Luke Chapter 2

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.

46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Luke Chapter 1

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

5 THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

7 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.

8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,

9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.

10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.

11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.

15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.

19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

21 And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.

22 And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.

23 And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.

24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,

25 Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

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:

42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.

53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

54 He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

56 And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

57 Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.

58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

60 And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.

61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.

62 And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.

63 And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.
64 And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.

65 And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.

66 And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him.

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,

79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

Galatians 4:4 - 6

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Michah 5:2

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.


* The Book of Micah was written in the 8th century B.C.

Jeremiah 23:5

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.


* The Book of Jeremiah was written in the late 6th / early 7th century B.C.

Isaiah 9:6 - 7

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.


* The Book of Isaiah was written in the 8th century B.C.

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Joke of the Day

Why is Barack Obama so thin and scrawny?


If he were any heavier he wouldn't be able to walk on water.

Florida Court Sets Atheist Holiday

In Florida, an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover Holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."


* Thanks to Arthur Jermyn

Anodyne

He mumbled a little prayer and moved his mouse, placing the arrow over the words "Animate Matters" topping his Favorites list.

He swallowed and closed his eyes.

His hand shook.

He left-clicked and peeked at the website, fearing the worst.

"Well, I'll be a Darwinian's uncle!" he screamed. He leapt out of his chair and wobbled the cubicle wall back and forth with both hands. "He finally posted something new!"

He gazed around and noted panicked expressions on the other office drones' faces.

"Um, I'm sorry," he said, straightening his bow tie. "But he hasn't written anything in over two weeks. Withdrawal, you know."

The nearest desk jockey tsked and shook his head. "What's the world coming to?" he inquired of the nude woman offering him a "come hither" look from his monitor screen.

Happy Thanksgiving

Everyone, enjoy your day! (And remember the starving pygmies in Mexico).

We All Worship the Same Schizophrenic

Some congressional Republicans are threatening a filibuster to block confirmation of a federal appeals court nominee because of his religious rulings. But they won't get the support of Indiana GOP Senator, Richard Lugar.

In 2005, Judge David Hamilton ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives could not open its sessions with prayers that mentioned Jesus Christ or used terms like "savior."

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions noted that Hamilton was willing, however, to allow a Muslim cleric to offer invocations that mention Allah.

But fellow Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana, who supports Hamilton, said the judge was simply allowing use of the Arabic word for God in non-sectarian invocations.



Here's a quick jaunt into history. Before Muhammed, the word "ilah" meant god or divinity. The Pagan Arabs worshipped a pantheon of gods. Each tribe had its own chief god, whom it called "al-ilah," or "the god." Allah is a shortened form of al-ilah, made conventional prior to Muhammed, and surviving into modern parlance.

The moon god, Hubal, was one of the primary gods of the Quraish tribe (Muhammed's tribe) preceding Islam's advent. Evidence exists that Hubal was Lord of the Kaaba, and known as Allah. Muhammed's contribution to the equation was separating Hubal -- or Allah -- from the flock and enthroning him as the one genuine god. This is the god of Islam. Though monotheist, Islam is a religion with pagan polytheistic origins.

Allah isn't just the Arabic word for God. It means different things to different people. To a Christian Arab, Allah is a generic name for the One True God of the Bible, whose nature is Trinitarian, and who reveals Himself and reaches out to us in the person of Jesus Christ. To a Muslim Arab, Allah is the god of the Koran, who tells his people to smite the infidels and slay the idoloters where they find them. He is the god of dhimmitude and destruction.

I see this ruling as discrimination against Christianity, regardless whatever noises to the contrary Lugar and Hamilton make. The attitude they have cultivated is that a Muslim cleric praying to Allah is a non - sectarian event -- an absurdity, on its face -- but a Christian praying to Jesus Christ is somehow partisan. They ignore context, such as the absence of a trinity in Islam. A Muslim invoking Allah is the Islamic equivalent to a Christian invoking Jesus. Yet they find no fault with the first, and decry the latter. This is either anti - Christian bigotry, or gross ignorance of comparative religion.

The implied assumption from these two men is that Muslims and Christians worship the same god. Most informed Christians would disagree; but the burden of proof lies with those making the audacious claim that two wildly divergent personalities are expressions of the same supreme being. That Muslims claim reverence for the same God as Christians is an assertion of which I remain skeptical. Claims require evidence, and the available evidence does not support the contention that Jehovah = Islam's Allah.

Don' Ax Me (Or, Alternately, The Face That Launched a Thousand Ships)

"I don't know where the @#$%!^&* he was born! No one does!

Surprise!

I bet you never saw this one coming:


Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.

The Sacred Other Shows Its Taste for Blood. . .Again

It seems that a Muslim attacked Ft. Hood on November 5, killing 12 and wounding 31, at last count.

Can you imagine how startled I was at this revelation? One of Muhammed's Peaceniks?! Why, I never! After all, Muslims exploding in violence -- both literally and figuratively -- only happens everywhere that Allah's Amiables rub shoulders with dirty, rotten infide -- uh, I mean, non - Muslims. It's a recent development, too, having started just before A.D. 632. That's shy of 1,400 years; by the standards of deep time, we're talking yesterday.

This blindsided me like a mujahid on camelback -- a scimitar - chop to my comfort zone.

Now let's watch the media transform this fellow from a prayer - rug - prostrating, shahada - babbling, goat - amourizing jihadi, into a Tennessee redneck who voted for Reagan, has a gun rack in his pickup, and believes the South will rise again.

Of Pirates, Pin Cushions, and Purple Hearts

I understand why women pierce their ears: tasteful earrings accentuate a woman's natural beauty. I get it.

What I don't get is the infatuation men have with doing the same. No offense, "guys," but I just don't see the allure. Unless you really, really wish you were a "Danica" instead of a "Dan," or "Billie Jean" instead of "William," I can't figure out why you'd enjoy sticking dangly bangly frippery in your earlobes. I suppose a sufferer of Adam-and-Steveism is acting consistently with his perversion when he goes to the mall and gets his ears pierced, but this specimen of hu"man"ity is Not Right, in the first place.

I can think of two exceptions in which a man may retain his masculinity and also adorn himself with aural hula hoops or glittering baubles:

The first is if you are a woad - painted, naked Celt screaming across a fenland with axe raised high enough to split someone from stem to sternum. I won't question your manliness; I'll just duck out of the way. Insert any other barbarian killer, if this one doesn't fit your fancy.

The other is if you are an honest - to - goodness pirate -- and I'm not talking about the namby pamby modern equivalent with machine guns. I'm referencing the cutlass - waving, eyepatch - accessorizing, parrot - befriending, pegleg - hobbling, rum - guzzling, wench - slapping, keelhauling, plank - walking, maiden - despoiling, Jolly Roger - saluting, shark - baiting, Davy Jones' Locker - accomodating, chantey - bellowing, barnacle - chomping, doubloon - filching, tricorn - hatted Port Royalist with an open - throated tunic and hair on your chest thick and gnarly as steel wool.

If you're of the male persuasion, and this description fits you, then you have my blessing. Deck yourself out to your heart's content. If you're female and fit the above characterization, God help you.

Now we've come to the point at which Things Get Worse: I'm talking about the "fellers" who have discovered that a ring in each ear just won't do. Nope. But maybe one through the nipple will satisfy. Or the upper lip. Or the lower. Or the nostril. Or the tongue. Or the eyebrow. Or the eyelid. Or -- for the love of Blackbeard's navel - ring -- through the eyeball. Or all of the above. Yeccch, I'm just making this up as I go.

If you walk through a metal detector, and the thing begins to smoke and scream for help, you just might be a human pin cushion. Ditto if electromagnetic exposure means decapitation, your girlfriend wears ten thimbles when she touches you, or if someone mistakes you for an extra from that disney favorite, Hellraiser.

I once went to a family get - together, and as I spoke to my younger cousin, I noticed an honest - to - goodness silver metal bar about two inches long protruding through the middle portion of his ear.

I asked him if he'd received a Purple Heart.

Puzzled, he said "Huh?" and smiled.

I said, "Well, it appears that you've just come back from the front with an injury, and I believe you're still in need of having that shrapnel extracted from your ear," at which point he laughed me off and acted as if I was a little bit nuts.

Okay, the latter was a fair observation; but if I'm nuts, what about the guy who refused the medic when he offered to remove the shrapnel?

As one of the unpierced, I find myself confused when in the presence of primitives.

Michelle Okenya: "See, I Told You He Ghetto."

In little noticed remarks, Michelle Obama stated at a public event that her husband's mother, Ann Dunham, was "very young and very single" when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.

Her comments further undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.


So let me get this straight: We're supposed to believe Okenya's Spawning Tale, though his own wife contradicts it? Makes perfect sense to me, Bwana. At the very least, Balack should release his full birth certificate to Michelle; after all, if she doesn't have the right to know the number of official parents in his possession when the tribal gods smiled upon humanity and hallowed a bit of Earth with the wonder of him, then no one does. Maybe he can even clue her in on which portion of sub - Saharan Hawaii relishes that holy ground.

I suppose she's unaware of her flight from the official narrative, what with adjusting herself to the romantic pride that spontaneously generated over her husband acquiring that trifle, the U.S. presidency. What a superlative conglomeration of all the best elements of pride and humility!

Next, we'll learn the real truth -- that there was no father -- that his conception was a bona fide miracle, at which point we'll have a narrowed field of options: Messiah, or Darth Vader?

I expect a Midichlorian count will show us the Will of the Farce. . .

Belly Up

A Mexican, an Arab, and a Tennessee girl are in the same bar.

When the Mexican finishes his beer, he throws his glass in the air, pulls out his pistol, and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, "In Mexico, our glasses are so cheap we don't need to drink with the same one twice."

The Arab, obviously impressed by this, drinks his beer, throws the glass into the air, pulls out his AK-47, and shoots it to pieces. He says, "In the Arab World, we have so much sand to make glasses that we don't need to drink with the same one twice either."

The Tennessee girl, cool as a cucumber, picks up her beer, downs it in one gulp, throws the glass into the air, whips out her .45, and shoots the Mexican and the Arab. Catching her glass, setting it on the bar, and calling for a refill, she says, "In Tennessee, we have so many illegal aliens that we don't have to drink with the same ones twice."

Both Sides of the Equation

Say What?

Og the gentle giant takes Howdy Doody for a family portrait.

Racism? What Racism?

You've got to hear this. As you listen, keep these tidbits of information in mind:


1. Roughly 96% of black voters chose Obama for the presidency.

2. Blacks make up about 13% of the U.S. population.

And the Unelected Shall Rule Them

I found a list of our illustrious president's czars. Something's rotten in the state of Obamark:


Afghanistan Czar: Mullah Omar

AIDS Czar: Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Jr.

Bailout Czar: John McCain

Border Czar: Jorge W. Bushandez

Car Czar: Dale Earnhardt

Climate Czar: Paul Ehrlich

Copyright Czar: Vox Day

Cyberspace Czar: Bambi

Drug Czar: Keith Richards

Economic Czar: Paul Krugman

Education Czar: Tupac Shakur

Energy Czar: Abdul Aziz

Faith-Based Czar: Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Great Lakes Czar: Erie S. Huron

Green Jobs Czar: Algore

Guantanomo Closure Czar: Muhammed Inshallah Castro

Health Care Czar: Rahm Emanuel

Income Redistribution Czar: Michael Moore

Information Czar: Joseph Goebbels

Intelligence Czar: Forrest Gump

Internet Fraud Czar: Abimbola Abubakar

Iran Czar: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Latin American Czar: Shakira

Mideast Policy Czar: Osama bin Laden

Middle-East Peace Czar: Ahmad Jihad

Mortgage Czar: Barney "Congressional Queen" Frank

Pay Czar: Bernie Madoff

Performance Czar: Viagra Jones

Radio-Internet Fairness Czar: George Soros

Regulatory Czar: LL Cool J

‘Safe Schools’ Czar: Dylan Klebold

Science Czar: Richard Dawkins

Stimulus Accountability Czar: Nancy Pelosi

Sudan Czar: Jafar Hasan

Tarp Czar: Ken Lay

Technology Czar: Bill Gates

Terrorism Czar: Bill Ayers

Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Je$$e Jack$on

Violence Against Women Czar: Ted Bundy

Voter List Czar: ACORN

War Czar: Cindy Sheehan

Weapons Czar: Rosie O'Donnell

WMD Czar: Hans Blix

Zoning Czar: Timothy Leary

Boy Toy Czar: Ashton Kutcher

American Pride Czar: Michelle Obama

There's No Sex Like Gay Sex

"Gay" sex is morally good and is as "wonderful" as heterosexual relations, according to Chai Feldblum, President Obama's nominee to become commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"Gay sex is morally good," she said. "Now you may think that might be a little crazy to go out there and say gay sex is good. But think a second. Society definitely believes that heterosexual sex is good. Right. Heterosexual sex within a certain framework – marriage – I mean, you can't get more dewy-eyed and romantic in this society about how wonderful that is."


"Morally good" according to what moral framework? Certainly not the Judeo - Christian worldview upon which the U.S.A. is founded. I'd be interested in hearing an explication of how she reached this bizarre, aberrant conclusion -- especially the part where she extols the virtues of behavior that makes one more susceptible to disease and a subsequent truncated lifespan.


Continued Feldblum: "If you're not being cynical for the moment, I think that does reflect a correct understanding that sex is often a basic building block for intimacy and that intimacy and connections within couples and within families are integral building blocks for a healthy society."


She's admitting that sex has a moral component. The question is determining where the line must be drawn between moral virtue and moral decrepitude. I wonder if she sees sexual relations between adults and children as wholesome, or relations between humans and animals? If "intimacy" and "connections" are taking place in such relationships, upon what basis would one condemn them, utilizing her logic?


She is co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, which she described at the UCLA symposium as a homosexual rights group that aimed to change "the American workplace and revolutionize social mores."


"Revolutionizing social mores." Yes, that's what we need in abundance. Because it's worked so well elsewhere.


"This is a war that needs to be fought, and it's not a war overseas where we are killing people in the name of liberating them. It is a war right here at home where we need to convince people that morality demands full equality for gay people," she said at the symposium.


And by "equality," she means "bestowing special rights upon a persecuted minority." In no sense is this synonymous to treating someone as an equal.

Edgar Rice Burroughs

For fans of classic science fiction and fantasy, here's a website with many of the master's public domain books available for free.

Give the Devil His Due

This is my entry to The Friday Challenge, 9/25/09 edition. I had fun with this:



Dear Sainted Cephas:


I know that manning the Pearly Gates is both full - time and taxing work, so I'll keep this epistle short and not take up a lot of your eternity with idle chatter. I'm writing in reference to one Edward "Ted" Kennedy, as I cannot understand how he became an inmate of my rather storied asylum. I'd like you to pass this message on to our Holy Lord, in hopes that He will attend the clerical error that sloshed Ted out of hot water and plopped him down into the fire, as it were. Surely this illustrious man deserves a thousand acres with plenty of frontage on a street paved with gold; to wit:

Ted loved women; no American politician loved women more, with the possible exception of one William Jefferson Clinton; however the latter no doubt is the subject of a future letter and not the present one, so we'll end with him on that tantalizing note. Setting aside the late Chappaquiddick unpleasantness -- in which Ted did everything short of risking his life and status for Mary Jo Kopechne's safety -- Ted has proven a sterling example to hormonal exuberance everywhere. Speaking of women, Ted was a firm believer in a woman's right to choose. This is a profound point in his favor, for if women have no right to choose, then what choice do they have, besides back alleys and rusty coat hangers? Jehoshaphat, how such barbarism offends my delicate sensibilities!

Given that two heads are better than one, Ted's Janus - faced brand of politics brought new meaning to cutting edge political opportunism, which in turn stoked such innovations as pandering, demagoguery, and bipartisanship. I contend that this polysyllabic praise should not go unnoticed. Nor should Ted go unrewarded -- for how many mere men could balance a giggling girl on one knee, and a good stiff Chivas Regal on the other -- without spilling either one? Ted Kennedy and none other, that's how many. I know Heaven already has a Lion of Judah, but how about the Lion of the Senate? Collect them all. Our Father's house has many mansions; and I'm certain that at least one needs a Fifth Column; in matters temporal and spiritual, that's where Ted Kennedy comes in. Please give my tiny request all due consideration. Thank you for your attention. Give my best to Michael.


Your Humble Servant,

Prince Lucifer S. Brimstone


P.S. The air conditioner's on the fritz, and we're having a devil of a time with the heat! Send someone from maintenance A.S.A.P.! Thanks.

"L"

Dungus Darwinius

A newly discovered dung beetle is named after Charles Dungwin -- I mean, Darwin.

I can think of nothing more fitting.

Except perhaps an intestinal parasite named after Obama.

Evidence of a Biblical Patriarch

This is very interesting:


Egyptian coins carrying the name of Joseph, the biblical patriarch whose arrival in Egypt as a slave eventually provided salvation for his family during decades of drought across the Middle East, have been discovered in a cache of antique items shelved in boxes in a museum, according to a new report.

The report from the Middle East Media Research Institute said the coins with Joseph's name and image were found in a pile of unsorted artifacts that had been stored at the Museum of Egypt.

"A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait," said the newspaper report.

One even had the image of a cow "symbolizing Pharaoh's dream about the seven fat cows and seven lean cows, and the seven green stalks of grain and seven dry talks of grain," the report said.

"Joseph's name appears twice on this coin, written in hieroglyphs: once the original name, Joseph, and once his Egyptian name, Saba Sabani, which was given to him by Pharaoh when he became treasurer. There is also an image of Joseph, who was part of the Egyptian administration at the time," the report said.


This must be another example of those "biblical inconsistencies" that surface so often.

A Hymn to Obama

Sing with me now:


Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

He'll steal your cash and take your soul.
World domination is his goal.

Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

In your hand he holds your fate;
You're just a wage - slave of the state.

Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

If your skin is pearly white,
Watch out for the new Dark Knight.

Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

Won't you come and join, with me,
His cult of personality?

Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

Honolulu or Mombasa --
Whence came you, my Dear Mufasa?

Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

What a Crock Part II

Part I


If you read the text of Okenya's health care deform speech to Congress, you'll discover that he, too, was accusing people of lying just moments before Joe Wilson set his preapproved script aside and uttered the unvarnished truth. Here's a relevant excerpt:


Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.


Judging by media reactions, it seems that accusing people of lying during a speech given before a joint session of Congress is perfectly acceptable -- if you happen to be the president.

Summation:

Our illustrious president making false accusations before Congress of radio and cable talk show hosts and prominent politicians lying about his health care plan = good.

Joe Wilson rightfully pointing out before Congress that Okenya is lying about his health care plan = evil.

Clearly, the Mulatto Messiah is held to different standards than the rest of us peons -- far lower ones.

What a Crock

By now, I'm sure everyone has heard about Okenya's little speech to Congress, during which Representative Joe Wilson (R - SC) stated, "You lie!" when the subject of illegal alien health care coverage arose.

Leaping on the story faster than Kanye West on someone else's microphone, the Okenya Sycophancy Media (OSM, hereafter) denounced Wilson as boorish and reprehensible in his behavior; Maureen Dowd and others - including Jimmy Carter - have even gone so far as to suggest that racism was the motivating factor in Wilson's outburst. Of course, no evidence need apply. The mere fact that one disagrees with the Mulatto Messiah is proof of racism, in and of itself; this has been Rule Number One for Democrats and the OSM since the day Okenya strolled into office after selling the nation a bill of goods.

Inevitably, the matter of whether or not Wilson was correct in his accusation is of less importance to the OSM than the question of Ronald Reagan's favorite Bible verse.

So while the OSM is checking for racists in every wood pile, let's address and answer the question: Was Joe Wilson correct?

I'll let the following passages speak for themselves:


Barbara Simpson: I have the full copy of H.R. 3200 at home on my dining room table – all 1,017 pages of it. I've read it all. There's nothing in it that screens out non-residents, much less illegal aliens.

Indeed, two congressional committee attempts to pass legislation to specifically require proof of legality were twice voted down by Democrats.


Ann Coulter (responding to Rachel Maddow of MSNBC): In other words, illegal aliens are excluded from precisely one section of the thousand-page, goodie-laden health-care bill: Section 246, which distributes taxpayer-funded "affordability credits" to people who can't afford to pay for their own health care.

Even this minor restriction on taxpayer largesse to illegals will immediately be overturned by the courts. But the point is: Except for vouchers, the bill does not even pretend to exclude illegals from any part of national health care – including the taxpayer-funded health insurance plan.

Moreover, liberals won't have to wait for some court to find that the words "nothing in this subtitle shall allow" means "this bill allows," because the bill contains no mechanism to ensure that the health-care vouchers aren't going to illegal aliens. Nor does the bill prohibit the states from providing taxpayer-funded health care vouchers to illegals.

Democrats keep voting down Republican amendments that would insert these restrictions – just before dashing to a TV studio to denounce anyone who says the health-care bill covers illegal aliens.


Examiner.com: The Center for Immigration Studies reported that Obamacare could benefit 6.6 million illegal immigrants, costing taxpayers an estimated $31 billion. The Congressional Research Service stated that Obamacare "does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens – whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently – participating in the exchange." The CRS also noted that there is no requirement for people to present proof of citizenship for coverage. In July, Republican Representative Nathan Deal proposed an amendment that would require identity verification for coverage, but the amendment was defeated by the House. (emphasis mine)


Given that the health care deform bill is Okenya's pet project, belief in his ignorance about what it contains or omits simply isn't credible. That leaves us with duplicity.

Last time I checked, actions speak louder than words. So the OSM, Okenya, and his acolytes in the Democrat Party shouldn't expect our trust, when their actions don't match their words. Contrary to the zeitgeist, our president isn't a god; we're not obligated to accept on faith whatever steaming load he shovels at us -- despite all contrary evidence. Until Okenya and the Democrats explain why efforts at amending the bill by excluding illegal aliens were voted down, and when they provide rational answers as to why a one thousand - plus - page document includes no significant language banning border jumpers from blanket coverage, I'll continue in my agreement with Joe Wilson, and reiterate his words:

"You lie."

Representing Flaming Incoherency Since 1981

Crusades of Greed?

In a recent discussion regarding atheism at Vox Popoli, a commenter made this statement:


It wasn't religion that was responsible for the crusades, 30 years war, or anything for that matter, it was peoples greed, need for revenge, pride, ego, etc etc. that did it and they just used religion as a JUSTIFICATION. So religion wasn't to blame, it was just a tool to justify peoples own selfish desires. -- Theological Discourse, 9/6/09, 5:23 PM


The above was an attempt at using atheists' logic against them. This comment followed:


At least in the case of the Crusades, greed (economic considerations) actually were the main reason. Religion was just a red herring. (Think of "Clue" the movie.) -- Duckman, 9/6/09, 5:26PM


The second utterance couldn't be further from the truth. It is debatable whether economic considerations were factors; what is not debatable is that they were not primary factors.

How does greed explain the rich nobles who sold off vast tracts of land or other significant portions of their estates -- or in some cases, virtually everything they owned -- that their followers should have food and clothing and weapons? Does this behavior stem from greed as a primary motivator?

How about the poor peasants who left home and hearth, their wives and children -- some with the anticipation that they would never look upon their loved ones again -- and set forth into a land unknown? Lust for monetary gain does not satisfy as an explanation.

Some relevant passages:


Some scholars used to make much of the idea that crusaders gained great wealth from the Crusades, and that most crusaders were motivated by greed and a hunger for power. The primary sources do not bear this out, as crusading seems to have been a hard, lonely, expensive, dangerous proposition. Few if any serious students of the Crusades accept this explanation today.

***

For medieval men and women, the crusade was an act of piety, charity, and love; but it was also a means of defending their world, their culture, and their way of life. It is not surprising, then, that the crusades lost their appeal when Christians no longer identified themselves first and foremost as members of one body of Christ. By the sixteenth century, Europe was dividing itself along political rather than religious lines. In that new world, the crusade had no place.

***

Historians used to believe that a rise in Europe's population led to a crisis of too many noble "second sons," those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense.

Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth. We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the Pope's call in 1095, as well as in subsequent Crusades.

Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. Most were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.

After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories.

Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.

They underwent such expense and hardship because they believed that by coming to the aid of their Christian brothers and sisters in the East they were storing up treasure where rust and moth cannot corrupt.

They were very mindful of Christ's exhortation that he who will not take up his cross is not worthy of Christ. They also remembered that "Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends."


Once can argue whether or not the Crusades demonstrated a good idea brought to fruition; one even can debate the moral necessity and ramifications of such pilgrimages. But the idea that the Crusades originated in base greed is a notion not borne out by the known historical facts. Speaking of "primary," this is one of the primary areas of historical study for attracting those who enjoy spouting off, safe from the bastions of ignorance. It's right up there with the history of modern science, and the "Civil" War.

"Progress" by the Sword

President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation's culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

How many times has this guy done this, now? I've lost count. I suppose 9/11 qualifies as enrichment. It's the religion's most lavish effort toward that end, after all.

"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.

Oallah has contributed to the same steaming load as Duhbya, only far more often, and with heightened laudatory language. A product of the American public indoctrination centers knows more about U.S. history than this clown.

The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."

Man, this would be pure comedy gold, if it wasn't vomited forth by someone who should know better. I know that I define progress as physically attacking people who don't share my religion, destroying ancient civilizations, pillaging and raping, oppressing women, treating non - Muslims as tenth - class citizens, and bestowing the three illustrious gifts of slavery, death, or acceptance of Allah to those whom Muslims defeat. If you don't consider this progress, then you're just not forward enough in your thinking.

By the by, why would you celebrate a major holiday of a religion that isn't your own? I can't remember the last time I heard tell of a Muslim celebrating Easter.

81 Years

What a great testimony to love and loyalty.

It's nice reading the occasional poignant story amidst all the depressing indications of cultural suicide that we're currently enduring.

I think this is far more in - line with what God wants for marriage than the no - fault, I'm - bored - let's - get - a - divorce garbage we see on display with such troubling frequency in modern times.

Ted the Red Is Dead

I don't know about my readers, but I'm sick of hearing accolades heaped upon the moldering, pickled carcass of Ted "Commie Red" Kennedy. Someone explain to me what is praiseworthy about a man who championed socialism for his entire political career?

While you're at it, walk me through the honor found in the Chappaquiddick incident, in which Kennedy "accidentally" drove off a bridge with a girl in his vehicle, escaped the wreck and left her to die, then reported the incident the following day, after authorities had located her body. Mary Jo Kopechne's death resulted from Kennedy's probable intoxication while operating a motor vehicle, and poor old Ted somehow soldiered through the harsh sentence of a two - month suspended jail term. What stoicism in the face of adversity. As sterling demonstrations of his statesmanship, Kennedy has been known to make jokes about Chappaquiddick, over the years.

Various organizations from across the political spectrum -- such as Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union, NARAL, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, the National Right to Life Committee, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence -- all find common ground in one area, at least: that Ted Kennedy was one of the most left - wing members of the Senate.

Good ol' Uncle Ted supported a woman's "right" to choose to kill her innocent, unborn child. He backed "gay" special rights. And he was one of the most shameless panderers to illegal aliens in U.S. politics.

I see nothing noble about a life lived in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the Catholic Church with whom he claimed membership, and the moral laws of God. In all of his major political views, this man staked positions anathema to historical Americanism. For him, bipartisanship meant "convincing people that my way is better than the highway."

Ted Kennedy was part of the problem with our country. Other politicans of like mind still pose threats to our once - great nation. Every man is a mixed bag, but you cannot put on a straight face and argue that Ted Kennedy was a net good for America -- not if you have an inkling of an idea what the Founders intended. But let me tell you what is good for America: that Kennedy is no longer a craftsman of social policy or a standard - bearer for immorality. We now have one less enemy within our gates, hell - bent on this nation's dissolution.

Atheist Objections Part VII

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI


#7 (Non-reductive physicalism) There is no empirical evidence and/or reason to accept the concept of a non-material soul. Christopher Hitchens brought this up in a recent debate with a Jewish Rabbi at New York City. Non-reductive physicalism makes the most sense when analyzing human behavior. Why do we see our grandparents lose all sense of awareness? Or a particular disease makes someone change their entire demeanor. What about Phineas Gage? It appears to be obvious that all our behavior stems from physical components and that there is nothing outside of the material world in creating cognitive thoughts as well as our temperament.


He assumes that the sole legitimate form of evidence is empirical evidence. This contention aside, what is "empirical evidence?" The Oxford English Dictionary (online) says: adjective -- based on observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

OK, having observed and experienced myself for my entire life, I can say that I am more than just a collection of atoms on a one - way trip to oblivion's boneyard. As sure as anyone knows anything, I know that I am a soul. I'm aware that this fails as conclusive proof, but it passes the test as observational and experiential, if for me alone. If you want scientific evidence of an external, demonstrable quality, look elsewhere. I have the internal evidence of myself, but I cannot lay it on a slide under a microscope for you.

That said, embracing Hitchens' reasoning, I can say with confidence that no empirical evidence exists that he loves his mother; therefore, he does not love his mother. See the endless possibilities for this brand of "logic?"

Speaking of logic, it cannot abide the nonexistence of souls. Logic is reason or sound judgment. If we are happy accidents -- mere bundles of mobile matter -- and not spiritual beings encased in physical bodies, then we have no reason to insist on the concept of rationality, as our thoughts have purely material origins, and may or may not be reliable. If we cannot know if our thoughts are reliable, logic loses its usefulness to us, because logic assumes A.) its own existence, and B.) that it is comprehensible to humanity. By the way, science as we understand it accepts the existence and general reliability of logic as an axiom. Without reason, our whole basis for morality and government and justice flies right out the window.

If we have no souls, then free will is a pipe dream. We are slaves to the materials that make up our bodies. Our thoughts and actions are predetermined. Here I must add that I've never known another human being who lived his life as if he assumed that others had no control over their actions, being products of unguided materialism.

The logical end of materialism is nihilism; if we are biological automatons, then the murderer or rapist or robber is as much a victim of physics as the murdered, the raped, or the robbed. The idea that non - reductive physicalism makes the most sense of human behavior is a naked assertion; that's an interesting argumentative tack for someone demanding empirical evidence for the soul.

I have read that every seven to nine years, or thereabouts, the matter of our bodies is replaced, including that in our brains. So the physical components that constituted the superficial me no longer exist as parts of my body; yet I remain myself. I have memories of events that occured before the materials of my physical makeup became parts of the greater whole that is the material me. If this doesn't impress you as strong evidence that humans are more than matter conglomerations, I dare say that nothing else would, either.

We also have the Holy Bible as evidence that humans have souls, offering a plethora of verses on the subject. We are told about life after death (Revelation 6:9), obtaining salvation for one's soul (John 3:16), and even finding rest for our souls (Matthew 11:29), among numerous other references.

On the subject of grandparents "losing all sense of awareness," I don't know what this means; he should have elaborated further. My maternal great - grandmother suffered from an advanced state of Alzheimer's Disease at the time of her passing. She also had pneumonia. My paternal grandfather succumbed to a rare form of bone cancer. At no point did either of my loved ones "lose all sense of awareness."

As for injuries / diseases that change a person's demeanor, I can see how one might argue for an irrevocable link between the physical and spiritual in our lives on Earth, but I don't see how this supports the nonexistence of souls. It also fits the biblical view that we live in a fallen world. If you've read most or all of these posts addressing atheist objections, you've probably noticed the trend of atheists and agnostics ignoring this central Christian tenet in their questioning of Christians, as I have pointed it out more than once.

Atheist Objections Part VI

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V


#6 (Occam’s Razor) Sam Harris says, "Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Scientists, of course, readily admit their ignorance on this point. There is, in fact, no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer."

While I think this can be turned on the atheist it certainly cannot be turned on the agnostic. Being a Christian means one has to pretend to know things that he/she does not know. Shouldn't one accept the least amount of beliefs that cannot be provided with sufficient evidence? Holding to unneeded presuppositions leads to bad conclusions to the things we do know or should know.


The first paragraph engages in question - begging; Harris assumes that the Holy Bible is not God's Word; a logical extension of this supposition is that no one knows why the universe exists. So Harris' view requires the presumption that his worldview is correct, which remains undemonstrated.

As to why humanity exists, God created us for His pleasure. Colossians 1:16: "All things were created by him and for him." His creative act brings Him pleasure and satisfaction, just as our own creative outlets bring us satisfaction, albeit on a lesser, sin - obscured level.

The universe exists for His pleasure, as well -- and for ours. Psalm 19:1: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." The universe is a constant, viewable evidence of His presence and glory.

I'm not sure why humans and animals, stars and planets bring Him pleasure, but they do; this was especially true before the Fall of Man. God has not explained Himself in full, but He also informed us that we should not find this surprising. Isaiah 55: 8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." 1 Corinthians 13:12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Acceptance of scripture means having faith that God has answers for us in the next life, even if we retain a degree of ignorance in this one.

The Christian does know why the universe exists. He does know why humanity exists. Some -- including Christians -- find the answers incomplete or unsatisfactory, and I sympathize with that. But agnosticism offers indecision and confusion, and atheism offers nothing. To sum up:

Christianity = a real but inexhaustive explanation.

Agnosticism = a refusal to offer an explanation.

Atheism = an inability to offer an explanation.

I know that the atheist or agnostic might observe that Christians also question - beg, in that they assume the truth of scripture in reaching certain conclusions. True, but the difference is that Christians admit the need for faith in their beliefs; atheists typically don't; and agnostics remain indecisive on the issue.

The position that we don't know why the universe exists is no less taking a stand on the issue than the notion that we do know.

I'd like to see Harris or his acolytes elaborate on how atheism better adheres to Ockham's Razor than Christianity. William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar and theologian. He saw no contradiction of his maxim in Christianity. His rule of thumb, stated simply, suggests that when two or more theories fit the facts, we should embrace the one requiring fewer assumptions. So atheists must explain how a belief that something originated from nothing stands superior to the belief that something came from something greater. Agnostics posit that God's existence is unknowable, but is this true? I can't prove beyond doubt that God exists, but the alternative is belief in materialistic spontaneous generation, or the assumption that life arose from inanimate matter, which was disproven by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. And before anyone mentions abiogenesis, understand that it's just an updating and expansion of the same tired theory, dressed in modernized garb. So whereas I can't demonstrate God's indisputable existence, I can offer the same options from above: something from nothing, or something from something greater. You can't outrun the question by remaining an agnostic.

Regarding the idea that Christians profess knowledge they don't possess: We've already covered the faith aspect, earlier. That aside, we have the assumption, yet again, that scripture isn't God's Word to Man. So accusing Christians of "pretending" doesn't hold much water, since this remains unproven. The question of whether or not scripture is a fanciful compendium of fairy tales, or the Word of God, needs addressing before one can assert with integrity that Christians indulge in "make - believe." History, prophetic fulfillment, and ethical considerations indicate that the Holy Bible is far more than a book of fiction.

And I reiterate: the Christian worldview is more coherent and logical than one steeped in atheism or agnosticism.

Man of Two Births

First we were told that the document provided online by Okenya was his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) from Hawaii. If you look at the document for yourself, you'll notice that it lists his birthdate as August 4, 1961.

Now Okenya's official MySpace page says that he's 52, not 48. If this is true, he was first swaddled in a red diaper in 1957, not 1961.

Both of these possible ages were provided by Okenya, himself.

To his defenders: Perhaps you can explain to all us silly conspiracy theorists how a man can be born in 1957 and 1961.

After reading this, if you don't believe Okenya is lying about his birth, I hope you're getting plenty of Miracle - Gro and water, each day, because you're dumb even by the standards of foliage.

A Nativity Mystery

He has no documents extant,
No records of His life.
No paper trail will find him out.
He's uncut by that knife.

He's American as baseball
And homemade apple pie;
But if you press his place of birth,
He'll spit right in your eye.

Don't seek his advent doctor's name.
A COLB is all you'll get.
Don't ask where his first squalls took place.
Just kiss his coronet.

He'll smile his Serengeti smile
And snare you with his spell;
But ere you learn where he was spawned,
You'll ice - skate, first, in Hell.

"Marriage Ain't Easy. . . but I Sure Am"

I came across this "Dear Abby" letter from a couple of weeks back and thought I'd share its sterling advice with all of you:
　

DEAR ABBY: I have been married for four weeks. Two weeks after my wedding I met a man who excites me and makes my heart race. My husband, "Mitch," and I dated for eight years prior to getting married. We're both 25.

I have only slept with one other man than Mitch in my entire life -- someone I cheated on him with for a couple of weeks. Mitch and I had dated for two years at that point, and I was only 19. Mitch never found out.

I have spent two nights with this new man. I think about him constantly -- at work and at night when Mitch is asleep. I can't get him off my mind, and he feels the same about me. But he tells me that he feels guilty, that what we're doing is wrong and I should forget about him.

My relationship with Mitch is boring. We spend a lot of time at home and don't go out much. Mitch goes to bed early, and I'm tempted to leave and go see this other man. What do I do?

-- MARRIED, BUT ...
　

DEAR MARRIED, BUT ...: I suspect you already know what you need to do. First, level with your husband. Then see if you can have the marriage annulled because, although it has lasted only a month, it is already over.
　

And that's all, folks; that's the brilliance that earned her a daily newspaper column for decades. That's the wisdom and common sense that scythes right through to the heart of the matter. Can you imagine that she would've been so flippant about the intentional destruction of this marriage if a man had served as instigator? Where's her criticism of this extraordinarily selfish woman? These people married after an eight year "courtship," then the "wife" began cheating on her husband two weeks into their month - long marriage. What words adequately convey the depth of this sleazy treachery? And what is the likelihood that she remained faithful to him during the previous eight years, outside the one incident she mentions?

Notice how her partner in adultery seems more guilty in his feelings than she does. Her relationship is boring because hubby goes to bed early, and they don't go out much. Golly, I can't think of a better reason to stab him in the back and break the knife off at the hilt, can you? Forget sharing your concerns with him, girlie. Forget working out your problems -- none of which sound unsolvable. Making a mockery of your vows and relationship seems so much easier.

"Abby" obviously isn't a Christian, though her curt and nonjudgmental garbage is what I would expect from a feminist along the lines of "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." No condemnation of the uber - narcissism on display. No lecture about honesty and fidelity. No call for repentance. Just tell him the truth as you're walking out the door en route to your next tryst. That's impressive.

This brand of "advice" is part of the problem with America, today. And it's as useless as throwing an anvil to a drowning man.

Unless your goal is sending him to Davy Jones' Locker, of course.

Atheist Objections Part V

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV


5. If abortion is wrong why is God the #1 abortion doctor? Sam Harris brings this up and Douglas Wilson's response is basically "God gives and takes away." It is what the Bible says but which worldview makes the most sense given the large number of miscarriages?


I find treating these questions with respect difficult, since most have implied assumptions built into them -- assumptions that atheist inquirers don't acknowledge. For example, in the above question he proffers the assumption that God participates with due dilligence in every infant miscarriage. It's self - evident that this is what he means; otherwise, why dub God "the #1 abortion doctor?" Abortion doctors (an oxymoronic association, if I've ever heard one) kill people with intent; it's the bulk of their job description. However, this is nothing but a joker in a house of cards. Why should we accept that God terminates children in the womb? Does He sit up on a cloud, and say: "Nah, I don't like little Billy - to - be, though I just created his soul a month ago." ZAP! Where's the evidence for this? Since our dear atheist sympathizer has provided none whatsoever, Christians have no obligation to answer in greater detail than I've offered, here, or even entertain this tripe as a serious attempt at understanding. This seems more like an effort at playing "Stump the Dummy."

As usual, the questioner ignores basic Christian teaching about a fallen world laboring under God's curse, which came as a result of sin.

He demonstrates confusion between action and inaction, as well. If I see two men in a fistfight, and I do nothing to stop it, is that the same as wading in and punching both in the face? Better yet, if I don't stop baby - killing at the local abortuary by going Rambo on the Hippocratic Hypocrites within, is that synonymous to performing abortions?

As a brief digression, I followed Douglas Wilson's debate with Christopher Hitchens at Christianity Today in its entirety. I've also perused his blog a time or two. I doubt that he'd offer something so facile as "God gives and takes away" as an answer to labeling God an abortionist. Rather, I think he'd skewer the atheist for his disingenuousness in asking a loaded question.

Intelligent Design and Creationism

I keep seeing "brights" comment in the blogosphere that Intelligent Design is just another word for Creationism. After people explain the differences between the two and point them to web - links explicating the distinctions, they continue equating them -- as if no clarification were ever offered -- and even accuse ID'ers and Creationists of lying.

It seems that being an intellectual luminary these days means confusion over simple word definitions and an inability to conduct superficial research about the beliefs of those with whom one disagrees, with intellectual dishonesty thrown in for spice. Impressive.

Given the efforts made toward disabusing them of their false notions, we can't even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance. The problem is either stupidity or conscious deceit.

Saying that Intelligent Design is the same as Creationism is like saying that being religious is the same as being a Muslim. And it's just as untrue.

Can a person be Muslim without being religious? No, because a Muslim is, by definition, one who follows the religion of Islam. But can a person be religious without being Muslim? Of course, because we know that a plethora of other religions exist -- such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Obamism, etc.

Can a person be a Creationist without being a believer in Intelligent Design? No, because Creationism assumes an intelligent designer as its starting point. But can a person advocate Intelligent Design without being a Creationist? Yes, because acceptance of a designer says nothing about the nature of that designer. Perhaps aliens seeded Earth (panspermia). Creationism, on the other hand, conforms to the Christian worldview. Further, it assumes a literal or face - value view of scripture -- regarding Genesis in particular.

If being religious is the set, then Islam is the subset. If ID is the set, then Creationism is the subset. There's nothing complicated about it.

Those who won't acknowledge these simple differences are corrupters of the English language, and enemies of truth.

Jew - hatred, Circa WWII

That in Germany it was the Jew who became the enemy until his place was taken by the "plutocracies" was no less result of the anticapitalist resentment on which the whole movement was based than the selection of the kulak in Russia. In Germany and Austria the Jew had come to be regarded as the representative of capitalism because a traditional dislike of large classes of the population for commercial pursuits had left these more readily accessible to a group that was practically excluded from the more highly esteemed occupations. It is the old story of the alien race's being admitted only to the less respected trades and then being hated still more for practicing them. The fact that German anti - semitism and anti - capitalism spring from the same root is of great importance for the understanding of what has happened there, but this is rarely grasped by foreign observers.

--The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek, pp. 153 - 154.

Prescience

The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -- Adam Smith

Sound like anyone we know?

Atheist Objections Part IV

Part I

Part II

Part III


4. "If God answers prayers why wouldn't He occasionally heal a deserving amputee? And why wouldn't people of faith expect prayer to work in such cases?"

Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation".


This guy must worship Harris, given the frequency with which he quotes him. He's not leaning toward atheism so much as Harrisism. Call it a cult of personality.

The two - part question above is silly beyond belief. What it boils down to is the notion that God doesn't exist, unless He behaves in the fashion I deem suitable. You'd be hard - pressed producing a better example of hubris. How does the doubter above know that God has not healed amputees? Has he embarked upon an exhaustive study of every documented case of amputation and its epilogue in recorded history? Such an undertaking makes compiling the Encyclopedia Britannica look like an afternoon's work. Furthermore, how does this question pertain to God's existence or non - existence?

I find it interesting that those who lean toward agnosticism / atheism express a willingness to entertain the idea that God exists, with the caveat that the hypothetical be aimed at discrediting Him.

Notice how the questioner exempts himself from providing evidence of his assertion, while requesting evidence from others. The problem with this audacious approach is that his question remains a non - starter, unless and until he demonstrates that God neglects healing amputees.

I have a question for Mr. Harris and the person whom I quoted parrotting his inquiry: If I provide evidence that God healed an amputee, will you abandon atheism and embrace belief? If your answer is "No," then I see no reason why I should consider your question as anything more than a rhetorical snare, with no real desire for the truth involved. In other words, you don't deserve an answer, because the question was never offered in good faith. If "Yes," that's a step in the right direction. My follow - up is: Why did you believe when given evidence of healed amputations, but rejected all other evidence prior to that point? Why did you ignore biblical, personal, historical, and logical testimonies that thoroughly bested your attacks and criticisms?

Scripture provides at least one specific example of Jesus healing an amputated body part. In the Garden of Gethsemane, when the temple guards came for Jesus, Peter attacked a servant of the high priest with his sword and cut off his ear. Jesus healed the man at once, making him whole. This occurs in Luke 22: 50-51.

Other potential examples include Jesus' healing of lepers in Mark 1: 40-42 and Luke 17: 12-14. Luke 7: 22 and other verses mention Jesus healing the lame, without detailing the nature of their handicaps. Some may have had limbs missing.

So you now have evidence that Jesus (God) heals amputees. I know the atheist will laugh this off, saying: "Well, I don't believe the Bible." That's fine, but scripture is a form of documentary evidence. If you reject it, that's your business, but it's dishonest to claim that it fails as evidence. The next logical question would be: "How do you define convincing evidence?" Some think scripture is sufficient. Others remain unconvinced, no matter how much evidence is presented. Some unbelievers have admitted that, if faced with the miraculous, they'd doubt their own senses rather than embrace the supernatural. An example along similar lines is that of the Pharisees, who witnessed Jesus' miracles, and accused him of allying Himself with Satan (Matthew 12: 24).

In one of Jesus' parables (Luke 16: 19-31), a rich man finds himself in the place of torment, and cries out to Abraham for him to send word of God's truth to his brothers. Abraham tells him that they have Moses and the prophets -- meaning scripture. The rich man says that if he'd send a poor beggar he'd known in life, they'd listen to someone returned from the dead. Abraham then informs him that if they'd ignore Moses and the prophets, they also would reject the testimony of one returned from death.

I think one point of this passage is that no amount of evidence is enough for those who don't want to believe.

Even in biblical times, miracles weren't common events; they happened in clusters: at the time of the Flood, Babel, the Exodus, during the period of the Judges, during Jesus' life, in the Disciples' ministry, etc. Perhaps we live in an era in which widespread, in - your - face miracles have simmered into the occasional miraculous event. Perhaps certain types of miracles happen with less frequency than at the time of Christ and the early Church.

Scripture makes clear that God's view of physical suffering is not the same as ours:

Romans 8: 18: For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Matthew 18: 8: Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Sometimes people suffer as a means of bringing glory to God, and drawing others to Him.

John 9: 1-3: And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

I want to close by saying that the inquiry about amputees is a subset of the question: "Why does God allow human suffering?" And it has the same answer: We live in a fallen world marred by sin -- sin that human beings ushered into this world -- sin that brought a curse upon humanity for willful disobedience.

Why focus on amputees? Why not ask about stillborn children, or blindness, or terrible diseases? Each is as pertinent as losing a limb. What about death itself? Why doesn't God allow us eternal physical existence in a state of sin?

Where in scripture does God promise earthly healing of amputees? If He does not promise immunity from death or suffering, why would we assume that He will heal amputees?

A final morsel of food for thought: How is agnosticism or atheism a better alternative to a belief in God, on this issue? What does each offer as promises or comforts? John 3: 16 states: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

That's an infinitely better promise and comfort than atheists offer, which is nothing.

Independence Day

Happy 4th, everyone!

Atheist Objections Part III

Part I

Part II

3. "It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Hurrican Katrina struck shared your belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while Katrina laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the parayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned."

Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation"

Now obvious you can go the Douglas Wilson route and say atheists do not have a basis for objective morality. This is true, but the Christian does have objective morality and the Christian makes objective claims. Two of them being, God is all powerful and all loving. Given these two attributes why do we see so much senseless suffering? The atheist need not believe that evil exists in order to point out the unlikelyhood that there is not an all powerful and all loving God in the world we are living in. Isn't it hard to see a moral justification in permitting childhood cancer? Again, which worldview fits the best explanation of what we see around us?

Let's assume that he is correct: the majority of people stuck in New Orleans during Katrina believed in God. Furthermore, let's also agree that they accepted his omniscience, omnipresence, and compassion. What does this have to do with the price of apples in China, as the saying goes?

Matthew 5:45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Once again, the questioner glosses over the reality that we live in a fallen, cursed world; he ignores orthodox Christian acceptance of the concept. It's another in an endless list of examples of people questioning or criticizing Christianity, without making effort toward understanding what Christians believe, or why they believe as they do.

In addition, scripture indicates that God does not obligate Himself to answering the prayers of the wicked:

He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination. -- Proverbs 28:9

See Proverbs 15:29 and John 9:31 for supporting examples.

Please show me scriptural evidence that God promises us earth - bound lives of ease, devoid of peril -- whether we are His own, or inveterate sinners.

This may sound cruel, but the truth often hurts, and it bears repeating: Many of the people who died succumbed to the hurricane for no good reason. They chose to live in an area prone to hurricanes and flooding. They chose not to evacuate, when warned of the coming disaster ahead of time. They crawled into attics, which is like painting oneself into a corner. I'm interested in hearing why this person believes that God should be held responsible for saving people from their own stupidity and poor judgment.

And yes, God is all - powerful and loving, though I don't know where he gets the idea that God is "all - loving." God hates sin. But He also is a God of wrath and judgment, and justice, and holiness. And more. If you're going to analyze His actions, then look at all his attributes -- not just the ones that make you feel warm and cozy inside.

As for questioning "needless" suffering, I'll ask a counter - question: "Needless," according to whom? The person who doubts God's existence? And what does the sad reality of suffering -- needless, or otherwise -- have to do with God's existence or non - existence? They're two separate issues. It does not follow that just because you lack full understanding of something, then it therefore must not exist. Imagine if I said: "I don't understand how hydrogen bombs work; therefore, there are no hydrogen bombs." How is this substantially different from saying: "I don't understand how God works; therefore, there is no God." ? Both are variations on the same fallacious argumentation.

In grasping the Christian (biblical) worldview, comprehending that we live in a sin - marred creation is essential.

Atheist Objections Part II

Part I


2. "Over 99 percent of the species that ever walked, flew, or slithered upon this earth are now extinct....When we look at the natural world, we see extraordinary complexity, but we do not see optimal design....The truth is that, while there are now around three hundred and fifty thousand known species of beetles, God appears to have an even greater fondness for viruses. Biologists estimate that there are at least ten strains of viruses for every species of animal on earth." Sam Harris

Which viewpoint makes more sense in accounting for this: Unguided evolution or the God of Christianity?


The "99 percent" figure is interesting, because it indicates how proponents of evolutionary theory enjoy pulling figures out of their rumps, touting speculation as fact. Since we do not have complete access to the fossil record, and since we don't even know the number of extant species, the answer to the question, "Where did they come up with this number?" is simple: They made it up.

Regarding the "optimal design" argument: What are the criteria for optimal design? We don't know, because he does not share such information with us. Even if we accept his observation as reasonable, we must acknowledge that it ignores biblical teaching -- that God completed His creative work and saw that it was good; that Man rebelled and fell from grace; that God placed a subsequent curse upon the creation as a result of Man's sin. If you're going to challenge Christians with supposed "hard" questions, shouldn't you at least familiarize yourself with the basic content of Christian teaching, first? Otherwise, how do you know that these questions remain unaddressed and unrefuted?

As for beetles and viruses, so what? If we accept his numbers, saying that 350,000 beetle species exist -- as if this is an argument against God or creation -- proves nothing. The taxonomic term "species" is an artificial tool created by humans.

Many viruses are harmless to humans, even today. Before Adam and Eve's sin, they may have served a wholesome, useful purpose to humanity and the plant and animal kingdoms. After the Fall, loss of genetic information may have led to the development of degenerate, harmful strains. Yes, this is speculation, but so is the conclusion that the sheer number of existing viruses points to God's nonexistence, or evolutionary theory's truth. The point is that talk of beetle battalions and viral invasions evades clear scriptural teaching that we live in a world mired in sin, in which the whole creation suffers.

Since we have no experience with information arising from non - information, or life springing from non - life, l accept the God of Christianity over unguided evolution with zero difficulty.