sum of money specifically to help her pay her bills and get on her feet--and she went out and bought a fancy TV with it--though she already had a decent, working TV. He asked her why she used the money that way and she said, "I felt I deserved it --I deserve nice things." He's not seeing her any more--i.e. not to date her.
Lack of compassion is not the reason why conservatives advocate social policies which encourage responsibility and initiative. Many of the welfare-dependents acquired self-respect with jobs and education because of welfare reform led by social conservatives in the early 90's. Social conservatives did lead the abolition movement in England and U.S. Social conservatives are the ones wanting the church to be the agency that helps the poor --instead of the gov't --because the church deals with the root problems of so much poverty in America. Most poverty in our country IS rooted in our family life/sex life --and the lack of effort in education for many --the lack of family support, encouragement, structure, discipline, good priorities for money, etc.
It was Bush that advocated mega-bucks for AIDS meds and abstinence education in Africa. He's the one wanting to be lenient (merciful) to the illegal immigrants who have been here contributing to the economy, whose descendents are legally here by birth. I've been interested in this debate and don't think full citizenship with voting rights SHOULD be granted to the illegals--but the workers' permits might be a good idea. We shouldn't completely exonerate illegal immigrants letting them vote and determine the social policy in this nation. It's enough that we've been educating their kids and treating them in our hospitals. Bush is a realist, however, in visualizing how it would look for millions of Hispanic residents to be forced to evacuate the country. The majority may clamor for that now, but when it started to happen the media would highlight the sadness of families having to send Grandpa back to Mexico for his crime of illegal entry.
No more time to rant today.
The nation on this 3rd of July needs to remember the Lord and petition to bring our hearts into conformity with His. That includes a recognition that social justice (compassion, equal opportunity and hand-ups for the needy--REAL help) and family values are both important. And I think the conservatives realize this --whereas the democrats still believe gay and abortion wrongs are right.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." "God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it." --the Bible
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
MY MEMORABLE QUOTE -- with Mea Culpa --by humble Barb
I saw that a couple of you were wondering if anything you ever said or wrote would be "quotable" for history. Here's my attempt:
"The ACLU and those who agree with them want a state that favors their world view and behaves publically as though God does not exist and need not be heeded, thanked, or reverenced --and cannot be called upon by our leaders in times of national crisis."
Mea Culpa:
Go here: http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
This is ACLU's page to say, "Yes, we really do defend Christians also!" I'm not sure the info here really nullifies my quote, however.
I was surprised at their defense of street preaching, in particular --and defending students who pass out lit at school in non-instructional time. I'm thinking the ACLU has sometimes been on the other side of such cases.
I can't help but think that these are exceptional cases, depending on the lawyers involved --that the ACLU also has evidence of ridiculous oppression of Christians in public places.
Would they have defended the valedictorian's right to free speech, when the plug was pulled on her mic because she wanted to tell about the relationship of her faith to her success as a scholar? The school made a lousy point in this instance and disrupted what should have been a dignified occasion recognizing a scholar's right to innocuous free speech. Had she wanted to be vulgar and cuss like a sailor, I'd say she was out of order and should have her plug pulled. But religious speech should be protected. Yes, a Jewish or Muslim student should be able to quote some good tenets of their belief in a speech, too. I wouldn't advise an atheist to say "There is no God" in such a speech --but that's what he'll do when he's a professor at the tax-supported U's. He can still state his creed of self-sufficiency and "I can do anything I set my mind to" and promote a secular philosophy of life.
The ACLU has been particularly obnoxious when it comes to the evidence of Christian heritage of American government at all levels, tampering with town seals, mottos, memorials, etc. --preparing long before necessary for the time when other religions will make up larger portions of our population than they did when crosses were erected at ARlington Cemetary for all our nation's war-dead. Without meaning to "establish religion," our Christian and Deist founders nevertheless did favor the good influence of the Bible, Jesus, and religion in general upon the citizenry. They studied the Bible in public school. They celebrated the Christian holidays in the schools. They believed in reverencing the God of Creation and Nature, the God of the Bible in their public ceremonies and courts. As one forefather said, (and I don't have the citation or exact quote in front of me and don't know where to find it): "The Constitution was written for a religious people and won't work for any other." Because those people were taught to be moral and have self-control --and had a consensus about right and wrong to which they could appeal in their decision making.
Of course, the man who made the statement was talking about the main religion of the Colonials --Christianity --because that religion teaches The Golden Rule (Treat others as you'd want to be treated) and the Ten C's (Don't kill, murder, covet, lie and adulterate, in particular.) Christ taught love and forgiveness and generosity, the equality of all before the cross, the necessity of humility (we have all sinned) and compassion with non-judgmental attitude, in "Let He who is sinless cast the first stone."
The Bible does not tell us to refrain from defining and preaching the difference between good and evil --which is now viewed as being "judgmental." No, we are still to teach our children and other people's children the difference between good and evil --and government has a role to "restrain evil."
Gov't becomes horribly confused when it no longer recognizes immorality itself --and starts to pay for gay marriage, permit gay adoptions, makes legitimate and pays for transgendering (as in San Francisco gov't.), sanctions prostitution, strip bars and unrestrained porn. Legitimizing drugs would be another example. All of these things contribute to the decline of our families --and families need to be strong and healthy and "decent" in order to be the safety net for all its members --for those who can't get work, become disabled and ill, need comforting in times of emotional stress. Family businesses employed their own. Strong families are the bedrock of strong nations --and nations need to encourage families by restraining the influences that tear at the fabric of family life. Sexual sin always does that. Raising kids without good fathers tends to do that. Redefining family as we are doing now is an offense to the creator who designed us for heterosexual reproduction in marriage and no other sexual relationships.
Our tv culture has changed American culture, and not for the better. All of a sudden our young adults think they are characters on "Friends" and "Seinfeld" and think they can sleep around and shack up --with only a giggle of mild regret about the disappointments and depressions, jealousies and angers, diseases and abortions that actually result from such circumstances. TV suggests we can easily and often sleep around, divorce, re-marry and abort without deeply affecting ourselves and our children for life.
My generation was the Hippie Generation. Tim Leary said drugs were mind-expanding; the "make love, not war" creed of the Haight-Ashbury flower children has produced the moral relativism of today--with big support from the intellectual elites of universities.
We do well to examine American cultural roots and value the religion and book which were most influential on the best strengths of American Society.
As 19C. French philosopher Alexis de Toqueville wrote: "America is great because she is good. The secret of her goodness lies in her churches with pulpits aflame with righteousness. If she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
Have we ceased to be great? Are we on our way to the Fall of Rome? Sodom and Gomorrah?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"The ACLU and those who agree with them want a state that favors their world view and behaves publically as though God does not exist and need not be heeded, thanked, or reverenced --and cannot be called upon by our leaders in times of national crisis."
Mea Culpa:
Go here: http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
This is ACLU's page to say, "Yes, we really do defend Christians also!" I'm not sure the info here really nullifies my quote, however.
I was surprised at their defense of street preaching, in particular --and defending students who pass out lit at school in non-instructional time. I'm thinking the ACLU has sometimes been on the other side of such cases.
I can't help but think that these are exceptional cases, depending on the lawyers involved --that the ACLU also has evidence of ridiculous oppression of Christians in public places.
Would they have defended the valedictorian's right to free speech, when the plug was pulled on her mic because she wanted to tell about the relationship of her faith to her success as a scholar? The school made a lousy point in this instance and disrupted what should have been a dignified occasion recognizing a scholar's right to innocuous free speech. Had she wanted to be vulgar and cuss like a sailor, I'd say she was out of order and should have her plug pulled. But religious speech should be protected. Yes, a Jewish or Muslim student should be able to quote some good tenets of their belief in a speech, too. I wouldn't advise an atheist to say "There is no God" in such a speech --but that's what he'll do when he's a professor at the tax-supported U's. He can still state his creed of self-sufficiency and "I can do anything I set my mind to" and promote a secular philosophy of life.
The ACLU has been particularly obnoxious when it comes to the evidence of Christian heritage of American government at all levels, tampering with town seals, mottos, memorials, etc. --preparing long before necessary for the time when other religions will make up larger portions of our population than they did when crosses were erected at ARlington Cemetary for all our nation's war-dead. Without meaning to "establish religion," our Christian and Deist founders nevertheless did favor the good influence of the Bible, Jesus, and religion in general upon the citizenry. They studied the Bible in public school. They celebrated the Christian holidays in the schools. They believed in reverencing the God of Creation and Nature, the God of the Bible in their public ceremonies and courts. As one forefather said, (and I don't have the citation or exact quote in front of me and don't know where to find it): "The Constitution was written for a religious people and won't work for any other." Because those people were taught to be moral and have self-control --and had a consensus about right and wrong to which they could appeal in their decision making.
Of course, the man who made the statement was talking about the main religion of the Colonials --Christianity --because that religion teaches The Golden Rule (Treat others as you'd want to be treated) and the Ten C's (Don't kill, murder, covet, lie and adulterate, in particular.) Christ taught love and forgiveness and generosity, the equality of all before the cross, the necessity of humility (we have all sinned) and compassion with non-judgmental attitude, in "Let He who is sinless cast the first stone."
The Bible does not tell us to refrain from defining and preaching the difference between good and evil --which is now viewed as being "judgmental." No, we are still to teach our children and other people's children the difference between good and evil --and government has a role to "restrain evil."
Gov't becomes horribly confused when it no longer recognizes immorality itself --and starts to pay for gay marriage, permit gay adoptions, makes legitimate and pays for transgendering (as in San Francisco gov't.), sanctions prostitution, strip bars and unrestrained porn. Legitimizing drugs would be another example. All of these things contribute to the decline of our families --and families need to be strong and healthy and "decent" in order to be the safety net for all its members --for those who can't get work, become disabled and ill, need comforting in times of emotional stress. Family businesses employed their own. Strong families are the bedrock of strong nations --and nations need to encourage families by restraining the influences that tear at the fabric of family life. Sexual sin always does that. Raising kids without good fathers tends to do that. Redefining family as we are doing now is an offense to the creator who designed us for heterosexual reproduction in marriage and no other sexual relationships.
Our tv culture has changed American culture, and not for the better. All of a sudden our young adults think they are characters on "Friends" and "Seinfeld" and think they can sleep around and shack up --with only a giggle of mild regret about the disappointments and depressions, jealousies and angers, diseases and abortions that actually result from such circumstances. TV suggests we can easily and often sleep around, divorce, re-marry and abort without deeply affecting ourselves and our children for life.
My generation was the Hippie Generation. Tim Leary said drugs were mind-expanding; the "make love, not war" creed of the Haight-Ashbury flower children has produced the moral relativism of today--with big support from the intellectual elites of universities.
We do well to examine American cultural roots and value the religion and book which were most influential on the best strengths of American Society.
As 19C. French philosopher Alexis de Toqueville wrote: "America is great because she is good. The secret of her goodness lies in her churches with pulpits aflame with righteousness. If she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
Have we ceased to be great? Are we on our way to the Fall of Rome? Sodom and Gomorrah?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, May 27, 2007
MORE ABOUT THE POWER TEAM CONTROVERSY ~~ by Barb
Parents who oppose voluntary prayer of sports teams because their little atheists might feel uncomfortable being silent for a moment while the others prayed, who object to ceremonial prayers to begin school banquets, as in the southern schools which pray before band festival banquets and before school games, asking the Creator to protect the students and remind them of fair play, etc.--people who oppose graduation prayers asking for blessing and guidance for the students --people who want the daily school day and government observances to favor secularists, humanists and atheists --as though those weren't distinct philosophies (world views with religious implications) --people who oppose military chaplains preaching the importance of believing in Christ at Christian military funerals, people who oppose Arlington Cemetary's and Mt. Soledad's memorial crosses--and people who oppose our tradition of mottos on money and in the pledge and state mottos like Ohio's, "With God all things are Possible" --
such people tend to be LIBERALS ON OTHER matters as well. They tend to vote in a block, it would seem. They are often the same ones who would see nothing wrong with the Boston sex educators' conference, Planned Parenthood sex ed., the gay-promoting books and cross-dressing book in kindergartens, the library access to porn by kids and adults. They are the people who opposed requiring the xxx web address for internet porn purveyors. They also typically support abortion on demand, without restrictions, and the whole gay agenda.
Mr. Faust, who is happy about his role in prohibiting Christians from conducting motivational, character-building assemblies (Power Teams) in our high schools may be one of those rare people who is liberal on religious issues, but conservative about sexual morals issues because, he wanted me to know he has successfully kept his son away from the Playboy website --which is commendable. Though I'm not sure any parent can be so sure of that, no matter where the computers are placed in the house.
In any case, a person who is afraid of Christianity's effect on culture--who sees something sinister in the Power Team ministry --implying something dishonest because they WERE upfront in their literature about their Christian motivations --such liberals are indeed worried about the wrong things.
This demonstration would have done no harm, but only good--and entertained in a wholesome manner.
The Anti-Christian Liberties Union (ACLU) works too hard straining at gnats and swallowing camels --works too hard majoring in the minors--and this censorship of the Power Team on the grounds of church-state separation is exactly what the ACLU would do.
Mr. Foust said to me: "'Most of you' "? What sort of love or logic drives you to jump from presumptuous personal insults in one sentence, to the next telling me about the Golden Rule? That's sad."
Did I mention the Golden Rule to him? He felt insulted by me, but to him I say, "If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it." I had said "MOST OF YOU" liberals would let their kids see any sort of entertainment --but not a motivational speaker who is also a Christian inviting students to a church "crusade." (Crusade, by the way, is the term Billy Graham and other ministers have often used to describe a series of Christian evangelistic meetings --nothing new or sinister about the word in this century. We weren't thinking of how the Muslims might interpret it.)
If Mr. Foust monitors his child's entertainment and computer use as he says, fine --but many liberals don't, because they see nothing wrong with our culture --except for the Christianity in it. Opposing Christianity in the public square is their biggest aim in life. They see no need to have more controls on entertainment and porn in order to have a culture that is decent for raising children. As it is, our popular culture is NOT decent --and not every child has parents who are protective. These are the kids who especially need to hear messages such as those the Power Team presented at schools and after school.
Mr. Faust knocked himself out preventing many rootless, unchurched, unprotected, poorly parented kids from seeing something that might've inspired them and motivated them, encouraged them for a lifetime. He should have first at least visited a presentation somewhere. As it is he judged cynically their perfectly honest material that says, in effect, "We're here to build the kingdom of Christ and the Christian churches --but we also have this motivational message for kids in the secular setting of schools."
There is nothing sinister about groups wanting to reach kids with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since the school doesn't allow religious speech (except secularistic, humanistic, and atheistic), they should nevertheless be able to announce any legitimate religious events in the district deemed good for youth --like a presentation of Handel's Messiah--like the Power Teams.
I'd be far more impressed if Mr. Faust supported an anti-suicide, anti-drug, anti-peer-pressure campaign with a chance of making a difference because the presenters are like super heroes performing amazing feats of strength in a powerful, impressive way.
I'm not sure I'd care if the Arabian Knights made such a presentation(Mr. Foust's blog example.) I'd probably take my kids to the mosque afterward to see what they were saying.
If they were upfront and not deceitful in their methods, let them try. Truth is, other religions don't care that much for the souls of people and aren't offering them a Savior or Heaven. Christianity is the love religion.
I was on a school board and I don't remember them ever saying they were beleagured by groups wanting to do assemblies as Mr. Faust said. They get mail --and the school only has so much time and money for motivational speakers and assemblies --most of which do cost the district money. Our board looked for motivational speakers at one point.
As for the numbers of performances --you say they lie? I say they've been doing this for years and years --and they have more than one group going out. In our city, I believe there were three teams, one with extreme power skills, one with polynesian-type dance with fire and one with skate-boarding type skills. (That's hearsay from my husband.)
As for Christians who would criticize the power team in the public schools, they are probably just like secular liberals in their perspectives --like Hillary and Barrack and the rest of the democratic "christian" leaders. They are also probably criticizing something they've not witnessed --or they've been convinced by "liberal-think" that it's not politically correct to give a Christian opportunity to influence youth even with a secular message in public arena. It's ok for the atheists, humanists, secularists to do whatever they please every day in our public schools, however, because they say these are not "religions." Well they are. they have a philosophy of life and a world view.
In Rossford schools locally, a Christian band was going to play secular music for an anti-drug assembly(they were from the school) and when it was found out that they were a "Christian band," they were denied and another group was brought in --even though they were going to play secular music as I understood it. I don't recall how this was resolved.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
such people tend to be LIBERALS ON OTHER matters as well. They tend to vote in a block, it would seem. They are often the same ones who would see nothing wrong with the Boston sex educators' conference, Planned Parenthood sex ed., the gay-promoting books and cross-dressing book in kindergartens, the library access to porn by kids and adults. They are the people who opposed requiring the xxx web address for internet porn purveyors. They also typically support abortion on demand, without restrictions, and the whole gay agenda.
Mr. Faust, who is happy about his role in prohibiting Christians from conducting motivational, character-building assemblies (Power Teams) in our high schools may be one of those rare people who is liberal on religious issues, but conservative about sexual morals issues because, he wanted me to know he has successfully kept his son away from the Playboy website --which is commendable. Though I'm not sure any parent can be so sure of that, no matter where the computers are placed in the house.
In any case, a person who is afraid of Christianity's effect on culture--who sees something sinister in the Power Team ministry --implying something dishonest because they WERE upfront in their literature about their Christian motivations --such liberals are indeed worried about the wrong things.
This demonstration would have done no harm, but only good--and entertained in a wholesome manner.
The Anti-Christian Liberties Union (ACLU) works too hard straining at gnats and swallowing camels --works too hard majoring in the minors--and this censorship of the Power Team on the grounds of church-state separation is exactly what the ACLU would do.
Mr. Foust said to me: "'Most of you' "? What sort of love or logic drives you to jump from presumptuous personal insults in one sentence, to the next telling me about the Golden Rule? That's sad."
Did I mention the Golden Rule to him? He felt insulted by me, but to him I say, "If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it." I had said "MOST OF YOU" liberals would let their kids see any sort of entertainment --but not a motivational speaker who is also a Christian inviting students to a church "crusade." (Crusade, by the way, is the term Billy Graham and other ministers have often used to describe a series of Christian evangelistic meetings --nothing new or sinister about the word in this century. We weren't thinking of how the Muslims might interpret it.)
If Mr. Foust monitors his child's entertainment and computer use as he says, fine --but many liberals don't, because they see nothing wrong with our culture --except for the Christianity in it. Opposing Christianity in the public square is their biggest aim in life. They see no need to have more controls on entertainment and porn in order to have a culture that is decent for raising children. As it is, our popular culture is NOT decent --and not every child has parents who are protective. These are the kids who especially need to hear messages such as those the Power Team presented at schools and after school.
Mr. Faust knocked himself out preventing many rootless, unchurched, unprotected, poorly parented kids from seeing something that might've inspired them and motivated them, encouraged them for a lifetime. He should have first at least visited a presentation somewhere. As it is he judged cynically their perfectly honest material that says, in effect, "We're here to build the kingdom of Christ and the Christian churches --but we also have this motivational message for kids in the secular setting of schools."
There is nothing sinister about groups wanting to reach kids with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since the school doesn't allow religious speech (except secularistic, humanistic, and atheistic), they should nevertheless be able to announce any legitimate religious events in the district deemed good for youth --like a presentation of Handel's Messiah--like the Power Teams.
I'd be far more impressed if Mr. Faust supported an anti-suicide, anti-drug, anti-peer-pressure campaign with a chance of making a difference because the presenters are like super heroes performing amazing feats of strength in a powerful, impressive way.
I'm not sure I'd care if the Arabian Knights made such a presentation(Mr. Foust's blog example.) I'd probably take my kids to the mosque afterward to see what they were saying.
If they were upfront and not deceitful in their methods, let them try. Truth is, other religions don't care that much for the souls of people and aren't offering them a Savior or Heaven. Christianity is the love religion.
I was on a school board and I don't remember them ever saying they were beleagured by groups wanting to do assemblies as Mr. Faust said. They get mail --and the school only has so much time and money for motivational speakers and assemblies --most of which do cost the district money. Our board looked for motivational speakers at one point.
As for the numbers of performances --you say they lie? I say they've been doing this for years and years --and they have more than one group going out. In our city, I believe there were three teams, one with extreme power skills, one with polynesian-type dance with fire and one with skate-boarding type skills. (That's hearsay from my husband.)
As for Christians who would criticize the power team in the public schools, they are probably just like secular liberals in their perspectives --like Hillary and Barrack and the rest of the democratic "christian" leaders. They are also probably criticizing something they've not witnessed --or they've been convinced by "liberal-think" that it's not politically correct to give a Christian opportunity to influence youth even with a secular message in public arena. It's ok for the atheists, humanists, secularists to do whatever they please every day in our public schools, however, because they say these are not "religions." Well they are. they have a philosophy of life and a world view.
In Rossford schools locally, a Christian band was going to play secular music for an anti-drug assembly(they were from the school) and when it was found out that they were a "Christian band," they were denied and another group was brought in --even though they were going to play secular music as I understood it. I don't recall how this was resolved.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Friday, May 25, 2007
POWER TEAM CONTROVERSY ~ hostility toward the Christian faith-- by Barb
Another gem from Prof. Friedman's Religion Clause
"...yesterday's Houston Chronicle reports that a Christian motivational group, Power Team, finds that some public schools are cancelling its scheduled performances because of the group's evangelical ties. Power Team representatives say they do not mention religion in their public school performances. Their shows emphasize the importance of valuing life and dressing appropriately, as the group preaches against drugs and suicide.
2 comments:
John Foust said...
"I'm the fellow who led to the cancellation of the Power Team appearances in five Wisconsin school districts. I also alerted the administrators in the Houston area, too. My web site explains the full story.
The problem with the Power Team? They rely on the school assemblies to promote attendance at their evening revival meetings. In Elgin, IL a few days ago, they asked to distribute promotional literature during the assembly.
The Power Team and the churches regard the school assemblies as an inexpensive and vital form of advertising."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barb said...
John, I wouldn't be so proud of this if I were you. They had an anti-drug and anti-suicide message in the schools --and then invited people to religious-oriented rally later. I hope you never have a kid who commits suicide or gets on drugs --and then have to wonder if only they'd been inspired and encouraged by one of these ministries.... We've just had these groups in our city --and the Blade made it clear that these were Christian groups --and gave them really good publicity actually --and the churches and church members were passing out tickets with info on them --so people knew what they were.
So what's your beef?? If Christianity is true, this is a wonderful thing to do --to try to inspire the kids with positive role models who have faith in God. Most of the students are probably at least "nominally" Christian.
Christianity gives purpose and direction to life --and that's what some kids coming from miserable situations need. Christianity has helped millions to live better and happier lives than they otherwise would have.
Why can't people who are not of Christian faith just stay home from the later religious rallys? or let their kids go and discuss it after. After all, most of you would let your kid watch any sort of junk on TV and movies and have computer porn in their bedrooms. Can't you tolerate a little exposure to the child of Christmas, the Christ of Resurrection, the One who preaches the golden rule, love and forgiveness, equality of persons before God and compassion for the needy and downtrodden?
O no --that would be dangerous! You know, Jesus Christ should be admired by everyone for what He taught, at least. No one can make anyone else believe.
As for the promotional literature passed out at the schools, I believe that would be the 'ticket' invitations to the after school events? What is wrong with publicity to students for something wholesome? Many delinquents would be better citizens and might avoid jail if they were introduced to Christ in their teens.
What you did, John, was to stifle wholesome speech --to make the schools favor one philosophy only --the one that is preached every day in our schools -secularism/humanism --and in effect, atheism. Because the place that "educates" cannot be exposed to the possibility of a Creator --which just may be the most ultimate truth of all.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"...yesterday's Houston Chronicle reports that a Christian motivational group, Power Team, finds that some public schools are cancelling its scheduled performances because of the group's evangelical ties. Power Team representatives say they do not mention religion in their public school performances. Their shows emphasize the importance of valuing life and dressing appropriately, as the group preaches against drugs and suicide.
2 comments:
John Foust said...
"I'm the fellow who led to the cancellation of the Power Team appearances in five Wisconsin school districts. I also alerted the administrators in the Houston area, too. My web site explains the full story.
The problem with the Power Team? They rely on the school assemblies to promote attendance at their evening revival meetings. In Elgin, IL a few days ago, they asked to distribute promotional literature during the assembly.
The Power Team and the churches regard the school assemblies as an inexpensive and vital form of advertising."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barb said...
John, I wouldn't be so proud of this if I were you. They had an anti-drug and anti-suicide message in the schools --and then invited people to religious-oriented rally later. I hope you never have a kid who commits suicide or gets on drugs --and then have to wonder if only they'd been inspired and encouraged by one of these ministries.... We've just had these groups in our city --and the Blade made it clear that these were Christian groups --and gave them really good publicity actually --and the churches and church members were passing out tickets with info on them --so people knew what they were.
So what's your beef?? If Christianity is true, this is a wonderful thing to do --to try to inspire the kids with positive role models who have faith in God. Most of the students are probably at least "nominally" Christian.
Christianity gives purpose and direction to life --and that's what some kids coming from miserable situations need. Christianity has helped millions to live better and happier lives than they otherwise would have.
Why can't people who are not of Christian faith just stay home from the later religious rallys? or let their kids go and discuss it after. After all, most of you would let your kid watch any sort of junk on TV and movies and have computer porn in their bedrooms. Can't you tolerate a little exposure to the child of Christmas, the Christ of Resurrection, the One who preaches the golden rule, love and forgiveness, equality of persons before God and compassion for the needy and downtrodden?
O no --that would be dangerous! You know, Jesus Christ should be admired by everyone for what He taught, at least. No one can make anyone else believe.
As for the promotional literature passed out at the schools, I believe that would be the 'ticket' invitations to the after school events? What is wrong with publicity to students for something wholesome? Many delinquents would be better citizens and might avoid jail if they were introduced to Christ in their teens.
What you did, John, was to stifle wholesome speech --to make the schools favor one philosophy only --the one that is preached every day in our schools -secularism/humanism --and in effect, atheism. Because the place that "educates" cannot be exposed to the possibility of a Creator --which just may be the most ultimate truth of all.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
NEW LOW AT SO. PARK --New Zealand Catholic Bishops, you go!
from Howard Friedman at Religion Clause (see my link list)
"Today's Dominion Post reports that the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference has filed an appeal in the High Court at Wellington seeking reversal of a June 2006 decision (full text) by the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority. The Authority rejected a challenge to CanWest TVWorks' televising last year of an offensive episode of the adult cartoon show, South Park. The show, mainly about an alcoholic's struggle to stay sober, contained one scene-- the so-called "Bloody Mary" episode-- showing the Pope being squirted with menstrual blood from a statue of the Virgin Mary."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appalling use of freedom. Licentiousness! South Park has always contributed to the "coarsening" of culture. This episode is sickening --as is much of So. Park and "there oughtta be a law!"
Just like Gay Rights parades should be penalized for the grossness and offense to religion that they parade out --their mockery of nuns, e.g.
It's a foolish people who can't restrain by law these worst excesses of juvenile obscenity, including porn.
It's really ironic to call such immature humor "adult entertainment."
I would not want my kids to grow up around people who think South Park is funny. It may have funny elements, but the program obviously crosses the line of decency, and thus is unfit for anybody of decent morals to support.
I confess, however, that I have been known to laugh uproariously at The Simpsons –and appreciate Homer’s loyalty to Marge –and how she conquored her struggle with gambling. How Christian neighbor Ned Flanders was willing to stand outside the storm shelter to save Homer’s worthless hide. But why does that otherwise, often (but not always) good cartoon, have to use God’s name in vain? Some years back, we read that many artists working on this show were Christians--but obviously, there are writers of various world views contributing.
I hope the Catholic bishops prevail.
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES, HOWEVER --are among those who are sponsoring The Vagina Monologues for their students and others --along with a long list of state schools --and some other supposedly? religious schools like Bluffton College, Ohio University, Manchester College and Illinois Weslyan.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"Today's Dominion Post reports that the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference has filed an appeal in the High Court at Wellington seeking reversal of a June 2006 decision (full text) by the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority. The Authority rejected a challenge to CanWest TVWorks' televising last year of an offensive episode of the adult cartoon show, South Park. The show, mainly about an alcoholic's struggle to stay sober, contained one scene-- the so-called "Bloody Mary" episode-- showing the Pope being squirted with menstrual blood from a statue of the Virgin Mary."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appalling use of freedom. Licentiousness! South Park has always contributed to the "coarsening" of culture. This episode is sickening --as is much of So. Park and "there oughtta be a law!"
Just like Gay Rights parades should be penalized for the grossness and offense to religion that they parade out --their mockery of nuns, e.g.
It's a foolish people who can't restrain by law these worst excesses of juvenile obscenity, including porn.
It's really ironic to call such immature humor "adult entertainment."
I would not want my kids to grow up around people who think South Park is funny. It may have funny elements, but the program obviously crosses the line of decency, and thus is unfit for anybody of decent morals to support.
I confess, however, that I have been known to laugh uproariously at The Simpsons –and appreciate Homer’s loyalty to Marge –and how she conquored her struggle with gambling. How Christian neighbor Ned Flanders was willing to stand outside the storm shelter to save Homer’s worthless hide. But why does that otherwise, often (but not always) good cartoon, have to use God’s name in vain? Some years back, we read that many artists working on this show were Christians--but obviously, there are writers of various world views contributing.
I hope the Catholic bishops prevail.
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES, HOWEVER --are among those who are sponsoring The Vagina Monologues for their students and others --along with a long list of state schools --and some other supposedly? religious schools like Bluffton College, Ohio University, Manchester College and Illinois Weslyan.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
ONE MORE NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR COMMON SENSE: Catholic School Board can't insist its members be Catholic!
posted by Posted by Howard Friedman --PermaLink: 6:02 AM
from Religion Clause (see my link list)
"In Canada's Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court has ruled the Yellowknife Catholic school board that operates state-supported religious schools may not prevent non-Catholics from running in school board trustee elections. In Yellowknife Catholic Schools v. Euchner, (NWT Sup. Ct., May 23, 2007), the court, reviewing at length the statutory provisions on denominational schools, held that "it was the clear intention of the legislature that a candidate for election to the public denominational District Education Authority need not be of any particular religious faith." CBC News yesterday reported on the decision."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, Canada leads the way in imbecility! (Is that a word?)
They pave the way for churches and Christian organizations to have to hire non-Christians, atheists, homosexuals and others whose lifestyles and beliefs are incompatible with their mission! This is literally inviting the foxes into the hen house. They already penalize broadcasters who say anything against homosexual lifestyle. This is one more nail in the coffin of religious freedom and common sense.
ON SECOND THOUGHT: I read the links --a "public denomination distric ed authority" --would seem by title to preside over any sectarian schools that receive any public funds? And that could include non-catholic schools? But do other denominations have any tax-supported schools? ARe the Catholic schools tax-supported?
If the organization runs all kinds of religious schools, or would if such schools wanted government entanglement, then it should not be limited to Catholics.
However, if the trustees determine aspects of Catholic education only--as implied by the name "Yellowknife Catholic School Board" --then they should be Catholic.
I should be a judge instead of these guys.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
from Religion Clause (see my link list)
"In Canada's Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court has ruled the Yellowknife Catholic school board that operates state-supported religious schools may not prevent non-Catholics from running in school board trustee elections. In Yellowknife Catholic Schools v. Euchner, (NWT Sup. Ct., May 23, 2007), the court, reviewing at length the statutory provisions on denominational schools, held that "it was the clear intention of the legislature that a candidate for election to the public denominational District Education Authority need not be of any particular religious faith." CBC News yesterday reported on the decision."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, Canada leads the way in imbecility! (Is that a word?)
They pave the way for churches and Christian organizations to have to hire non-Christians, atheists, homosexuals and others whose lifestyles and beliefs are incompatible with their mission! This is literally inviting the foxes into the hen house. They already penalize broadcasters who say anything against homosexual lifestyle. This is one more nail in the coffin of religious freedom and common sense.
ON SECOND THOUGHT: I read the links --a "public denomination distric ed authority" --would seem by title to preside over any sectarian schools that receive any public funds? And that could include non-catholic schools? But do other denominations have any tax-supported schools? ARe the Catholic schools tax-supported?
If the organization runs all kinds of religious schools, or would if such schools wanted government entanglement, then it should not be limited to Catholics.
However, if the trustees determine aspects of Catholic education only--as implied by the name "Yellowknife Catholic School Board" --then they should be Catholic.
I should be a judge instead of these guys.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Welcome, Sister Jeanette!
Jeanette has an artsy blog --pretty in pink --and you sit down and sip the tea with her on her couch --so to speak! We have our faith, marriage, age, kids and grandkids in common. We're both concerned here about the "culture wars" and our lost world, believing we share a "saving faith." She is Baptist and I am Free Methodist --both Bible believers and "just Christians."
I should probably say, speaking for myself, that not everyone in my denomination (Free Methodist) thinks as I do about all the social issues, government's role, the War in Iraq, GOP and the issue of scientific origins of life. But I think most in my church would agree with me (and Jeanette) and be part of the much maligned, misunderstood, castigated "Religious Right." I am on the conservative end of the vine on these issues and she seems to be also--and we're right, of course! : D
I do not understand the link business one bit. Except that I have created a link for her in my list of blogs. So click on Js Cafe Nette in my link list to the right and you will find your way to her parlor for a chat.
And when she posts here, hopefully she'll indicate cross-post link to her blog.
Jeanette gives me credit for inviting her here, but the collaboration was her idea initially --and I'm honored to share in her blog, and have her share in mine. We might widen our little audience this way --and keep our blogs active with more frequent posting.
"God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
I should probably say, speaking for myself, that not everyone in my denomination (Free Methodist) thinks as I do about all the social issues, government's role, the War in Iraq, GOP and the issue of scientific origins of life. But I think most in my church would agree with me (and Jeanette) and be part of the much maligned, misunderstood, castigated "Religious Right." I am on the conservative end of the vine on these issues and she seems to be also--and we're right, of course! : D
I do not understand the link business one bit. Except that I have created a link for her in my list of blogs. So click on Js Cafe Nette in my link list to the right and you will find your way to her parlor for a chat.
And when she posts here, hopefully she'll indicate cross-post link to her blog.
Jeanette gives me credit for inviting her here, but the collaboration was her idea initially --and I'm honored to share in her blog, and have her share in mine. We might widen our little audience this way --and keep our blogs active with more frequent posting.
"God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Thursday, May 24, 2007
COLO. COURT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CHRISTIAN COLLEGES
News from www.Religion Clause.blogspot.com (Links to items in this article are availale on this website. I don't know how to do all that links transfer business if it doesn't copy and paste over here.)
Court OK's Exclusion of Tuition Grants For Pervasively Sectarian Colleges
A Colorado federal district court on Friday upheld Colorado's exclusion of "pervasively sectarian institutions" from its tuition assistance programs for low-income students attending colleges and universities in the state. In Colorado Christian University v. Baker, (D CO, May, 18, 2007), the court rejected both free exercise and establishment clause attacks on the law. Relying largely on the Supreme Court's Locke v. Davey decision, the court applied a "rational basis" test to the free exercise claim. It found that the statutory exclusion furthers implementation of the prohibition in Art. IX, Sec. 7 of Colorado's state constitution barring state aid to any college or university controlled by any sectarian denomination. A press release by the University in response to the decision said that it believed that the decision would be overruled by the 10th Circuit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! It means that low income students have to attend secular colleges to get tuition assistance for which they are elegible. They have no academic choice. Of course, that's the way our public school funding is run, also. This is so wrong, I can't even think of what to say about it!!!! Always,the GI Bill students could choose any college. Pell grants went to any college. If Colorado wins this one, Christian ed is in big trouble. Only the rich will be able to afford a private Christian education. As it is now, people sacrifice a lot to send students out of state to such schools --because in-state tuition is so much lower, but there was still federal help for needy students attending any schools.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Court OK's Exclusion of Tuition Grants For Pervasively Sectarian Colleges
A Colorado federal district court on Friday upheld Colorado's exclusion of "pervasively sectarian institutions" from its tuition assistance programs for low-income students attending colleges and universities in the state. In Colorado Christian University v. Baker, (D CO, May, 18, 2007), the court rejected both free exercise and establishment clause attacks on the law. Relying largely on the Supreme Court's Locke v. Davey decision, the court applied a "rational basis" test to the free exercise claim. It found that the statutory exclusion furthers implementation of the prohibition in Art. IX, Sec. 7 of Colorado's state constitution barring state aid to any college or university controlled by any sectarian denomination. A press release by the University in response to the decision said that it believed that the decision would be overruled by the 10th Circuit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! It means that low income students have to attend secular colleges to get tuition assistance for which they are elegible. They have no academic choice. Of course, that's the way our public school funding is run, also. This is so wrong, I can't even think of what to say about it!!!! Always,the GI Bill students could choose any college. Pell grants went to any college. If Colorado wins this one, Christian ed is in big trouble. Only the rich will be able to afford a private Christian education. As it is now, people sacrifice a lot to send students out of state to such schools --because in-state tuition is so much lower, but there was still federal help for needy students attending any schools.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
RESTRICTIONS ON THE SEX CLUBS --HOORAY --Strickland is going to make a step in the right direction? Will wonders never cease?
Strip joints really serve no good purpose and should be shut down altogether. They just tempt men out of their homes and take food off the table --and cause spousal alienation and ultimately divorce --and that contributes to poverty.
"Patrons" need to be heading home by midnight. Don't they have to get up and go to work? or look for a job? It's safer for the women, too, I suspect --to have these distance rules and earlier closings. If it's not as much fun with restrictions, good, let 'em go out of business!
Porn, sex clubs, promiscuity --all become destructive, costly addictions --and I would think clubs are a source of frustration if men can't act on the arousal that occurs in such places. Fellows with impulse control issues might be inspired to rape, leaving such a place --or commit sex crime in their homes toward their own--especially if they add alcohol to the mix. Incest and molestation seem to be rampant among the sleazier elements of male society today. And I would think the same people are also among the patrons of sex clubs; there are way too many such poor souls.
One of my young acquaintances said his friend invited him to go with him to a strip bar--and my acquaintance replied, "Why would I want to share an erection with you?"
The friend said --"aw, it's not like that" --and my acquaintance replied, "Why then would I want to go to such a place and become immune to naked women such that I would NOT have an erection?"
You know, in the old days men could hardly wait to "have and to hold" --and got married as soon as it was legal without parental signature. I wonder if all the available online and sex club porn isn't delaying the normal urge to mate --sometimes because most women don't match up to the porn ideal? --or because some young men are spending more time with the computers and clubs than meeting women they might marry? or finding jobs that support marriage? And then they all wait until they are old, bald, paunchy and lose the chemistry of youth that attracts people to each other. They still have a chance --but have wasted a lot of time and the benefits of their youth --and it's worse for women who marry later --infertility and breast cancer are more common to those who bear children later --plus the greater risk of Down's syndrome in their babies.
Any attempts to regulate immorality and vice are worth the effort. BECAUSE YOUNG MEN GET TEMPTED INTO VILE HABITS by such places. There are probably millions who wouldn't be porn addicts if not for the easy accessibility of the internet porn today.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"Patrons" need to be heading home by midnight. Don't they have to get up and go to work? or look for a job? It's safer for the women, too, I suspect --to have these distance rules and earlier closings. If it's not as much fun with restrictions, good, let 'em go out of business!
Porn, sex clubs, promiscuity --all become destructive, costly addictions --and I would think clubs are a source of frustration if men can't act on the arousal that occurs in such places. Fellows with impulse control issues might be inspired to rape, leaving such a place --or commit sex crime in their homes toward their own--especially if they add alcohol to the mix. Incest and molestation seem to be rampant among the sleazier elements of male society today. And I would think the same people are also among the patrons of sex clubs; there are way too many such poor souls.
One of my young acquaintances said his friend invited him to go with him to a strip bar--and my acquaintance replied, "Why would I want to share an erection with you?"
The friend said --"aw, it's not like that" --and my acquaintance replied, "Why then would I want to go to such a place and become immune to naked women such that I would NOT have an erection?"
You know, in the old days men could hardly wait to "have and to hold" --and got married as soon as it was legal without parental signature. I wonder if all the available online and sex club porn isn't delaying the normal urge to mate --sometimes because most women don't match up to the porn ideal? --or because some young men are spending more time with the computers and clubs than meeting women they might marry? or finding jobs that support marriage? And then they all wait until they are old, bald, paunchy and lose the chemistry of youth that attracts people to each other. They still have a chance --but have wasted a lot of time and the benefits of their youth --and it's worse for women who marry later --infertility and breast cancer are more common to those who bear children later --plus the greater risk of Down's syndrome in their babies.
Any attempts to regulate immorality and vice are worth the effort. BECAUSE YOUNG MEN GET TEMPTED INTO VILE HABITS by such places. There are probably millions who wouldn't be porn addicts if not for the easy accessibility of the internet porn today.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
A Blog Conversation about the Creation Museum
See at the end or this post on the Creation Science Museum in Kentucky, the post at Howard Friedman's blog, www.The Religion Clause.blogspot.com
that sparked these remarks by me and others
Barb said...
Asma makes assumptions --atheistic ones --and academic ones --about evolution vs. creation. Anyone who denies the possibility of design and designer in the universe is NOT basing his view solely on science. the evidence of design is there more than the evidence of descent from extinct common ancestors.
Evolution doesn't even SOUND possible to me. Or we should see some ongoing evidence of it. Why did it stop --and all of a sudden every creature reproduces after its own kind. "O it's happening --just too slowly to see it!" Yeah, right!
Wed May 23, 01:50:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
Are you really out of your mind when you say the below comment "Evolution doesn't even SOUND possible to me"
I have only one thing thing to say, SHUT THE --- UP. YOUR PLACE IS IN THE KITCHEN OR IN THE CHURCH. GO THERE AND SHUT THE --- UP
Wed May 23, 03:31:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
Barb--Any first year text on evolution addresses your concerns. I suggest you at least read one before you start spouting about what you think 'sounds' possible. Evolution has not stopped. Evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern biology that has been researched and studied by ten of thousands of scientists.
Wed May 23, 07:17:00 PM EDT
Barb said...
So? they all stood around and said the emperor's clothes were beautiful, too. Sometimes it's the minority (and even the laymen) who get it right. There are at least hundreds if not thousands of reputable, capable scientists who will tell you Darwin's evidence ain't there!
The first year text you recommend does not address the fact that Christians believe in the miracles recorded in the historcal accounts of the new testament --not just Jesus' miracles but those by Peter, John, Paul -- and the miraculous conversion of Saul the Jew who became known by his Greek name Paul --(Acts 9) These are recorded as history by multiple authors just 21 centuries ago, and those scriptures have been kept by the church and passed down. Everytime these 1st century Christians (and Christ) did a miracle like healing men who had been crippled from birth, thousands were converted --and the men with the message from God who could prove their divine source by what they did --were persecuted. The first disciples were not brave and Saul would never have become a Christian --had not the risen Jesus appeared to them and promised them that because He lives --they shall live also beyond the grave. "I go to prepare a place for you...." He said.
If I believe THAT, as I do, I see no reason to believe in the long, tedious, happenstance, lucky and capricious, unguided, uncontrolled, unproven process of Evolution.
As for the scientific evidence --yes, I know that even in the 90's the text books were saying things about evolution that embarrassed Patton of the Britisn Museum and Gould of America--because the claims were fictional --one scenario claimed that a couple of guys had simulated the conditions for life to evolve and had created life in a lab. They tried, but they did NOT succeed. The books used obsolete Lamarckian theories of purpose and need dictating evolutions in successive generations --"Man evolved to walk upright so he could carry his food in his hands going through the tall grasses of the African Savannah" --(actually in our text books) -- and giraffes evolved long necks so they could reach food at the top of the trees."
If you can't think this through and wonder why all creatures shouldn't therefore walk upright and carry food in their hands --and why any creatures HAD to reach the tree tops --when they also use their necks to eat from the ground --and why all creatures didn't need to do the same to survive and thus have long necks --anyway, even the evolutionists said the 90's texts in science were abysmal with speculated scenarios on why evolution occured that had no basis in scientific fact.
To have a trait it has to be in your genes -which come from your ancestors --but it's in the genes --and so the genes need all the info from the parent genes to be passed down --yes, occasionally there is a mutation--and its results are usually disaster. And generally rare -- the rule is for the parent genes to pass their traits to the child --and there are no NEW genes in the next generation that spontaneously appear --and creatures can't inter-mate with other categories successfully and pass those genes along --so the likelihood of missing links is poor when we should be, my husband says, standing knee-deep in trans-fossils --if that part of evolution were true. But even when they claim they have a trans fossil of a mammal resembling modern chimp or man, they can't prove it's transitional (most turned out to be frauds or something other than claimed) instead of a unique species or just a human or chimp variant (or a diseased mutation) that would have always begat its own kind or died out. In fact, now that we know about DNA --we know simple cells don't beget more complex cells and higher beings. the dna has to have those elements of DNA in them from the start. They just don't acquire complexity without a designer; it would take a miracle --millions of miracles to evolve all the diverse life forms --and miracles don't take eons of time.
Our Creator used His divine knowledge and created by design and command--the way our Jesus raised the dead, healed the lepers, blind and lame, and calmed the seas --by command. God had infinite knowledge, certainly greater than ours which can be stored in a computer and recalled with a keystroke. And He promised to delete our sins from His memory (the celestial computer?) --if we would simply have faith in the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, our Passover Lamb who writes my dna code/name in His book (memory /celestial mind/computer/Palm pilot.)
Anyone who resurrects 3 days after being crucified and comes out of the tomb --and an angel later rolls back the stone, and all the guards are dead -- and the angel sits there waiting for the women to find the empty tomb --And says "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" --I'm going to believe someone with that kind of power!
This is history -I believe it--I have no reason not to believe it. My own religious experience confirms my faith--and REASON is not excluded despite the insults of unbelievers to the contrary. How do we know God's guidance? by the Word of God preserved in Judeo-Christian scriptures --by reason applied to the study of these scriptures --by the witness of the Holy Spirit, God's felt presence. As the Bible says, "By the renewing of our minds." Inspired teachers, ministers, and modern writers who believe the Word also contribute to our understanding of God.
Darwin's theory is speculation without solid evidence. Yes, he categorized and studied the myriad of living creatures, organizing them for study. He was right about natural selection and survival of the fittest characteristics for adaptation to environment --but he never proved and no one has since proved --that one category of creature like an ape-man can become the ancestor of man or chimp. So far, the studies claim that DNA is traceable to one woman--and they call her EVe for obvious reasons. I assume they can trace to one man as well?
They now know that all the races came from one couple --just as the Bible says. This couple had the colossal genes for the whole human race. That they share gene traits in DNA with apes and other life forms --is only because life has the same design components in all mammals --all creatures --in the design of the dna of life.
Thu May 24, 12:14:00 PM EDT
From The Religion Clause blog by Prof Friedman at the UT Law School:
Last week's Chronicle of Higher Education carries a fascinating look at the new $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The museum's theme is the literal truth of the Biblical Genesis narrative. (See prior posting.) The Chronicle article titled Dinosaurs on the Ark? is written by Stephen T. Asma, a professor of philosophy at Columbia College Chicago. Asma visited the museum and interviewed its director Ken A. Ham. Prof. Asma writes that Ham did not miss a beat in answering his surreal question about what dinosaurs on Noah's ark ate. Prof. Asma, who has written an Oxford University Press book on the culture and evolution of natural history museums, says that his sense of humor about the new museum fades when he thinks of the young children who will visit it without the tools for critically assessing its displays. The full article is well worth the time to read.
posted by Howard Friedman at 1:10 PM on May 22, 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Methinks Asma is really afraid that kids will critically assess the claims of evolution after seeing the museum. If Darwinism is true, why are they protecting it from objections and scrutiny and evidence to the contrary? Because they have not and can not prove Darwinism is true, that's why.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
that sparked these remarks by me and others
Barb said...
Asma makes assumptions --atheistic ones --and academic ones --about evolution vs. creation. Anyone who denies the possibility of design and designer in the universe is NOT basing his view solely on science. the evidence of design is there more than the evidence of descent from extinct common ancestors.
Evolution doesn't even SOUND possible to me. Or we should see some ongoing evidence of it. Why did it stop --and all of a sudden every creature reproduces after its own kind. "O it's happening --just too slowly to see it!" Yeah, right!
Wed May 23, 01:50:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
Are you really out of your mind when you say the below comment "Evolution doesn't even SOUND possible to me"
I have only one thing thing to say, SHUT THE --- UP. YOUR PLACE IS IN THE KITCHEN OR IN THE CHURCH. GO THERE AND SHUT THE --- UP
Wed May 23, 03:31:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
Barb--Any first year text on evolution addresses your concerns. I suggest you at least read one before you start spouting about what you think 'sounds' possible. Evolution has not stopped. Evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern biology that has been researched and studied by ten of thousands of scientists.
Wed May 23, 07:17:00 PM EDT
Barb said...
So? they all stood around and said the emperor's clothes were beautiful, too. Sometimes it's the minority (and even the laymen) who get it right. There are at least hundreds if not thousands of reputable, capable scientists who will tell you Darwin's evidence ain't there!
The first year text you recommend does not address the fact that Christians believe in the miracles recorded in the historcal accounts of the new testament --not just Jesus' miracles but those by Peter, John, Paul -- and the miraculous conversion of Saul the Jew who became known by his Greek name Paul --(Acts 9) These are recorded as history by multiple authors just 21 centuries ago, and those scriptures have been kept by the church and passed down. Everytime these 1st century Christians (and Christ) did a miracle like healing men who had been crippled from birth, thousands were converted --and the men with the message from God who could prove their divine source by what they did --were persecuted. The first disciples were not brave and Saul would never have become a Christian --had not the risen Jesus appeared to them and promised them that because He lives --they shall live also beyond the grave. "I go to prepare a place for you...." He said.
If I believe THAT, as I do, I see no reason to believe in the long, tedious, happenstance, lucky and capricious, unguided, uncontrolled, unproven process of Evolution.
As for the scientific evidence --yes, I know that even in the 90's the text books were saying things about evolution that embarrassed Patton of the Britisn Museum and Gould of America--because the claims were fictional --one scenario claimed that a couple of guys had simulated the conditions for life to evolve and had created life in a lab. They tried, but they did NOT succeed. The books used obsolete Lamarckian theories of purpose and need dictating evolutions in successive generations --"Man evolved to walk upright so he could carry his food in his hands going through the tall grasses of the African Savannah" --(actually in our text books) -- and giraffes evolved long necks so they could reach food at the top of the trees."
If you can't think this through and wonder why all creatures shouldn't therefore walk upright and carry food in their hands --and why any creatures HAD to reach the tree tops --when they also use their necks to eat from the ground --and why all creatures didn't need to do the same to survive and thus have long necks --anyway, even the evolutionists said the 90's texts in science were abysmal with speculated scenarios on why evolution occured that had no basis in scientific fact.
To have a trait it has to be in your genes -which come from your ancestors --but it's in the genes --and so the genes need all the info from the parent genes to be passed down --yes, occasionally there is a mutation--and its results are usually disaster. And generally rare -- the rule is for the parent genes to pass their traits to the child --and there are no NEW genes in the next generation that spontaneously appear --and creatures can't inter-mate with other categories successfully and pass those genes along --so the likelihood of missing links is poor when we should be, my husband says, standing knee-deep in trans-fossils --if that part of evolution were true. But even when they claim they have a trans fossil of a mammal resembling modern chimp or man, they can't prove it's transitional (most turned out to be frauds or something other than claimed) instead of a unique species or just a human or chimp variant (or a diseased mutation) that would have always begat its own kind or died out. In fact, now that we know about DNA --we know simple cells don't beget more complex cells and higher beings. the dna has to have those elements of DNA in them from the start. They just don't acquire complexity without a designer; it would take a miracle --millions of miracles to evolve all the diverse life forms --and miracles don't take eons of time.
Our Creator used His divine knowledge and created by design and command--the way our Jesus raised the dead, healed the lepers, blind and lame, and calmed the seas --by command. God had infinite knowledge, certainly greater than ours which can be stored in a computer and recalled with a keystroke. And He promised to delete our sins from His memory (the celestial computer?) --if we would simply have faith in the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, our Passover Lamb who writes my dna code/name in His book (memory /celestial mind/computer/Palm pilot.)
Anyone who resurrects 3 days after being crucified and comes out of the tomb --and an angel later rolls back the stone, and all the guards are dead -- and the angel sits there waiting for the women to find the empty tomb --And says "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" --I'm going to believe someone with that kind of power!
This is history -I believe it--I have no reason not to believe it. My own religious experience confirms my faith--and REASON is not excluded despite the insults of unbelievers to the contrary. How do we know God's guidance? by the Word of God preserved in Judeo-Christian scriptures --by reason applied to the study of these scriptures --by the witness of the Holy Spirit, God's felt presence. As the Bible says, "By the renewing of our minds." Inspired teachers, ministers, and modern writers who believe the Word also contribute to our understanding of God.
Darwin's theory is speculation without solid evidence. Yes, he categorized and studied the myriad of living creatures, organizing them for study. He was right about natural selection and survival of the fittest characteristics for adaptation to environment --but he never proved and no one has since proved --that one category of creature like an ape-man can become the ancestor of man or chimp. So far, the studies claim that DNA is traceable to one woman--and they call her EVe for obvious reasons. I assume they can trace to one man as well?
They now know that all the races came from one couple --just as the Bible says. This couple had the colossal genes for the whole human race. That they share gene traits in DNA with apes and other life forms --is only because life has the same design components in all mammals --all creatures --in the design of the dna of life.
Thu May 24, 12:14:00 PM EDT
From The Religion Clause blog by Prof Friedman at the UT Law School:
Last week's Chronicle of Higher Education carries a fascinating look at the new $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The museum's theme is the literal truth of the Biblical Genesis narrative. (See prior posting.) The Chronicle article titled Dinosaurs on the Ark? is written by Stephen T. Asma, a professor of philosophy at Columbia College Chicago. Asma visited the museum and interviewed its director Ken A. Ham. Prof. Asma writes that Ham did not miss a beat in answering his surreal question about what dinosaurs on Noah's ark ate. Prof. Asma, who has written an Oxford University Press book on the culture and evolution of natural history museums, says that his sense of humor about the new museum fades when he thinks of the young children who will visit it without the tools for critically assessing its displays. The full article is well worth the time to read.
posted by Howard Friedman at 1:10 PM on May 22, 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Methinks Asma is really afraid that kids will critically assess the claims of evolution after seeing the museum. If Darwinism is true, why are they protecting it from objections and scrutiny and evidence to the contrary? Because they have not and can not prove Darwinism is true, that's why.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
SCOPES TRIAL ISSUE IN REVERSE --defending atheistic orthodoxy regarding origins
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12982 Read about:
Guillermo Gonzalez-- an astronomer with 69 peer-reviewed articles published in prestigious, secular science journals. He is known for the development of the concept of a Galactic Habitable Zone. He was recently denied tenure at Iowa State U. because he has a side interest that he pursues on his own time: Intelligent Design. He is therefore the enemy of the established scientific orthodoxy that states there is no designer for the process of evolution--or for origins by any other method.
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/05/national-school-board-group-will-have.html
Liberals are also up in arms because "the next president of the National Association of State Boards of Education will be Kenneth R. Willard from Kansas. In 2005, as a member of the state school board in Kansas, Willard voted in favor of changing the state's science standards to include several challenges to the theory of evolution. (See prior posting.) Because Willard's only opponent for the NASBE presidency withdrew for personal reasons after the nomination period was closed, Willard's election seems assured. Some scientists opposed to teaching intelligent design are pressing for states to write in the name of Ohio businessman Sam Schloemer, now on Ohio's State Board of Education, for NASBE president-- but the organization's bylaws do not provide for write-ins. Meanwhile, Willard says the teaching of evolution is an issue that should be left to each state. He says NASBE focuses on "issues like advising state boards on how to deal with governance concerns or influxes of immigrant students or ways to raise academic achievement among members of disadvantaged groups."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people only know what the pro-establishment media says about intelligent design.
They assume evolution to be proven true by evidence like the theory of gravity is proven by evidence.
They are woefully mis-led about this --along with most of the rest of the world.
The evidence of transition from one life category to another --(like ape to human via some common ancestor) --is not there --it's Darwin's theory to explain how we got here without a designer. Even a fossil with features of two creatures does not prove descent over the possibility of common design. Just because two dress-makers make a red dress with pockets and a 2 inch hem --doesn't mean the dresses came from the same source --just because they shared features. So it is that a fossil of an extinct creature that resembles 2 modern creatures just proves there was once a creature with the same features as others in its bio-family --say mammal. Most likely, any-so called primitive ambiguously human or ape fossils --are just one of many variants of homo-sapiens --or apes --not a transition. YOU CANNOT PROVE TRANSITION --without seeing some parent give birth to a transitional creature --which we never see. Even the rapidly evolving bacteria --are STILL bacteria. So far, even shared DNA --such as that of chimps and humans--can only prove design --not descent. We believers, however, do believe that God created the animals first --and that humans are the highest level of a design process --so the Designer can use similar features in the DNA codes for mammals without having them descend gradually upward over eons of time through "natural" processes without a designer. All mammals share DNA features --and the differences between us are still immense and not likely to have occured randomly, naturally by mating and natural selection without a designer/controller. Our DNA was more likely finagled in a celestial lab than by happenstance on the earth. And it is said we are made in the Image of God --so maybe that is why the atonement for our sins had to be by the blood of the Son of God --something to do with our DNA --which is written in the Lamb's Book of Life when we believe in Christ.
There is so much interdependence, design and complexity --and diverstiy and beauty in nature --One example is the bombadier beetle --which, if he evolved, would've exploded himself into non-existance in the process. He was carefully designed to ignite a small explosion to protect himself from his enemies. Imagine God's design team working that one out. It required a designer for sure. In fact, there's no other reason for him to have such a unique capability for his defense --except that the Divine Mind thought it was cool.
We who are such inventive creatures --were surely designed by a creative being --the way male and female complete one another --the way our hearts beat for a life time --and our brains function with such complexity and control over the rest of our being --the way our skin heals by itself --NO accident of natural selection.
Believing classical darwinism is true is as preposterous as looking at a cadillac in a junkyard and saying all the metal gradually formed the car --given enough years. In fact, the junkyard and the universe and a person's home prove the law of entropy --that things go from order to disorder without controlling forces.
Also, my husband's med school specialty was genetics --he says the DNA could not possibly have evolved from simple to more complex --as D's theory assumes. Darwin assumed, given enough time, all the diverse life forms would naturally evolve, by survival of the fittest and natural selection (which do occur within bio-families but not enough to transition from one category to another) --by mutations which are nearly always bad, not good --all of the life we see is supposed to have evolved from simple, one celled, self-replicating cells --without any guide or designer. Go look at a flower and tell me how this is possible --given eons of time --which is why the evolutionists are so committed to their theoretical "billions of years ago an accidentally formed live amoeba slithered out of the primordial pond and the right conditions were there to start replication into more diverse and complicated higher forms of nature"
Hubby says the millions of chemical reactions in cells necessary to make life --make Darwin's idea impossible.
ID theorists aren't saying Darwin should not be taught --he was right to observe natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. --it just can't account for all the design complexity that exists no matter how much time is given for the process to naturally evolve all the life forms. So ID theorists observe the impossibility of Darwin's idea --and document evidence of design --and the impossibilities in nature for his theory to be true.
They do not teach Genesis, as ignoramuses assume. They are still committed to the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, observation and recording evidence for science theories --or against them.
Michael behe, a molecular microbiologist, researcher and prof at Lehigh U. --wrote Darwin's Black Box --to discuss the DNA complexity that must have been designed by/with some intelligence.
Yes, we still have the mystery of how can there be a God without beginning?? who made God? Well, how can there be a universe without a designer? Who made the universe? These are the two mysteries --and evolution's defenders do the world a grave disservice to rule out the one mystery and believe the other when they can't prove that God didn't design everything that is and speak it into being the way we speak results from the stored knowledge in a computer. if we can do things instantly because of computers; a Creator of this marvelous universe (look out your window!) can do anything in whatever time frame He chooses. Furthermore, those Christians who believe in both evolution and Christ's miracles and resurrections are inconsistant --because such a God doesn't need Darwin's time frame to accomplish Creation --and Darwin is NOT proven no matter what mumbo jumbo scientists utter.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Cross-posted at Js Cafenette
Guillermo Gonzalez-- an astronomer with 69 peer-reviewed articles published in prestigious, secular science journals. He is known for the development of the concept of a Galactic Habitable Zone. He was recently denied tenure at Iowa State U. because he has a side interest that he pursues on his own time: Intelligent Design. He is therefore the enemy of the established scientific orthodoxy that states there is no designer for the process of evolution--or for origins by any other method.
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/05/national-school-board-group-will-have.html
Liberals are also up in arms because "the next president of the National Association of State Boards of Education will be Kenneth R. Willard from Kansas. In 2005, as a member of the state school board in Kansas, Willard voted in favor of changing the state's science standards to include several challenges to the theory of evolution. (See prior posting.) Because Willard's only opponent for the NASBE presidency withdrew for personal reasons after the nomination period was closed, Willard's election seems assured. Some scientists opposed to teaching intelligent design are pressing for states to write in the name of Ohio businessman Sam Schloemer, now on Ohio's State Board of Education, for NASBE president-- but the organization's bylaws do not provide for write-ins. Meanwhile, Willard says the teaching of evolution is an issue that should be left to each state. He says NASBE focuses on "issues like advising state boards on how to deal with governance concerns or influxes of immigrant students or ways to raise academic achievement among members of disadvantaged groups."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people only know what the pro-establishment media says about intelligent design.
They assume evolution to be proven true by evidence like the theory of gravity is proven by evidence.
They are woefully mis-led about this --along with most of the rest of the world.
The evidence of transition from one life category to another --(like ape to human via some common ancestor) --is not there --it's Darwin's theory to explain how we got here without a designer. Even a fossil with features of two creatures does not prove descent over the possibility of common design. Just because two dress-makers make a red dress with pockets and a 2 inch hem --doesn't mean the dresses came from the same source --just because they shared features. So it is that a fossil of an extinct creature that resembles 2 modern creatures just proves there was once a creature with the same features as others in its bio-family --say mammal. Most likely, any-so called primitive ambiguously human or ape fossils --are just one of many variants of homo-sapiens --or apes --not a transition. YOU CANNOT PROVE TRANSITION --without seeing some parent give birth to a transitional creature --which we never see. Even the rapidly evolving bacteria --are STILL bacteria. So far, even shared DNA --such as that of chimps and humans--can only prove design --not descent. We believers, however, do believe that God created the animals first --and that humans are the highest level of a design process --so the Designer can use similar features in the DNA codes for mammals without having them descend gradually upward over eons of time through "natural" processes without a designer. All mammals share DNA features --and the differences between us are still immense and not likely to have occured randomly, naturally by mating and natural selection without a designer/controller. Our DNA was more likely finagled in a celestial lab than by happenstance on the earth. And it is said we are made in the Image of God --so maybe that is why the atonement for our sins had to be by the blood of the Son of God --something to do with our DNA --which is written in the Lamb's Book of Life when we believe in Christ.
There is so much interdependence, design and complexity --and diverstiy and beauty in nature --One example is the bombadier beetle --which, if he evolved, would've exploded himself into non-existance in the process. He was carefully designed to ignite a small explosion to protect himself from his enemies. Imagine God's design team working that one out. It required a designer for sure. In fact, there's no other reason for him to have such a unique capability for his defense --except that the Divine Mind thought it was cool.
We who are such inventive creatures --were surely designed by a creative being --the way male and female complete one another --the way our hearts beat for a life time --and our brains function with such complexity and control over the rest of our being --the way our skin heals by itself --NO accident of natural selection.
Believing classical darwinism is true is as preposterous as looking at a cadillac in a junkyard and saying all the metal gradually formed the car --given enough years. In fact, the junkyard and the universe and a person's home prove the law of entropy --that things go from order to disorder without controlling forces.
Also, my husband's med school specialty was genetics --he says the DNA could not possibly have evolved from simple to more complex --as D's theory assumes. Darwin assumed, given enough time, all the diverse life forms would naturally evolve, by survival of the fittest and natural selection (which do occur within bio-families but not enough to transition from one category to another) --by mutations which are nearly always bad, not good --all of the life we see is supposed to have evolved from simple, one celled, self-replicating cells --without any guide or designer. Go look at a flower and tell me how this is possible --given eons of time --which is why the evolutionists are so committed to their theoretical "billions of years ago an accidentally formed live amoeba slithered out of the primordial pond and the right conditions were there to start replication into more diverse and complicated higher forms of nature"
Hubby says the millions of chemical reactions in cells necessary to make life --make Darwin's idea impossible.
ID theorists aren't saying Darwin should not be taught --he was right to observe natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. --it just can't account for all the design complexity that exists no matter how much time is given for the process to naturally evolve all the life forms. So ID theorists observe the impossibility of Darwin's idea --and document evidence of design --and the impossibilities in nature for his theory to be true.
They do not teach Genesis, as ignoramuses assume. They are still committed to the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, observation and recording evidence for science theories --or against them.
Michael behe, a molecular microbiologist, researcher and prof at Lehigh U. --wrote Darwin's Black Box --to discuss the DNA complexity that must have been designed by/with some intelligence.
Yes, we still have the mystery of how can there be a God without beginning?? who made God? Well, how can there be a universe without a designer? Who made the universe? These are the two mysteries --and evolution's defenders do the world a grave disservice to rule out the one mystery and believe the other when they can't prove that God didn't design everything that is and speak it into being the way we speak results from the stored knowledge in a computer. if we can do things instantly because of computers; a Creator of this marvelous universe (look out your window!) can do anything in whatever time frame He chooses. Furthermore, those Christians who believe in both evolution and Christ's miracles and resurrections are inconsistant --because such a God doesn't need Darwin's time frame to accomplish Creation --and Darwin is NOT proven no matter what mumbo jumbo scientists utter.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Cross-posted at Js Cafenette
Thursday, May 17, 2007
ACLU Opposes Bible as Lit in Schools --what's new?
The ACLU is at it again--fighting Bible as Lit courses in Texas. The claim is that the course is being taught as though it were true.
I'm sure a Bible course can be taught as a BOOK without insisting it all be viewed as history. However, I don't want any teacher suggesting that it is NOT historically true either. We don't need the deliberate undermining of faith, anymore than we need the teacher to cultivate Christian faith in those whose parents want them to believe something else or nothing.
Children need to be taught the Bible just to be EDUCATED for understanding western culture, western civ, western lit, western thought, etc.
All students should know what is meant by "the prodigal son" "the golden rule" "adam and eve" "the forbidden fruit" They should know the stories behind Easter and Christmas and Good Friday. They should know the story of Passover --and the Passover lamb theme throughout the Book.
Because they are such popular and great writings, significant in western culture, they should be exposed to the 23rd Psalm, the Love chapter, the Ten Commandments, the Proverbs and the Psalms and the biblical account of creation. They should know the history of Christ's life, some of his teachings, the claims about Him, and the stories and letters of the Early church. They should know the stories of Job, Noah, Jonah, Ruth and Boaz, the Battle of Jericho, David and Goliath, Solomon and Bathsheba, Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, David and Jonathan, Samson and Delilah and Esther the Queen. The story of Deborah is a good one to reinforce the idea of women as leaders.
They should know that Christianity teaches equality of persons --as sinners, as recipients of the Holy Spirit, as redeemed people. "In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek (Gentile), slave nor free."
They should know the meanings of words like sin, redeemed, salvation, baptized, adultery, fornication, annointed, justified, compassion, mercy, grace, eternity, prophecy, the Body of Christ.
So much of western literature alludes to these Biblical stories,characters and themes. Why should our students be ignorant in the name of church and state separation?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
I'm sure a Bible course can be taught as a BOOK without insisting it all be viewed as history. However, I don't want any teacher suggesting that it is NOT historically true either. We don't need the deliberate undermining of faith, anymore than we need the teacher to cultivate Christian faith in those whose parents want them to believe something else or nothing.
Children need to be taught the Bible just to be EDUCATED for understanding western culture, western civ, western lit, western thought, etc.
All students should know what is meant by "the prodigal son" "the golden rule" "adam and eve" "the forbidden fruit" They should know the stories behind Easter and Christmas and Good Friday. They should know the story of Passover --and the Passover lamb theme throughout the Book.
Because they are such popular and great writings, significant in western culture, they should be exposed to the 23rd Psalm, the Love chapter, the Ten Commandments, the Proverbs and the Psalms and the biblical account of creation. They should know the history of Christ's life, some of his teachings, the claims about Him, and the stories and letters of the Early church. They should know the stories of Job, Noah, Jonah, Ruth and Boaz, the Battle of Jericho, David and Goliath, Solomon and Bathsheba, Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, David and Jonathan, Samson and Delilah and Esther the Queen. The story of Deborah is a good one to reinforce the idea of women as leaders.
They should know that Christianity teaches equality of persons --as sinners, as recipients of the Holy Spirit, as redeemed people. "In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek (Gentile), slave nor free."
They should know the meanings of words like sin, redeemed, salvation, baptized, adultery, fornication, annointed, justified, compassion, mercy, grace, eternity, prophecy, the Body of Christ.
So much of western literature alludes to these Biblical stories,characters and themes. Why should our students be ignorant in the name of church and state separation?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Revised Links to Greenville College Today Show --and Choir My Space
Go here to see my alma mater, Greenville College, on the Today Show --Dec. 2006
Go here--
to see my alma mater's choir singing exquisite choral music --and from there you can link to some other college choirs --and Jars of Clay --the Dove Award winning contemporary Christian group who got their start as musicians at Greenville.
The software is not working well, so if there are no links -copy and paste the following addresses into the address bar. The first is for the Today Show and the second is the choir music site.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=1c17d7e6-ab83-4773-9746-ff3a02605b7b&f=05&fg=copy
http://www.myspace.com/gcchoir
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Go here--
to see my alma mater's choir singing exquisite choral music --and from there you can link to some other college choirs --and Jars of Clay --the Dove Award winning contemporary Christian group who got their start as musicians at Greenville.
The software is not working well, so if there are no links -copy and paste the following addresses into the address bar. The first is for the Today Show and the second is the choir music site.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=1c17d7e6-ab83-4773-9746-ff3a02605b7b&f=05&fg=copy
http://www.myspace.com/gcchoir
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
WHAT IF WE PRAYED???
What if even the unbelievers --and all the believers --would pray for peace? and for the safety of our soldiers and the civilians --and the ones who were recently kidnapped? What if even the scoffers and skeptics would get on their knees and say something like:
"Father God --if you are OUT there --PLEASE HELP US NOW! Forgive us our sins --show us what they are - that we may truly repent! Show us yourself and your Truth --and help us. Soften the hearts of the tyrants in Iran, in No. Korea, in China and Cuba. Soften the hearts of Osama and the Taliban and the imams and mullahs who are preaching hatred. Bring peace to Jerusalem! And just in case the Christians are right and the Bible is true --I pray all this in the name of Jesus --because you said that what we ask in Jesus' name will be done according to your will. You said the prayers of righteous people avail much. We fall short of your standard and plead for your mercy. We are unworthy but ask you to please protect us from diseases, the hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, droughts, famine, tsunamis, volcanos, global warming and fires --and could you please return the honey bees that we may have the blessings of the harvest you have so faithfully given us for years? We'll give you all the praise. In the name of Jesus we pray these things. AMEN."
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"Father God --if you are OUT there --PLEASE HELP US NOW! Forgive us our sins --show us what they are - that we may truly repent! Show us yourself and your Truth --and help us. Soften the hearts of the tyrants in Iran, in No. Korea, in China and Cuba. Soften the hearts of Osama and the Taliban and the imams and mullahs who are preaching hatred. Bring peace to Jerusalem! And just in case the Christians are right and the Bible is true --I pray all this in the name of Jesus --because you said that what we ask in Jesus' name will be done according to your will. You said the prayers of righteous people avail much. We fall short of your standard and plead for your mercy. We are unworthy but ask you to please protect us from diseases, the hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, droughts, famine, tsunamis, volcanos, global warming and fires --and could you please return the honey bees that we may have the blessings of the harvest you have so faithfully given us for years? We'll give you all the praise. In the name of Jesus we pray these things. AMEN."
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
JERRY FALWELL --MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, EDUCATOR, ADMINISTRATOR, PATRIOT, ACTIVIST
I respected Falwell, agreed with him, and noted that he mellowed and learned how to be less strident in addressing opposition through the years.
He would have been more popular if he had been a slender, more handsome man --like Billy Graham. Probably would have lived longer, too. Fortunately, Jesus says that while man looks on the outside, God looks at our hearts. We are often the losers when we refuse a messenger of God because of his appearance.
Falwell didn't pretend to be perfect, but no one was able to accuse him of scandal of any kind that I ever heard about. He did leave quite a legacy in his very successful University.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
He would have been more popular if he had been a slender, more handsome man --like Billy Graham. Probably would have lived longer, too. Fortunately, Jesus says that while man looks on the outside, God looks at our hearts. We are often the losers when we refuse a messenger of God because of his appearance.
Falwell didn't pretend to be perfect, but no one was able to accuse him of scandal of any kind that I ever heard about. He did leave quite a legacy in his very successful University.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
TRANSGENDERING --still a mental illness --desire for mutilated, dysfunctional body
Last night on MSNBC, there was a documentary about transgenders. The American Psychiatric Ass'n. (or whatever it's called) says this is a mental problem. Supposedly they previously ruled that homosexual orientation was NOT a mental illness --but I know many pschiatrists would disagree with that who say the APA is run by politics on this topic.
Transgenders' Lament: Because doctors don't recognize transgendering as a condition to be accommodated with surgery, they can't get coverage. San Francisco, however, does cover transgender surgery for its employees and that may be a sign of coverage to come.
Sadly, these young people, who would have been fine looking, normal-looking heteros given time to mature, got it in their heads at early ages that they were in the wrong bodies. One afr. american fellow (wannabe girl) never realized that one could cross over and pass with the help of surgery --to be the other sex--until he got out in the world and saw a transgender performance in NYC. So he is working on being a girl in every way he can, waiting for surgery.
It was sad to see normal-looking little boys and little girls growing up to want to mutilate themselves to become the opposite sex --given that while homosex is a difficult and sometimes lonely lifestyle --transgendering has to be even worse for dating. A transgendered female (boy to girl) proably can't bear children --and in one rare case of a TGgirl with a normal hetero boyfriend, she still had her male equipment. There just aren't very many normal males who want a girl with a penis instead of a uterus. And we know that some fellows who find out the girl who enticed them is really a guy underneath the clothes --have turned violent, repulsed that they've been chasing a bio-male --at least turned off.
One therapist was a girl turned male --who wanted to be with males --so was in appearance a guy and oriented to guys like a girl --but really a girl genetically.
Transgender social life includes a sorority/fraternity in many cities called "Ballroom" --I thought they meant dancing --I'm thinking otherwise. The fixation is on the sexual equipment, having it or not having it. Wanting to be something God did not make them to be. So their whole lives revolve around this preoccupation. The activities of the Ballroom social life of allnight parties in elaborate clothing were totally sex-focused, superficial, based on looks and sexual attributes --maybe no more so than a beauty pageant --except the activities were outlandish, to say the least.
I found it VERY interesting that one transgender boy (formerly a girl) plays on the girls' soccer team --because "he" would be too small --his body would only be right for the girls' team. So what about other small boys? Can they apply to play soccer on the girls' team? Since we've let girls play footbal with guys, have we already paved the way for all teams to be sexually integrated --and why not let all small guys play on the girls' teams? But then won't girls lose team spaces to boys with their greater athletic prowess despite size, and the whole idea of sports for girls will be eroded because of small guys and transgender "guys" on hormones --who will get all the team spaces. So we'll have basketball teams by height for short people and soccer for small guys and another team for girls --and more and more competition for team times and games and sports monies.
If you wonder how kids could grow up wanting to transgender, all you have to do is find an Oprah forum on the topic --where mothers write in and wonder if their kid is a transgender because he likes the color pink --because he likes to wear her high heels, carry a purse and put scrunchies on a towel on his head --pretending to have long hair, likes to put on Mom's make up and jewelry, etc. etc. Then if there is a father, he is incensed that mom is feminizing the boy by just allowing him to identify with her interests instead of encouraging male identity --because she doesn't realize she has a role --nor does he know how to manifest HIS role as a father toward a baby who quite naturally would play with make up and let his mom and sister put nail polish on him --just to entertain him.
Parents are the key when kids want to transgender. They need to celebrate the child's given gender and delight in it --passing that joy on to the child. There are ways. How many mothers bad-mouth men to their kids? No wonder some little boys would want to be women. LIkewise, I know of an irritable brow-beating husband --whose daughter was lesbian.
There is no one road that leads to Rome in sexual identity issues. But parents should do all they can to deliberately guide their children's sexual self-image toward normalcy, especially in this age of cultural confusion on sexual identity.
A person on the program said we shouldn't be looking for a cause --but figure out how to accommodate these youth so they can live happily. But they CAN'T LIVE HAPPILY --EVER --being in such basic rebellion against how God made them to be--exchanging perfectly healthy bodies for mutilated ones and mega doses of hormones to change their secondary sexual characteristics --thus living a charade that isolates them romantically from most normal men and women. Maybe I don't have enough faith in med. technology, but can a transgender male ever father a child --can a transgendered female ever have a womb and give birth? What a hormonal mess that would be.
I say, yes we SHOULD look for a cause --to prevent this preoccupation in children and this desire for self-mutilation and bio-dysfunction. It's preposterous that ANY so-called experts would encourage cross-gendering in children --before those children's normal hormones have kicked in. Kids don't know WHAT they want, really, because they haven't the maturity or the life experience to make such an important, life-altering decision for themselves. Children of 5 or 6, e.g., have no idea what their sex organs are for --nor any idea of normal or good sexual experience. This is not the age to let them make this choice by allowing them to cross-dress, etc. I'm sorry to be so insulting, but such experts are IDIOTS!!!! All sexual self-image problems are cases of "arrested development," --except when there is a chromosomal abnormality or ambiguous genital development--which is extremely rare. These are the ones entitled to confusion who may have choices to make, including surgery. The best thing is to go with the hormones you are given. There is nothing abnormal about the original hormone levels of homosexuals and transgenders.
And a final question--why should anyone spend the money for this kind of self-mutilation--to exchange a healthy body for a dysfunctional one? And why should insurance money or taxes ever cover such expense, when the whole world suffers from curable life-threatening diseases for lack of basic immunizations and preventative care?
It's a self-indulgent preoccupation. Transgenders need to "get a life" --and get to the root of the pain over the way God made their bodies to be male or female.
An interesting case study in the area of sexual identity is Rosie O'Donnell. She was a delightful lady in her first show, fun and good-natured. Since coming out of the closet, she walks like a Mack truck and thinks she has to be mad and assertive all the time --trying to be manly, I guess. Maybe she's taking male hormones.
Any good actor can act like the opposite sex --and that's what this is all about -charades and mutilation based on a mis-guided preference to be the opposite sex.
The program did report honestly that there is no known bio-cause for transgender desire (or homosexual orientation)--only speculation about hormonal washes of the fetus during pregnancy. I think it's like homosexuality; you can find reasons for desire to be the other sex or to be with the other sex in one's upbringing and childhood experiences, in a child's imagination, lack of knowledge, or misunderstanding of childish sexual feelings.
One possibility: if a mother watches Oprah, daytime TV, and her child sees children on TV wanting to be the other sex as though it were a legitimate desire, the child will think he/she HAS a choice to transgender --and the mother will think so, too.
Oprah's experts told them to accommodate the child's cross-dressing, transgender toys and play interests, rather than channeling them toward a sex identity that would match their bodies, genes and hormones.
There is so much culture to counter!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Transgenders' Lament: Because doctors don't recognize transgendering as a condition to be accommodated with surgery, they can't get coverage. San Francisco, however, does cover transgender surgery for its employees and that may be a sign of coverage to come.
Sadly, these young people, who would have been fine looking, normal-looking heteros given time to mature, got it in their heads at early ages that they were in the wrong bodies. One afr. american fellow (wannabe girl) never realized that one could cross over and pass with the help of surgery --to be the other sex--until he got out in the world and saw a transgender performance in NYC. So he is working on being a girl in every way he can, waiting for surgery.
It was sad to see normal-looking little boys and little girls growing up to want to mutilate themselves to become the opposite sex --given that while homosex is a difficult and sometimes lonely lifestyle --transgendering has to be even worse for dating. A transgendered female (boy to girl) proably can't bear children --and in one rare case of a TGgirl with a normal hetero boyfriend, she still had her male equipment. There just aren't very many normal males who want a girl with a penis instead of a uterus. And we know that some fellows who find out the girl who enticed them is really a guy underneath the clothes --have turned violent, repulsed that they've been chasing a bio-male --at least turned off.
One therapist was a girl turned male --who wanted to be with males --so was in appearance a guy and oriented to guys like a girl --but really a girl genetically.
Transgender social life includes a sorority/fraternity in many cities called "Ballroom" --I thought they meant dancing --I'm thinking otherwise. The fixation is on the sexual equipment, having it or not having it. Wanting to be something God did not make them to be. So their whole lives revolve around this preoccupation. The activities of the Ballroom social life of allnight parties in elaborate clothing were totally sex-focused, superficial, based on looks and sexual attributes --maybe no more so than a beauty pageant --except the activities were outlandish, to say the least.
I found it VERY interesting that one transgender boy (formerly a girl) plays on the girls' soccer team --because "he" would be too small --his body would only be right for the girls' team. So what about other small boys? Can they apply to play soccer on the girls' team? Since we've let girls play footbal with guys, have we already paved the way for all teams to be sexually integrated --and why not let all small guys play on the girls' teams? But then won't girls lose team spaces to boys with their greater athletic prowess despite size, and the whole idea of sports for girls will be eroded because of small guys and transgender "guys" on hormones --who will get all the team spaces. So we'll have basketball teams by height for short people and soccer for small guys and another team for girls --and more and more competition for team times and games and sports monies.
If you wonder how kids could grow up wanting to transgender, all you have to do is find an Oprah forum on the topic --where mothers write in and wonder if their kid is a transgender because he likes the color pink --because he likes to wear her high heels, carry a purse and put scrunchies on a towel on his head --pretending to have long hair, likes to put on Mom's make up and jewelry, etc. etc. Then if there is a father, he is incensed that mom is feminizing the boy by just allowing him to identify with her interests instead of encouraging male identity --because she doesn't realize she has a role --nor does he know how to manifest HIS role as a father toward a baby who quite naturally would play with make up and let his mom and sister put nail polish on him --just to entertain him.
Parents are the key when kids want to transgender. They need to celebrate the child's given gender and delight in it --passing that joy on to the child. There are ways. How many mothers bad-mouth men to their kids? No wonder some little boys would want to be women. LIkewise, I know of an irritable brow-beating husband --whose daughter was lesbian.
There is no one road that leads to Rome in sexual identity issues. But parents should do all they can to deliberately guide their children's sexual self-image toward normalcy, especially in this age of cultural confusion on sexual identity.
A person on the program said we shouldn't be looking for a cause --but figure out how to accommodate these youth so they can live happily. But they CAN'T LIVE HAPPILY --EVER --being in such basic rebellion against how God made them to be--exchanging perfectly healthy bodies for mutilated ones and mega doses of hormones to change their secondary sexual characteristics --thus living a charade that isolates them romantically from most normal men and women. Maybe I don't have enough faith in med. technology, but can a transgender male ever father a child --can a transgendered female ever have a womb and give birth? What a hormonal mess that would be.
I say, yes we SHOULD look for a cause --to prevent this preoccupation in children and this desire for self-mutilation and bio-dysfunction. It's preposterous that ANY so-called experts would encourage cross-gendering in children --before those children's normal hormones have kicked in. Kids don't know WHAT they want, really, because they haven't the maturity or the life experience to make such an important, life-altering decision for themselves. Children of 5 or 6, e.g., have no idea what their sex organs are for --nor any idea of normal or good sexual experience. This is not the age to let them make this choice by allowing them to cross-dress, etc. I'm sorry to be so insulting, but such experts are IDIOTS!!!! All sexual self-image problems are cases of "arrested development," --except when there is a chromosomal abnormality or ambiguous genital development--which is extremely rare. These are the ones entitled to confusion who may have choices to make, including surgery. The best thing is to go with the hormones you are given. There is nothing abnormal about the original hormone levels of homosexuals and transgenders.
And a final question--why should anyone spend the money for this kind of self-mutilation--to exchange a healthy body for a dysfunctional one? And why should insurance money or taxes ever cover such expense, when the whole world suffers from curable life-threatening diseases for lack of basic immunizations and preventative care?
It's a self-indulgent preoccupation. Transgenders need to "get a life" --and get to the root of the pain over the way God made their bodies to be male or female.
An interesting case study in the area of sexual identity is Rosie O'Donnell. She was a delightful lady in her first show, fun and good-natured. Since coming out of the closet, she walks like a Mack truck and thinks she has to be mad and assertive all the time --trying to be manly, I guess. Maybe she's taking male hormones.
Any good actor can act like the opposite sex --and that's what this is all about -charades and mutilation based on a mis-guided preference to be the opposite sex.
The program did report honestly that there is no known bio-cause for transgender desire (or homosexual orientation)--only speculation about hormonal washes of the fetus during pregnancy. I think it's like homosexuality; you can find reasons for desire to be the other sex or to be with the other sex in one's upbringing and childhood experiences, in a child's imagination, lack of knowledge, or misunderstanding of childish sexual feelings.
One possibility: if a mother watches Oprah, daytime TV, and her child sees children on TV wanting to be the other sex as though it were a legitimate desire, the child will think he/she HAS a choice to transgender --and the mother will think so, too.
Oprah's experts told them to accommodate the child's cross-dressing, transgender toys and play interests, rather than channeling them toward a sex identity that would match their bodies, genes and hormones.
There is so much culture to counter!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)