Saturday, October 18, 2008

Two Out of Three Stinks

This is an article I submitted for publication in local newspapers.

Meatloaf’s song says: "I want you. I need you. But -- there ain’t no way I’m ever gonna love you. Now don’t be sad, cause two out of three ain’t bad." 

Some abortion supporters say abortion’s not the only moral issue. "Let’s agree to disagree on abortion and focus on issues like feeding the hungry and healthcare availability for all."

 Most would agree on these even if we disagreed on the means. So, we’re saying that "two out of three ain’t bad?" Depends on whether abortion is significantly different and higher than the others - just as love is over "wanting" and "needing". 

 Here are two pictures: 

1) You’re serving in a soup kitchen when, through the window, you see a baby crawling onto a busy street. Do you serve the two homeless men in line and then rescue the baby? No! There’s a greater moral imperative to rescue those in immediate peril. 

2)  There are three objects, all spherical. One’s the sun; the others, marbles. Beyond the size difference, there’s another significant difference - the light from one enables us to see the others. 

Either life is intrinsically valuable or not. If it is, there’s a much higher moral imperative to rescue the thousands being killed daily. 

Ignoring this makes a mockery/hypocrisy of caring for others. 

If life has no value and can be ended for discomfort and inconvenience, there’s absolutely no sustainable reason to care for others. Morality becomes a tool for political advantage. 

"Two out of three" is just stinkin' thinking.

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Friday, August 08, 2008

When Man is the Measure of All Things

... then all things must fit that yardstick. 

 The star filled sky is reduced to miles and wavelengths. 

 No beauty. 

 No wonder or awe. 

 No need to thank anyone. 

Reality is replaced by its image - like a television soap opera.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Teaching evolution in the classroom can be dangerous

Below is an article I wrote that was published in a local newspaper. 

It was written in support of Louisiana passing a Science Education Act giving teachers the academic freedom to introduce other relevant materials when teaching controversial subjects such as evolution, global warming, stem cell research, etc. As you might expect there were a lot of the typical science vs religion, separation of church and state, sneaking Creationism into the classroom, and shell-game pro-evolution/pro-science articles mixing micro and macro evolution with no distinction articles published in addition to a very slanted Associated Press article that should have been put on the editorial page but was not. 

My article takes a different slant by simply saying that it is dangerous to our children's lives (and the world) if they are simply spoon fed one particular view and do not know how to think critically about all the evidence and be able to follow it wherever it leads. 

Predictably, teachers have already been warned of possible lawsuits if some student is offended by the presentation of alternate materials. So much for academic freedom! 

 In some way, Ben Stein's recent movie, No Intelligence Allowed, precipitated this legislation although the issue has been fermenting for quite a while. This is an excellent movie with a lot of gotcha's straight from the mouth of some of the high evolution priests - like Richard Dawkins admitting there might be something to Intelligent Design ... but the intelligent designer must have been aliens. 

 Here is the article: 

 Teaching evolution in the classroom can be dangerous. Why? Because some students may really get the message and apply it to their lives! 

Macro-evolution theory (bio diversity explained by undirected and purposeless natural causes) is an explanation of life and, if true, has very definite implications on how we should live our lives and view others. 

Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, explained the logical result of evolution: "We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating." 

There’s no more desperate or universal human cry than for meaning and purpose, but, as Gould and many others have said, life has no ultimate meaning and purpose. You’re the accidental product of an undirected and totally natural evolutionary process. You get to invent your own purpose! 

When teachers, scientists, and other authority figures teach young, inquisitive, and idealistic students macro-evolution, don’t we expect them to trust what they’re being taught is true? Should we then be surprised when some learn the lesson all too well attempting to find their liberation in life’s ultimate meaninglessness?

 Sprinkle that onto today’s youth, already assaulted by an unremitting stream of fast food, “have it your way,” consumption-driven, escapist, selfish, pleasure-soaked culture of death, and surprise, surprise, we get school violence, disrespect, suicide (after all, your meaningless life is worthless), teen pregnancies, and absent fathers. 

If the evolutionists are right, “Survival of the fittest” translates into “Do unto others before they do unto you!” Rather than crazy, maybe Klebold and Harris really proved to be the brightest students of all for their 1999 Columbine massacre. 

 This should matter to you. Ideas have consequences. Some ideas produce cures for cancer; others, slaughter millions. 

Men will seize any justification for the evil they are determined to do, and evolution is a very convenient excuse for the trivialization of human worth. 

The 20th century was the bloodiest of all centuries. Three regimes alone – Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung – murdered over 100,000,000 people pursuing their naturalistic philosophy. Adolf Hitler was greatly influenced by evolution. He, and the doctors, scientists, and academics who followed him transformed “survival of the fittest” into justification for eugenics – the extermination of those deemed weak, inferior, and unfit to live. 

Unfortunately, we forget the mind numbing concentration camp images of heaps and heaps of human bodies piled high like so much fire wood. 

Naturalistic philosophy can only shrug at the ease with which flawed beliefs led vast numbers of seemingly normal and rational people to do such horrific evil. This is not to imply that all evolutionists will become Nazis or Communists, but, when science rejects open and honest debate and does not disavow and correct misinterpretation, then a loaded pistol is left out in the open. 

 Macro-evolution theory is not solely to blame for the ills of our culture, but it has become the religion of the secular/naturalistic philosophies driving our cultural institutions - and all this by shutting down serious discussion of counter evidence and the inherent limitations of science’s natural-only assumptions. 

Young people need to be trained to honestly evaluate ideas and the forces and assumptions behind them. This is particularly important as some of today’s greatest issues are ethical ones – embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, human-animal cloning, etc. 

These decisions need to be made by an informed public and not a closed scientific community that answers only to the highest bidder. 

Studying life theories - macro-evolution, Intelligent Design, and even Creationism - presents a wonderful opportunity for teaching our youth how to follow all the evidence wherever it may lead in the pursuit of truth. Their lives and futures are at stake.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Faith as Small as a Grain of Mustard Seed

OK. I get it! Another embarrassing, "Duh," moment. 

 Jesus tells his disciples, "And He said to them, 'Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move." (Mt 17:20) 

I knew and have been told that faith is not about how much you have but who/what it is in. 

Now, I finally understand how this verse and others - Mt 13:31, Mk 4:31, Lu 13:19, and Lu 17:6 - actually teach that point. 

 Jesus is actually chiding his disciples in Mt 17:20 - something He did several times in the Gospel accounts - for the immaturity ("littleness") of their faith and especially as applying it to external things, in this case failing to cast out a demon. 

On one hand their immaturity was somewhat understandable because they had not yet seen the post-resurrection, risen Christ. Compare this "littleness" and powerlessness of faith as compared with what these same disciples did in Acts. 

Yet, even for not having yet experienced the resurrection, they have still been with Jesus and have seen His power. Perhaps again, their lack of maturity is because their faith was still an external thing that they had not yet experienced internally. 

 The woman with the issue of blood who was healed by merely touching Jesus' garment (Mt 9:22) was told by Jesus, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well." She had a personal (internal) experience in the exercise of faith, "Everyone else has failed me. He is my only hope." She reached out for Him in her desperation, and the mountain moved. 

 The thing that finally struck me is that if Jesus wanted to say the quantity of faith was important, He would not have picked the smallest seed, but rather the largest! Another thing significant about the smallest seed is found in Mt 13:31 where the smallest seed becomes a great tree. You can't see the great tree in the small seed; that is the result of working faith. 

I have just finished reading a great book by Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, Belief in an Age of Skepticism. He gives this excellent illustration of the importance of what your faith is placed in: "The faith that changes the life and connects to God is best conveyed by the word "trust.' Imagine you are on a high cliff and you lose your footing and begin to fall. Just beside you as you fall is a branch sticking out of the very edge of the cliff. It is your only hope and it is more than strong enough to support your weight. How can it save you? If your mind is filled with the intellectual certainty that the branch can support you, but you don't actually reach out and grab it, you are lost. If your mind is instead filled with doubts and uncertainties that the branch can hold you, but you reach out and grab it anyway, you will be saved. Why? It is not the strength of your faith but the object of your faith that actually saves you. Strong faith in a weak branch is fatally inferior to weak faith in a strong branch. (emphasis added)"

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

What is Truth?

Pilate's response to Christ at His trial, "What is truth?", has been used by many unbelievers as a conversation stopper when talk has turned to eternal things. 

Pilate did not have a problem with understanding what truth was. He knew exactly what he expected when he demanded truthfulness from one of his Legion commanders. 

Pilate's quip really meant "What has truth got to do with this situation, this rabble inciting to riot, and the power I have over you?" 

Pilate knew what the truth of the matter was but he was not going to decide Christ's fate based on the truth. 

Everyone knows what truth is. Just ask them if it would be OK for their banker or accountant to lie to them. They know what truth means when it comes to money. 

What they may be uncomfortable about is how to determine truth when it comes to religious claims, but the answer is the same as when dealing with money - count the evidence. 

Christians should be equipped and prepared to show the truthfulness and reasonableness of our faith.

Thursday, June 05, 2008

The Greatest Wonder of Genesis Creation

Many want to debate whether the creation account of Genesis 1 has God creating everything in 6 literal 24 hour days. 

 To me, the most amazing question if God spoke [willed] everything into existence in 6 literal 24 hour days is, "What did He do with the other 23 hours and 59.9999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ... you get the idea ... 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999 ... minutes of each day?"

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

the Evolutionist's Library

Did you hear about the evolutionist who, after much study and thought, threw away his entire library of books - Shakespeare, e.e.cummings, Robert Frost, Isaac Asimov science fiction, chemistry and biology books - and replaced them all with one book? 

He replaced them with a dictionary. 

After all, books are just collections of words, and a dictionary is the comprehensive collection of words. No need of the extraneous books.

In fact, the dictionary is a special Evolution dictionary as the words are in random order. 

When "nature" is all there is, reductionism is the inevitable result of the scientific search for explanations. As Richard Dawkins said, "We're just dancing to our DNA."

My DNA made me do it!   How's that as an answer for evil?  

Monday, May 05, 2008

g or G

Anytime you are talking with someone else or reading articles talking about God, you need to keep your sonar alert for the g or G flip-flop phenomenon. You have to keep asking yourself, "Are they talking about god or God?" 

 How many times have you read articles penned by an atheist talking about God where you realize he/she is describing the god of the mirror, not God, the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Creator of the Universe? 

Below is a rough approximation of an experience of one apologist during a question and answer time 

Atheist: "Who created God?" 
Apologist: "I don't understand your question." 
Atheist  (louder): "I said, who created God?" 
Apologist: "I heard you the first time, but I don't understand the question you are asking. It doesn't make any sense." 
Atheist: "I want to know what caused God to come into existence." Apologist: "Your question still does not make sense. You are asking me who caused the "uncaused cause", God. You are trying to deny the meaning of the concept of God by citing it's definition. Your question does not make sense." 
Atheist, finally realizing his god view of God: "Oh."

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Emotionally Satisfying Answers

When I was very young, I absolutely hated getting shots - they hurt.

Every shot was a contest - me and Davy Crockett vs the evil nurse and Santa Anna - and, like the Alamo, the hero always lost. Though I don't remember it as being intentional, there was the time a nurse managed to get her chin in the way of my flailing little boots ...

It didn't matter how much my mother tried to explain to her 6 year old son that the medicine in the shot would make him well. I was looking for an emotionally satisfying answer. In fact the only answer that would be emotionally satisfying was -- no shot. I never got that answer.

More than once, I wondered how my otherwise loving mother could allow such harm to come to her favorite son!

Of course, now that I am older and have been in my mother's shoes with my own children, I see it differently. I see and understand now what I did not see nor understand as a child. The child wanted an emotionally satisfying answer; the parent wanted what was best for the child. Mama knew there was a greater good, even if the child cried and suffered pain.

We all want emotionally satisfying answers for tragedy, death, and evil -- but, like the child, the only emotionally satisfying answer we'll accept is for it to stop. For the Christian, we have the promise that one day all things will be made right.  Death and evil will be banished, but today, they are here and we are challenged to show forth God's Glory by perseverance and overcoming as our Savior did.

Also, the Christian has the assurance that our God is the wise loving parent that understands what we cannot and sees the purpose in what we go through though we may not. Our response should be "Not my will be done but Thine."

That is our comfort, and that is the best emotionally satisfying answer of all.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Secular Dreams

Is worship confined to a time and place or is all of life to be a living worship? 

 Is there a place, a time, an action, or an idea over which God does not claim absolute sovereignty and the right of judgment? 

 Is there a place where the light of Truth should not shine? 

Is there a place where the expression of God’s mercy and grace should be banned? 

Is there a place one can flee where God does not hold one accountable for their decisions? 

Is there a place where Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?”, is not the most important question of life? 

Is there a place where reality does not softly cry out its “madeness”? 

Is there a time or place where there is no one to thank for a beautiful sunset or sunrise? 

Where does just saying something is so make it True? 

Where is room found for “secular”? Only in the vain dreams of the Godless.

Monday, February 18, 2008

All Those Hypocrites in Church

Below was submitted for publication to local newspapers. These articles are limited to 250 words. 

Saying “the church is full of hypocrites” is like saying “hospitals are full of sick people.” 

Yes, the church is full of people who are sick - sick of living lives hypocritical to the God who is real. Tired of letting the world suck life out with false pleasures never fulfilled.  They want the quality life – abundant and overflowing with meaning, peace, and joy here and now.  

Like the hospital, not everyone who goes to church gets “cured”.

After all, humility is hard, especially for us hypocrites, and acknowledging our own hypocrisy is where the road to healing starts. 

The fact that everyone who goes into a hospital doesn’t come out healed doesn’t stop people from going there – especially when the disease is serious and the hospital is the only option to save your life.

Then there’s that hypocrisy that some “honest” folks practice – looking only at the bad and ignoring the radically transformed lives they see coming out of the church. Everyone knows someone changed far beyond the power of any psychiatrist or Oprah. 

In fact, the “cure” is no more “inside” the walls of the church than it is the hospital. The power is in a personal encounter with the Truth of the God and Christ the church should represent. 

If you can only see hypocrites when you look at the church, then I guess we’re just your kind of place. We’ll save a place on the pew for you.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Duh Moment

I had a duh moment last Wednesday evening as I was leading the singing for a group of residents at a local assisted living facility. For those unfamiliar - or too old - a duh moment is that instant when something that should have been all too obvious suddenly becomes plain.

Here's an example of a duh moment. Back in the 70's (1970's) there was a television program called Hawaii Five-O about Hawaii's state police. We watched partly because we had just returned from two years in Hawaii and it was a connection to the places we had seen. I remember thinking at the time that Hawaii Five-O was a strange name. It wasn't until years later that it suddenly dawned on me - 5 O ... 50 ... Hawaii was the 50th state to join the union! We all have these embarassing duh moments ... right?

Anyway, back to my most recent. We were singing Silent Night and were on the third verse. How many times have we all sung " ... Son of God .. loves pure light ..."? It's really amazing how our minds work: I'm singing the song and happen to be reading the words when, all of a sudden, I see the words as if for the first time.

Duh!

It's not " ... Son of God .. loves pure light ..." but " ... Son of God .. love's pure light ...". It's not that Jesus loves pure light, but that Jesus is love's pure light! He is the pure light and radiance of God's Love to us.

"For God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

"There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." John 1:9 (NASB)

"Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, 'I am the light of the world ...'" John 8:12 (NASB)

That's what the author of the song, Joseph Mohr, meant. It's not that Jesus as love's pure light is a new theological discovery to me, but, that now, whenever I sing this wonderful Christmas hymn, I am singing it with the fuller meaning and understanding that the author intended.

What is also interesting is that all this time while singing and not fully understanding the intent, others could have been hearing with the right understanding. How easy it is to see and not see, to hear and not hear -- until it has been revealed. And how glorious that revelation!

I shared my duh moment with those at the assisted living facility that evening. The next time Silent Night is sung, maybe some will have a renewed joy in proclaiming and hearing the timeless truth of "Son of God, love's pure light."

Monday, December 17, 2007

My Christmas Gifts - Part 2

(Part 1 is here)

Besides hearing the song, A Shepherd's Prayer, on the radio each year, God's other Christmas gift to me is a new perspective on the Christmas story. About six weeks ago, God grabbed me with this year's insight as I was reading my Bible. Have you ever noticed how many times "Fear not!" appears in the Christmas story - it jumped off the page at me.

Over the last six week period, I have probably done devotionals on "Fear not!" four or five times to different groups, but the longer I think on it, the deeper it gets.

There are three words/phrases that frame this - fear not, truth, and great joy.

As he was ministering in the Holy of Holies for the annual sacrifice, Zacharias was visited by an angel. I'm sure his first thought at the angel's appearance was, "Uh, oh! I'm dead! I've done something wrong." The angel's greeting, "Fear not!" addressed his immediate fear, but the angel's promise that Zacharias' barren wife Elizabeth would bear him a son seemed too unbelievable to be true. This was not possible in Zacharias' mind. The angel said this son would be the Elijah to prepare the way for the Messiah. This was too much for poor Zacharias, and, for his unbelief, the angel left him speechless until his son's birth.

I think Zacharias' unbelief was a problem of failing to see God's promise as Truth. Already distracted with the deep disappointment of childlessness, he chose his own understanding over the supernatural promise of God when, with an angel standing before him, the most believable and reasonable thing was to believe the angel. The question is, "What is true?" or, really, "WHO is truth?"

Here, Isaiah 8 12b-14a, comes to the fore: "And you will not fear what they fear or be in dread of it. It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, and He shall be your dread. Then He shall become a sanctuary." (NASB)

Today's science says "No" to the supernatural. God says, "I AM." Who is telling the truth? Whom do you trust?

Gabriel appeared to Mary. "Fear not!" Mary believed the angel's words though she did not fully understand. When there was a very real truth growing inside her, she trusted through the whispers and rumors.

As Joseph pondered the unbelievable story of his pregnant betrothed, Mary, an angel appeared with, "Fear not!" Joseph chose to trust the truth of the angel's message in spite of the scornful eyes and wagging tongues of the neighbors.

The angel hosts suddenly appeared in the sky to some shepherds in their Bethlehem fields. The former quiet and silent night became anything but for them. "Fear not! Great news! A Savior is born! Go see! Go tell!" And the angel hosts sang, "Glory to God in the highest!"

The shepherds believed the angel's story. They went to town and found the baby just as the angels had told them. They told everyone the truth of the great glad tidings. "And the shepherds went back glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them."  Luke 2:20 (NASB)

Fear the God who can; fear not the world that cannot.

That's the Truth!

Glory to God!

Joy to the World!

Monday, December 10, 2007

Created Perfect for His Purposes

At the conclusion of the sixth day of creation, God looked at everything He had made and pronounced it was "very good." Genesis 1:31. 

This is intended as a brief thought on the issue of sin in God's creation. I'm not sure how firmly I will stand on all the following, but this is where I currently am in trying to pull together scripture and what I have heard and read recently from people like Greg Koukl, STR, and John Piper, Desiring God

It seems most people have a very difficult time reconciling a loving and all-powerful God with sin. In fact, atheists throw it back at us all the time as a disproof of God -- which is no disproof at all but, rather, a very strong case for God's existence. 

I know, I said brief, right? OK. Here's the big thought: God created a perfect world - one perfect for His purpose. And His purpose is to manifest His Glory to the utmost. 

Creation is not for my comfort; it is for God's Glory! God is the point and period of creation. You can waffle around all you want as to whether God created sin/evil, but you have to allow at the very least that God allowed it in His creation. 

God is in control. "And we know God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose ..." Romans 8:28 

We are created moral beings - we make choices between good/evil. It is in the struggle of good/evil and the overcoming of evil that God's Glory is manifested in us. 

Evil/sin plays a role in God's plan. It hurts, and it destroys -- but it cannot destroy those whose faith is in God - those whom He has called to be conformed to the image of His son, Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29). 

Where sin abounds, there God's Grace (and His Glory - our right response to His Grace) even more abounds (Romans 5:20). 

Yes, even sin plays the leading villain role in God's perfect creation. 

We, the natural man, seek after emotionally satisfying answers. I think the emotionally satisfying answer is there but it is very hard to come to a point of comfort with. In fact, it takes a lot of faith and a willingness to rest our emotional satisfaction in God's sovereignty.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

My Christmas Gifts - Part 1

A confession - I look forward to each Christmas season for the gifts that I get, but not the pretty wrapped ones on Christmas morning like when I was a child. Time spent with family, good food, vacation days, good food - these are all things I look forward to, and as much as I love and treasure those things, they are not the gifts I most anticipate.

I love hearing Christmas music everywhere - Christ-centered Christmas music. I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas is OK, but it doesn't hold a candle to the traditional carols and some of the more recent Christian Christmas standards. Besides, 5 winters of snow shoveling in Cleveland, OH, kind of tarnishes the White Christmas image for me.

My most favorite Christmas song has to be Move Me Closer (A Shepherd's Hymn) recorded in 1987 by Evie. It tells the story of a mantle-manger-set shepherd asking to be moved closer to the Child. It wraps the spirit of Christmas up for me.

Each Christmas for several years now, as I'm driving down the road and listening to the radio, there it is! Move Me Closer begins to play. Sometimes I just turn the radio on and the song begins to play as if it was just waiting for me to get in and start the car. Usually, I'll only hear it once each season. What a precious gift!

The album Move Me Closer is on has long been out of print and has become a collector's item - with a collector's item price. I once bid on a copy on eBay but dropped out after the price went above $50. Just today, I finally purchased a used copy of the CD. I have a habit of copying my favorite songs onto a few CDs so I don't have to carry a CD library in my car, but I don't think I'm going to do that with this song.

Even though I will have the CD and could play the song any time I want, I want to continue to anticipate and be surprised anew each Christmas season as God gives the gift of this special song and its message to me.

Move me closer to the Child ...

(part 2 is here)

Monday, October 29, 2007

The god of the Mirror

Very interesting 10 segment video of a debate between Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Good) and Dinesh D'Souza (What's so Great About Christianity) at King's College NYC on You Tube. 

The first segment is here

 There has been a recent glut of "God/religion is bad" books by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Hitchens. As I have read commentaries and books on these, watched videos as the above, and based on my own experience with local atheists (including my semi-atheist younger self), two thoughts have been firming up in my mind.  

One thought is that even when these people are willing to assume God's existence, they form their ideas, writings, and speech around the god of the mirror - not the God of the Bible, but a god fashioned in their own image. 

So, when Christopher Hitchens rails about how immoral god is, he is absolutely right. He's seeing his own image in the mirror. It's like those who choose to marvel at man's engineering and scientific greatness in building a magnificent telescope rather than be awestruck at the wonders revealed. 

Then, notice the cool calculated vehemence and loathing coming through in Hitchens. Add to that the fact that these writers have all but given up on trying to support their positions with credible arguments and evidence - reason is thrown out the window. 

I recommend Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath's book, The Dawkins Delusion, where he and his wife expose the non-existent arguments of Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion. On the cover of The Dawkins Delusion, atheist Michael Ruse is quoted: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why." 

 It's right out in the open. It seems we have turned a corner; the wraps are coming off; gasoline is being thrown on the fire. 

Opportunity knocks.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Compromising on Rudy

There was a reported meeting of pro-life leaders, including Dr, James Dobson, where the leaders expressed their willingness to vote for a third party candidate rather than support a so-called compromise anti-life/anti traditional family candidate who would promise to do some pro-life/pro-family things - i.e. nominate strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, etc. In the pro-life community, there is debate among honest and sincere people as to whether this is a reasonable Christ-honoring course of action. 

The debate basically breaks down along 2 paths. One group supports Dr. Dobson et al's approach which is in effect a shot across the Republican Party's bow to try to force them to walk the walk , not just talk the talk. The other group, it seems to me, basically argues that fewer unborn babies would die under a compromise candidate who presumably could win against Hillary. To me, this is a lesser evil approach.

Below is something I posted to the blog at Stand to Reason on this subject. This is certainly not an exhaustive treatise on the above options - that may come in time.

One thing I would add is that if the Republican Party nominates a compromise candidate for president, I will immediately change my voter registration from Republican to Independent.

In my opinion there are 2 absolutely non-negotiable moral issues - 1) the sanctity of life, and 2) support for traditional one man one woman marriage for life. 

I will not support a candidate who is not whole heartedly behind these issues. A president has the bully pulpit, national and local speaking opportunities, cabinet appointments, and the veto to help persuade and advance these moral issues. 

The promise to appoint strict constructionist judges, without the heart and will to be aggressively pro-life/pro-family is simply inadequate. 

 Compromise in legislation may be acceptable when it is a case of saving no unborn lives vs saving a few, but compromising on electing a president and the support that gives to his party's apparatus, does not seem to me to be analogous to compromising on legislation. 

I don't care which party it is, but we currently have only one party with planks that support our positions. 

The election of a compromise candidate will all but ensure the pro-life/pro-family voice will be totally ignored in future elections. If the Republican party is made to believe that pro-life and pro-family voters will not vote for a compromise candidate on these issues, then it can make the decision to commit suicide and have a new party rise from the ashes or embrace the strength of these positions.

Only God knows if Hillary Clinton has a chance to win against Mike Huckabee (just using him as an example). I would almost go so far as to say if Huckabee is given a chance to promote his positions, pro-life/pro-family voters get solidly and aggressively behind him, and then he loses, America deserves what it gets and the blame will be on us -- the Christians and their pastors who woke up way too late to the poison we allowed to flourish in our nation. 

We ignored Francis Schaeffer until it was too late. I expect moral leadership on these foundations from a president and I will not vote for one who cannot provide that. 


 God help us.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

bzzzzz zZAP! (2)

Here is the previous post after considerable rework, revision, and additional thought. This is as it was submitted to local newspapers for publication (working in a 250 word limit). Thought it might be interesting for you to see the beginning and the end product.

“bzzzzz” 

"Hey, Martha, come look at this," Fred Lizard called to his wife. 

Scampering to the opening of their high Grand Canyon crevice, Martha found Fred staring intently outside. 

“bzzzzz bzzzzzzz” 

"Look at that beautiful sunset. It just takes your breath away, doesn't it." 

“bzzzzz” 

They stood there enraptured as the hues blended and gradually darkened with the fall of night. 

“bzzzzt” 

Even the fly lit and stared with a thousand lenses at the unfolding beauty. 

 Do lizards, spiders, squirrels, deer, birds, etc watch the majestic display of sunrises and sunsets? 

Do they feel the same sense of timelessness, awe, and inspiration as we, or are they oblivious to the whole thing? I

t appears this propensity for wonder is a particularly human fascination. In fact, the beginning story is really, "bzzzzzz zZAP!" 

While the lizard would not ignore dinner, we'll postpone eating to get lost in the vastness and beauty of sunrises, sunsets, storms, mountain vistas, snowscapes, seashores, the fathomless blue of the deep ocean, canyons, grassy plains, and symphonies. We'll spend hours accomplishing nothing, but taking it all in with a sense that time has not been wasted at all. 

 Everyone sees the painting, but few acknowledge the artist. True beauty is a telescope gazing on the Glory of the Creator - an invitation to eternal joy and fulfillment. 

In the words of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, “Earth's crammed with heaven, and every common bush aflame with God. But only those who see take off their shoes. The rest sit around and pluck blackberries.”