Don't think...and don't stop.

Hard to believe but I guess if it's in the AP...then it must be true. I'm in quite a cynical mood this morning.

police profiling

Militant Obama youth march to 'Alpha Omega'

just posting...you be the judge

Now for a laugh

I met Dave back in 1988 in Ocean City NJ. And so I wanted to share this with you.

Is this in the Constitution? Did we elect Obama for this?

I trust that you will understand the implications of the link below. Maybe those who voted for President Obama did elect him for this? Maybe not...but I wonder where it will end? Is this socialism? I'm guessing...indeed it is.

Wall Street Journal

Never going to see this on CNN...Katie, Charlie, Brian...ahhhh Nope

What a wonderfully wry address...anyone game in Congress?

Putting truth aside...let's hear what he has to say.

President Obama at Notre Dame. [the link is the title above]

What I would like to point out is the contrast between two paragraphs that appear in this article. Paragraph number 1...

"Many Catholics are angered by Obama's planned appearance at the May 17 ceremony because of his decisions to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and international family planning groups that provide abortions or educate about the procedure."

and paragraph number two...

""People are definitely entitled to their outrage, but I think the main thing is to see that it's an honor to have the president of the United States come to speak here whether you agree with him or not," said Katie Woodward, a political science junior from Philadelphia."

The anger that is felt by the Catholics in the first paragraph is based upon their understanding that abortion is wrong and their disagreement with President Obama in signing into law legislation that stands in direct opposition to their held beliefs. These held beliefs are founded upon a Scriptural understanding that life is to be honored by all mankind because we are created in the image of God. That is the baseline "truth" that they are operating from.

The second paragraph is a representation of one student from ND that appears to be shared by others at the University. The article says that it is a consensus that the President should be allowed to come and speak because "it's a honor" for ND to have him come. The point here is that "even if I disagree with you I'm willing to have you honor our institution with your speech." The baseline truth that Katie seems to be operating from is a personal aggrandizement. It's good for ND. The problem Katie is that your toleration is selfish. If you as a Catholic believe that it is wrong to abort babies then how can you tolerate any law that infringes upon that truth? Or associated with that does what you believe make a difference in your decisions as to what is honoring? Maybe you don't believe that abortion is wrong and therefore you have created enough space in your moral toleration to have the very person who has signed legislation to end human life come and honor ND. But then I must ask how that aligns with your Catholicism?

The problem here is one of truth. If abortion is wrong and that is based on truth then any toleration of it is against truth. There can not be any hint of untruth in truth or it isn't truth. Jump through all the ethical hoops you want but at the end of the day we tolerate things because we don't hold the truth behind them as truth.

Ok I'm done ranting but I'll pick this up later

Ok I'm not mad anymore

Well if you noticed I haven't posted since the tourny began but now since the best team ever to step out on a court is out of this year's tournament...I've lost most of my interest. Next year Mike. And I hope Villanova takes it all the way now.

NCAA!!!!

Ok it's March and I'm Mad...wooooohooooooops.

Of course I've got Duke all the way to the championship. And UNC out in the first round. I never said I was smart about these things...LOL.

Just in case you need a bracket...

click here

Numbers...not the TV show!

From the highly respected Wall Street Journal. It appears that President Obama's campaign modus operandi isn't working as well after the election. Click the title for the link.

God and Obama: Let's begin

Recently I have been reading blogs of a few acquaintances and their posts concerning some of the newer legislation that is being signed into law by President Obama. Their thoughts range across the board from complete euphoria to unmitigated gaul. It has been intriguing to think through some of their ideas but it occurred to me that as I do my thinking I need to keep in front of me what Truth has been revealed about government in God's Word for a follower of Christ.

We start where we should always start...with God. Everything that exists flows from that starting point. Any other starting point begins from an idolatrous point and that is not wise. Our first post, therefore, will reflect upon what has been revealed in God's Word as to the character and nature of God that is reflected in government.

An excellent place to start is God's providence. Providence is a big word that basically, when it is applied to God's character, means that, He being the creator of all things, maintains that which He has created and ensures, by His direct activity, that they function as He has created them to function while always functioning in such a way to accomplish His purposes. [reread as often as necessary]

Government is one of those things that demonstrate God's providence. Romans 13.1 and following states, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." Not only does this verse clearly tell us from whence comes a governments authority but it also tells us that the government that exists is established (i.e. maintained) by God. Regardless of one's euphoria or gaul the clear fact of truth is that the current administration is acting perfectly within the providence of God.

For clarity sake this does not mean that what they are doing is morally right nor good for those whom they govern. That is entirely another post. [see below] As you mull this over there is another pertinent idea from God's Word that we can rightly apply here and it comes from 1 Timothy 2.1-4, "First of all. then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." As a follower of Christ we are commanded to pray for those whom God has placed over us in positions of authority.

Next Post in Series: God and Obama: Why???

See here's a problem

Below you will find two links. The first one is a story that appears from the Associated Press writer Eric Gorski on the recent stem cell research ban being overturned and how the religious community is responding to it. There is a divide that is occurring on the issue. But the story indicates that proponents of the reversal of the ban want to make sure the embryos "were not created for the research, nor bought and sold."

click here for Eric Gorski

The next link appears at OneNewsNow and briefly tells of women who are selling their eggs to fertilization organizations in order to make ends meet.

click here

See here's the problem. Leaving aside the religious aspects of the stories for the moment but only for the moment. Where will the researchers get the embryos from? The story said that they were embryos that were going to be discarded in any case. Who is going to discard them? Will it be fertility organizations? Embryos that were produced from the sold eggs of these women as well as the contribution from the males? I'm inclined to think that will at least be apart of it. So ethically speaking I wonder how those of the community of faith that "oppose the buying and selling" of embryos used in research to relieve human suffering divorce their ideas from this one?

Ethics are tough and ethical questions do not stand alone so where can a person turn to find some clarity on such diverse and difficult issues? Picking up the religious argument again. Since the first article enlisted differing faith traditions to illustrate the "religious divide" over the issue of stem cell research we are well within our rights, for clarity, to ask those same faith traditions from what basis are they arguing for their position on the issue. Do they come from a position of truth as defined by humanity? Or do they come from a position of truth from some outside source? i.e. The Revealed Word of God = The Bible.

I would give those faith traditions the benefit of the doubt and say that they would in some way connect to the Bible. As a matter of fact simple google searches would suffice to show us that is indeed the case. If we, however, dig a bit deeper we would find that those faith traditions involved in the article do not hold the Bible as the inerrant Word of God as defined from the beginning of church history with a special emphasis upon the reformation. For example the United Church of Christ in a forum on the Inerrancy of Scripture flatly states that the Bible is not inerrant. It isn't the official Denominational Faith Statement but then again the official Faith Statement doesn't say anything about the Bible. So where do they find the authority to answer the ethical issues involved? And what will those "christians" from the UCC do when they discover that embryos are being sold for research purposes. Well they were sold for fertilization purposes not for research but that is simply an intellectual excuse. If you cannot see the connection you need a dose of intellectual honesty with yourself. I have a hunch that the intellectual dishonesty will continue and that Truth will not matter.

Stem Cell Primer

We heard about the fulfilled promise of the President yesterday when he repealed the restriction on embryonic stem cell research. In case you are not aware of what the issues are I am posting a link to a page that I find incredibly helpful.

click here

Also here is a link to articles written and posted at the CBHD site.

click here

I'm laughing again...Hillary...ous

Ok that's twice in like the same weekend...my sides hurt.

click here

"RESET" or "OVERLOAD" you decide.

Missing the obvious for Jesse Logan

Not many news wires have picked up on this tragedy. Not sure if they will but it was on the Today show this morning and so MSNBC had the print version. It is linked through the title if you want to read the story.

I am glad the Jesse's Mom, Cynthia will be working to make her daughter's story public so that teens everywhere will be warned of the dangers that her daughter faced. It's hard enough being young without the added bullying from irreverent, disrespectful, thoughtless others. I am deeply grieved that this young woman felt the only way to end her pain was to take her own life.

And so I am writing to ask Mrs. Logan to seriously consider making a part of her presentation a call to personal purity for young people. The story admits that Jesse made an error in judgement when she sent her boyfriend those texts. Maybe it was an error in judgement that the young man sent the picture to others? Or maybe it was an error in judgement that the other girls taunted her with names and such? And maybe it was an error in judgement that the School Administration didn't do more? And we all make errors in judgement. So I am not sitting here impugning Jesse's morality but rather I am impugning the decades long assaults upon moral standards, given by God for personal purity, manufactured by those portions of our culture that have systematically tried to remove God and His standards from all aspects of our society. How many will have to die before we wake up to what we have done?

1 Thessalonians 4.2-5 "For you know what commands we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is God’s will: that you become holy, that you keep away from sexual immorality, that each of you know how to possess his own body in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God."

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

This just makes me laugh...Hillary...ous

ok this one you might not appreciate but it made me laugh...

click here

Ghosts

In our local weekly paper dated March 4th, 2009 an article appeared entitled, "Paranormal researcher claims state has many haunted places." The researchers name is Chad Lewis and it seems that he is well educated. According to the article, "Lewis is not a wild-eyed ghost buster obsessed with the hereafter. (Lewis has a master's degree in applied psychology from the University of Wisconsin-Stout.)

The line form the article that I am interested in came a bit before his credentials when it was time for audience q&a. "Another woman said her religion equated ghosts and spirits with demons and satanic possession. Lewis acknowledged some religions take that view. "I leave it up to the person. Make up your own mind," he said.""

First, I want to give the woman who said this credit for taking a stand. I wasn't there so all I have to go on is the way the paper reported her comments. Whether or not the dialogue was longer and more Biblically involved I do not know. In any case at least she made a stand.

My interest in engaging the comments of Lewis with respect to the ladies comment. Once again all I have is what the paper reported and so I am willing to give Mr. Lewis the benefit of the doubt. That being said, I find his trivialization of the woman faith typical and sad.

I will be doing a follow up article on the Biblical understanding of "ghosts" but for now I simply want to point out Mr. Lewis' dismissal of the religion of the woman. He shows his own illogical bias in his statement as quoted in the paper. At first glance it looks logical and I am sure that many people would agree with his statement but if it is looked at a bit closer you can see it's flaw.

To start with he acknowledges that some religions take that view. That is true and a logically consistent statement with respect to the woman's comment. In the direct quote, however, he makes a judgement that he does not apply consistently. He is quoted as saying that it is up to the person and that they should make up there own minds. There are two glaring flaws with his quote.

First, his statement makes the assumption that the woman has not used her own mind. How we know this is by saying that he leaves it up to the individual. The unstated premise is that she is not using her own mind but rather excepting what her religion tells her. Second, his statement also betrays his bias in that he believes that her religion or any religion that holds this view cannot possibly be right. How we know this is the same as before. He gives ultimate authority and judgement on such matter to the individual. Making up one's own mind is the ultimate autonomy. And for believing Christians who follow Christ might I remind you what happened when Adam and Eve "used their own minds" and ignore the Word of God?

So if I apply Mr. Lewis' own standards of judgement to his claims of haunting and the "technology" he uses. Sir with all due respect you are at the very least a scam artist and at the very worst you are of your father who was a liar from the beginning. You see I have used my own mind to come to that conclusion based upon what my own mind's understanding of Scripture is, which, by the way, acknowledges and yields to a spirit on such matters as authority and right and wrong and especially Truth...His Spirit. So I guess we do agree that Spirit exists.

Why another blog and why this one?

This is my third blog. The first one I stayed with for a while and it's still out there. The second never really got off the ground because I wasn't as committed to the idea and so I lost interest and deleted it. So I ask myself, "Why another blog?"

Recently I have become convinced of the need for followers of Christ to speak the truth, to live the truth, to advocate the truth and to contend for the truth. In Jude 3 God calls His people through Jude, "Dear friends, although I was eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints."

In the days when Jude wrote the Gospel was proclaimed and people were saved. Jude wanted to write about the salvation that they shared but The Holy Spirit moved him in another direction and as he put pen to paper he addresses that falsehood had crept into the body of belief of the Christian faith. So he implores his readers to go to war, fight the fight, and contend for the faith. The term used for contend earnestly was used in those days for the stadium contests. When the author of Scripture used it the meaning was nuanced in several ways. The one I am interested in is, "the thought of the goal which can be reached only with full expenditure of all our energies...the struggle for the kingdom of heaven allows for no indolence, indecision or relaxation." -Stauffer

The intent of this blog is to do just that in the whole of life. You may find posts about politics, religion, culture, society, sports, television, radio...you name it. The point, however, will be to bring to bear upon those things the Truth.

I hope that you may be challenged and that this will not degenerate into some kind of thoughtless ranting. I'm not the sharpest knife in the box but if you want to comment feel free and I'll try and explain things further.