An Atheist Goes Undercover

Time magazine has a very interesting article in which they interview a lady named Gina Welch who claims to be an atheist who attended Thomas Road Baptist Church (Jerry Falwell's church) for two years "undercover."

Often when you read articles like this, they tend to be very critical of the Christians, but this article actually seems to be pretty balanced.

It was definitely not what I was expecting when I saw the headline linked from Nathan Bingham's blog.

One question I would like to ask is what is the membership requirements for Thomas Road (Terry, are you reading this?). It would seem that if she really "joined" TRBC, then either TRBC's requirements of membership are not what you would expect for a Baptist church - e.g. regenerate, baptized membership or she was willing to lie about her conversion and be falsely baptized for this "experiment." Which puts her actions well beyond what is acceptable.

However, if they are using the term "join" in a more loose manner to indicate merely that she started attending and became part of the church, then this is interesting. (It still leads to some questions, however, as the article indicates that she even went on a mission trip with the church.)

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting read if you have a few moments.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

An Awesome Speech by a Little Girl

I generally shy away from posting YouTube videos on my blog because one click of the video moves you to the YouTube site where the comments are often not appropriate reading.

However, this speech by this young lady on the topic of abortion is so well done, I thought I would try to "embed" a YouTube video here at A Thinking Man's Thoughts for the first time. Hopefully this will work.

It is my understanding that this young lady won first place for this speech - after a judge quit in protest.



I do not know anything about this young lady, but her message is very good. May God use it in the ears of the many who need to hear.

Some related posts on this topic:

A National Scandal

Consider This

Change I Wish We Didn't Need to Believe In

There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey (Part 2)

Just my thoughts,

Frank

And you thought putting a fox in charge of a hen house was bad...

I don't really like to do politics too much on this blog, but the reality is that many times, political issues are also moral and Biblical issues.

Jesus said that "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Now, it is true that in the wickedness of man's heart this sin can be committed by anyone and it does not require that the woman who is the object of the lust be dressed in an immodest fashion, the reality is that a whole industry - a powerful and rich industry - exists that seeks to encourage this sin. The pornography industry is one of he most dispicable of industries that blight our nation.

I read today, however, that one of the great supporters of the pornography industry has been nominated by President Obama as Deputy Attorney General - David Ogden.

The Justice Department is charged with prosecuting our laws - including laws against child pornographers. Instead, David Ogden has fought to make it harder to prosecute child pornographers.

According to The Witherspoon Institute, in this article: David Ogden and the New Pornographers: Why the Senate Should Reject His Nomination

In addition to making it harder to prosecute those who sell images of child molestation and rape, Ogden has sought to ensure that pornography can be easily distributed and readily accessed in almost any medium or location. He has fought cases in Puerto Rico to allow Playboy to broadcast explicit programming on TV. He represented Philip Harvey, a man who runs the nation’s largest mail-order pornography shop out of North Carolina, in his attempt to deflect a Department of Justice investigation of his business. Completing a sort of multi-media grand slam, Ogden has sued to allow sexually-explicit content to be transmitted over the phone. Taking this quest to its absurd limits, he has even claimed in court that there is a constitutional right for pornography to be kept in firehouses. Ogden’s position is good for the industry groups he has represented but bad for female firefighters who could be subjected to humiliating and harassing images in the workplace. With an equal disregard for the comfort and protection of children, in 2000 Ogden sued to allow pornography to be accessed in public libraries.

Americans should reject this "Change We Can Believe In" and should encourage their Senators to do the same.

Albert Mohler has some additional thoughts on the topic, here.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

A National Scandal

(I recognize that this post is extremely long. The topic of the post, however, is very important.)

Almost two thousand years ago, a scandal spread across the country of Israel. It was a scandal that was large in its scope as everyone knew about what was going on, yet no one was doing anything about the scandal. Finally, one man stood up against the scandal. One man understood the need to speak the truth in an age when the truth was unpopular and standing for the truth could cost you a lot. In this man's case, it cost him his life.

The scandal of which I am referring to is referred to in Mark 6:14-29. In this passage, we read the story of the encounter of John the Baptist with Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas was one of the sons of Herod the Great and had a half-brother named Philip. As Herod visited his half-brother Philip, he lusted after Philip's wife, Herodias, and took her for his wife (ditching his own wife in the process). To make bad matters even worse, Herodias was also Herod's niece!

John the Baptist stood up against this scandal of his day and it ended up costing him his life.

Today, we live in the midst of another great scandal. This scandal is not one done by one man or one family, but a scandal that is done on a national level and is a scandal that is on a great scale. It is a scandal that we mark today, January 22.

As many of you are probably aware, on January 22, 1973, a court ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Roe v. Wade. While much has been said and written about this case, the result of this case is that it opened the door for abortion on demand to become the law of the land - and the practice of abortion has skyrocketed since then. It is estimated that there have been approximately 50 million abortions in the 35 years since this decision was handed down by the courts.

When we consider the statistics regarding abortion, the totals really are staggering.

In the 35 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been about 50 million abortions. Think of that a minute and let it sink in. FIFTY MILLION. We often hear big numbers today and kind of just skip over them. What does this 50 million mean? As I mentioned in a post on this topic two years ago, this 50 million represents more than the population of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington, D.C. - COMBINED! (This 50 million also represents over 10 million more lives than our largest state, California.)

The Abort 73 Web-site does a great job of listing some stats regarding abortion. Some of these follow:

Looking at some other numbers regarding abortion, we find that in 2000, there were 3,600 abortions per day, 149 per hour, 1 every 24 seconds. As of 2001, there were 246 abortions for every 1,000 live births. On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

While those who support abortion often speak about the "hard cases" - rape, incest, or some health concern with either the baby or mother - only 7% of all abortion cases fit into any of these categories - the other 93% ARE ELECTIVE.

The scandal of abortion is a blight upon our nation. And, as Christians, we ought to speak up against this scandal - even as John the Baptist spoke up against the scandal of his day and exposed the sin.

A couple of thoughts come to mind regarding our need to expose this sin.

1. If we are going to expose sin, we should understand our responsibility to expose sin.

The Bible tells us that we are to reprove - admonish, rebuke - the works of darkness:

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Christ also told us that we are to be salt and light - to be different and to make a difference.

Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

As Christians we have a responsibility to expose sin. We have a responsibility to explain to others what God has revealed regarding a particular matter. As we expose the sin, we need to do so with a heart of love for the sinner and a heart of obedience to Christ. We also need to be careful that we do not just give half of the story. We need to not only reprove the sin, we need to do so in such a way that we point people to the answer to the sin - forgiveness in Christ.

2. If we are going to expose sin, we should do so with the right character.

If we are to expose the sin and scandal of abortion, we should do so with a basis of right character. Herod understood that even though the message of John the Baptist about his sin was a message that he did not want to hear, the character of John was so evident that Herod actually kept him alive despite the desires of Herodias.

Mark 6:19-20 Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not: 20 For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

When we take on the awesome task of exposing sin, we need to do so with the right character. We read that John the Baptist was just and holy. We also find out that he was bold (Luke 3:7-9) and humble (John 1:27 and John 3:30). We can have this delicate combination of boldness and humility when we understand that without Christ we can do nothing, but we can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth us.

3. If we are going to expose sin, we should have clarity in our message.

When John the Baptist confronted Herod, he clearly laid out the nature of Herod's sin. In regards to abortion, we need to present clearly two important truths. The first truth is the fact that murder violates God's law. For most people, this is obvious. The second truth is establishing the fact that a child in the womb is a person - and thus murdering that child in the womb is a violation of God's command not to murder.

Some of the facts that point out the truth that a child in the womb is a person includes the following Biblical evidences.

1. Children in the womb are described with the same terminology as children outside the womb.

Ge 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.

The word children used here is the normal word for child or son, even though the children are still in womb. It is not a word that refers to a fetus or even an "unborn child."

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

The word translated babe in Luke 1:41 is the same word used in the next chapter when we read that Mary laid the "babe" in the manger.

2. Children in the womb are shown as active and alive.

For instance, in Luke 1 - John the Baptist recognized that the other baby was Christ. This baby (in the womb) was active.

By the way, we see this when we consider children in the womb today. Many of us have seen the photograph where a baby being operated on grabbed the finger of the surgeon.

3. Children in the womb are described as persons.

In Psalm 51:5, the Psalmist writes: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Note that it is "I" that was shapen - not some "pre- I"

In Isaiah 49:1, the prophet declares: "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." Again, it was "me" that was called, not some "pre-me." (Similar examples can be found in Psalm 139:13, Job 31:13-15, etc.)

The reality is that the world inherently KNOWS that the unborn baby is a life. Some may have been able to plead ignorance in 1973, but with the advances in technology (including the awesome 3-D sonograms), it is beyond reaonableness to claim that this child is not a life. That is why most states have laws that if you kill the child that the mother is carrying, you can get arrested. (Remember Scott Peterson a few years ago - he was convicted of two counts of murder, Laci and the Baby.) The only time when killing a child in the womb is considered acceptable is when the killing is done by a doctor in the name of "choice."

The reality is abortion is taking an innocent life and the image of God is being destroyed by this act. (See Job 1:21 and Genesis 9:6)

4. If we are going to expose sin, we should do so recognize that exposing sin is compassionate.

It is compassionate because exposing sin helps people to recognize their need of forgiveness. Galatians 3:24 reminds us that the law is a "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

In our society today, we are often afraid to directly confront sin and to tell someone that their actions are a sin against a holy God. In not directly confronting sin, people think they are being compassionate and kind. In reality, this is not compassionate. Allowing those involved in sin (in whatever form the sin might be) to think that they are okay and just making a "choice" can lead them into a complacence of not recognizing their need of forgiveness.

Instead, as we point out the sin of abortion, we should do so while sharing with them the compassionate truth that there is forgiveness for sin - even for the sin of abortion. That forgiveness is only found in the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanses us from all sin.

So, as we mark with sadness this important anniversary, may we step forth boldly and stand against this scandal in our nation. And doing so, may we compassionately point people to the One who can forgive even this sin - Jesus Christ.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

(Some of the these thoughts are adapted from the Abort73 web-site.)

Change I Wish We Didn't Need to Believe In

In less than five minutes today, the message of the White House (through its official website - www.whitehouse.gove) changed from a message that celebrated life and family to a message that supports a radical view of abortion and a radical twisting of the family.

It is amazing how quickly the desire was to get rid of words like these:

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

In about five minutes, the White House website went from defending innocent life to touting President Obama "a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration [sic]."

Not only is the hopeful message that celebrates a "culture of life" gone from the official White House website, the hopeful message regading the importance of marriage between one man and one woman is gone as well, replaced instead with one that supports the repeal of the Defesnse of Marriage Act (which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996) and one that opposes the federal marriage ammendment.

If you go to the White House website to look for the page that contained the words that proclaimed January 18, 2009 as "National Sanctity of Human Life Day", you will not find the page. Instead, you get a 404 message which tells you -"The page you requested wasn't found at this location. The Obama Administration has created a brand new White House website, and it's possible that the page you were looking for has been moved. Please take a moment to explore our new site, learn more about President Obama and his team, and read about their plan to bring about the change America needs."

Unfortunately, it seems that very few (if any) on the Obama team (or perhaps in Washington altogether) even have a clue about what constitutes "the change America needs." The change America needs is to recognize our sinfulness before God, to repent and to turn to Him. Certainly it is not a change that hearkens back to the days of the Ammonites who sacrificed their children to the false god of Molech.

In regards to praying for the President, while I don't agree with Dr. Al Mohler on everything, I appreciate the following words from his post on "A Prayer for President Obama."

Father, may this new president see that human dignity is undermined when human embryos are destroyed in the name of medical progress, and may he see marriage as an institution that is vital to the very survival of civilization. May he protect all that is right and good. Father, change his heart where it must be changed, and give him resolve where his heart is right before you.

Father, when we face hard days ahead -- when we find ourselves required by conscience to oppose this president within the bounds of our roles as citizens -- may we be granted your guidance to do so with a proper spirit, with a proper demeanor, and with persuasive arguments. May we learn anew how to confront without demonizing, and to oppose without abandoning hope.

Father, we are aware that our future is in your hands, and we are fully aware that you and you alone will judge the nations. Much responsibility is now invested in President Barack Obama, and much will be required. May we, as Christian citizens, also fulfill what you would require of us. Even as we pray for you to protect this president and change his heart, we also pray that your church will be protected and that you will conform our hearts to your perfect will.

Father, we pray these things in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, the ever-reigning once and future King, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. He and he alone can save, and his kingdom is forever. Above all, may your great name be praised. Amen.

Here is an article at Baptist Press that gives some additional details about the change in the White House website: With Obama in power, Whitehouse.gov now backs abortion rights, 'gay rights'

Hey, that's me on TV

Today I had an interesting experience. I was actually on TV on our local station, WBOC, in a segment called "Heart and Soul" regarding the issue of the death penalty or capital punishment.

In a recently released report by by a panel commissioned to study capital punishment in the state of Maryland, the commission voted 13-9 to recommend the abolition of capital punishment in the state of Maryland (more details here).

This morning I received a call from a reporter from WBOC who asked me some questions regarding this commissions study and arranged to interview me on camera. I have never done anything like this, so I was (understandably, to me) nervous.

A little while later, Kim Holmes and a camera man named Rob were meeting me at the church.

The interview was very short and they only used about one sentence, but the whole article was short, and while they did not include any of the Scripture passages that I quoted in answering the questions, they at least did not misrepresent me in their editing. (Something I was concerned about.)

The reporter and camera operator were both nice and professional. I understand the need to edit (after all, I served on the editorial staff of my high school newspaper so many years ago), but I wish there could have been a way to keep in some of the verses I discussed. (Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:3-4)

I was hoping to find a link to it online at the WBOC site, but I can't find it. We did try to record it, so if I can figure out how to get it up here, I will do so. (Be warned, it's not much.)

The actual article that aired had a quote from a Catholic priest that was for getting rid of the death penalty and a quote from me saying that we should not get rid of the death penalty.

I don't know how these guys like Dr. Bob Jones, III, Dr. Mohler and others go on all these shows for longer segments.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Frank

Father's Day Cards banned in Scottish Schools

Since Father's Day has already past, this story may be a little outdated, but as I only saw the article recently, I could not comment on it any earlier :).

It seems as though a number of schools in Scotland banned the children from making cards for Father's Day.

The Telegraph reports:

Thousands of primary pupils were prevented from making Father's Day cards at school for fear of embarrassing classmates who live with single mothers and lesbians.

The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools "in the interests of sensitivity" over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households.

The Telegraph article is located here.

Another article about this is found here.

While I understand the desire to be sensitive to children, this seems to be a little overboard.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Fundamental Missionaries threatened for "Hate Crimes"

The issue of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a serious issue for Christians who take the Bible seriously. This is not because the Bible encourages "hate", but because Western society has twisted the meaning of "hate" and much of the legislation that is being pushed in regards to "hate crimes" really are more of an attempt to sensor and silence those who desire to speak out than they are to prevent or deal with actual crimes of hate.

Recently, two missionaries with Gospel Fellowship Association were "threatened with arrest for committing a 'hate crime' and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned" for passing out Gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham, England (according to this article on the website of the British newspaper Telegraph). Even though the officer in question may have been overstepping his bounds, this is not a unique incident.

In an earlier post on The FFBC Blog (The Danger of So-Called "Hate-Crimes" Legislation), readers were reminded that this type of legislation continues to be pushed in the U.S. and has already passed in the house. Since then, it has also passed in the Senate, but has yet to reach President Bush's desk. President Bush has threatened a veto if the bill reaches his desk.

A resolution passed by the Fellowship of Fundamental Bible Churches in 1999 deals with the topic of hate crimes still rings true.

Since Cain murdered Abel, all crimes of violence have been "Hate Crimes". Those murdered in a robbery or as a result of domestic violence are just as dead as the one who was targeted by a racial or religious fanatic for extermination. The very radicals who tried to abolish the death penalty and now attempt to forestall the execution of every convicted criminal are those pushing for stiffer penalties for individuals accused of "Hate Crimes".

The homosexual lobby is behind much of this legislation, which goes far beyond dealing with crimes of violence. Their real target is not those who commit acts of violence, but those who would criticize their ungodly way of life. The White House and various members of Congress have backed this legislation, perhaps because of their own immoral lifestyles. Much of this legislation is aimed at "thought control" rather than crime control.

The Scripture tells us that "Whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6). If a serious effort was made to enforce the death penalty much of the violent crime in our country would disappear. We urge our legislators to reject so-called "Hate Crimes" legislation, to recognize the real purpose of those who sponsor it, and to remember that, constitutionally, laws should apply equally to all citizens convicted or accused of a crime.

The above information I posted on The FFBC Blog. I will make an additional comment here in regards to this, since this is a personal site and not a site directly affiliated with any ministry.

To those of you conservatives who are seriously thinking about sitting out this election, may I remind you that there are a number of issues like this where a Presidential veto may be the only thing stopping the issue from moving forward. For the record, here is an article regarding McCain's position on this issue - McCain Campaign Tells Brody File: No on Hate Crimes Bill.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Pop Goes Christianity - An Article Worth Reading

A very interesting article from (of all places) Slate Magazine. I gave some quotes from this article a couple of weeks ago in my "Christians and Popular Culture: Who Said This" post.

The reply by Don Johnson is the type of reply that I was expecting (and imagine I would likely have had more of if someone hadn't know the answer rather quickly).

In the article by Hannah Rosin entitled, "Pop Goes Christianity: The Deep Contradiction of Christian Popular Culture.", the author makes some quotes that many would assume were spoken by some old-school Fundamentalist preacher - or Scott Anoil.

For instance, the article states:

When you make loving Christ sound just like loving your boyfriend, you can do damage to both your faith and your ballad. That's true when you create a sanitized version of bands like Nirvana or artists like Jay-Z, too: You shoehorn a message that's essentially about obeying authority into a genre that's rebellious and nihilistic, and the result can be ugly, fake, or just limp.

It is frustrating to me that the truth of a statement like that seems to be obvious to those who approach "Christian culture" without the agenda of justifying that culture, yet if a Fundamentalist dares to make a comment like that, the Fundamentalist is said to be judgmental or critical - or at least "out of touch."

In Christ's high priestly prayer in John 17, we read these words:

John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Yet, it seems like on almost every front where modern evangelicalism (and in some cases, modern Fundamentalism as well) encounters popular culture, the effect is a blending of the cultures in such a way that the distinctly Christian aspect of the culture is lost.

The area of music is one of the most obvious areas where this is encountered. Secular performers have no qualms about identify the music itself as sending a message - a message that is diametrically opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, evangelicals (and some "so-called" Fundamentalists) continually argue that the music is amoral and suggest that the merging of the world's music and the Christian message is not only acceptable, but preferred.

Rather than pursuing the conditions that Christ prayed for, the modern church has reversed the desire of Christ and seems to be pursuing a direction of "of the world, but not in the world."

If you have the stomach for it, there is a site entitled "A Little Leaven" which calls itself an online "museum of idolatry" and gives a little bit of a picture of how bad things have gotten. (I don't endorse all the calls made by the site - but most of them are pretty clear.)

Some related posts may also be relevant.
Blue Suede Shoes - Post 1 and Post 2

The Christians Relationship to the World

Christians and Popular Culture - Who Said This?

Two quotes regarding "Christian" music and "Christian" culture. Who said them?

When you make loving Christ sound just like loving your boyfriend, you can do damage to both your faith and your ballad. That's true when you create a sanitized version of bands like Nirvana or artists like Jay-Z, too: You shoehorn a message that's essentially about obeying authority into a genre that's rebellious and nihilistic, and the result can be ugly, fake, or just limp.

It's always been a stretch to defend Christian pop culture as the path to eternal salvation. Now, they may have to face up to the fact that it's more like an eternal oxymoron.

Just for you to guess,

Frank

Some Blogging Quick Hits

Today I think I am ready to start back into blogging. This last month has been kind of awkward for me. Things have been pretty busy around here and blogging has had to take a significant back seat. In the middle of that, I had some computer issues and was not able to be online for an extended period of time. After fixing that problem, I have only stepped back in to the online world for occassional comments in a few places.

I have still read some blogs (mostly via Bloglines) and have even commented on a couple of posts in other locations, but I have been looking at the questions from Don and thinking that I should wait until I have sat down to answer them all before I start blogging again and, since I have not been able to sit down and think through them as much as I would like, I have not posted anything.

I have decided, however, that I am going to go ahead and post some things anyway and get to Don's questions as I have time and inclination, rather than holding up all posting until I am prepared to answer them all. (BTW, the wife of a former voice teacher of mine who has left Fundamentalism took a shot at the questions the other day and attempted to answer them regarding Fundamentalism and her answers reveal her own lack of understanding of Fundamentalim in the first place - a fact that may have contributed to their leaving Fundamentalism.)

Anyway, a couple of quick hits will have to suffice for Today's Post.

1. Dr. Kevin Bauder has recently begun a series of articles on Fundamentalism and scholarship in Central Baptist Theological Seminary's little newsletter, In the Nick of Time. SI has also posted these articles. I will probably wait until the series is complete before commenting much, but since we had a pretty good discussion regarding Fundamentalism and Scholarship here at A Thinking Man's Thoughts not too long ago, I thought I would mention it. I will say that I most likely will disagree with Dr. Bauder on this topic - since I significantly disagree with his definition of "scholar".

2. Yesterday (January 22) marked the 35th anniversary of a travesty in American jurisprudence - the infamous Roe v. Wade decision from the ????-led U.S. Supreme Court. Approximately 50 million dead babies later and America still allows this murderous blight of abortion to be practiced and championed. May God have mercy on our nation! (I have previously posted on this topic - here.)

3. The political scene is getting interesting. If Guiliani can win Florida (with 57 delegates in a winner-take-all format), his strategy may prove to be viewed as brilliant, since California (173 delegates) and New York (110 winner-take-all delegates) will likely go his way if he shows he can win in Florida (I know that polls show McCain currently in the lead in California, but I predict a Guiliani win in Florida would also result in a California win for Guiliani). I am not looking forward to this as the outcome, but it could be interesting to watch. Thompson's hit upon Mike Huckabee in the SC debate may have been a fatal blow. It likely cost Huckabee a SC win (and Huckabee was within three points of McCain), which would have been huge for Huckabee as it would have shown that he could continue to compete and he would have likely drawn more of the social conservatives over to his side (including a number of social conservative who have been left without a candidate now that Thompson is withrawing). Instead, Thomspson's slam on Huckabee will almost guarantee that very few of his former supporters go Huckabee's direction and his second place finish in SC (instead of a win) will likely keep a number of the "I like Mike, but don't think he can win" voters from voting for him - and thus, turn them into self-fulfilling prophets.

Just my quick thoughts,

Frank

There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey - Part 2

As I mentioned in my last post, there were two recent situations in New Jersey that could have national implications and ought to be of concern to believers.

The last one - which dealt with the attempt to coerce a Methodist Camp Association to allow homosexual civil unions in their chapel/pavillion - I entitled, "There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey, part 1".

This article is the "Part 2" to the first article and relates to a different moral issue.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that doctors "have no duty to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure would kill a human being." (NJ.Com article is located : here)

The New Jersey Supreme Court is not famous for reasoned and rational decisions and leans heavily Democrat. (Although they have a mostly new set of justices now, they still are 5-2 appointed by Democrats and the 2 appointed by Republicans were appointed by liberal Republican Christine Whitman.)

Notice the following quote:

Acuna said she asked the doctor "if it was the baby in there?" She claimed he told her: "Don't be stupid, it's just some blood."

The doctor testified that he did not recall Acuna asking such a question but would have told her that a "seven-week pregnancy is not a living human being."

If this was the early 1970s, I could understand a doctor not being sure that a seven-week pregnancy is a living human being. But with the advances in technology that allow us to look into the womb and all the things we now know about the process of pregnancy and the development of children in the womb, to make such a claim should cause this guy to lose his license.

If he wanted to make the case that this life was not worth saving or something along those lines, I would still disagree, but at least he could still claim some intellectual honesty. Instead, he is hiding his head in the sand to support the prevailing liberal agenda of the day.

Ridiculous.

One day, I hope that we will look back at the genocide of the pro-abortion agenda the way that many of us view the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution - how could such otherwise wise men have been so stupid?

Just my thoughts,

Frank

(For a related article on this subject from my archives, see this post.)

There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey - Part 1

Two recent news stories regarding New Jersey should serve as a warning about what things are like when the corrupt Democratic machine gets complete control of something - especially in regards to issues that are important to believers.

Corruption in New Jersey politics is nothing new - see former Senator Bob Torricelli (D) or former Governor James McGreevey (D) as two recent prominent New Jersey Democrats that resigned amid accusations of corruption. Having lived in New Jersey for 10 years, not much would surprise me with regards to New Jersey politics.

Recently, however, there were two issues that showed up in New Jersey that ought to cause the rest of us to take notice. Since they are different issues, I will address each one with a separate post.

The first issue is regarding homosexual activism and the believer's rights to stand up for the truth from the Bible.

In the continued efforts of the homosexual activitists to silence and intimidate any voices that do not agree with their desire to have their sin viewed as acceptable and moral, a recent attack was made upon the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Associaton for their refusal to allow civil unions in an oceanside Pavillion/Chapel that the Methodist Camp Association owns.

You can read the article in the New Jersey Ledger here.

If you notice in the article, there are a series of cases pending on the groups refusal - on religious grounds - to allow the civil unions on the site. The cost of this stand (in the terms of uthe nexpected tax bill) could reach $378,000. The cost for the other cases pending (including a civil rights descrimination case) could end up being even greater - depending on decisions in the cases.

If you do not think that believers need to stand up and take a position against this promotion of this radical agenda now, imagine the implications down the road for Christian schools, churches, and camp grounds. All that the homosexual activitists need to do is ask for permission to be married on your grounds and if you refuse to allow it, you could be in for some serious trouble.

I am not sure what those of us outside of New Jersey can or should do in this matter, but one thing is certain. We ought to be preparing our ministries for the day when this same attack is made in our individual locations. I am hesitant to name some ministries that I can think of that may soon be facing the same type of attacks (I don't want my including their names in this post to be something that the left uses to find new targets.)

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Maggie Gallagher has a more detailed discussion on this over at Yahoo! News.

Bahnsen - Stein Debate available for a penny

In 1985, atheist promoter Dr. Gordon Stein and Christian apologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen met for a formal debate at the University of California - Irvine campus. This debate is one of the most famous Christian vs. Atheist debates that there are out there. I was first exposed to this debate in college and it is a classic. Every believer should listen to this debate.

Dr. Bahnsen was a pupil of Cornelius Van Til and promoted the concept of presuppositional apologetics. This debate is a great example of presuppositional apologetics and lets you get a better feel for the nature of presuppositional apologetics.

Covenant Media Foundation is currently offering CDs or Mp3s of the debate for $.01 - that's right - one penny. (They would like to offer it for free, but their "checkout" software will not allow it)

Order or download a copy of the debate here.

HT: Michael Riley

Just my thoughts,

Frank

The FFBC Blog on Hate Crimes Legislation

The FFBC Blog has a post about Senate bill S.1105 on so-called "Hate Crimes" entitled, The Danger of So-Called "Hate Crimes" Legislation.

(Please note: I am linking to something I wrote over there. It may be inappropriate to do so, but I thought the post was more appropriately placed over there and I wanted to make sure my readers here were aware of it.)

Regarding the AFA video - HT: Stephen Racite (via email) and then Chris Anderson.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Fraudulent News by Oliver North

I know this article is a few weeks old. I read it awhile ago and meant to highlight it, but did not get around to it at the time.

Mr. North has written an excellent piece on the current state of American journalism and argues that "fraudulent news is not only bad for morals, the environment and morale, it can also be disheartening and sometimes downright deadly."

In the article he hits on a number of "hot-button" issues - from global warming to terrorism to Muslim extremism to the "lost tomb of Jesus." It is a short article, but worth the read - even if I am a little late in putting it up here.

So, take a couple of minutes and read "Fraudalent News" by Oliver North.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Media Bias?

There is a lot of talk about media bias. Despite the works of insiders such as Bernard Goldberg's Bias, there are many who still claim there is no bias in the media. Talk about living with blinders! The reality is that all of us have bias. The problem is that the left-wing liberal media continues to report, discuss, and present themselves as though they are unbiased, when their bias shows up throughout their work.

Recently, the bias on the Today show has been almost comical. I don't watch a lot of the Today show, but I found it funny how they covered a couple of recent items.

1. The first example was during the Katie Curic interview with former FBI Director Louis Freeh about his new book in which he says some "not-so-nice" things regarding the Clinton Administration. The nature of her interview was to attack Freeh for writing the book. In one of her first questions she asked "Do you think your personal animus might be coloring your professional perspective so much that you can't be objective about what was really going on during the administration?" A question about his motivation for writing the book is entirely appropriate, but where is the consistency? I don't recall Katie or any of her cronies on the left asking that question of Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, et al when they were on their media parades promoting their attack books against President Bush.

2. This morning they did a "puff piece" regarding Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Among the other items that were interesting is the way they praised him for his tenacity for the two years of working on this case. Seems like when Judge Ken Starr was involved in a similar role a few years ago, the common talking point was not his "tenacity" but that it was a "witch hunt."

Just my thoughts,

Frank

What do they teach at the University of California, San Diego?

Recently I came across an article by the opinion editor of the UCSD (University of California, San Diego) Guardian Online regarding the University of California system move to reject students who have been taught high school science from books that teach Creationism, such as books from A Beka Books and from Bob Jones University Press.

What I found particularly interesting was the lack of understanding displayed by this particular author.

Imagine walking into a college calculus course on the first day only to have the lecture interrupted by a student who rejects the mathematical tenet that 2+2=4. Or watching your study partner struggling with physics assignments because she refuses to acknowledge the law of gravity. Or listen to your roommate creating a ruckus in his history class when he publicly disavows the existence of Nazi concentration camps.

Sound absurd? Sure it is. It goes without saying that to grasp certain subjects at a college level, one must accept the keystones of various disciplines from which all else follows: the syntax of the English language for a writing class; properties of numbers in a math class; or evolution in a biology class.

First of all, she wrongly equates laws of science and math (gravity, 2+2=4) with the theory of evolution.

Second of all, she assumes that to grasp biology, one must accept evolution. Not only is an acceptance of evolution not necessary to grasp biology, it is not even necessary in order to grasp evolution.

A little while later she offers this gem.

When a student’s high school education is so obviously lacking, the University of California is hardly displaying “hostility towards Christianity” (as the suit alleges) in rejecting such courses or such students. It is displaying hostility toward ignorance and closed-mindedness.

Again, it seems that the University of California is hardly displaying enough hostilitiy towards ignorance and closed-mindedness when this lady has been admitted and allowed such a prominent position.

Talk about ignorance - she does not even consider the fact that many times the students educated with the very textbooks in question actually have a better grasp of evolution that the typical student entering college. A lack of acceptance of evolution does not equal a lack of understanding of evolution. In fact, I would say that in many ways the opposite is true, but that is the subject for another post sometime, perhaps.

Talk about closed-mindedness, she is unwilling to even check out the facts regarding what is being taught in these schools, as she so aptly demonstrates with the following comment.

What, then, are these kids being taught,... A few words of Spanish between Bible study and chapel, perhaps?

It seems that if the University of California system is genuinely concerned about the understanding of its students regarding evolution, they could provide a profiency test for the students desiring to enter the school who have been educated using the texts that they are questioning. Of course, a similar test by all incoming freshman may be very revealing.

Just some thoughts.

Frank

File under Education_, Culture_War, Hot_Issues