The End of Christianity

Interview with William Dembski on his new book, The End of Christianity, which I endorsed. It is about the problem of evil.

The Fruit Fell Far from the Tree

Gary DeMar reflects on the sad and dismaying decline of Frank(y) Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer.

Flow TV: 24/7 Portable TV!

Be absent wherever you are present. You can always ignore the human beings in your midst; you can always refuse to read or to pray or to be quiet with your thoughts before God. Flow TV. Give up; give in; take it all, all the time. TV without end, Amen!

You need never be separated from your object of worship.

Social Darwinism Lamented

British author, Dennis Sewell explains the dark heritage of social Darwinism in a short interview in Time Magazine. I like his attitude. He wrote an article recently called "Darwin's Children" in a British newspaper, which was linked here.

Thomas Nagel from The Times Literary Supplement

Nagel is a prominent philosopher who is an atheist. This review in this place is very significant for the future of ID.

--------

Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.

The Letter: Do Something to Save my Father

Obama went to Egypt to tell the world how wonderful Islam was. Now, an Egyptian man's life is in danger for converting to Christianity, Obama's purported religion, and the man's young daughter has written him a letter. Will he do anything? I doubt it, since he refuses to see the dangers of Islamic law, which does not honor religious freedom and which persecutes converts away from Islam. Mark Gabriel, a convert to Christianity from Islam, who himself was nearly killed for Christ, has written a book on this called Culture Clash.

Letter to National Public Radio

Dear NPR:

Your November 24 edition (of "All Things Considered") featured the story of a man who came out of a seemingly unconscious state after twenty-three years--only to report that he was aware of his surroundings during this time. His condition was referred to as a "persistent vegetative state." While this is a medical term, it is erroneous philosophically. No human being can be in a vegetative state, since no human being is ever a vegetable. Humans should always be treated as humans, and never as vegetation.

Sincerely,
Douglas Groothuis

Whose Sacrifice?

"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
(John 1:29 New American Standard Bible)

A Hindu festival will sacrifice a quarter million animals to a goddess requiring their blood. Animal rights protester are objecting, of course, and rightly so. But the deeper issue is our need for atonement and new life. This is not provided through animals, but is from God in Christ.

This has been done, and it will not be undone. Jesus Christ came from heaven to earth in order to reconcile us to himself through his freely offered shed blood on the Cross two thousand years ago. We cannot placate God. That is the meaning of pagan sacrifice. However, God can offer himself for us through the sacrifice of himself. That is the glorious good news. That is what Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, Muslims, and all sinful human beings need to know and believe. Then we can offer ourselves a "living sacrifices" for the glory of God and the good of the world. See Romans 12:1-2.

Why Do It?

Blogs. What's the point?
Facebook. What's the point?
Twitter. What's the point?

You tell me.

Hope from a Pro-Life Activist and Apologist

This was posted in response to an earlier post of mine. It bears reposting here, since Scott is an expert on this matter:

--------

Doug,

I share your frustration, but the legislative battle is by no means lost. As former Senator Rick Santorum points out, the vote to move forward with debate was inevitable. No majority party is ever going to deny their leader the chance to debate his very own bill. I agree with Santorum: Conservatives put way too much emphasis on this one vote, thus demoralizing our troops when debate was allowed.

However, just because members vote to allow debate does not mean they will vote to close it. In this case, four members of Reid's own party are on record saying they will not vote for cloture on the current Senate bill and Lieberman has said "no way" will he allow a public option. Meanwhile, liberal Dems are saying they will scuttle the bill if it doesn't have one. To make matters worse, Ben nelson has said "no" to any bill that allows abortion funding while many of his lefty colleagues have said "no" if it doesn't. Thus, Reid has a real mess on his hands.

Personally, I think Lieberman is the key. If he is telling us the truth that a public option in any form is unacceptable, the current bill is dead. Nelson might be swayed into going along with a Capp's style amendment (which, unlike the Stupak language, does NOT foreclose on abortion funding, but pretends to), but that still leaves Reid with the Lieberman problem on his right, and the fanatical lib problem on his left.

But let's suppose the bill does get out of the Senate. You still have 19 Dem House members on record saying they will vote against it if the Stupak language is removed. That's precisely why Pelosi had to allow it in the first place.

In short, this thing is not over. Surrender is not an option. Please pass the word along.

Love your work,

Scott Klusendorf

Look Who is in Charge Now

Witness Eric Holder's frightening incompetence concerning our nation's safety.

Message at Denver Seminary

My message on "Everyday Spiritual Warfare" is linked here.

Lament

The American church needs another Kierkegaard (qua ecclesiastical critic, not fideist): Christendom is not Christian. Remember SK's work, Attack on Christendom. She or he will probably come from another country, since we fish don't know what our water is. We do not know what seeking God or suffering for God is.

From National Right to Life

As National Right to Life has previously noted, Senator Reid's bill [on page 118] would authorize the federal government to pay for any and all abortions through a huge new federal health insurance program, the "public option," and also to subsidize purchase of private plans that cover abortion on demand. President Obama and Reid know that the substance of these abortion-promoting policies is deeply unpopular, so they seek to conceal the reality with layers of contorted definitions and money-laundering schemes. Obama and Reid wanted debate – so now they'll get debate, on their cloaked provisions that would cover abortion on demand in proposed new government-run and government-subsidized insurance plans. Obama and Reid are seeking to block enactment of the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts compromise, adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on November 7 by a vote of 240-194. This amendment would prevent government funding of elective abortion through the proposed "public option," and would also prevent federal subsidies from paying for private insurance plans that cover elective abortion.

During the weeks ahead, National Right to Life will continue to fight the efforts of President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders to cover abortion on demand in two huge new federal health programs. The Senate bill faces additional 60-vote hurdles in the future. Moreover, a courageous group of pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives will oppose final approval of health care legislation if the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is gutted or removed.

Defeat: What Now, Christians?

The Senate--including both Colorado Senators--has disgraced America by voting for statist, socialist, abortion-funded health "care." I think the legislative battle is now lost, but I may be wrong.

Now we must consider prayerfully other ways to resist paying for the killing of the unborn through tax money. This will likely involve suffering and sacrifice for those who care. God have mercy on all of us. To begin, read Francis Schaeffer's book, A Christian Manifesto (Crossway, 1981).

Prayer

Oh, Sovereign Lord shake the world again; put unquenchable fire in the bones of your blood-bought children; shake down everything evil; stir up all that is good; may zeal for your house and your world consume us, Our Consuming Fire!

No, in the name of God

These people know where to draw the line on the social issues of the day.

Obama Team Catering to Terrorists, Again

Holder’s al Qaeda Incentive Plan
By William McGurn
Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2009

When it comes to terrorists, you would think that an al Qaeda operative who targets an American mom sitting in her office or a child on a flight back home is many degrees worse than a Taliban soldier picked up after a firefight with U.S. Army troops.

Your instinct would be correct, because at the heart of terrorism is the monstrous idea that the former is as legitimate a target as the latter. Unfortunately, by dispatching Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda leaders to federal criminal court for trial, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will be undermining this distinction. And the perverse message that decision will send to terrorists all over this dangerous world is this: If you kill civilians on American soil you will have greater protections than if you attack our military overseas.

"A fundamental purpose of rules such as the Geneva Conventions is to give those at war an incentive for more civilized behavior—and not targeting civilians is arguably the most sacred of these principles," says William Burck, a former federal prosecutor and Bush White House lawyer who dealt with national security issues. "It demolishes this principle to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even more legal protections than the Geneva Conventions provide a uniformed soldier fighting in a recognized war zone."

We don't often speak of incentives in war. That's a loss, because the whole idea of, say, Geneva rights is based on the idea of providing combatants with incentives to do things that help limit the bloodiness of battle. These include wearing a uniform, carrying arms openly, not targeting civilians, and so on.

Terrorists recognize none of these things. They are best understood as associations of people plotting and carrying out war crimes, whether that means sowing fear with direct and indiscriminate attacks on marketplaces, offices and airlines—or by engaging enemy troops without distinguishing uniforms, so that the surrounding civilians essentially become used as human shields. Terrorists reject both the laws of war and the laws of American civil society. To put it another way, they reject both the authority and the obligations their legal rights imply.
None of this seems to bother Mr. Holder. Since he dropped his bombshell on Friday, much commentary has focused on the possibility that KSM might be found not guilty. That, however, is unlikely: Mr. Holder is not a fool, and everyone in the Obama administration appreciates the backlash that would occur if a KSM trial results in an acquittal. Thus, the men he will send for trial will be those against whom he has the most evidence.

The perversity here is that the overwhelming evidence of their war crimes gain them protections denied a soldier fighting in accord with the rules of war.

It even gains them more protections than their associates who attack military targets. This double standard means that the perpetrators of the USS Cole bombing are sent to military tribunals while the perpetrators of 9/11 are sent to federal court.

Andrew McCarthy has a unique perspective on the move to criminal trials. As an assistant U.S. attorney in 1993, he successfully prosecuted Omar Abdel Rahman (the "blind sheikh") for the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Even though the cases were somewhat different—that plot was conceived, plotted and carried out on U.S. soil—Mr. McCarthy says the experience persuaded him that federal trials are a bad way of handling terror.

"At first, I was of the mind that a criminal prosecution would uphold all our high-falutin' rhetoric about the constitution and majesty of the law," says Mr. McCarthy. "But when you get down to the nitty gritty of a trial, you see one huge problem: The criminal justice system imposes limits on the government and gives the defendant all sorts of access to information, because we'd rather have the government lose than unfairly convict a man. You can't take that position with an enemy who is at war with you and trying to bring that government down."

By going down this line, says Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Holder has invited any number of dangers: making the Manhattan courtroom a target for terrorist attack, inviting the disclosure of sensitive intelligence, opening the possibility that some al Qaeda operative will be acquitted and released within the U.S., etc.

Worst of all, he says, is turning the laws of war upside down: Why fight the Marines and risk getting killed yourself or locked up in Bagram forever when you can blow up American citizens on their own streets and gain the legal protections that give you a chance to go free? With this one step, Mr. Holder is giving al Qaeda a ghastly incentive: to focus more of their attacks on American civilians on American home soil.

"It is foolish to think that al Qaeda does not train to our system and look for our vulnerabilities," says Mr. McCarthy. "Remember what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told his captors when we got him, 'I'll see you in New York with my lawyer.' It seems he knows our weaknesses better than our government does."