For those of you who might be having trouble understanding some of the Muslim apologist arguments against the Bible, Dr. James White has been doing a series on Muslim Apologetics that deal with manuscripts.
For years as a kid and an adult, people having been telling me the Bible is a copy of a copy of a copy...therefore you can not trust the Bible. Teaching a little bit at a time, Dr. White helps us through some of the difficult issues.
Here is the Link
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Friday, April 08, 2005
Book Review of Joel Osteen
For those of you interested, I just found on a fellow blogger's site that there is a book review of Your Best Life Now by Joel Osteen. Thanks johnMark :-)
Click Here!
Click Here!
God's Extremists Live In Kansas
In Scott County, the Marriage Amendment passed by 87% to 13%. Statewide it passed 70% to 30%. A portion of those in the 30% were concerned supposedly not with the Homosexual discrimination, but with other inequalities. Let me explain.
One site says this, "The extremists who wrote the Kansas Marriage Amendment are telling you only half the story. The amendment, as passed by the Kansas Senate, could deny all unmarried couples, regardless of sexual orientation, the right to enter into private agreements that might "resemble" marriage. The implications of this are far-reaching and are just being felt in other states with similar amendments.
"The same site also says, "The hidden agenda of Paragraph BParagraph B is an unprecedented attack on the rights of Kansans. It takes away your right to enter into any private relationship that doesn't meet the extremists' definition of marriage. Independent legal scholars have said that Paragraph B will leave Kansas courts unable to enforce any agreements between partners, including heterosexuals, who are unmarried. This ban on all relationships other than marriage is a dangerous attack on the basic rights of all Kansans, gay or straight."
Now for those of you who don't follow the argument by those who call 87% of people in Scott County, Kansas extremists (we did know that was what the law meant), they are saying that any people who enter into a private relationship (how is a private relationship legally binding anyway?) should have the same benefits of marriage.
Proponents of the Amendment have known this all along. It is exactly this reason we wanted the law written that way. Should insurance companies be forced to recognize private relationships? Should the IRS tax single people who have private relationships the same? What about homosexual private relationships? Not writing the law in this fashion would leave the open loop hole that homosexuals have been exploiting for some time. It also does not stop at homosexuals but polygamists and other "private relationships".
"Kansans For Fairness" don't mention the above problems because that would give away their real premise and false assumptions. But wait. What about the great emotional arguments such as this one from the same site:
"In Utah, language in that state's marriage amendment is being used to deny "Protection from Abuse" orders to unmarried heterosexual victims of domestic violence ('Attorney Cites Amendment 3 in Fighting Protection Order', Associated Press, Nov. 15, 2004)."
Ahhh, you have to be married to get a restraining order against someone? Who is telling the half truth here? The lesson ought to be "Don't shack up!" In other words, we should abandon God's Law in order to accommodate some legal technicality for those who break God's Law.
The underlying assumption is this, God's Law is irrelevant to people today. We shouldn't be making laws that reflect the bible. Religion should be kept private. God may be the Creator, but He does not have the right to define marriage? It also assumes that everyone has the same rights in all situtations. Single people do not have the same rights as married people do.
Why did God destroy the pre-flood world, Sodom and Gomorrah and the Canaanites again?
One site says this, "The extremists who wrote the Kansas Marriage Amendment are telling you only half the story. The amendment, as passed by the Kansas Senate, could deny all unmarried couples, regardless of sexual orientation, the right to enter into private agreements that might "resemble" marriage. The implications of this are far-reaching and are just being felt in other states with similar amendments.
"The same site also says, "The hidden agenda of Paragraph BParagraph B is an unprecedented attack on the rights of Kansans. It takes away your right to enter into any private relationship that doesn't meet the extremists' definition of marriage. Independent legal scholars have said that Paragraph B will leave Kansas courts unable to enforce any agreements between partners, including heterosexuals, who are unmarried. This ban on all relationships other than marriage is a dangerous attack on the basic rights of all Kansans, gay or straight."
Now for those of you who don't follow the argument by those who call 87% of people in Scott County, Kansas extremists (we did know that was what the law meant), they are saying that any people who enter into a private relationship (how is a private relationship legally binding anyway?) should have the same benefits of marriage.
Proponents of the Amendment have known this all along. It is exactly this reason we wanted the law written that way. Should insurance companies be forced to recognize private relationships? Should the IRS tax single people who have private relationships the same? What about homosexual private relationships? Not writing the law in this fashion would leave the open loop hole that homosexuals have been exploiting for some time. It also does not stop at homosexuals but polygamists and other "private relationships".
"Kansans For Fairness" don't mention the above problems because that would give away their real premise and false assumptions. But wait. What about the great emotional arguments such as this one from the same site:
"In Utah, language in that state's marriage amendment is being used to deny "Protection from Abuse" orders to unmarried heterosexual victims of domestic violence ('Attorney Cites Amendment 3 in Fighting Protection Order', Associated Press, Nov. 15, 2004)."
Ahhh, you have to be married to get a restraining order against someone? Who is telling the half truth here? The lesson ought to be "Don't shack up!" In other words, we should abandon God's Law in order to accommodate some legal technicality for those who break God's Law.
The underlying assumption is this, God's Law is irrelevant to people today. We shouldn't be making laws that reflect the bible. Religion should be kept private. God may be the Creator, but He does not have the right to define marriage? It also assumes that everyone has the same rights in all situtations. Single people do not have the same rights as married people do.
Why did God destroy the pre-flood world, Sodom and Gomorrah and the Canaanites again?
Monday, April 04, 2005
"What is the Gospel?" Should Be the Question
Even though some of you have asked me for my thoughts on the Bishop of Rome's passing, I have refrained because I simply have no feeling about him one way or the other. He is not my Shepherd or Elder or Pastor. Since my co-worker owns the Spear of Destiny, he has prodded me to make a comment.
It has been amazing to me how many Evangelics have tossed out the Gospel in order to buddy up with a system of beliefs represented by a man that opposes the Gospel of Grace. Yesterday I watched Pat Robertson take advantage of the Pope's passing to sound ecumenical. You would almost think the Pope was the Protestant church's leader. Then again, Pat Robertson's gospel is a little on the watered side anyway.
It is true that John Paul II was a great man. He did great things. He lived in extraordinary times and lived an extraordinary life. There are many other "leaders" that have done the same. Does this make them Biblically sound?
I am concerned with the the nature of the Gospel. Is Jesus the Perfect Savior who saves perfectly, or does He need our "help" in whatever form that may occur? Is His righteousness "imputed" to us by faith alone? Or do we gain God's grace via some other means? Just because a great man has lived among us, does not mean the age old debate as to the nature of the Gospel has changed.
It has been amazing to me how many Evangelics have tossed out the Gospel in order to buddy up with a system of beliefs represented by a man that opposes the Gospel of Grace. Yesterday I watched Pat Robertson take advantage of the Pope's passing to sound ecumenical. You would almost think the Pope was the Protestant church's leader. Then again, Pat Robertson's gospel is a little on the watered side anyway.
It is true that John Paul II was a great man. He did great things. He lived in extraordinary times and lived an extraordinary life. There are many other "leaders" that have done the same. Does this make them Biblically sound?
I am concerned with the the nature of the Gospel. Is Jesus the Perfect Savior who saves perfectly, or does He need our "help" in whatever form that may occur? Is His righteousness "imputed" to us by faith alone? Or do we gain God's grace via some other means? Just because a great man has lived among us, does not mean the age old debate as to the nature of the Gospel has changed.
Kansans Vote on the Definition of Marriage
Our local New York Times Editorialist has made some typical comments from the left wing viewpoint again. Tomorrow Kansas will vote on the Marriage amendment to the Kansas Constitution. The liberal mind in Kansas says we do not need this amendment since gay marriage is already illegal .
I have a question. If it is already illegal, what is wrong with it being in the Constitution? Or do the liberals have some secret plans to take the law to court to declare it unconstitutional? Since other states (such as The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts) are trying to overthrow God's Law, how else is Kansas supposed to protect itself from the will of the leftist court?
What has been amazing to me though, is the amount of ministers who say God's Word and Law are unclear as to this subject. One church in my own denomination is struggling with this issue. When pastors say God's Word is not sufficient, it is no wonder that liberal churches are struggling.
This morning's KJIL news played clips of minister after minister saying that the Bible doesn't call homosexuality sin. I am not sure what Bible they are reading, but they need to stop trying to be "IN" with liberal scholarship.
The real issue is becoming the clarity and perspecuity of God's Word. If God is not clear on defining sin, then what is Grace? It is no wonder that most Evanjellycal churches today could not define the gospel, including many in my own church.
Marriage is the cornerstone of a healthy society. If God's first institution falls, so does society.
I have a question. If it is already illegal, what is wrong with it being in the Constitution? Or do the liberals have some secret plans to take the law to court to declare it unconstitutional? Since other states (such as The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts) are trying to overthrow God's Law, how else is Kansas supposed to protect itself from the will of the leftist court?
What has been amazing to me though, is the amount of ministers who say God's Word and Law are unclear as to this subject. One church in my own denomination is struggling with this issue. When pastors say God's Word is not sufficient, it is no wonder that liberal churches are struggling.
This morning's KJIL news played clips of minister after minister saying that the Bible doesn't call homosexuality sin. I am not sure what Bible they are reading, but they need to stop trying to be "IN" with liberal scholarship.
The real issue is becoming the clarity and perspecuity of God's Word. If God is not clear on defining sin, then what is Grace? It is no wonder that most Evanjellycal churches today could not define the gospel, including many in my own church.
Marriage is the cornerstone of a healthy society. If God's first institution falls, so does society.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Jack Hayford's God Is Weak
According to Jack Hayford, God has designed the world in such a way as that the affairs of this world are under man's control. Only when man sins may God "enter this world". God simply can not enter into this world otherwise.
This assumption depends heavily on the freedom of man to be his own determiner. I would love to introduce Mr. Hayford to the God of the Bible. But that would simply show man's total depravity and God's Majesty and Glory in such a fashion that he might faint from fear.
Ironic coming from a man who writes songs about God's majesty. But then false teachers use the Bible too.
This assumption depends heavily on the freedom of man to be his own determiner. I would love to introduce Mr. Hayford to the God of the Bible. But that would simply show man's total depravity and God's Majesty and Glory in such a fashion that he might faint from fear.
Ironic coming from a man who writes songs about God's majesty. But then false teachers use the Bible too.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Arise, O God
It is now official. The state may now practice euthanasia on its citizens. I must remind everyone, the argument that says, "I wouldn't want to live like that" does not wash. No judge in the world has this kind of power. I would like to say much against judges, but someone else has done a far better job than I could.
Three thousand years ago a man wrote about judges and how they will have to give an account for their actions. Here is it:
A Psalm of Asaph. God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah.
Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. "Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes."
Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.
Jesus quoted this Psalm almost a thousand years after it was written. If Jesus may apply it to the rulers of His day, then God's Word may be applied to our judges today. I fear that their actions are a plague sent by God against a stiffnecked people. Rise Up, O God and judge the earth. For no one seems to be left who rules with a righteous scepter.
Three thousand years ago a man wrote about judges and how they will have to give an account for their actions. Here is it:
A Psalm of Asaph. God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah.
Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. "Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes."
Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.
Jesus quoted this Psalm almost a thousand years after it was written. If Jesus may apply it to the rulers of His day, then God's Word may be applied to our judges today. I fear that their actions are a plague sent by God against a stiffnecked people. Rise Up, O God and judge the earth. For no one seems to be left who rules with a righteous scepter.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Bow to the Bishop Jackson?
It was simply wrong. Jesse Jackson asked today if he could go in and pray over Terry Schiavo. I must side with Michael Schiavo at this point. Using some religious prestige to gain access onto TV stations and trying to make Michael look irreligious and disrespectful to a man of the cloth is just plain rude.
Jesse is not Terry's Overseer or Pastor. He is not her elder. He has probably never set foot in her congregation (if she even attended church). He has no spiritual authority in their lives whatsoever. Asking to go in and pray over her as if he were the Bishop of Rome is just simply pathetic. Who does he think he is anyway? So why stop at Jesse? Why should not some muslim cleric invite himself? Where does that kind of logic end?
There are plenty of other avenues that need to be exhausted. Trying to claim that he is the supreme spiritual American Bishop, who has spiritual authority over us, is not the way to go. Besides, why is the left waiting till day 13? Is it their lucky number?
Jesse is not Terry's Overseer or Pastor. He is not her elder. He has probably never set foot in her congregation (if she even attended church). He has no spiritual authority in their lives whatsoever. Asking to go in and pray over her as if he were the Bishop of Rome is just simply pathetic. Who does he think he is anyway? So why stop at Jesse? Why should not some muslim cleric invite himself? Where does that kind of logic end?
There are plenty of other avenues that need to be exhausted. Trying to claim that he is the supreme spiritual American Bishop, who has spiritual authority over us, is not the way to go. Besides, why is the left waiting till day 13? Is it their lucky number?
Friday, March 25, 2005
The Worth of Suffering in a Culture of Death
"Quality of Life" seems to be the driving force of the public debate today on whether we should live or die. We console ourselves when a loved one passes away by saying their quality of life was very poor. Satisfying our consciences and easing our pain.
It is easy to understand that sometimes we must allow "nature" to take its course. "Heroic medicine" often keeps people "technically" alive when in fact they have turned into some kind of preserved Zombie. Some decisions in this modern technologically advanced age can be quite painful.
But does the "Quality of Life" apply? Some say they would not want to live and be a burden if they ever became severely disabled. Have we become so calloused to the meaning of life that we believe we are our own Sovereign? Is there no God who gives worth without the addition of human input? Does our station in this life determine human dignity?
I was priviledged and honored to serve my fellow human being at 4:00AM yesterday morning. The vomit, the holding over the famous toilet bowl, the encouraging one to endure, the cleanup, the stinky messy cleanup that is, and the loss of sleep were a blessing in disguise. I do not know the purpose of this suffering or poor quality of life that my daughter had, but I am grateful I was able to share in it.
It is in the dark times of suffering, we truly find the worth that God has given to His creatures. Christians have been known to suffer for Christ, even unto death. Historically speaking, the more Christians have been killed for the faith, the more Christianity spread. It was during the expansion throughout North Africa that the muslims came to understand this. They began to stop killing Christians and instead made them suffer by not allowing them to have jobs or buy and sell, and ect.. Christianity declined rapidly.
Point is, the true test of life is whether we will continually and habitually do that which God calls for us to do. Feeding and suffering with a woman in Florida is far more noble.
It is easy to understand that sometimes we must allow "nature" to take its course. "Heroic medicine" often keeps people "technically" alive when in fact they have turned into some kind of preserved Zombie. Some decisions in this modern technologically advanced age can be quite painful.
But does the "Quality of Life" apply? Some say they would not want to live and be a burden if they ever became severely disabled. Have we become so calloused to the meaning of life that we believe we are our own Sovereign? Is there no God who gives worth without the addition of human input? Does our station in this life determine human dignity?
I was priviledged and honored to serve my fellow human being at 4:00AM yesterday morning. The vomit, the holding over the famous toilet bowl, the encouraging one to endure, the cleanup, the stinky messy cleanup that is, and the loss of sleep were a blessing in disguise. I do not know the purpose of this suffering or poor quality of life that my daughter had, but I am grateful I was able to share in it.
It is in the dark times of suffering, we truly find the worth that God has given to His creatures. Christians have been known to suffer for Christ, even unto death. Historically speaking, the more Christians have been killed for the faith, the more Christianity spread. It was during the expansion throughout North Africa that the muslims came to understand this. They began to stop killing Christians and instead made them suffer by not allowing them to have jobs or buy and sell, and ect.. Christianity declined rapidly.
Point is, the true test of life is whether we will continually and habitually do that which God calls for us to do. Feeding and suffering with a woman in Florida is far more noble.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Oh, To Be Selfish
I was reminded today of how selfish I have been. Killing helpless animals. Raping and pillaging the landscape. Taking away Constitutional Rights from foreign citizens. Forcing the elderly to live in poverty by taking away their Social Security check. The typical banter never ceases.
During my commute this morning I was held up at two lights. This cost me sixty seconds of time. So instead of the possible 3 and 1/2 minutes, it took me almost 5 minutes to get to work. I began to realize how much of my life is being wasted. A Potential of 4 minutes a day is being stolen from me. What is the government going to do about this? I pay taxes you know.
A friend of mine is getting married. He'll probably have kids. Wait! What if my wife gets pregnant. She'll be forced to quit her job at the library and I'll have to pay for another mouth to feed. We could always have the private "A" word. Hey, the government has fixed that legal problem. Only a minor inconvenience it will be. Just think of the benefits to society. Less taxes we will need to support education and the like. Hey, I'm thinking about my fellow man here.
This Terry Schiavo problem has got me thinking. What if that were my wife? It might take me a lot longer to get to work. My career might be troubled. I might not get that promotion. Worst of all, no companionship. I suppose I could just shack up with someone else though. I got a better idea. Just starve her to death, then all of society won't have to put up with the burden of feeding her. Just think of all the food we could save. Doctors, who have to waste their time helping her, could be helping real patients. Lawyers won't have to waste all their time suing each other. It'll be convenient for everyone. Utopia will be achieved if we allow the unwanted to kill themselves.
Please note the sarcasm. Rush quoted an agnostic lesbian leftwing woman confined to a wheelchair today as saying, "I would rather have a conservative Christian determining the end of my life than an ACLU lawyer."
There is an old saying, "Be a hero, save a whale. Save a baby, go to jail." Perhaps one of you readers of this could come up with a new rhyme. Something that conveys the idea that heroes are those, who save terrorists that seek to destroy the Constitution, and belittle those who defend the weak. But then, perhaps I am being just a bit too selfish.
During my commute this morning I was held up at two lights. This cost me sixty seconds of time. So instead of the possible 3 and 1/2 minutes, it took me almost 5 minutes to get to work. I began to realize how much of my life is being wasted. A Potential of 4 minutes a day is being stolen from me. What is the government going to do about this? I pay taxes you know.
A friend of mine is getting married. He'll probably have kids. Wait! What if my wife gets pregnant. She'll be forced to quit her job at the library and I'll have to pay for another mouth to feed. We could always have the private "A" word. Hey, the government has fixed that legal problem. Only a minor inconvenience it will be. Just think of the benefits to society. Less taxes we will need to support education and the like. Hey, I'm thinking about my fellow man here.
This Terry Schiavo problem has got me thinking. What if that were my wife? It might take me a lot longer to get to work. My career might be troubled. I might not get that promotion. Worst of all, no companionship. I suppose I could just shack up with someone else though. I got a better idea. Just starve her to death, then all of society won't have to put up with the burden of feeding her. Just think of all the food we could save. Doctors, who have to waste their time helping her, could be helping real patients. Lawyers won't have to waste all their time suing each other. It'll be convenient for everyone. Utopia will be achieved if we allow the unwanted to kill themselves.
Please note the sarcasm. Rush quoted an agnostic lesbian leftwing woman confined to a wheelchair today as saying, "I would rather have a conservative Christian determining the end of my life than an ACLU lawyer."
There is an old saying, "Be a hero, save a whale. Save a baby, go to jail." Perhaps one of you readers of this could come up with a new rhyme. Something that conveys the idea that heroes are those, who save terrorists that seek to destroy the Constitution, and belittle those who defend the weak. But then, perhaps I am being just a bit too selfish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
