Est. May 2008

25 August, 2014

Christianity In A Bubble

Consider this an open letter to the Christian pastors in Texas who are demanding that the Cleveland City branch of the Austin Memorial Library remove the teen-level books dealing with ‘vampires and other “demonic content”’.

You’re embarrassing yourselves and other Christians with your calls for censorship of content you find inappropriate.

Mr. Holt, you say that:
“What you read does have an influence on your life and the library needs to be careful with what kind of books need to be on the shelf.”
That is not the job of the library.  The job of the library is to provide a variety of reading materials for the community.
“The word ‘censorship’ is not an ugly word,” he added. “If you don’t censor what your children see, hear and read, then guess what? Your child is going to be spending a lot of time … later on in life dealing with twisted-up and torn-up lives.”
The type of censorship you’re calling for is, once again, not the job of the library – it is the job of parents.  Parents have the responsibility of monitoring what their children see and read; that is not the job of the library, the school or even you gentlemen in the pulpit.

A question.  How loudly would you pastors be screaming if someone – perhaps a member of the Freedom from Religion Foundation – called on your local library to remove all Christian-oriented books and movies, and used the same arguments you’re using to censor the books you want banned?  If the argument was that Christian books cause ‘twisted and torn-up lives’ and that ‘What you read does have an influence on your life and the library needs to be careful with what kind of books need to be on the shelf’, would those wishing to ban Christian books not have a case?

Wake up and smell the coffee, gentlemen.

And here’s something else you might want to wake up to: what is your job as a pastor?  Your job is to provide the tools your flock needs to rightly discern between good and evil and right and wrong; demanding that ‘wrong’ things be removed is not doing your job.  Your flock, young, old, and in between, are going to be exposed to these things whether you like it or not; teach them right discernment, and then let them teach that to their children.

Or are you all planning on following these young Christians for the rest of their lives, making sure nothing ‘bad’ gets through the ‘protective Christian bubble’ you’ve so valiantly – and, in the long run, vainly – tried to seal them up in?

15 August, 2014

A Child Of God

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.   You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.  No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. (1 John 3:4-6, ESV)
’God loves me just the way I am.’

How often do we hear that phrase pop out of the mouths of people who blatantly disregard His commands?  Oh, they try valiantly to convince everyone of their sincere Christian faith, of how they still believe in the God of the Bible, and how they simply know that God loves them, when their actions belie their words.

In fact, they can’t even answer this simple question: if God accepts you just the way you are – sins, warts, and all – why did He send Jesus to die for those sins?  Obviously, making that degree of sacrifice means that sin is something which needs to be dealt with, and severely.

Yes, Christians are sinners.  Yes, Christians do still sin.  But Christians – true Christians – don’t make a habit of sinning, nor do they try to justify their sinful acts.  They fight, sometimes daily, sometimes hourly, to kill the ‘old man’ and take on the ‘new man’.  The only way we can do this – since man is inherently sinful and doesn’t desire to do what God commands – is by the infusion of the Holy Spirit when we are ‘quickened’, when ‘our old self was crucified with him [Jesus] in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin’ (Romans 6:6, ESV).

And this infusion of the Spirit changes us, makes us actually want to do what God demands.  John, laying it out in black and white, writes, ‘And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.  Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him’ (1 John 2:3-4, ESV).  And, as I’ve pointed out in previous posts, Jesus’ commands are God’s commands, since He is God the Son.

If you are a child of God, washed in the blood of the Lamb, you will be changed.  You will no longer be a slave to sin, you will be able to ‘resist the devil, and he will flee from you’, and you will be able to fight off the desires of your previously sinful life.  If, however, you continue to cling to sins, whatever they may be, and continue to practice them, you must believe that what you are doing is not a sin – and we’ve heard that from people before, haven’t we?

And what does John the apostle have to say to that?
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8, ESV)
Self-deception is deadly.  Please, for the sake of your eternal life, stop doing that to yourself.

14 August, 2014


Birth control, paid for by someone else…

Abortifacients, paid for by someone else…

Sterilizations, paid for by someone else…

Now it’s tampons, paid for by someone else…

Why, ladies?  You keep telling us you’re sick and tired of being considered incapable of providing for yourselves, of being thought of as objects, of being thought of as the ‘weaker sex’, and yet you demand that others take care of your personal sexual necessities.

That’s not empowerment; that’s not ‘sexual liberation’; that’s not feminism …

It’s the exact opposite.

You’re proving to everyone out there that you really are incapable of doing even these simple things on your own, out of your own pocket.

And if you can’t do these simple things, what makes you think people are going to consider you capable of anything bigger?

12 August, 2014

This Ain’t Your Father’s Science, Kids

In fact, it ain’t even the science I learned 25 years ago.

Apparently, trying to find a quick and dirty way to show how ‘global warming’ happens, Al Gore teamed up with Bill Nye, who’d made a video:
Nye’s “simple” experiment involved sealing thermometers inside two identical bottles, which were sealed. To illustrate the effects of increased carbon dioxide on temperature, Nye fits a hose from a CO2 canister into one of the bottles. Both bottles are then placed placed under heat lamps.

“Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher,” Nye said in his video experiment. “The bottles are like our atmosphere, the lamps are like our sun.”
I imagine that Mr. Nye’s carbon dioxide bottle has a concentration of that gas much higher than that of the Earth itself – approximately 0.04% of the bottle’s interior volume; this alone drops a wrench into the intimation that this experiment shows how ‘global warming’ works.

Something else is missing: there are things on Earth which take carbon dioxide and convert it into oxygen and a little water vapor and sugars – they’re called green plants.  I didn’t read about any green plants being put into the carbon dioxide bottle.

And the constant motion of Earth’s atmosphere mixes the gases which make it up, thereby bringing those gases to an equilibrium – unlike two sealed bottles which don’t allow any kind of ‘atmosphere’ movement inside them.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.  This, folks, is what happens to science when you start with a pre-determined result and try to get the data to fit it.

28 July, 2014

Flushing Science

What else can this possibly be called:
NEWBERG, Ore. — A growing number of openly transgender students have forced schools around the country to address questions so basic that they were rarely asked just a few years ago, much less answered: What defines a person’s gender, and who gets to decide?

A small Christian college here, George Fox University, has become the latest front in this fight, refusing to recognize as male a student who was born anatomically female. The student calls himself a man, and as of April 11, when a state circuit court legally changed his sex, the State of Oregon agrees.

But George Fox University sees him as a woman, and it prohibits unwed students from living with anyone of the opposite sex. (emphasis in original)
Interestingly, this is a Quaker (read ‘religion-based’) college which is actually adhering to the biological concept of gender; they will not accede to these demands because of the student’s anatomy.

But, as Mr. Graham points out, ‘Forget the science.  The dictatorship of relativism is bearing down.’  The champions of science, who make no bones about their belief that religious people are the ones who deny science, are themselves denying science, aren’t they?

But they have science on their side – or at least they believe they do:
“What we’ve learned in the few cases that have gone forward is that the only humane and consistent way to determine a person’s sex is based on their lived experience as male or female, that any other approach, whether anatomy or chromosomes, will discriminate against some people,” said Jennifer Levi, director of the Transgender Rights Project at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. (emphasis in original)
Well, of course anatomy and chromosomes discriminate against this sort of thing – that’s because it’s against biological science.

If, for instance, this student thought she was a dog, putting a collar and leash on her, making her crawl on all fours and urinate/defecate outside, and making her eat dog food out of a bowl on the floor would be grounds for committal to an institution and, likely, criminal charges of abuse for the person who encouraged her delusion.

It’s also scientifically obvious this student is not male:
“Living in a female dorm means that each day, the first thoughts I have are about my struggles living in a body that never felt right to me,” he said. Living there while undergoing testosterone therapy has been a particular challenge. (emphasis mine)
If she’s actually a ‘he’ – based entirely on her desire to be male, remember – she shouldn’t need testosterone therapy: her body ought to be producing adequate testosterone for her to be male.  Males don’t need testosterone therapy, unless there’s some kind of medical problem.

Back to my earlier example: if she thought she was a dog, would anyone advocate giving her dog hormones to encourage her delusion?  Again, no.  And, again, that would probably land somebody in jail for abuse.

And then there’s this:
Jaycen is supposedly more male because she's into "the video game Call to Duty and listening to R&B and hip hop."
’More male’?  Girls like that used to be called tomboys, and usually they didn’t run into any difficulties until they – and the boys – began looking at the opposite sex as something other than somebody to go out and climb trees and skin knees with.

In fact, weren’t we regaled not too long ago about how it’s okay to let girls play with boy’s toys, and vice versa?  That giving boys toy guns and trucks and giving girls dolls and kitchen play sets was nothing more than gender-stereotyping?  So why is the idea that since this student likes ‘boy’s stuff’ – like video games and hip-hop and rap (Iggy Azalea, Queen Latifa, Missy Elliott, and Lauren Hill are all men inside?  Coulda fooled me) – she ought to be considered a boy?  ‘She likes video games; she must be a boy’ seems to be the thought, yet if that’s not gender-stereotyping, I don’t  know what is.   Yet we aren’t hearing any howls from the peanut gallery on that one, are we?

As we see science swirling down the bowl, Mr. Graham sums it up nicely:
There's not one sliver of space in this politically correct story for the idea that the "LGBTQ" agenda is completely at odds with Christianity and other major global religions, and that to force this sinful agenda on religious institutions is a breach of religious liberty, which seems to be one of the Obama administration's goals.
Well said, sir.  Well said.