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.

Bible "Soliciting"

Bucknell University believes that handing out free Bibles on campus is "soliciting."

Dictionary.com provides four major definitions for the word "solicit:"


1. to seek for (something) by entreaty, earnest or respectful request, formal application, etc.: He solicited aid from the minister.

2. to entreat or petition (someone or some agency): to solicit the committee for funds.

3. to seek to influence or incite to action, esp. unlawful or wrong action.

4. to offer to have sex with in exchange for money.


Notice that 2. and 4. entail or allow for money changing hands. Neither applies to the linked story, because giving someone a gift is not the same as asking him for money. This would be like saying, "Sorry, no soliciting," when my wife hands me my birthday present.

Also keep in mind that two of the four definitions have negative connotations (sex for money, and inciting illegal behavior).

Typically, we see "No Soliciting" signs at restaurants or stores, or other businesses. In these contexts, the signs mean: "No expanding the customer base for your product on our property; that's our job."

That leaves us with number 1. "Respectfully requesting" that one read a copy of the Holy Bible -- and giving it to him free of charge -- requires an administration - issued permit? We don't even know if the student organization went that far. Perhaps its members simply placed Bibles in the hands of passersby, and said, "Go with Okenya."

I shudder to think what bureaucratic pitfalls lie in wait for those audacious enough to actually read that radical volume.

I contend that we'd know nothing of this story if the tome had been The Audacity of Hope, by Our Savior from the Serengeti.

Why?

Because there would be no story.

Is This Better, Arielle?

Obama Dubs June LGBT Pride Month

To my knowledge, this is the first time an "American" president has endorsed this particular brand of immoral behavior in so open a fashion.

First Celebrity Swine - Flu Casualty

And we all know the carrier's identity.

A Fair Mind Is a Twisted Mind

Obama's recent visit to Notre Dame University -- during which he gave a speech and received official honors from the school -- created a controversy that has not yet come to an end. And rightly so. After all, Christians of all stripes should be angered that a Catholic school heaped accolades on a man who defends a woman's nonexistent right to kill her unborn child with the singlemindedness of a true zealot. But it's not the controversy that interests me as much as these words spoken by Obama in his speech at Notre Dame:


As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That’s when we begin to say, "Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.


This is faux-empathetic, emotive gobbledegook. It's the precise brand of "I feel yore pain" nonsense liberally dished out by Bill Clinton during his two terms in office (no pun intended). It's feigning interest in opponents' views, while moving ahead with a decidedly unsympathetic, closed-minded agenda. It's an attempt at knocking one's ideological enemies off their game, nothing more. Suggesting that we all handle each other with care, while working with dilligence toward removing existing abortion restrictions, and blocking those in the congressional birth canal, is the height of audacity and dishonesty.

Don't take my word for it. His record in the Senate and the Oval Office speaks for itself:


1. 1997: In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation preventing partial birth abortion (infanticide).

2. 2000: In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation banning taxpayer funding of abortions.

3. 2001: He opposed legislation protecting survivors of botched abortion attempts. He was the sole Illinois Senator to do so.

4. 2008: He claimed indecision on whether or not life begins at conception -- a position properly reserved for ignoramuses, deceivers, or cowards.

5. He consistently earns 100% ratings from "pro-choice" groups. Example: NARAL gave him 100% ratings in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

6. He promotes and wishes to advance embryonic stem - cell research.

7. He believes the Constitution of the United States is a "living" document. -- The Audacity of Hope, pp. 89 - 92, Oct. 1, 2006

8. He has stated support for Roe v. Wade.

9. He voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortions (2008).

10. He voted NO on notifying parents of minors receiving out-of-state abortions (2006).

11. Rated 0% out of a possible 100% by the National Right to Life Committee (0 - 15% = "pro-choice;" 16 - 84% = mixed record; 85 - 100% = pro-life).

12. Since becoming president, Obama lifted a restriction put in place by George W. Bush that stopped taxpayer funding of abortions overseas. He enacted this measure three days after entering office.

The list goes on.


Short of seeking employment at an abortuary, how does one man's record illustrate a more extreme anti-child, anti-life stance? Setting aside his conciliatory rhetoric, do you see anything in this history fitting the descriptors "open - minded," or "fair - minded," or "open - hearted?"

I don't. What I do see is the record of a far left-wing ideologue -- one who doesn't give a hoot in Hell what anyone thinks of this issue, unless they are in agreement with him.

Mr. Obama can spout his pablum about "common ground" till the cows come home; it's unmitigated hogwash, and he knows it. He even admitted as much in the above discourse. There is no common ground between those who pursue the deaths of innocents, and those who fight for their preservation. Is there mutuality between good and evil? Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? -- 2 Corinthians 6: 14 - 15

Notice how Obama acknowledges that abortion is a "heart - wrenching" decision, with "moral and spiritual dimensions." Of course, he neglects describing why and how this is so. Transparently, he is not of the conviction that abortion is a moral wrong, or spiritually rotten fruit, so what is the message he's conveying, here? The bottom line is that his words do not fit his actions; they contradict them.

Furthermore, if abortion isn't morally wrong, why should we concern ourselves with ensuring its rarity? This is the $64,000 question pro - deathers avoid like the Wicked Witch of the West shuns water.

As an aside, if you're interested in "making adoption more available," you might consider ceasing the murder of unborn children. Just a thought.

I'd appreciate hearing Obama elaborate on what relation killing infants in utero has to "equality of women." The last time I checked, men don't get pregnant or give birth, so we can't compare female abortion possibilities to those of males. It's notable that politicians like Obama feel no obligation toward explaining themselves beyond the superficial platitudes they spout like Old Faithful.

As for "clear ethics and sound science," is he kidding? I hope so, because I'm laughing at this notion coming from someone who believes that killing unborn infants for any reason whatsoever should remain restriction - free. And if Obama's unsure when life begins, he has no business mentioning science in the same discussion as the abortion issue, as he has taken a position against science. The verdict is in; there is no wiggle room for honest (or dishonest) debate on the matter: life begins at conception. If the president doesn't know this scientific fact, given his position and access to knowledge, we can assume that he champions the adage: ignorance is bliss. Policy advocation based upon willful ignorance is a form of deception.

Finally, Obama's prevarication about his "fair - mindedness" adds insult to the pro-abortion injuries he has inflicted upon the American people. For his dissimulation is neither clever, nor subtle, given that his record on the issue stands available for all the world to see. One can conclude only that he views the citizenry as gullible sheep on the fold, manipulable and foolish as the wolf coaxes them into the heart of his lair.

Picking a Winner

I don't have much to say about Okenya's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS, except that I'm unsurprised. A president who has nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution has chosen a person who has nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution as a Supreme Court judge. Next news at 11:00.

And don't let anyone kid you: That she's female, Hispanic, and leans left are the sole reasons that you've ever heard of Sonia Sotomayor.


Update

It seems our beloved Ms. Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, according to the American Bar Association. This is like discovering that Clarence Thomas is a Black Panther, or that John Roberts is a Klansman.

It speaks volumes about Obama that he has nominated a woman who supports unfettered legal and illegal immigration, as well as the consumption of America's southwest into Mexico.

We're now quite literally tolerating traitors in our midst, in positions of high office.