ABOUT OBAMA'S SOCIALIZED MEDICINE --We Need Tort Reform!

Obama is trying to move too fast on health care. What we need to do FIRST is restore the economy and get Americans back to work -- and you don't do that by new taxes and new spending when you are already in debt--when you have already spent too much on bail-outs and clunkers.

In health care, they can do one thing real fast that will change the costs of medicine --tort reform. Stop making it automatically profitable to sue the health profession. Right now, too many lawyers like Pretty Boy John Edwards are making millions off of the backs of doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies with medical liability suits.

It costs so much to defend oneself in court and it is so risky because juries feel sorry for pitifully ill and disabled people; they don't care whose fault it is that a diabetic, e.g., neglected to care for himself. "Give his family a million because the insurance company can afford it and the man is pitiful. The doctor should've chased that diabetic down and made him be a compliant patient...." though it was clear he didn't want to change his eating and drinking habits, obtain and use a glucometer and come back to the office when he was told to.

So the doctors settle out of court, as it is cheaper, less risky and less public. The costs for such suits in 2007 was staggering --greatly increased over ten years before. (I'm sorry I don't have the stats; I don't recall where I read it.)

We need legislators who will reign in the lawyers. We can start by defeating Marcy Kaptur and Sherrod Brown and replacing Voinovich with a republican when he retires. Let's vote in people who will oppose the lawyers and support tort reform.

So much clerical work is done as defensive medicine. Gov't has done more than any other entity to drive up the cost of health care. Like when the gov't agency, OSHA, inspected a medical office and fined a doctor $20,000 because his staff put a sandwich on the lab counter. That's gov't confiscation of the earnings of a doctor for the careless error of an employee. $100 would have been a lesson --especially if you docked it from the employee's pay.

No, this didn't happen at my husband's office --but it is a Toledo-area story.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Arlen's Town Hall Meeting! Poor Guy! He must feel like the dems made Geo. Bush feel.

HA! Turncoat Arlen Specter is being grilled by his PA. constituents today in a town hall meeting viewable on cable news. Remember, he's the Republican-recently-turned-Democrat who never met a liberal social issue he couldn't support.

Boy, are the voters mad at him!! and giving him WHAT FOR about: the healthcare plan; bailing out GM; not telling us who writes the bills; not reading the bills before voting; federal access to our bank accounts; threatening our pensions (with inflation and taxation), and Obama's biggest deficit authorization in American history --and passing the debt on to our children.

Someone asked him how come we tax-payers had to bail out GM for making cars nobody wants. (Well, actually, I like my '95 Caddy and the '04 GMC van.)

You almost had to feel sorry for the elderly senator facing the very angry folks. I hope he's up for re-election? I think the GOP may re-gain his seat --having never elected this guy as a democrat in the first place.

Heh heh. Feels good to see the shoe of persecution for imperfection on the other party's foot!

Problems aren't simple. There are no easy answers. But unfortunately, federal gov't with both parties is headed in the wrong direction. The Feds need to return power --and money --to the people --who, in America, have made for prosperity for the most people --while still caring for the needy.

But there is something wrong with the American work ethic and greed at all ends of the labor-management-board spectrum. We need to restore integrity and sound fiscal policy to American business and the workplace. As it is, both union bosses and corp.administrators are enamored with luxury outings, company cars, perks galore.







"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Ben Konop in Toledo Free Press Supports Church Political Freedom!

Ben Konop did a speech --preparing for his mayoral bid --at a church--and got blasted for the "church-state separation" issue by David Washington in The Toledo Free Press!!He tells of politicians before him--and of the Pope writing on political issues --as defense of his speech on social/political issues at Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church.

Is he unaware that churches have been threatened with loss of tax-exempt status if they are viewed as "participating in a campaign?" And obviously, inviting only Democrats to speak, as black churches have done for years, is DEFINITELY participating in campaigns. Yet, the pro-life/pro-family values candidates can't get into churches anymore because of the IRS ruling on helping campaigns.

Of course, several churches are protesting the IRS ruling these days--and will certainly welcome Konop's support! For the pro-life churches agree that it's time to stop interfering with the free speech rights of churches and pastors. Sure, some churches will continue to be careful, having both democrats and republicans in their congregations, but it's time the church participated in politics again --as is our constitutional right --regardless of tax exemption.

We conservatives should be able to give candidates a forum --just as the black and Catholic churches do. I remember attending a Democrat's fund-raiser in a Catholic church basement (because my kids were part of the hired entertainment, the Young Rep Road Show.) I remember thinking at the time, that our church would be picked on by the IRS if we held a fund-raiser to help a candidate. But there always seems to be a double standard when it comes to Democrats, churches, and the IRS. We've even been threatened about the "voter guides" that told where candidates stood on the issues of concern to religious people.

Now the emphasis to evangelicals is to be involved only in issues of charity and "social justice" (as defined by liberals who disregard the realities of human nature and what works.) Some evangelical leaders and everyone on the Left, want the evangelical church to move Leftward and drop their concerns for abortion, gay marriage,etc. Love and redistribution of wealth is to be our only concern. They forget that Jesus wasn't hated for the LOVE part of the Gospel --but for the Repentance message --and the message that we are all sinners and that He is the only Way to the Father. The Jews became angry with Paul and Barnabus in the synagogue because they proclaimed Christ as Savior --and resurrection of the dead in Christ. Our charity gains us no enemies --but something else does. Jesus said we would be hated as He was, but it was not for charity and love.

The prophets of old preached about good and evil --and called us to repentance. Killing our babies and rejecting God's design for our sexuality --surely the prophets of today need to keep proclaiming these as evils in a time when the law has pronounced these activities "good." They are so counter to God's procreative intention for the human race.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

NEWS COMMENTATING (2nd Post Today -- See Ann'y Post Below )

Awww! The Blade's Roberta de Boer is not writing her column anymore? She was easy to read and easy to understand --mean as dirt to Finkbeiner --I have no idea if he deserved it. When people are too vitriolic it makes me question the legitimacy of their view! And of course, she used to write like a mud-rake in her bias for all things liberal. And she first won my heart (NOT) when she showed a fascination and approval for the local "witches"--back when U.T. was letting that same "witch" lecture at the U. But Roberta did acknowledge that she felt less "certain" in her views nowdays. That's a good thing. Sounds like maturity!

And what's with this Cash for Clunkers??? I can't believe they are taking cars that work to the junk yard. This is going to save the planet from gas-guzzlers --while China more than makes up for diminishing noxious fumes in the U.S. ? I don't think so. I wouldn't mind the idea of rebates for new cars to help the auto industry and to phase out the gas guzzlers --to stimulate buying cars --but why not give the not-really-clunky, so-called gas guzzlers to the needy who have no way to look for or get to a job --if they could find one? There is going to be great criticism of this program in the future, when we realize we could've helped the poor have working cars with this program instead of stupidly junking those cars.

As for gas guzzlers, explain this to me: according to the car ads today, you can get a rebate for a new Dodge RAM 4x4 that only gets 15 mpg!!!!! Meanwhile, if you buy a car with better mileage than the one you drive, they'll pay you to JUNK that car --and it may get better than 15 mpg!!! What's wrong with this picture???? Give those cars to the needy! I've always said that the best way to help the poor would be to get them transportation to job interviews and jobs. It is so difficult for the poor to have a car --much less maintain one --but I've had friends who desperately needed them --even if they ran them into the junk yard eventually through their ineptitude --or lack of fix-it cash.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO US TODAY!!! 40 YEARS BLESSED

Tribute to The Best Man:

My husband has been Mr. Right for me --I've never doubted it. But I knew which of us was more lucky. When he showed an interest in me, I was a junior in college and he, a lowly freshman. And I said to myself, "They don't come finer!" HANDSOME! and he still is. And GOOD --in every sense of the word. He's better than I deserve --but I do believe God rewards those who believe in Him, believe in Jesus Christ and strive to please and serve Him --and we have strived to do just that. And so the Holy Spirit inspires abiding love and faith in each other.

I sort of guessed maybe he was my reward for my square youth of faith and convictions --but as women go, I knew he wasn't as rewarded: he didn't get a great housekeeper, a cook, or a looker in me. But he almost always makes me feel that he feels fortunate to have me. We certainly felt blessed in our children. He always believed that fidelity in marriage was a gift to them as much as to ourselves.

My eldest daughter said at her wedding, 16 years ago, "I always knew my father loved my mother and that he always would." A challenge to him, perhaps! He's not let her down.

Our lives are not "charmed." We both have some health issues that are largely of our own making --with some genetic predispositions we were given and sweet teeth! But we feel blessed in the love of four wonderful kids and two children-in-law and two grandsons--whose music --and harmony of relationships --are the delight of our ears! And they all believe in Christ and are church-active.

I hate to drive with him as he tries to drive FOR me --and I'm a back-seat driver about the boat. We each see disaster coming --and damage --he when I drive the car and I, when he drives a boat!

The monetary blessings we have are due in great part to my husband's energy, stamina, and drive --and work-aholicism. But I credit God for opening med school to him, for giving him diligence and care in his work, a love for what he does --a love for people he serves --a servant's heart. An incredibly tolerant and patient man --with patients and with me.

He used to prefer young families as patients because they weren't terribly ill and he didn't enjoy the elderly as much for all their problems--but the more he practiced medicine, the more he came to really enjoy the elderly. He is a med. director at 3 nursing homes --and he takes his antique postcard books from various vicinities to show his patients who are from those areas. He sings to the ladies --he has a song for every name, he said. E.G. He'll go into a patient's room singing (in a most beautiful dramatic tenor voice) "How do you solve a problem like ____ ______? How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? How do you solve a problem like ____ ______? A Flibbertygibbit, a willow the wisp, a clown!" Filling in the lady's name to the tune of the famous song by the nuns in Sound of Music. to their great enjoyment. My daughter was with him in a nursing home once, and the elderly resident said to her, "Handsome doctor! Is he married?"

He enjoys bringing donuts and sneaking plastic spiders onto the nurses' stations --and preaching politics and his faith whenever the opportunity arises --whether it does or not, probably!

This man bought us a new Bennington pontoon in this our 40th anniversary year(we're helping the economy) and a solar-powered boat lift with canopy --as user-friendly a boat could be --if we can just aim it into the lift before we hit the dock! The first day it was windy and we almost crashed our new pontoon into our other old boat and dock before we got lined up to hitch it up --that was before we had the new lift which helps if we can just nose into it. Daughter Chrissy was supposed to help guide us to the right place --but she was standing on the pier waving her arms uselessly as a bird kept dive-bombing at her! The waves were pushing us, the wind a-blowing, and Jon was yelling, "Never mind the bird! Catch the boat!" If you could see all 105 pounds of her, you'd know she wasn't going to be able to catch the boat in the wind and waves --and she couldn't ignore the bird and kept flailing her arms in front of her as she cowered. Finally --we got righted and docked. But not before we snagged the new ladder and broke the snap that held it up--snagged it on our motor boat's lift. Since then, we've let the bimini top slam down a few times and lost the zipper case for the bimini top. The Bimini light still works--amazingly. Guess the bimini cover floated away --perhaps when the kids were trying to attach the huge canvas boat cover. It was the same color and stored in the same place, so, being much smaller than the boat cover, it may have gotten away without their notice and landed in the bottom of the lake somewhere. Something made a hole in our boat cover already, too. Almost looks like the work of a dive-bombing bird! But boat troubles are the story of our lake lives. We're hoping the 2nd daughter will marry a boat enthusiast! who wants to go up every weekend and see that the batteries aren't dead --as they so often are as the boats need to be run--and we are usually too busy to go up very often.

But with new faith in the latest boat technology, and hope for more lake time in the future, and so we could easily get our elderly mothers onto a boat, we got ourselves this "old ladies' boat," a lovely living room on the water with plush upholstery --capacity 17 normal people --and we took it out last night, just the two of us, for a sunset ann'y cruise. We did get it at a good price, from what we can tell--not as much as we expected considering the size and brand. Hubby set the gear to neutral, turned on the "mood lights," and sat in the back seat with me as we listened to PBS symphonic music, reminisced and watched the sun go down. It was absolutely lovely and romantic.

This followed a wedding in Ft. Wayne --of our niece --where he sat down our camera bag and lost it at the Rose Garden, where the wedding took place in light rain. He went back and someone said they were asked about the camera bag by a person who said he knew the wedding party and would make connections. We're thinking it was a later wedding group the camera-finder knew --or he just was making sure the camera owner wasn't around before he made off with it. It didn't show up at the reception as we'd hoped.

That wedding reception was in the Baker St. Train Station in Ft. Wayne. And my husband recalled that my dad picked us up there in 1970 --near our first anniversary-- when we found out that he had been admitted to med school. We had almost started a teaching stint in West Africa with the Mennonites when he got the call that he had moved up on the waiting list and was admitted! My father was delighted --not really wanting to see his Bar-baby go to Africa! He was also happy that my husband was admitted to the medical school where my father had turned down a PhD program to work with Dr. Doisy, discoverer of Vitamin K. (My father always regretted that he turned down that opportunity --but he was tired of going to school and knew of jobs for his Masters' Degree in chem. )

Of course, the boat and camera stories here are just incidental; the real story is that some of us are still going the distance as couples and finding the journey worthwhile all the way. And recommend marriage --the old-fashioned way.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Atheist Philosopher Criticizes Other Atheists for Dogmatism

from Rob R


A while ago when I was writing my blog topic on divine foreknowledge, I knew I might have to defend my claims about my denial of God's timelessness from the consideration of relativistic physics which many have understandably taken to reflect an eternalist picture of the universe. In that event, I searched for a link to an article written by a philosopher of science which pointed out that there were alternatives to relativity in response to the conflict of relativity and quantum mechanics that are compatible with a presentist universe.

I looked for more by the author and found his blog. It turns out that the author, Bradley Monton, is an atheist who also defends Intelligent Design as serious science (though I'm not sure if he agrees with it).

I wanted to highlight his comments he made in an interview on his views of Bill Mahr's movie "Religulous."

Maher’s supposed doubt does not go both ways. While Monton acknowledges that though he is an atheist, he is not certain about his atheism, Maher is all too certain that the totems of twenty-first century scientific materialism are beyond question. Essentially, Maher is commending doubt, disbelief actually, to religious people, and for the most part, giving a pass to himself and his fellow “rationalists”. Luskin asks Monton: “What do you think happens when a person tries to pretend that there is no reason or room for any doubt or self-introspection in their worldview?” Monton replies:

“I think that leads to dogmatism, in part, and this sort of emotional reaction to the people who are on the other side. Because, if you think that the other side has nothing going for it, you’re going to dismiss them and react badly to them… Unfortunately what I’ve been encountering lately are more atheists who seem to be completely, incredibly dogmatic about their view, and then, at least in my personal experience, I’m encountering Christians who are more sympathetic.”

Source

Review of Dan Kimball's They Like Jesus but Not the Church

I'm not done with this book; almost done. Meanwhile, what I did read is fresh on my mind.

Author/pastor Dan Kimball has much good to say that has been said in every generation at least since the 60's when I was in college and we were reading up on Christian apologetics and evangelism. "Friendship evangelism" was once a theme; "Into the Neighborhoods" was a recent thrust for my church. Angel Food ministries and Angel Arms ministries provide food and clothes at low or no cost. There are Christian homeless shelters --and the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities have always set a good example.

We've long known that we should have non-Christian friends --and most Christians do. Most have non-Christian relatives. We realize that you can't bring people into your church if you don't know any people to invite --and building relationships is important. But many people see verbal witness as ending relationships, as unwelcome and impolite; it is important to present a positive image of "Christian," and "Church." One of the best ways to do that STILL IS to bring people into the church for a visit. Where the body gathers, the Holy Spirit is present; discipling is done through teaching, preaching, and even music.

He challenges the church to be "missional." This, too, has always been a theme of evangelicals, to meet the needs of the poor, to reach out to the widow and the fatherless, relatives, neighbors, children and youth. Some have ministries at Hospice and nursing homes and to unsaved relatives. When I was a child, World Vision sought money from Christians for their global ministries to what became known as "The third world" nations. Evangelicals have always sent aid and missionaries around the world to proclaim the truth about Jesus Christ --and to be His compassionate Body in the world. When people bring us their problems, it is an opportunity to speak and practice God's principles --an opportunity to help.

He himself, as a pastor, wanted to get out of the office and minister to non-Christians more. This, too, is nothing new --but surely ministers and laymen in every generation need to be challenged on this point. Our church's ministers have always had relationships to people outside the church with good result-- or at least, good effort! He talks about meeting women and men in coffee houses and places where young people hang out--just to talk. He should be careful, however. Four decades ago,The Bourbon Street Evangelist spent time doing this, himself, and then fell into sexual sin with person(s?) he met that way.

Kimball's point is not apologetics, but about the young people's perception of the church and their fondness of Jesus but reluctance to be part of "organized religion." He published this 2 years ago and said he rarely meets anyone in his interviews and travels who admits to being an atheist. I think that is different today, with more atheists coming "out of the closet" and angrily/obnoxiously so. There are many atheist blogs, e.g. which always tie the theory of evolution into their atheistic stand.

Kimball does spend a lot of time on the issue of homosexuals and the perception that the church hates and scorns them. He rightly challenges traditionalists about their humor and privately expressed scorn for "fags" and "queers." He also joins with the church's critics to decry the fact that the evangelicals are identified as fundamentalists and political right-wingers who see homosexuals as having an evil agenda. He wants us to know that a gay pride parade doesn't really represent mainstream homosexuals. (Then why do our major corporations give them money for said parades?)

Which makes me wonder if my old friend's gay beach week events on the east coast are really a better example of the movement and the agenda which Kimball says they don't have. There's something unseemly in those photos of thousands of half-naked, primped and coiffed, overly buff men gathered together in search of hook-ups. Just as unseemly as hetero-beach weeks, for that matter, where people are willing to make temporary hook-ups based on superficial appearances and desire for sex --friends with benefits. Every Biblical prophet would decry the evils of their generation; why would the church do differently today?

I do feel sorry --as I often say --about people with GID (gender identity disorder) many of whom think like the opposite sex in their attractions. I feel sorry for those caught in the trap of sex addiction with their own sex.

However, I don't know where bisexuals deserve special compassion for something they can't help since no one who acts indiscriminately to have sex with more than one person, who can be attracted to either sex deserves a presidential honor for it, such as Obama gave them in his recent LGBT Pride Month. The bisexual is one who definitely has a choice --having sex-perimented himself into a decision that he/she is capable and willing on either side of the door.

I believe there is a sense in which everyone is bisexual --only in having buttons that can be pushed by anyone to produce a certain result. Which is why they say that having an orgasm during rape does not mean you really are guilty of consensual sex even if there was a level of arousal. I would not think very many women could be aroused by force -but I think men might --but normal men would fight first like the dickens! Likewise, arousal with the same sex wouldn't mean one was inevitably homosexual, preferring one's own sex. Arousal at the sight of same sex porn, e.g., is not indication of homosexuality--but of sexual arousal at the sight of erotic material --porn is, after all, the devil's tool --and terribly effective and addictive at making people feel their OWN sexuality. Sexual images and sexual touch arouse persons sexually.

Attraction to friendship and a niche with attractive people of the same sex is normal. It is not normal to fixate sexually and be aroused by friends of the same sex --but that doesn't mean there are not causes of this abnormality that can be prevented and remedied --always my point. We should encourage child-rearing to help kids have normal gender identity and attraction. We should help them understand that errant thoughts, sinful thoughts, are to be barred at the mind's gate --along with thoughts of incest, adultery, pedophilia, fornication, theft, murder, rape --and so on. We don't even bring up such thoughts to our children --they are "unthinkable," and so it used to be with homosexual thinking. One would not "go there" for more than a flash of thought at the possibility --but now, our youth are being made by culture to contemplate and explore the possibility that gay is ok and that they may just be gay.

Kimball, to educate us, raises the Biblical arguments used in favor of homosexuality--citing the other purity laws that we no longer keep. So far, I haven't seen any good arguments from him to the contrary --I think he's baffled, though he comes down on the Creation intention in Eden --"male and female created He them."

If keeping certain purity laws is no longer important to the church, gays argue, than how do we determine that homosexuality is still a sin? To that I would ask, how do we therefore determine ANY laws to be valid today? Why NOT steal? Why NOT lie? Why NOT murder? After all, we eat shellfish, don't we???? The argument doesn't hold. The homosexual would say, however, that he thinks he's not violating anyone else with a homosexual relationship. I believe history tells us that many young men are lured into homosexuality by older gays because they crave and were denied manly attention and affection--or because they became addicted to their kindly molestor's activities and concluded they had a homosexual orientation thereafter --or because they identified too much with their mothers over their fathers.

There seems to be a failure in his book to realize just how unseemly and abnormal and "not-expedient" homosexual behaviors are, how frought with disease, how hurtful, how addictive and risky --how contrary to God's creative design for our procreative bodies --how much in violation of the wait-for-hetero-marriage principle in scripture.

He wants us to really soften our opposition to people who are practicing homosexuals, who are also declaring gay to be OK with God. He concludes that he thinks homosexual behavior is a sin --but he speaks of people who find that they "are" homosexual --who find that these stirrings in youth are afflicting them and determine that they "are" homosexual.

I disagree that they "are" homosexual, if he means "designed or destined to be." Depends on what "are" means. They are male or female with a God-given prescription for their bio-assignment. Anything else should be shunned at the first inkling just like thoughts of pedophilia, promiscuity, incest, adultery, etc. "Guard your heart," Amy Grant sang. And "Bar the Door" to temptation, the Bible says --over and over and over again.

The more we normalize homosexual behavior in our culture, the more people will try it in their adventurous, careless, volatile, immature youth, and conclude that they "are" homosexual--and open themselves to STD's and abnormal sexual fixation. The church and parents are the last bulwark against such thinking --and Kimball wants us to mellow the message on this issue.

Yet, he talks about standing up for truth.



I am reminded of Ann Coulter's remarks --that liberal people want to make conservatives doubt their principles --and change to accommodate their critics. I see this here. We are to think the church is wrong to denounce sin with any strength lest we alienate sinners --that we should never speak of Jesus' promise to separate sheep from goats, that we should not proclaim that we are a wicked generation in need of repentance.

If only we were more loving, then more people would be saved and see the light! But he seems to want us to dim the light of righteousness of God and the necessity of repentance for sin --by agreeing with the non-Christian critics of the church.

Jesus DID say the world hated Him and would hate us --Kimball SEEMS to think there is a way to avoid receiving this hate --if we de-emphasize any concerns against communism, atheism, denying the possibility of intelligence behind naturalism in our science ed., homosexuality, shacking up, divorce, etc.

We've all known Christians who were popular --whose neighbors could each say, "He was a nice guy --never pushed his religion --and I'm still not a Christian--but he really was a Christian, because he didn't prick my conscience!! And I'm still headed for Hell and don't know it because he never told me the truth about the Gospel of Christ--since he knew I wasn't interested --and it was more important to him that he be liked by me."

I've been accused of being obnoxious in my witness on line --probably not so much in personal relationships. I surely do know some obnoxious Christians whose arguments are mainly in-house --Christian against Christian. NOw THAT's what we need a book about!!! I do have friends whose tails I avoid stepping on --but I still try to use Biblical counsel if opportunity presents itself.

I understand that self-righteousness is despised by God as is pride. I know the Church must be loving --and that we need to make friends outside the church in order to introduce them to Christ and bring them INTO the church for discipleship. But I think I hear too much agreement by Mr. Kimball with those unbelievers who love their idea of Jesus --not the biblical Jesus. Who would also think we can afford to vote for politicians who support gay marriage and abortion.

I'm not through with the book --more, later.





"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

NATURAL MOM PREVAILS OVER LESBIAN EX-PARTNER IN PARENTAL RIGHTS CASE

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=604794

The above link is to a news story in which the Alliance Defense Fund attorney defended a woman's right to her natural child, despite signed agreements made earlier with a lesbian partner. She has since converted to Christ and married a man and they are making a normal home for the child.








"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Sharia in America --Dearborn 2009 Festival

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Mudrake Needs Rebuttal

Apparently a Robert Wright explained his atheistic views on Bill Moyers'Journal last night. See Mudrake's blog, here.

Mudrake, your Mr. Wright seems to gloss over the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That was 20 plus short centuries ago. I don't think the NT writers fictionalized, as he has to believe--as you apparently believe --and yet you sent some Clear Lake sand in the casket for your sister's journey--just like an Egyptian.

Faith in Christ's resurrection is a certitude for me --I feel sure the accounts of the New Testament are true.

And no Mr. Wright can take that away.

You know, there is a certain arrogance in a kid who is happy to rebut resurrection in the name of naturalism. Wright must have been a joy to his Baptist parents!

It brings to mind some thoughts on parenting for inspiring faith. Children need to see that our faith works in our family life to bring about forgiveness and harmony, self-control and other fruits of the Spirit. They need to see that love characterizes their parents personalities. They need to see that the Gospel is truly the Good News and not a killjoy --not the bad news about all the things they aren't supposed to do being Christians. They need to see that God's laws and principles are for our good and protection--for our well-being --including happiness in life.

It's also interesting that as a child, Robert Wright could see that naturalism as in Darwin's theory was an atheistic theory --as theistic evolutionists deny.

Although, granted, if evolution is ever really proven as God's way of creation, I'd have no personal problem with it --it just seems inconsistent with His nature to use death and predators as a means of progress in upward mobility of life forms --since His Word says death entered the world with man's sin --and not before.







"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

WHY CHRISTIANITY WILL SURVIVE --Children's Ministries!

Of course, any believer knows that the Church of Christ (aka Christianity) will survive because we believe prophecy.

But there's another reason: At least 150 kids came to our church's VBS (Vacation Bible School) this week. 97 was the biggest single evening attendance --this is at least 20 more than last year.

Did the atheists have such an event this summer? Granted, public school and TV can be daily secular indoctrination. But the message at VBS and other church children's ministries is unique among cultural messages and always includes the fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins that we might be forgiven and inherit eternal life. No other message can compare.

This year, we were the underground church --with a scary Roman guard lurking here and there (Mayor Yunker's son.) We had a "cave" classroom, created by Sue Conklin where Gail Hulbert Warton, dressed as a first c. Roman Christian, used power point to tell the stories of Paul, the greatest Christian missionary of the first century.

Sue also created ivy-draped "marble" Roman columns and a marketplace with "ancient" fabrics --the prize corner --prizes for bringing friends and being a visitor.

Stephanie Rohrs Hulbert directed the music, aided by her sister, Christine. These were wonderful songs, including, "They will know we are Christians by our love," "Grace Flows Down and Covers Me," "To God be the Glory" performed by the 3rd and 4th grade as puppeteers," a new song on God's Love in Jewish style, with the girls doing a Jewish folk dance and the boys playing rhythm instruments (grades 5-8), and an old standard revived, "Come into my heart, come into my heart, come into my heart, Lord Jesus....Come in today; come in to stay; come into my heart Lord Jesus." All the children learned a dance-game with a Jewish flavor. Many of the songs were taught with sign language or other motions. Stephanie also emphasized the evening's memory verse each night. There were a couple of effective puppet shows, too, by the Hulberts, Bruce, Scott, Gail and STephanie. Chrissy rattled the jail and opened the jail door for Paul and Silas --who were cute as could be in their Bible clothes.

We also had wonderful visits from Lucia and Marcus (the DeMatteos, our own acting duo) --two first c. Christians who cautioned us to be very quiet lest the guards find our church cave.

After a kids' supper for all provided by the church ladies headed by Sarah Hand, the classes rotated through the story time with Gail, a professional educator, the craft time with several ladies helping, including at least one professional education-trained Sue Conklin--they made very cute brick doorstops. They had recreation with Cory and Eva Fritch (he's a professional elem. science educator), and also Dave Simpson and John Ringger doing the jr. high recreation, and music with Hulbert and Rohrs, both professional music educators.

The Junior High had a week planned by yours truly with a Pregnancy Center RSVP (Responsible Sexual Values Program) speaker, an Afr. American lady who did a fine job with a sensitive topic. She spoke 3 days; on the first day we were in sync with the rest of the Bible School's theme and read Paul's testimony from the Bible, telling of his conversion from a persecutor of Christians to a passionate disciple. We concluded in the final session with a reflection on the persecuted church today and a Ray Vander Lann film segment that took place in the underground church in the caves of Capadocia --during the persecution by the Emperors in the early 4th century B.C. --which included quotes on the martyrs of those days. It was very moving. We also discussed why Christians are persecuted, noting that even Paul thought he was doing the right thing for Judaism by persecuting Christians --until He met Jesus on the Damascus Road. Then "he saw the light!!" And where he was once blind, now he could see!

All in all, a very enjoyable week, reinforcing faith of the faithful, and sharing the Good News of Christ with those who haven't heard.

Secular pop culture is very influential on people today --but so is the church --and we have the Holy Spirit who is greater than Satan any day --but it takes knowledge of the Word and the preaching of the Gospel to reach each future generation. We must do it.

Let us not be weary of well-doing. Next week, 19 Trail Blazers go to our church camp in Somerset, Michigan for 3 days. They will again have opportunity to hear about Christ and the challenge to run the race of faith to the finish.

It's neat to see the children of the church grow up to take their place in passing on the baton of faith. All of the VBS leaders were raised in the church and in Christian homes. We are still passing on the truth --that Jesus rose from the grave --and said all who believe this and follow Him will inherit eternal life.

Credit to Director Jenni King and her helper, Inga Wood --and all their cooperative children --8 between them --who brought many friends!

As the church loves and reaches out, so she grows!!!





"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Evolutionists: The Vast Majority is not so Vast.

From Rob


For those who've had discussions of evolution with me, I frequently run into the demonstrably false claim that there are no scientists who doubt evolution. That's when I demonstrate to the contrary by linking to the DiscoverY Institute's Petition of Dissent from Darwinianism which has the signatures of almost 800 scientists who are skeptical of the adequacy of fully natural evolution (and other naturalistic explanations) to explain where life comes from and it's diversity.

Some people have pointed out what a very small percentage of scientists that is (like 1 percent or less). Well, the problem with this is the assumption that all of the skeptics of naturalism actually signed. I've always said that this was just the tip of the iceberg. Evidently, I was right.

It turns out that Pew research has found that the percentage of scientists in a sample of more than 25 hundred who don't believe in evolution is actually much larger. According to Popsci, Pew research has found that "87 percent of scientists polled said that life evolved over time." Leaving 13 percent (about 330) who wouldn't commit to that claim. Now, that's just of people who don't believe in evolution. Just think, that number wouldn't count all the ID theorists (Like Behe and Dembski) who do believe that life evolved over time even though they don't buy that it did so in a completely naturalistic way.

Yes, 13 percent is small, but it's not that small and if the number were to hold for for all scientstists, that still represents a huge community of not simply scientifically knowledgeable people, but people who are trained and functional in the sciences, people who have an intimate knowledge of how science works and probably some idea of it's limits.

source

TIME MAGAZINE GOLD ON MARRIAGE!

Time magazine has a cover story this week on Why Marriage Matters. Without ever mentioning the gay marriage push, author Caitlin Flanagan uses recent high profile adulteries and research findings to illustrate her point on biological parents staying married to raise their children.

Here are some quotes:

The reason for these appeals to lasting unions is simple: on every single significant outcome related to short-term well-being and long-term success, children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households. Longevity, drug abuse, school performance and dropout rates, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior and incarceration--if you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others.

Few things hamper a child as much as not having a father at home. Sociologist, Maria Kefalas, a feminist, says, 'The mom may not need that man, but her children still do.' Growing up without a father has a deep psychological effect on a child."

Even

"children from divorced middle-class parents do less well in school and at college compared with underprivileged kids from two-parent households."

The article grants, however, that divorce, unwed and single parenting, are harder on the poor than on the rich.

So how will lesbian marriage provide that father? And how do gay couples provide the necessary mother? Not only does the article say fathers are important (and they will find that mothers are just as important,) it says that shacking up to raise children is unstable in its results. As soon as the man feels demands of parenting, he more readily exits, than if he had a legally binding ring and the prospect of divorce. However, nowhere does she imply that two men or two women married to each other will be good --since she says both biological parents IN THE HOME are optimal for children.

She says we are "increasingly less willing to put in the hard work and personal sacrifice" to have a lasting, loving marriage. She quoted Leonard Michaels who wrote, "Adultery is not about sex or romance. Ultimately, it is about how little we mean to one another."

She lambastes Sanford, Edwards, and Gosselin for wanting their personal fun and happiness at the expense of wife and children. I couldn't have said it as well (which is why she's writing for Time and I have a little blog.)

Their actions were so willful and blatantly self-centered that the two of them could have credibly fashioned themselves as rebels, possibly even as heroes, if they could have just stopped crying. They weren't a couple of tools [did she mean "fools?"] stuck in sexless marriages and making up for it with internet porn. These guys had embarked on dangerously erotic rampages with real-life, unencumbered women, women who decidedly weren't ...[their wives.] The long-suffering wives, Fun Busters in Chief.

In favor of marriage, she writes:

a lasting covenant between a man and a woman can be a vehicle for the nurture and protection of each other, the one reliable shelter in an uncaring world--or it can be a matchless tool for the infliction of suffering on the people you supposedly love above all others, most of all on your children."

In favor of bio-parents being married and staying married, she quoted Sara McLanahan, a Princeton sociologist and single mother herself, who found that

"Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents' race or education background."

It was intriguing that she mentioned Bill Clinton as supporting marriage policies (probably with his Republican Congress) and never mentioned HIM as adulterer or the Democrats' beloved JFK. She praised Obama for remarks made about fathering. He did author (or it was ghost-authored) a recent Father's Day article for Parade.

I do think it's high time that we returned shame to adultery --instead of letting a president stay in office for highly immoral behavior.

She quotes

sociologist Andrew J. Cherlin in a landmark new book called, "The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today. ...what is significant about contemporary american families, compared with those of other nations, is their combination of 'frequent marriage, frequent divorce: and the high number of "short-term co-habiting relationships."' Taken together, these forces 'create a great turbulence in American family life, a family flux, a coming and going of partners on a scale seen nowhere else. There are more partners in the personal lives of Americans than in the lives of people of any other Western country.'

(I do find that hard to believe, compared to Europe. I think there could be less divorce --if, in fact, there is less marriage --and we know their birth rate is lower than ours.)

But I bet we do have the highest rate of births to unwed women.

A final excerpt:

An increasingly fragile construct depending less and less on notions of sacrifice and obligation than on the ephemera of romance and happiness as defined by and for its adult principlals; the intact, two-parent family remains our cultural ideal, but it exists under constant assault. It is buffeted by affairs and ennui, subject to the eternal American hope for greater happiness, for changing the hand you dealt yourself. Getting married for life, having children and raising them with your partner--this is still the way most Americans are conducting adult life, but the numbers who are moving in a different direction continue to rise. Most notably, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reported in May that births to unmarried women have reached an astonishing 39.7%

Finally, Flanagan asks,

is marriage an institution that still hews to its old intention and function--to raise the next generation, to protect and teach it, to instill in the habits of conduct and character that will ensure the generation's own safe passage into adulthood? Think of it this way: the current generation of children, the one watching commitments between adults snap like dry twigs and observing parents who simply can't be bothered to marry each other and who hence drift in and out of their children's lives--that's the generation who will be taking care of us [ed: or likely not] when we are old.

This article is support for NOT redefining marriage to include any two people who think they love each other--regardless of their sex or orientation--though it doesn't mention the issue per se.

Before you all bring it up, of course, there are exceptions to sociologists' findings. The Jackson family, while monetarily successful, while having two bio-parents raise them, has produced some strange children--who appear to have all had their noses altered I noticed at the funeral today. Just having intact parents isn't EVERYTHING to mental and economic health and personal happiness; some parents are dysfunctional and abusive as MJ said his father was--and some kids turn out mixed up regardless of how good their parents are. But the sociologists are saying that OVERALL, children raised by both bio-parents in the home are better off in every way.

So let's not re-define marriage --and let's not permit gay adoption on a par with heterosexual adoption. Keep the bio-parents as close to all children as we can --except when those parents are proveably dangerous. And let's all get back to cherishing and sacrificing personal whims, tolerating the imperfect in our mates, rejecting temptation on the internet and everywhere else, for that ideal of lifetime marriage to raise children in a home with both Mom and Dad.

That would ALSO be good for American economy, with fewer people needing Uncle Sam to be their Daddy.



"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Inspired by Blogs

On another blog, that shall remain nameless, the Perrysburg Tea Party was highlighted by a liberal commentator who concluded that the Tea-drinkers probably voted for Bush twice.

Bush was the more conservative of the two choices when GW Bush ran for president both times. So, of course, "tea drinkers" of Perrysburg would vote for the one who would take us leftward more slowly.

Bush slipped leftward on a few occasions --but Obama is steamrolling us downhill and off a cliff on almost every issue.

Change sounded good in a recession even though there were no specifics about the nature of such change--but if this recession doesn't turn around --the changes obama is making/has made will be seen for what they are --the most calamitous decisions for the economy made in recent presidencies.

Is it true that he has spent more thus far than all previous presidents put together? I heard it. If you count his "national healthcare planless plan" the statement is surely true. He said the other night on the health care "town hall" meeting, that he didn't know if it would cost one trillion or two. Yikes! What kind of shot in the dark is he trying to pass anyway?

I predict the economy will appear to rally for awhile -because some people who still have their jobs ARE spending more right now --because of the expected inflation and the devaluing of their dollars ---a future when they won't be able to afford what they can buy now. Others will hang on to what money they can, wondering how to protect retirement from the long reach of Obama's Uncle Sam, reaching into our pockets.

My kids gave my husband a birthday card --that said there would've been presents for him but the democrats decided that people whose birthday it was not, deserved his gifts instead.

Ain't that the truth!!??






"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Conservatives Still Have Their Heads on Straight!!!

I caught this symposium on C-Span TV last week -- a re-run from June 3, when...

"Participants spoke about the state of the Republican Party and the future of the conservative movement. They spoke about a number of issues including the philosophical roots of conservatism, economic and social policy, and building outreach programs.

The title of the 2009 Bradley Symposium, sponsored by the Hudson Institute, was "Making Conservatism Credible Again."

A transcript is found here.

I was impressed with Rich Lowry, the youthful editor of National Review. His concluding remarks were as follows:

As conservatives,we have to believe that reality is on our side at the end of the day. We believe three things, if you want to boil them down:

(1)The market is the best way to allocate capital.
(2)The world is a dangerous place that requires a toughmindedness in confronting it.
(3)And three, you can’t have a healthy society without traditional social structures and without virtue.

And we don’t believe these things because they’re convenient or popular. They’re not always popular or convenient. We believe them because they are true, and because they are true, they will be vindicated. Eventually.

I was really pleased to hear them all speak in favor of our traditional social institutions, including strong families and the value of virtue.

Columnist Mona Charen was present and asked about the problem of 40 per cent of children being raised in single-parent homes --and how that affects culture and the future.

A response to her question by MITCH DANIELS:

Mona, first of all, you have – as you have for a long time – directed us to the number one social
problem facing the country. I tell audiences in my state – of all kinds, all the time – that if they gave me the proverbial wand, my one wish would be that every child in our state grow up in an intact family to the age of eighteen, in which
case every social pathology that tears at our hearts would diminish dramatically. We all know this.

Even after age 18, divorce of parents is traumatic for the kids and poverty-causing for women, especially --though the economic damage to divorcing men can also be considerable.

I was encouraged to see that the conservatives of the think tanks are not about to give up on their ideals as they have been encouraged to do. They don't see that conservatives need to change --though they haven't been pleased with the GOP for its waffling and weaknesses when it comes to defending core conservative principles--as they seek to widen their tent.

It will take education --better education--to teach the next generation the values of conservative --and Christian ideals.

Christian educators need to do a better job. I was astounded to hear this weekend that a certain church college even has a gay dorm. Obviously the Bible means very little to such a church-school in these days.

However, Jodi, a commenting blogger here says my source is inaccurate, since she works at that school. I'm relieved. My source was credible with connections to that church and college, but evidently had wrong info as to official dorm policy--I called the college also and they denied having any gay dorms. But I discuss in the comments below another concern I have regarding so-called Christian college dorm policies which that college DOES have.






"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Response to Masoni's Appeal of Religion Part 1

By Rob R

The following is a response to the first part of Masoni's post, titled “The Appeal of Religion." I have written two responses to him before on The Barb Wire, but those topics also stood alone as independent treatments of those topics and did not require a reading of his posts. This one is not so independent, so to get the fuller context of what I'm responding to might require a reading of his post here.

I don't know that I will always post a blog topic here in response to all of Masoni's posts in his series on "The Appeal of Religion." It's just that this was a long response by me and I'd have to split it up since Masoni's blog is allowing only 4000 characters.

The idea of security or hope is indeed an important part of religion and specifically Christianity. The presence of hope demonstrates an epistemic virtue of religion. This was highlighted by Pascal's Wager. [ed. note by Barb to those who've never heard of Pascal: Pascal is the philosopher who suggested there is a wager or gamble involved in belief vs unbelief. He concluded life lived with faith is meaningful and profitable and HOPEFUL even if the faith turns out to not be based in fact --whereas a life lived as an atheist may turn out fine in this life but will be horrible beyond the grave, if Christianity is true. In other words, if atheists are right, neither side loses; but if Christianity is true, the atheist loses everything.]

Granted Pascal's wager has its limits as it doesn't tell us why one should become a Christian and not a Muslim. But this is not a problem if we know its place, and for other religions, we'd have different considerations.

So if Christianity is true and one follows Jesus, then he has gained everything, but if atheistic materialism* is true and there is no afterlife, little is lost. But atheists say that a full and rich life is lost to one of superstition and religious chains. The thing is, that claim is not consistent with the experience of many including myself. I've known unethical and/or unhappy atheists or secularists who live with little to no regard for religion who lived terrible lives and I've known exceedingly happy Christians. I myself am content, though I know I've got some ways to go. The fact that there are miserable and evil Christians whose shallow or distorted religion only makes their lives worse, and ethical and relatively happy atheists, is beside the point. The point is that it isn't consistently true that atheism leads to worthwhile living and Christianity doesn't.

In short, the atheist objection doesn't work, as it is one that is rooted in a non-universal subjective claim.

Pascal's wager may be construed as an argument demonstrating that when considering two views, even if the one that gives the least hope may be more likely to be true, it is still better to hold the view that gives more hope.

Now there is another problem with Pascal's Wager, however, and this also translates to a problem with Masoni's theory on the development of religion. Pascal's Wager, like much of modern Christianity, may emphasize life after death to the point where Christianity becomes a death cult where the whole focus is on what happens after death and apart from this world.

To demonstrate how wrong this is, we need to look at the historical development of the doctrine of life after death.

To many people's surprise, most of the Old Testament does not clearly teach life after death and, in fact, demonstrates that the ancient Jews did not think there was much of a life after death. They spoke of Sheol, but that was barely an existence, if at all.

Some examples are as follows:

The dead do not praise God,

5 No one remembers you when he is dead.
Who praises you from the grave (psalm 6:5)

10 I said, "In the prime of my life
must I go through the gates of death [a]
and be robbed of the rest of my years?"

11 I said, "I will not again see the LORD,
the LORD, in the land of the living;
no longer will I look on mankind,
or be with those who now dwell in this world...
18 For the grave [c] cannot praise you,
death cannot sing your praise;
those who go down to the pit
cannot hope for your faithfulness.

19 The living, the living—they praise you,
as I am doing today;
fathers tell their children
about your faithfulness. (Isaiah 38)

The dead pretty much don't do anything:

5 For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even the memory of them is forgotten.

6 Their love, their hate
and their jealousy have long since vanished;
never again will they have a part
in anything that happens under the sun.

7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun— all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, [c] where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom. (Ecclesiastes 9)

So the ancient Jews mostly did not look forward to life after death. What they hoped for were blessings in this life and immortality through their children and a good name that would be remembered.

So why did they give a hoot about God and their religion? Because God was active in their history in explicit ways. God provided them with blessings and warned them that their unfaithfulness would lead to curses, and because their identity was based on their membership in Yahweh's people.

It was a few of the later prophets, particularly Daniel, who started to speak of life after death and resurrection in particular.

So what were these reasons for life after death? Just living forever is actually not a very high one. One reason was because they believed that the nature of God's love was so intense that he would preserve them after death. Specifically the view of bodily resurrection actually arose in part because of one of the reasons for believing that there wasn't life after death. That is the goodness of God's creation. The creation wasn't something to be escaped as some Christians today and ancient gnostics yesterday held. But the restoration of creation, of this world, is a part of the Jewish belief, and resurrection became a part of that expectation.

Another reason for resurrection that arose during the intertestamental period was vindication for someone who died a terrible and unjust death. As the tyrant Antiochus attempted to get the Jews to abandon their law by making them eat unclean food, he tortured 7 brothers to death, and their mother who witnessed this called out “[The] Creator of the world who shaped the beginning of humankind and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of the law.” (2 Macc 21-3)

Most relevant to the heart of Christianity, the heart of the gospel, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is not that He did so that we could live forever (an important implication, but not the central point). It implied many things God was showing us-- that Jesus was right in what he taught and that he is the Messiah who will bring God's Kingdom in fullness to this world. It was also showing us that through Jesus, God has begun to renew the created order.

Now Masoni proceeded to compare the relationship with God to an imaginary friend. I'm not confident in the comparison, knowing little about the psychology/sociology of imaginary friends. I didn't have one as a child and my sister had one which did not function in all of the god-like ways that Masoni's “vlad” functions. What we remember is that her imaginary friend, “Mousey” was her scape-goat, so when she was accused of something wrong, she'd reply, “My mousey did that.”

It's not uncommon for atheists to allege that God is like an imaginary friend or Santa Claus. The problem is that there are too many dissimilarities between imaginary friends and the Judeo-Christian God. Imaginary friends of children, as far as I know, may have magical powers, but they do not have God-like powers. But do they provide a source of meaning, of moral reckoning, with worth for individuals and communities? Are they attached to a history and plan for the redemption of the world? No.

God, like an imaginary friend, (and wind, the laws of physics, dark matter, the rules of logic and minds) is invisible. Of course an imaginary friend is personal, but those are about the only common features I see. Neither are they on the same epistemic footing as many atheists would like to imply. And I suspect that most children know on some level that their imaginary friend is imaginary. But the same cannot be said of belief in God. Even many atheists insist that once upon a time, they were real, sincere, genuine Christians when Calvinists say they weren't or when any other Christians suggest their faith just wasn't authentic enough to stave off disbelief.

Masoni notes that when he believed in God, he didn't really heed Him until he needed Him and it wasn't a daily consideration. But this doesn't display a problem with God. This is a matter of spiritual immaturity. It was noted that one would not hold to his Christian belief at a strip club or while cheating on a wife. These are instances of faithlessness and backsliding or just the fruits of a shallow faith. And unlike the imaginary friend, a Christian can't just pretend that God didn't see these things. If he could, there'd be no need for confession and repentence.

The bedroom in general was cited as a place where we wouldn't want God. The reality of our faith is actually different. God in the Old Testament actually mentioned that He didn't want the Jews mixing worship and sex like their pagan neighbors. But it isn't the case that God is not involved. Sex in the context of marriage is a Godly activity, but it is one where we are not focused on God but on the other person in our marriage... as God designed. This is why Paul suggested that couples abstain from sex for short periods so they may devote themselves to God on a greater level. But it was only to be short because sexuality is still an important part of Godly marriages.

The union of marriage, including the sexual relationship, is part of our design for what it means to be created in the image of God. This is why marriage is so sacred. The sacredness of marriage explains why the Old Testament prescribed extremely serious consequences for violating this relationship.

Some of Masoni's next criticisms have more to do with theological determinism and are thus not relevant for all of Christianity. It's not clear that God has a best exhaustive course of action for every detail of our lives as opposed to a range of good options for which we are free to pursue. Masoni asks the question: why should we bother praying when God already has everything worked out perfectly? Besides the consideration for some Christians that God doesn't have an exhaustive plan but rather has allowed his creatures to make plans as well, our prayer is an essential part of the point of just about everything, and that point is that God wants us to have a relationship with Him. Prayers of all kinds, including petitionary prayer, contribute to that relationship.

So if God answers petitionary prayer with an affirmative, He is then called an errand boy by Masoni. I don't see why this metaphor is the best one to describe this relationship. A better one is that God seeks to be our partner. This is not an equal partnership, but it is a partnership, nonetheless. God is hardly an errand boy when successful petitionary prayer often may require that we seek God's purposes in our situations.

Masoni goes on to suggest that when God changes a situation, before giving thanks, we should consider that God caused the situation to begin with. Again, this more consistently applies to the deterministic view of God. I've given an alternative view in my post ”Three Problems of Evil.”



* I include materialism because materialism brings with it the lack of an afterlife. Atheism could still be consistent with life or existence after death as in some forms of Buddhism.

The Church's Response to Obama's Gay Month Should be WHAT??

To a Pastor and his board by a friend of mine:

I pasted this directly off the White House website - [We] are wondering how the church should respond to a president that largely ignores the National Day of Prayer in May, while declaring LGBT pride month several weeks later.

Do we have a responsibility to inform the church body of these issues, as well as give leadership in how to confront the culture?

We are also greatly concerned about how these issues will affect the church and para-church organizations in the near future (ie. the Hate Crimes Bill, the Fairness Doctrine, etc.) if we choose to sit quietly by and do nothing.

Respectfully,

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 1, 2009

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country's response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Dear President: We should laud the contributions of ALL Americans, not just those with abnormal sexual proclivities and diseases.

There is no good to come from such a declaration. They already are free to live in this unhealthy way; we ought not celebrate the lifestyle.

You think --as they want you to --that you are lauding THEM -that "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender is what they ARE." When, in fact, it's what they DO. And what they DO has determined what they ARE.

How on earth does "bi-sexuality" qualify as commendable? the idea that a person has found they can be intimate with both sexes? Is this something for youth to explore? It is becoming so --a fad for the teen girls to kiss on the lips --for the observation of the boys they REALLY want to attract.

The diseases of promiscuity are not less of a risk by declaring a month celebrating abnormal sexual appetites.








"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Response to Blogger Candyly on N.C.'s Gov. Sanford

I wrote in previous blog about Canadian homosexuals wanting preferential healthcare for their unique problems:

How about embracing a healthier lifestyle, Folks? How much better if Obama would celebrate traditional nuclear families like his own! These are the ones we need more of --in order to be the mental health center for kids and adults --in order to produce children for the future.

Blogger Candyly answered: Like ultra Conservative Family Values Governor Sanford? That's the way to do, apparently!

No, his sin doesn't cancel out any other. Obviously Sanford would be hypocritical if he claimed to be strong for family values --as most GOP candidates do in order to get votes like mine.

I believe the Bible --where it says those who can't be trusted with small things can't be trusted with greater. In other words, if you can't be faithful to your wife and family, you lack the character traits for good leadership of a state or nation. That's why Newt probably doesn't have a chance to be GOP candidate for president. I'd vote for Huckabee or Romney first --even though I don't agree with Romney's religious theology.

There is conversion, however, but with a politician it may be difficult to recognize sincerity. Sanford may be a real Christian in his BELIEFS. Maybe "eternal security" belief about "once saved, always saved," would incline him to think he could get away with betraying his marrige vows and not pay an eternal consequence. For sure, if his wife forgives him, he is getting off easy. She needs to forgive him for her own sake--but by the Bible, she doesn't have to stay married to him. Adultery is grounds for divorce. God forgives adultery--if we are truly remorseful. But it's not easy to be truly remorseful over one's sin, once that sin has taken deep root in the mind/soul as a pleasure. Being sorry about getting caught isn't remorse. I felt this man might like to continue with the Venezuelan mistress. I didn't hear him say it was over. He should step down now --if a republican Lt. Gov exists to take his place. Had Clinton stepped down for Gore, Gore might have been president instead of GW Bush. Instead, the democrats looked bad to a majority, defending Clinton.

Chuck Colson is an example of one who truly converted --and would be trustworthy in any endeavor, I think. He heads Prison Fellowship, an international prison ministry --after coming to Christ as an adult. He'd be a good presidential candidate --except for age. I'm sure we have candidates of his calibre in the GOP, but I don't know who all they are. I know many, many moral men in positions of responsibility. I don't know why we have to elect rascals.

The difference between dems and GOP was brought out on a cable news show: Democrats don't make much claim to be moral or champion good morals, so they can slip and slide and stay in office as far as their voters are concerned--like Clinton-- and never be called hypocrites. After all, democrat adulterers live the way they believe, so there is no hypocrisy. GOP makes their values violators and hypocrites step down --at least until they can get another GOP in his place.

I've heard dems say, Well, "NOBODY is moral --everybody does it." but I'm sure you don't want to concede that about your husband, do you? It's not true of him, I dare say, raised as he was with Christian values --and it's not true of my husband either.

Qualification: we ARE all sinners and Jesus suggested all men are adulterers for having thought adulterous thoughts at times --making lustful observations at least --especially when women advertise their wares provocatively as in ever-present porn and immodest dress. Nevertheless, there are MANY MANY good Christian men who do not wallow in sinful thinking --who would never go to Venezuela to be with a mistress on Father's Day or any other.

Sanford never did say he had sinned against God --and he said more about letting his sons down --than about letting his wife down. He wept over letting down his Christian guy friends. His wife is probably so mad at him (for knowing what a jerk he has been for months, unable to give up an online girlfriend halfway around the world) that he feels less remorse for betraying her. He didn't cry about what he did to her. Those emails to the lover would be the last straw for most wives. So humiliating to a wife to have her husband salivating over someone else --and so publically!

It's a sorry mess.





"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Obama's GLBT Pride Month --June--the Traditional Wedding Month

Well, he's done it. IN the last days, the Bible says, men will call good evil and evil, good. That's what it is to suggest by presidential proclamation, as Obama has done, that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders should be proud of their abnormal, unnatural, unhealthy, expensive, family destroying, self-sterilizing sexual proclivities.

Should I be proud to be obese? No. Should addicts of any kind be proud of their addictions? No. Should we have pride-parades for having sex with our own sex? with both sexes? for rejecting the normal, healthy sexual bodies we were given in order to have surgeries to try to fool ourselves and others into believing we are the opposite sex? Is there really such a thing as being "born in the wrong body" such that we should mutilate healthy, functioning bodies into something else? Is the gay lifestyle healthy? NO, NO, NO, NO, and NO.

Canadian homosexuals are currently protesting that they don't get preferential treatment in Canada's healthcare system. They say that certain ethnic groups with high incidence of certain ailments get some preferential care; why not the gays whose average lifespan is now said to be 55 --much lower than heterosexual males? The lesbians have more breast and other cancers; the gays (males) are subject to all sorts of diseases unique to their lifestyle. And suicide. Therefore, they think they should get extra helps. They also blame all their ills on straight society which doesn't approve their difference.

How about embracing a healthier lifestyle, Folks?

How much better if Obama would celebrate traditional nuclear families like his own! These are the ones we need more of --in order to be the mental health center for kids and adults --in order to produce children for the future.





"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Open Letter to Pastor Art Cribbs

Rev. Art Cribbs and Official Board
San Marino United Church of Christ
San Marino, California

Dear Rev. Cribbs, et al:

We saw you on the news today in opposition to Proposition 8, apologizing on behalf of all Christians everywhere who oppose gay marriage.

We know this is nothing remarkable for the UCC, as they have long had such a stand in favor of gay marriage. It is presumptuous of you, however, to apologize on behalf of ALL Christians in the Bible-believing, Bible-following churches which the UCC is not--when it comes to social issues.

Perhaps you are under the false impression that homosexuality is genetic, an untruth that has fueled the gay agenda for years. Now the American Psychological Ass’n. has reversed itself and admitted that there is no proof to date for a gay gene.

Surely you see that it just isn’t true that any two people who love each other should be allowed to marry. E.G. we have laws against incestuous relationships, bigamy and polygamy, pedophilia and so on. There are limits to sexual intimacy. NO limit on love –but on sex? Yes. For the public good we have many laws regarding sexual union, such as outlawing prostitution, statutory rape, marriage between close relatives. Pedophiles, incestors, rapists and adulterers also feel “compelled” to “love” whomever they please; but we have outlawed and at least discouraged (in the case of adultery) some couplings for the common good. No pride parades for ALL love relationships. Homosexuality is one of those unions which we should likewise not encourage by celebration.

NO one is saying any two people can’t “love.” In fact, it would be greater love if they didn’t draw potential straights into their affliction –but they do, enticing youth when they are most vulnerable and sexually volatile. Real love is not inevitably or necessarily sexual love. Your advocacy overlooks the fact that homosexuality is unnatural and typically quite promiscuous in the beginning, causing many STD infections and much expense to sustain their lives. It deprives us of children for the future of national security, social security, welfare. The fewer children we co-create and raise to be responsible, tax-paying, procreating, faithfully married citizens, the more difficult to sustain government help for all.

We need to be teaching parents how to raise kids with normal gender identity and attractions. It can be done. The broken home has contributed to the gender identity crisis in our country --along with Oprah and others promoting transgendering and movie stars and comedians promoting gay marriage –like Wanda Sykes and Ellen DeGeneres.

Gay advocacy is a path we should abandon –and not only because God says so but for common sense, public health, and for “the common good.”

Sincerely,














"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

NO GAY GENE!

APA revises 'gay gene' theory
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/14/2009 6:30:00 AMBookmark and Share

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.

"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."

Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization," he states. (Hear audio report)

With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.

Matt Barber"It's irrefutable from a medical standpoint that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle," he argues. "Homosexuality is defined by behavior. Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through -- frankly, most effectively -- a relationship with Jesus Christ."

LaBarbera agrees. "Change through Christ is possible -- and it's one of the most heartwarming aspects of the whole gay debate," he shares. "Many men and women have come out of homosexuality, mostly through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact that these professional organizations will not study that, will not acknowledge that, shows how 'in the tank' they are for the homosexual movement."

LaBarbera stresses that even though elites will not recognize the change, that does not mean the change does not exist. In fact, both Barber and LaBarbera believe that God changes people through Christ -- regardless of the sin.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Even Darwinists Doubt Latest "Missing Link" -- from OneNewsNow

Even Darwinists doubt latest 'missing link'
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 6/3/2009 6:40:00 AMBookmark and Share

A spokesman for the Discovery Institute says the alleged "missing link" find is nothing new.

Missing link Discovery Institute senior fellow John West says the recent fossil hailed as the missing link between humans and primates is nothing more than "hype." The fossil known as "Ida" was recently unveiled during a press conference in conjunction with a book, website, and a documentary that aired on The History Channel. (See earlier story and picture of "Ida")

According to a Sky News report, the fossil find debunks creationism and brings the need for religion into question. But West questions the find.

"And it's interesting if you actually look, many evolutionists themselves are saying that this was just hype," he contends. "Because in fact, evolutionists themselves cannot agree on what this is supposed to be a missing link to."

West says it seems like every year advocates of Darwinism come out with a new "missing link" that they claim settles the debate. But then when they take a closer look at the evidence, they start to backpedal. He claims that happened a few years ago with a fossil named "Tiktaalik" that evolutionists believed was a transitional species between fish and land creatures.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Johnny Hart Cartoon Collection--I Did it HIS Way

My husband just picked up a new cartoon book titled I Did It HIS Way by Johnny Hart --creator of the BC and Wizard of Id comics -- syndicated in 1000 papers. (Of course, we are reminded of the contrast with Frank Sinatra's I Did it MY Way.)

Hart started his career at age 27 --and became a Christian at 56 because his tv serviceman and son were Christians who tested his set with Christian programming and he got interested. He had been drinking way too much and subject to depression --until after he moved to the town of Ninevah (Biblically named for the place that Jonah did not want to go as a missionary.) That's where he lived when the tv guys came. He just died on Easter Eve in 07 --peacefully at his drawing board. He had made enough religious comics after his conversion that they compiled them in a book titled, "I did it HIS way." His cartoons speak to issues we have discussed here.

You might be amused that two of his girl characters are called "Cute Chick" and "Fat Broad." Fat Broad is always giving the serpent (Satan's symbol) a hard time.

Also, it is of interest that Hart received a lot of criticism for expressing his faith in his cartoons, but that didn't stop him. Trudeau of the Doonesbury strip expresses his liberal cynicism and politics and apparent agnosticism, but Hart wasn't supposed to be ideological.

It's also interesting that Christian TV played a role in his coming to faith.

His children and grandchildren inherited his talents and a grandson is the lead artist today, with his widow heading the business.

There are a couple of photos of Johnny --a short man at 5'6" and very cute with a most amiable face. The book says his children and grandchildren adored him. I bet he was fun to know.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Reflections on The Kite Runner

Our minister had been talking about this movie, so we rented it. It was based on a book written by an Afghani man after 9/11.

It starts in the 70's before the invasion of that nation by the Communists from Russia. Two little boys are best of friends; one is the son of the family servant of the other boy's father. The servant boy's family has been with the aristocrat's family for generations.

Kite-flying is a sport for children in Afghanistan, apparently. And the sport involves "cutting off" the other kites so they are downed and there is only one kite still in the air. The "kite-runner" then is one who runs to gather the downed kites as trophies, apparently.

This is a story about cowardice and courage, shame and redemption, fathers and sons, immigrants, exiles, and also great evil from without a nation--and from within.

One memorable line is something like, "The mullahs want to control our souls; the communists tell us we have no souls."

This film should be seen by everybody --adults that is --including those GITMO detainees and those liberals who think there is no evil in the world that would justify a war effort. It has a PG13 rating, but I wouldn't show it to my middle school students because of some of the evils depicted.

The hypocrisy and cruelty of the Taliban (such as are the detainees at GITMO) is not emphasized by Geo. Bush in this case, but by an Afghani-American who wrote the book.

American Islamic families, a wedding and repentance before Allah are demonstrated. There are some twists and turns toward the end that redeem a sad story --concluding with hope for the future.

There are also orphans in the story living in great poverty and peril --and I understand our pastor's interest in that theme --since he and his wife brought home their little adopted son from Ethiopia.

While not exactly a cheerful story, it is inspirational and the ending is hopeful.





"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Doc and His Mother-in-Law

As some of you know if you've followed this blog, my mom has been with us since Valentine's Day and she is afflicted with dementia at 89 --which has been coming on for several years. She told me on the phone that day that she was feeling "sort of lonesome," so I invited her here. Rob went to get her, a three-hour drive. She would usually say she has too much to do to come visit us, so her visits were very rare.

I found I had to help her with shower and dressing because she hasn't the strength to open the shower door or turn on the faucet. I hold the shower head, one of those with a hose and a slider. She didn't seem to mind me doing this from the first, though she doesn't see the need of it.

On Sundays, I have to get her ready and then me. Rob or Jon does the breakfast for them while I run off to music and teaching duties at church. Today, she wanted to wear her old, fuzzy, pilled periwinkle blue sweater with her aqua slacks --which clash color-wise. But it's her favorite outfit. I guided her to a cotton knit navy blue slacks with white shirt and a navy and white striped cotton sweater that I bought for her. It's very springy, contemporary and nice-looking on her. She usually says, "I can't wear this!! It's black! I can't wear these stripes!!!" On Sunday, I also hide the fleece jacket she lives in all week because she's always cold. She has a London Fog jacket that looks nicer for church.

Tonight, Jon said there was a funny story about my mother that happened after I left this morning. He heard this huffing and puffing headed toward the kitchen and thought my mom was having trouble breathing. He said, "What's the matter, Jane?"

"(huff, puff) O I just hurt all over. (huff,puff) I can hardly walk. It's my hip pain. It's all my joints."

"Show me where it hurts."

"(huff puff) it's my stomach, right here. Well, (huff, puff, huff, puff).....what it is --I'M MAD!!! I'm mad at Barbara. I don't see why I can't wear whatever I want!" (She was also mad earlier about the hairdo from the hairdresser --for some reason it wasn't just right. Said, "That girl oughtta be fired!" )

"Well that looks really nice, what you have on, " he said. "You know, Jane, as we get older it's just inevitable that our kids become more like our parents to us --and tell us what to do --and we become the kids. Sometimes my kids tell me what to do, too" (not so true that I can think of --except that we DO accommodate them when it comes to the grandkids and where to eat and things like that.)

Mom brightened right up and giggled at the thought of his kids telling him what to do, I guess.

Anyway, next thing he knows, she's whistling in her room and then singing the children's song,
"Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelujah! Praise ye the Lord!"

Miracle cure! Some Doc!




"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible