In a packed football stadium in Denver, on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous “I have a dream” speech, he accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination for president of the United States on a stage resembling a Greek temple and gave a speech that, undoubtedly, connected with those who are already his supporters. The question is: Did he connect with the rest of us?
I can only speak for myself, but he didn’t change my perception of him to any great extent. He gave a typical ultra-liberal Democratic speech, in my opinion. What did I see last night that impressed me? Barack interacting with his family.
Barack Obama’s wife and children? What can I say? Michelle Obama is just a beautiful woman and last night? I saw a woman in love with her husband watching as he gave a historic and groundbreaking speech. Seeing her interact with her children, I sensed that she is a good mother and that Senator Obama’s daughters are very happy children, loving and proud of their Daddy.
Whenever Barack looked at his wife and kids or was with them, it was clear that there was nothing forced or rehearsed going on. There was love. Pure, gentle, tender love! Truly, I enjoyed seeing the Obama family together, but the imagery? It didn’t match his policies. Not at all.
Pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda
Anyone who watched Senator Obama’s speech walked away with no misconceptions concerning where he is going to stand in terms of these two issues of concern to Christians who are pro-life and pro-family (as defined in God’s Word).
No question about it whatsoever, Senator Obama went out of his way to let us know he is going to ensure that the slaughter of the innocents continues and the attack on God’s institution of marriage continues unabated.
Is that acceptable to me? No – and it shouldn’t be acceptable to you either if you are a follower of Jesus Christ. It is written:
Psalm 139:13-18: “…thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand..”
What we learn from Psalm 139 is that God, our Creator, recorded all our members – even before they were formed. God knew each of us from before we were even formed in our mother’s wombs! This is because He possessed and created our very souls! This leaves no doubt, in my opinion, that life begins at conception.
That being the case as I read Scripture, we know what the Lord commands us concerning the sanctity of human life. We are not to kill! Not only that, the Bible is clear in stating the God hates hands that shed innocent blood. Is there any blood shed more innocent than the blood of an unborn child? No.
Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.
Proverbs 6:16-17: These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.
And marriage? We know what God’s institution of marriage consists of.
Genesis 2:23-24: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
One man + one woman = marriage according to God Himself. And sex outside of God’s definition of marriage? It is defined as adultery. That is forbidden too.
Exodus 20:14: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
While many Christians today identify with the Democratic Party’s message of compassionate, people-oriented governmental policies, there are the matters above for us to consider because they harshly clash with our faith.
Personally, I trust the Democrats where our nation’s compassion toward its ill, elderly and the disabled are concerned far more than I trust the Republicans. On the other hand, I trust the Republicans more to protect the unborn, defend our lands and our national morals that matter most to Christians.
Truly, we have some hard choices to make. There are pros and cons to consider where each political party is concerned. As a Christian, I hope we will weigh carefully – and prayerfully – the decision we each need to make on November 4th.
Some Christians are planning on sitting this election out. Personally, I think that would be a shame and, quite possibly, an outright sin.
We, as Christians, are to do whatever we can to advance the cause of Christ and to protect – to whatever extent we believe we can – the Christian traditions in our nation that have survived what is now a perpetual attack against them on multiple fronts, biblical marriage being a perfect example.
The Body of Christ needs to be more involved in politics, not less involved! Every governmental representative of mine has heard from me on every topic of concern that has come up since RaptureAlert.com was launched in 2003. If we all did that, clearly explaining to those who want our votes what is acceptable to us and what isn’t, we could impact things a lot more than we presently are!
If Christians stop voting, neither party will care what our opinion is concerning anything. And, Christians, we all know what the end result of that will be! Where there is no light, there is only darkness!
So, on November 4th? Ask the Lord to give you the wisdom to vote for the man He wants you to and get to the polls! Whether you vote for Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin on November 4th, please vote.
Archive for August, 2008
A legal challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a California court has been dismissed, closing the last avenue of protest that a same-sex couple has been using since 2004 to try to get homosexual “marriage” declared a right under both federal and state constitutions.
Federal District Court Judge David Carver dismissed the case against the state law Proposition 22 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), despite the May 2008 ruling in California’s Supreme Court that same-sex marriage was constitutional in the state. This particular case – Smelt v. Orange County – was peculiar because, according to a Liberty Counsel press release, the same-sex couple who challenged DOMA “had no legal, same-sex union from any state.”
Mat Staver is dean of Liberty University School of Law and founder of Liberty Counsel, which intervened in the case for pro-family advocates in 2004. He says the good news is that Carver upheld the dismissal of the case by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006 – and another district court judge in 2005 – on the grounds that the couple involved did not have a valid same-sex marriage from another state and that there was no fundamental right to such a relationship in the Constitution.
(RNS) — A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has struck back against criticism from prominent Catholic prelates who accused the California congresswoman of misrepresenting church teachings about abortion.
“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view,” said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly.
Pelosi, the nation’s highest-ranking Catholic elected official, said on “Meet the Press” Sunday (Aug. 24) that the question of when life begins is “an issue of controversy” within the church. Her comments drew rebukes from the archbishops of Denver, Washington and New York.
In a statement released Tuesday, Cardinal Justin F. Rigali and Bishop William E. Lori, both high-ranking officials in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said Pelosi’s argument was inaccurate.
“The church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development,” Rigali and Lori said.
Pelosi, who supports abortion rights, cited the work of St.Augustine, who wrote that life begins three months after conception. Church leaders say medieval teachings were “uninformed and inadequate” in light of modern science, and that the question of when life begins was firmly answered in the middle of the 19th century.
Daly reiterated Pelosi’s position, again citing St. Augustine, while stressing the need for Congress and the church to work together to reduce the number of abortions.
“The speaker is the mother of five children and seven grandchildren and fully appreciates the sanctity of family. She was raised in a devout Catholic family who often disagreed with her pro-choice views,” Daly said.
I really try not to use “shock” images to make my points and I’ve deleted this post twice now, thinking that these images are too intense for our blog. But this is one time I’m going to go against my usual mores and show images that are not pleasant and might offend.
I truly do not understand how a Christian can support the political party that stands 100% behind this:
You Christians who are Democrats must get a completely different meaning from the Bible than I do. Abortion is wrong, plain and simple. Yet your political party has this to say about it:
“[The Democratic Party] strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
How do you justify this against the Word of God and still continue to support these people? I just cannot understand it.
Over the past year or so, we have been presented with so many reasons why abortion on demand should be ended. We’ve blogged about most of them.
From exposure that “Roe vs. Wade” was a sham, based on false testimony, to the failure of embryonic stem cells to yield better results than adult stem cells, the justifications for abortion, in anything but life threatening situations, is null and void.
DENVER – Outside the security perimeter at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, pro-life advocates have assembled a 600-foot long protest sign, held rallies in front of Planned Parenthood and quietly slipped roses – in honor of the victims of abortion – into the protective metal mesh surrounding the Pepsi Center, but inside, the abortion advocacy continues undeterred.
The party states that it “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama fits that agenda perfectly, with his documented opposition as a state lawmaker even to a requirement that abortionists provide necessary medical care to a baby who survives an abortion because it would be too much of a burden.
Further, the DNC has featured a series of speakers who move beyond just a pro-abortion stance to actively participating in the industry, including Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, the largest player in the nation’s billion dollar abortion cartel.
As LifeNews.com reported, she told delegates, “I’m proud that for only the second time in our history, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund has endorsed a candidate for president, Barack Obama.”
Obama, who has supported abortions in situations where even the National Abortion Rights Action League has been neutral, is being joined on the Democratic ticket by another abortion advocate, Sen. Joe Biden.
Earlier in the convention, it was NARAL chief Nancy Keenan speaking to DNC delegates about the benefits of abortion.
“I’m proud to say that my party – the Democratic Party – is united behind and supports a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion.”
“This is appalling,” Leslie Hanks, vice president of the Colorado Right to Life, told WND. “To see millions of innocent human lives extinguished and then to celebrate that is very disappointing.”
Estimates for the death toll since the 1973 Supreme Court ruling struck down state abortion bans range from 40 million to 50 million Americans.
Hanks said it’s especially disturbing to see that a black man like Barack Obama “doesn’t understand his race is being decimated by abortion.”
The issue of Planned Parenthood locating many of its abortion businesses in minority neighborhoods, as it has in the past year with its new Denver abortion provider, reportedly the largest abortion megaclinic in the nation, was the subject of a rally in Denver during the DNC.
The president of a pro-family values mutual fund company says the extreme actions of McDonald’s has forced the investment firm to publicly clarify that its portfolios won’t include any stock in the worldwide hamburger retailer.
Timothy Plan’s socially responsible investing includes screening of companies whose revenues or actions support pornography, abortion, anti-family entertainment, or promotion of non-married lifestyles. But Art Ally, president of the investment company, says his group normally does not spotlight or publish notices on businesses they screen out. In this case, however, he says the Timothy Plan could not stay silent when McDonald’s went “over the edge.”
That aggressive approach? The fast-food giant’s $20,000 donation to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce for a seat on its board of directors, and labeling of those who oppose the homosexual agenda as “haters” — both of which Ally says marked an extreme step up from sponsorship of TV programs and movies with anti-family and pornographic entertainment. Those actions, coupled with offering its employees transgender health benefits, have kept McDonald’s out of Timothy Plan investments to this point, according to Ally.
He believes corporate officials at McDonald’s are shirking their responsibility to make money for shareholders, by alienating the company’s large “family-oriented” customer base with support of the homosexual agenda.
DENVER – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s abortion theology remains under attack, with Catholic members of Congress writing her to castigate her re-interpretation of church teachings and a priest on the EWTN network condemning her for a perspective in which, he believes, she would bomb a city full of innocent people.
WND reported earlier when the Denver Catholic archbishop, Charles Chaput, said Pelosi and those who claim abortion can be reconciled with the Christian faith simply don’t know Christianity.
The issue is hitting hard at the Democratic Party as it holds its 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver this week to nominate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, an ardent abortion proponent who has gone beyond the desires of even the National Abortion Rights Action League in advocating for the controversial procedure. In fact, as a state lawmaker in Illinois, he declined to support a requirement that an abortionist provide necessary medical services to a baby who survives an abortion, because it would be a burden on the abortionist.
“It’s always important to know what our faith actually teaches,” Chaput said. “The future of a community, a people, a church and a nation depends on the children who will inherit it. If we prevent our children from being born, we remove ourselves from the future. It’s really that simple. No children, no future.”
Pelosi on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” was asked when human life begins. She said:
I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition … St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.
Her response, however, mangled Catholic doctrine, charges a new letter from 19 Catholic members of Congress.
“We are compelled to refute your error,” the letter said.
“In the interview, Tom Brokaw reminded you that the Church professes the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. As stated in the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’: ‘Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being,'” said the letter, signed by Reps. Thaddeus McCotter, Steve Chabot, Virginia Foxx, Phil Gingrey, Peter King (NY), Steve King (IA), Dan Lungren, Devin Nunes, John Sullivan, Pat Tiberi, John Boehner, Phil English, Jean Schmidt, Jim Walsh, Jeff Fortenberry, Michael McCaul, Paul Ryan, Walter Jones and Mike Ferguson.
“To this, you responded, ‘I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy,'” the letter said.
“Unfortunately, your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching and belief regarding abortion. From the Apostles of the 1st Century to Pope John Paul the Great ‘the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law,'” the letter said.
“Your erroneous claim about the history of the church’s opposition to abortion is false and denigrates our common faith,” the letter said.
A WND message requesting a comment from Pelosi was not returned.
A significant majority of people believes that life begins at conception. There is no “gray area”, as the abortionist would have us believe, when a human is not a human.
Republican president hopeful, John McCain, doesn’t have any problems verbalizing this concept. Not so for the Democratic president hopeful, Barack Obama.
Asked by Rick Warren when he believes “a baby gets human rights,” John McCain didn’t hesitate to say “at the moment of conception.” For Barack Obama, however, this question remains a struggle. “Well, ah, ah, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective,” Obama pondered to Warren, “answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.”
Barack Obama doesn’t like this question. And those nit-picky Christians keep springing it upon him during these religious forums.
Obama was asked about conception at the “Compassion Forum” at Messiah College in April, where he likewise dissembled: “This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So, I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I’ve said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.”
Well, apparently not extraordinarily powerful enough for Obama to seek an answer for these debates.
Obama’s responses beg another question: If he’s unclear about this fundamental matter, which any embryologist could easily clarify for him, why hasn’t he consulted someone? He is also no expert on say, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, or the newest bill before Congress on tax policy. Senators, like all of us, don’t begin from a starting point of expertise on all these issues. They learn; or, their staff learns and advises them.
So, to repeat the question, why, since he first publicly pondered the conception question at Messiah in April, hasn’t Obama sought answers? What could be a more important life question?
This prompts an even bigger question: Why in the world is Obama urging embryonic stem-cell research? Why does he promise that if he becomes president, he will reverse President Bush’s prohibitions on embryonic research? How can he rush into such actions if he doesn’t even know whether an embryo is human life? That’s recklessly irresponsible.
I could understand Obama advocating such research if he was convinced that embryos aren’t life, and that life doesn’t begin at conception. I would disagree, but I could understand.
For those not familiar with embryonic stem-cell research, it works like this: Human embryos are created for the explicit purpose of being dissected and destroyed for medical research. Every human being who has ever lived began as an embryo. In this brave new world, however, there are people who favor raising and exterminating embryos before they become human life.
Since Obama isn’t sure whether life begins at conception, he should err on the side of caution—on the side of life. A demolition crew makes sure there’s no one left in the abandoned building before destroying it. The crew chief wouldn’t dare say, “I’m not sure if there are human beings in there, but go ahead and blow it up.” Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy would drag that chief in chains before a Congressional committee.
As is often the case with modern liberalism, Obama’s stance generates a potpourri of added contradictions. Consider one of the main reasons cited by liberals for opposing capital punishment: they argue that there’s always a chance that a condemned individual may be innocent. If we can’t know with absolute certainty that an alleged murderer has committed murder, then we should err on the side of caution—on the side of life. He should be spared execution.
Conversely, then, if Obama isn’t sure about the humanity of the embryo, why go ahead and execute it? What could be more innocent than an embryo?
Liberals think they’re clever when they ask how conservatives can be pro-life on abortion while supporting capital punishment. Quite the contrary, there’s a much more troubling contradiction among liberals who are pro-choice on abortion while opposing capital punishment. Obama’s position of “don’t-know-but-kill-anyway” on embryos is worse than either.
The truth, of course, is that Barack Obama knows life begins at conception. He isn’t stupid. As Bill Clinton has conceded, “everyone knows life begins biologically at conception.”
Yes, but not everyone can be honest about it. Barack Obama can’t give a truthful answer because doing so would undermine the moral credibility of his position—from embryonic research to unrestricted abortion.
Like John Kerry, like Al Gore, and like the entire leadership of the modern Democratic Party, Barack Obama has sold his soul to the pro-choice lobby. That’s quite sad, because it means a lot of would-be humans will not be permitted to become humans. That is not American leadership—and it is certainly not “hope.”
I’m looking forward to seeing this!!
JERUSALEM — In a crowded laboratory painted in gray and cooled like a cave, half a dozen specialists embarked this week on a historic undertaking: digitally photographing every one of the thousands of fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the aim of making the entire file — among the most sought-after and examined documents on earth — available to all on the Internet.
Equipped with high-powered cameras with resolution and clarity many times greater than those of conventional models, and with lights that emit neither heat nor ultraviolet rays, the scientists and technicians are uncovering previously illegible sections and letters of the scrolls, discoveries that could have significant scholarly impact.
The 2,000-year-old scrolls, found in the late 1940s in caves near the Dead Sea east of Jerusalem, contain the earliest known copies of every book of the Hebrew Bible (missing only the Book of Esther), as well as apocryphal texts and descriptions of rituals of a Jewish sect at the time of Jesus. The texts, most of them on parchment but some on papyrus, date from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D.
Only a handful of the scrolls exist in large pieces, with several on permanent exhibit at the Israel Museum here in its dimly lighted Shrine of the Book. Most of what was found is separated into 15,000 fragments that make up about 900 documents, fueling a longstanding debate on how to order the fragments as well as the origin and meaning of what is written on them.
The scrolls’ contemporary history has been something of a tortured one because they are among the most important sources of information on Jewish and early Christian life. After their initial discovery they were tightly held by a small circle of scholars. In the last 20 years access has improved significantly, and in 2001 they were published in their entirety. But debate over them seems only to grow.
Scholars continually ask the Israel Antiquities Authority, the custodian of the scrolls, for access to them, and museums around the world seek to display them. Next month, the Jewish Museum of New York will begin an exhibition of six of the scrolls.
The keepers of the scrolls, people like Pnina Shor, head of the conservation department of the antiquities authority, are delighted by the intense interest but say that each time a scroll is exposed to light, humidity and heat, it deteriorates. She says even without such exposure there is deterioration because of the ink used on some of the scrolls as well as the residue from the Scotch tape used by the 1950s scholars in piecing together fragments.
The entire collection was photographed only once before — in the 1950s using infrared — and those photographs are stored in a climate-controlled room because they show things already lost from some of the scrolls. The old infrared pictures will also be scanned in the new digital effort.
“The project began as a conservation necessity,” Ms. Shor explained. “We wanted to monitor the deterioration of the scrolls and realized we needed to take precise photographs to watch the process. That’s when we decided to do a comprehensive set of photos, both in color and infrared, to monitor selectively what is happening. We realized then that we could make the entire set of pictures available online to everyone, meaning that anyone will be able to see the scrolls in the kind of detail that no one has until now.”
The process will probably take one to two years — more before it is available online — and is being led by Greg Bearman, who retired from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Data collection is directed by Simon Tanner of Kings College London.
Jonathan Ben-Dov, a professor of biblical studies at the University of Haifa, is taking part in the digitalization project. Watching the technicians gingerly move a fragment into place for a photograph, he said that it had long been very difficult for senior scholars to get access.
Once this project is completed, he said with wonder, “every undergraduate will be able to have a detailed look at them from numerous angles.”
“The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” (Psalms 14:1). It seems rather harsh to call someone ‘a fool’ for what at first glance appears to be ignorance.
A person who doesn’t know God is clearly ignorant, since the word “ignorance” means ‘not knowing’. Ignorance is not a pejorative, although it is often hurled as an insult.
Babies are ignorant. People are ignorant of those things they haven’t either discovered for themselves or been taught by others. But the Bible uses instead the word, ‘fool’ which means, “a person who acts unwisely or imprudently.”
The word ‘fool’ is independent of educational background or innate mental acuity. And by its application, it means ‘only the unwise and imprudent would say there is no God’.
“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse,” Paul writes in Romans 1:20.
It is obvious to any unbiased observer that the earth is too intricately and perfectly designed not to have a Designer. It is at the minimum, ‘imprudent’ to deny the obvious.
Paul anticipated the evolution vs creation argument (1850 years before Darwin first articulated it) and dismissed it out of hand as ‘foolishness’:
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” (Romans 1:23)
Read it in reverse order. From creeping things to four-footed beasts, to birds, to man — Darwin’s ‘Evolution of Species — the sacred text for secular humanism.
Which culminates precisely as Paul predicted, with the elevation of man to the role of supreme being.
There are five unassailable arguments that demand the existence of God, not the least of which is the ontological argument offered in Romans 1:20.
In brief, the ontological argument for God is that the existence of the idea of God can only be explained if God really exists.
In other words, it is beyond man’s intellectual ability to imagine the existence of something for which there is no frame of reference.
There are but four prime colors for example, red, yellow, green and blue. All the rest are shades and hues of these four obtained by mixing these four.
Since no fifth prime color exists, whatever color we might imagine it to be, it would actually be a mixture of the four prime colors. There is no frame of reference upon which to imagine a fifth.
For example, we can imagine pink elephants only because elephants exist and pink exists.
Human beings have no frame of reference upon which to imagine the existence of a Personal Being Who exists outside of space and time, that is all powerful, all knowing, present in every atom of the universe, yet intimately concerned with the well-being of the inhabitants of one of the billions of created planets in the universe on a personal level.
We could not have imagined Him; yet the most widely-read Book of all time is all about Him. Just look at the very word, ‘history’ – His Story.
The second unassailable argument is the one from cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the processes of the cosmos, whose fundamental operating law requires that the cosmos be in motion. And for the cosmos to be in motion, there had to be a Prime Mover.
Cosmology points to the Big Bang, but in so doing, ignores its own fundamental law. Something (or Some One) had to light the fuse that set it off, first.
The third unassailable argument is that of teleology. Teleology is the study of goals or ends and it presents the argument that the evidence of order and design in nature indicates purpose, which in turn demands a Designer.
The fourth unassailable argument is that offered by aesthetics. Aesthetics is the study of beauty and truth. It argues that there exist relative standards of beauty and truth. That is to say, some things are more beautiful than others, some truths, more absolute than others.
The aesthetical argument demands some absolute standard against which all things must ultimately be compared, or the concepts of ”beautiful’ and ‘ugly’ could not exist.
The fifth unassailable argument for the necessity of the existence of God is that of morality. Morality is also subjective, but still, some actions are considered more moral, or immoral, than are others.
For there to be a concept of morality demands an absolute standard of morality against which the relative standards can be measured.
For each of these systems to work, there is an absolute necessity for the existence of an absolute God of absolutes.
“Absolute” means, “not subject to any limitation.” God IS the ultimate Absolute. Without the existence of God, the word ‘absolute’ has no meaning.
It takes willful rejection of simple and unassailable evidence to say in one’s heart, “there is no God” because if such were true, there remains no explanation for the existence of beauty, truth, morality, science or logic.
Despite the evidence, however, if somebody’s mind is set against believing in God, all the evidence in the world won’t convince them. Faith still plays a critical role.
The Scriptures say, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6)
So, no matter how strong your argument, or how unassailable your evidence, no argument or combination of arguments will move the truly dedicated unbeliever to submit to God.
All we can do is offer the evidence and pray the Holy Spirit will impart the necessary faith to receive it.
To summarize the five unassailable arguments, they are:
1. Ontology: The evidence for the existence of God is that the existence of the idea of God can only be explained if God really exists.
2. Cosmology: For the cosmos to be in motion demands a Prime Mover to set it all in motion in the first place.
3. Teleology: The evidence of order and design in nature cannot be explained apart from a Designer.
4. Aesthetics: For both beauty and truth to exist, there must first exist absolute standards against which relative beauty and truth can be measured.
5. Morality: The argument from morality also demands absolute standards of morality against which relative standards can be measured and judged. As in the case of beauty and truth, morality as a concept cannot exist apart from the assumption of the existence of absolutes.
A Creator God MUST exist to explain the existence of these abstract concepts. To argue otherwise is obviously both imprudent and unwise. It is imprudent because it is a irrevocable judgment call that defies the evidence and it is unwise because any argument against the existence of God is illogical. It is illogical because one cannot KNOW there is no God.
Given all that we know, and all that we don’t know, the best an unbeliever can say is “don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.”
Romans 1:22 anticipated that, too.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
JERUSALEM – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, completing a visit to the region today, has been pressing Israel to sign a document by the end of the year that would divide Jerusalem by offering the Palestinians a state in Israel’s capital city as well as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, according to top diplomatic sources involved in the talks.
The Israeli team, led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, has been negotiating the division of Jerusalem – despite claims to the contrary – but would rather conclude an agreement on paper by the end of the year that would give the Palestinians a state in the West Bank, Gaza and some Israeli territory, leaving conclusions on Jerusalem for a later date, the informed diplomatic sources told WND.
The sources said the Palestinian team has been pushing to conclude a deal by January on all core issues, including Jerusalem, and has been petitioning the U.S. to pressure Israel into signing an agreement on paper that offers the Palestinians eastern Jerusalem.
Rice, the sources said, has asked Israeli leaders to bend to what the U.S. refers to as a “compromise position,” concluding an Israeli-Palestinian agreement by the end of the year that guarantees sections of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. But Israel would not be required to withdraw from Jerusalem for a period of one to five years.
DENVER – Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is solidly out of step with the majority of likely voters who define marriage as only one man and one woman and believe that life begins at conception, according to a new WND/Zogby poll.
Obama has lobbied intensely for “equal rights” for all Americans, including same-sex couples, to be married and has promised virtually unlimited abortion on demand as one of his first priorities in the Oval Office.
Those positions have sent a conflicting message to the Christians and evangelicals he’s tried to lure into his camp with outreaches that have included the independent “Matthew 25 Network” project. A Pew Research poll just a week ago revealed “no significant gains” for Obama among the important category of white evangelical voters.
The newest WND/Zogby poll results assessing the 2008 election showed 58.3 percent would support “a ballot measure in your state” limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Another 36.2 percent would oppose the plan.
The survey questioned 1,099 likely voters from Aug. 22-24 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
Currently Massachusetts and California both allow same-sex “marriage” for both residents and non-residents, meaning duos can travel to those states, get “married,” then return to their homes with their marriage license. California’s plan, however, is facing a vote of the people in November, since more than 1.1 million voters signed petitions demanding it be put on the ballot.
The new poll also found 59 percent believe human life begins at conception, 16.8 percent think it begins when the baby can survive outside the womb with medical assistance, and 17.2 said life begins at birth.
In contrast, Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed a measure to protect babies who survive abortion procedures, because, among other reasons, it would be too burdensome on abortionists.
Joshua DuBois, who has worked on Obama’s “faith outreach,” says the campaign is dedicated to reaching “people of faith broadly and trying to bridge religious divides.” His goal has been to pry loose the GOP’s hold on white churchgoers.
While the campaign has been “”reaching out” to those voters, Obama’s open disagreement with evangelical leaders on homosexual marriage and abortion apparently hasn’t softened.
A recent report card from the Campaign for Children and Families described Obama’s “unrepudiated positions” of support for homosexual “marriage,” teaching homosexuality to school children and adoption by homosexuals.
Obama in June told a homosexual activist group he opposes the “divisive and discriminatory efforts” to install in the California constitution a definition of marriage limiting it to one man and one woman, the report card says.
His wife, Michelle, told the Democratic National Commmittee’s “Gay” and Lesbian Leadership Council, “Barack has made crystal clear his commitment to ensuring full equality for LGBT couples … that’s why he opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutuional amendments, whether it’s a proposed amendment to the California and Florida constitutions or the U.S. Constitution.”
But the WND/Zogby poll showed support for one-man-one-woman marriage among all regions of the country, all education levels and all age and economic groups. Essentially the support for same-sex “marriages” was confined to people who never attend church and subscribe to a more progressive or liberal mindset.
Likewise with abortion, respondents said they would oppose 55.3-to-27.7 percent a president who does not know when life begins. The question referenced Obama’s recent response at a campaign appearance with GOP candidate Sen. John McCain at pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church. Obama told Warren determining when life begins was “above my pay grade.”
The American Civil Liberties Union is asking the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stop a suburban Atlanta county from opening its meetings with prayers that mention “Jesus” or other “sectarian” references, claiming the invocations represent government favoritism of Christianity.
The three-judge panel of the court, however, was immediately skeptical of how the ACLU expected prayers to be crafted without appering to favor one religion over another.
“What about King of Kings?” Judge Bill Pryor asked ACLU lawyer Daniel Mach in the case’s hearing last week. “Is that sectarian?”
“What about Lord of Lords?” Pryor persisted, interrupting the ACLU lawyer’s arguments. “The God of Abraham? … What about the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad?”
Judge Charles Wilson wondered just how far Mach was suggesting the county go in editing people’s prayers.
“As a practical matter, how do you draw the line?” Wilson asked.
He also asked what steps the ACLU suggested the Cobb County, Ga., board of commissioners take before its regulation became “some sort of censorship” or “just government prayer.”
At one point in the hearing, ACLU attorney Mach pointed out that the invitations Cobb County sends to guest clergy already ask that the prayers not proselytize or disparage other religions. According to the Associated Press, Mach suggested that the invitations simply be amended to ask the clergy to refrain from invoking “religious messages” at all.
Don’t look for Obama’s eligibility for President to ever make it to the nightly news. The mainstream media’s love affair with the presidential hopeful is so intense that this type of news is buried.
But we really must know…is Obama truly eligible to run for the office of President of the United States?
A prominent Pennsylvania Democrat has sued Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, claiming that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and, therefore, is not eligible to be president of the United States.
Philip J. Berg, a former member of Pennsylvania’s Democratic State Committee and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, filed the lawsuit this week in U.S District Court, asking the court to declare Obama ineligible for the presidency and to prevent him from running for the position.
However, a WND investigation has found that at least part of Berg’s lawsuit relies on discredited claims.
A separate motion was also filed seeking a temporary restraining order on Obama’s presidential campaign until Obama’s eligibility can be verified.
The lawsuit claims Barack Obama’s eligibility is questionable on several grounds, including the allegation that he was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship, that his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery – a now discredited claim – that he was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship.
In short, the suit claims Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child (Editor’s note: This point is not supported by U.S. citizenship law); may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.
Why would a Democrat do this to his party’s own candidate? And why right before the National Convention?
The atheist would love it if Christians would not take an active role in politics, but as for me, I will be taking my relationship with Christ into the ballot box with me every time.
Some Americans are having a change of heart about mixing religion and politics. A new survey finds a narrow majority of the public saying that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center reveals that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view.
FigureAs a result, conservatives’ views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared.
There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are – from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.
Second, while the Republican Party is most often seen as the party friendly toward religion, the Democratic Party has made gains in this area. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) now say the Democratic Party is generally friendly toward religion, up from just 26% two years ago. Nevertheless, considerably more people (52%) continue to view the GOP as friendly toward religion.
FigureThe poll by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds increasing numbers of Americans believing that religiously defined ideological groups have too much control over the parties themselves. Nearly half (48%) say religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, up from 43% in August 2007. At the same time, more people say that liberals who are not religious have too much sway over the Democrats than did so last year (43% today vs. 37% then).
Unfortunately, there are people who call themselves “preachers” or “pastors”, but do not actually fit the Biblical descritpion of either. The sad part is that people are taken in by their lies and end up giving money to support their lavish lifestyles. Randy and Paula White have been on our TV’s for years saying if we will just “sow a seed” (ie. give them money) then we will all be healthy and wealthy — prosperous beyond our wildest dreams . They call themselves “pastors”, but they do not live their lives according to God’s Word. Recently, this ‘pastoral’ couple announced they were getting a divorce because their lives were going in different directions. If you dont know what God says about divorce, then please read Matthew 5:32 which says, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery”.
Now, Randy White (and apparently his ex-wife also) have decided to support Barack Obama.
Question: How can you be a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, yet support a candidate that does not at all agree with the teachings of the Gospel?
Answer: You cant.
Some prominent charismatic leaders in Florida are throwing their support behind Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
The Tampa Tribune reports controversial pastor Randy White of the Without Walls megachurch in Tampa is supporting Barack Obama and believes his estranged wife and former partner in the church, Paula White, does also.
According to Federal Election Commission records, Paula White gave Obama’s campaign $2,300, while her husband donated $2,000 to Obama’s White House bid. She is currently under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee for allegedly using the church’s tax-free status to buy lavish furnishings for her personal use.
Without Walls International Church did not respond to AFN’s request for an interview with Randy White.
This should come as no surprise to anyone.
Pro-family leader Matt Barber says the “radical San Francisco-style social experimentation” promoted by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party is not what is best for the country.
The Denver Post reports 358 openly homosexual delegates are in Denver for the Democratic National Convention, the largest number ever to take part in a major party national convention. A special DNC program called “Pride in the Party” was set up to recruit more homosexual delegates and homosexual delegates of color.
Matt Barber, director for cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, says radical homosexual activists have permeated the Democratic Party. “Because of that the Democrat Party has moved further and further to the left and has really adopted the homosexual lobby’s wish list in its entirety,” he continues.
On the Republican side, the Log Cabin Republicans claim they will be sending about 100 openly homosexual delegates to the Republican Convention in Minneapolis the first week in September.
I have said before and I will say it again ‘gay pride’ is an oxymoron. We blog about this abomination every year. Homosexuals are determined to spit upon the Christian and Jewish religions by holding a gay pride parade in the capital city of Jerusalem each year. I cannot tell you how disgusted I am by the thought of it, much less the actual carrying out of a perverted show being held in the Holy City. It is like the homosexuals want to bring a little Sodom and Gomorrah to Israel to flaunt their perversion in front of God’s people. It is an abomination plain and simple.
Jerusalem mayoral candidate, Israeli-Russian businessman Arcadi Gaydamak, is determined to cancel the annual gay pride parade in the capital.
“When I’m elected mayor, I would die before allowing the pride parade to be held in Jerusalem,” he said Monday during a conference held by the Bikur Holim hospital owned by him.
Jerusalem is a city holy to the three main religions, he explained, and therefore it is unsuitable for a pride parade.
“They want to be proud? They’re allowed to. They want to demonstrate? Fine. But the streets of Jerusalem are a symbol, and parading on them would be an aggressive act against our tradition, against our values and against our morale. I would lie on the ground in order to block the march and would even die before I approve the pride parade in the city.”
Addressing the fact that the pride parade was eventually held in the capital in recent years despite the fact that the current mayor is an ultra-Orthodox man, Gaydamak stated that “(Mayor Uri) Lupolianski) acted like a politician rather than like a human being. His image was more important to him than the city’s tradition.”
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit against the City of Elmira, N.Y., after police threatened to arrest three Christians if they did not remove a shirt and stop sharing biblical messages during a “gay” pride event at a public park.
John Barnes wore a shirt with the message “Liberated from sin by the blood of Jesus” to the Southern Tier Pride 2008 at Wisner Park – a June 14 event promoted as a celebration of homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles.
According to the complaint filed in a U.S. district court, Elmira police Capt. Michael Marrone ordered Barnes to remove his shirt to prevent a “negative atmosphere” at the event and arouse discomfort in other attendees.
Barnes obeyed the officer and took off his shirt so he could remain at the park without facing arrest.
Another Christian, Julian Raven, carried a Christian newsletter to the event called the Elmira Protestor. Marrone threatened to arrest Raven if he distributed the letter, saying it contained obscene or illegal material, according to the complaint. Raven complied with the order.
Capt. James Wandell and Sgt. Sharon Moyer threatened a third Christian, James DeFerio, with arrest for holding a sign on a public sidewalk adjacent to the park. The sign read: “Thousands of ex-homosexuals have experienced the life-changing love of Jesus Christ” and listed websites for more information about ministry to ex-“gays.”
DeFario complied with their demands. However, according to the complaint, officers then told him he was not allowed to talk to anyone at the event about the Bible. Police ordered DeFario to leave the event where Elmira Mayor John Tonello was scheduled to speak about democracy, telling him to cross the street.
“Christians shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster said in a statement. “Police cannot threaten to arrest Christians at a city park for sharing their viewpoint at an event open to the general public. Respecting their free speech rights is not optional.”
The men are claiming officers violated their constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of religion and equal protection under the law. They are requesting a permanent injunction prohibiting police from “arresting them, forcibly removing them, or otherwise restricting their speech in traditional public fora due to the content and viewpoint of such speech, or because of their religious beliefs.”
Oster said police harassed the men primarily because of their Christian beliefs.
“Exercising your First Amendment rights is not a crime,” Oster said. “Threatening to arrest Christians simply because they have opposing views and choose to exercise their free speech rights at a public place is unconstitutional.”
Thought this was interesting.
After years of diplomatic wrangling, the Israeli government has given permission to a community of Indian citizens who believe they are one of the “lost tribes” of Israel to move legally to the Jewish state.
This decision, first reported in Israel’s Maariv newspaper, clears the way for the arrival here of 7,232 members of the Bnei Menashe. They believe they are the descendants of Manasseh, one of the biblical patriarch Joseph’s two sons and a grandson of Jacob.
Yesterday the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz newspapers quoted an official in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s office denying the government approved the immigration of the Bnei Menashe, stating Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit, whose office oversees the process of immigration and absorption, refused to sign off on the deal.
But a source close to the immigration negotiations affirmed to WND the Bnei Menashe indeed have been cleared to move to Israel. The source said government officials were upset the story was leaked to Maariv before the approval decision was formally announced. The source added Olmert’s office even had a press release written and ready to go announcing the decision.
This pretty much removes any sideline reason for justifying abortion. One more nail in the coffin of abortion.
The abortion-rights arguments that cite embryonic stem cells as the potential solution for a vast array of human diseases has taken another significant hit with an announcement from a San Francisco research and development company that it has defined and isolated an adult cell that has been shown to develop into tissues matching those in the heart, lung, liver, pancreas, blood vessels, brain, muscle, bone and fat.
The announcement this week from Medistem Inc. says its newest tests reveal the cell can regenerate failed blood vessels, allowing a restoration of health in limbs once given no alternative but amputation.
Advocates for medical research long have cited their desire for embryonic stem cells to study as a possible solution to myriad human diseases, although few results actually have been documented. Celebrities also have chimed in, such as actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease. During the last election he lobbied for a Missouri plan that enshrined in the state constitution the right to clone human embryos for “research.”
Now officials with Medistem Laboratories have confirmed their Endometrial Regenerative Cell has treated an advanced form of peripheral artery disease known as critical limb ischemia successfully.
In a peer reviewed publication, the team supported by Medistem said the administration of ERC “preserved leg function and viability in animals induced to mimic the human condition of critical limb ischemia.”
“As a physician to sufferers of critical limb ischemia, I am extremely proud to be involved in developing therapeutic applications using the ERC cell. If approved by the FDA, we may one day provide this patient population with an option to amputation,” said Dr. Michael Murphy, a vascular surgeon who served as lead author.
Thomas Ichim, CEO for the publicly held company based in California, told WND that while the focus in the company’s current work is on blood vessels and specific circulation problems, the cell has been shown to regenerate into at least nine different types of tissues.
He said there are possibilities now to develop preventative or other treatments for liver disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, pulmonary disease, heart disease and others.
He said the cell, a naturally produced result of the menstrual cycle, also avoids some of the complications found with embryonic stem cells, such as a specific type of cancer.
The company has been collaborating with Murphy on its work for some time, and has filed patents covering the cells and various uses, as a sort of “universal donor” cell.