Sunday, November 29, 2009

"Facebook Exit"

After reading a very impressive book called The Church of Facebook, I decided to deactivate my account indefinitely. The book did not encourage this, but I deemed it the most edifying thing to do.

I had been fairly active in Facebook for several months. My two previous forays were much shorter. My philosophy of Facebook was to publicize my speaking events, link to important articles, and give some social criticism and biblical exhortation. I was very thin on personal updates and trivia, although I did post not a few wise cracks on other people's posts--maybe too many.

So why did I pull the plug and leave my 277 "friends" behind? First, the signal to noise ratio was not too good. Some of this may have been my fault, since I adopted an "anybody can be my friend policy." I opted for quantity over quality in order to get my message out. I seldom asked anyone to be a "friend," but if I did, it was someone I knew. However, I refused few "friend requests." Given all the "friends," clutter accumulated quickly. Second, I did waste some time looking at others photographs. One person had over 700! Don't worry, I didn't look at many of them. What does that say about our image obsessed culture? Third, I could not escape the bimbo uprisings at the upper left of the pages--babes who were "looking for me." This got tiresome, especially in light of what Jesus says about such things (Matthew 5:27-32). Fourth, my email was flooded with Facebook responses. I suppose I could have opted out of this feature without shutting down the whole thing.

What am I missing in my Facebook-free afterlife? If people really want to contact me, there are myriad of other ways to do so. However, Facebook seems to be becoming the medium of choice for quick communication. Email is already old hat for teens and early twenty-somethings, I hear. It was sometimes enjoyable to find an old friend and contact him or her, but how deep can one go on Facebook? Those with whom I rekindled a friendship should be willing to interact with me in other media, I hope. My 277 are now left bereft of my endless links and preachments, but they may still consult this august and non-award-winning blog.

All in all, I am extremely aware of the need to make the most of our limited time on earth, to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom, and to seek first the Kingdom of God. Desipe my philosophy of Facebook engagement, and my general refusal to chatter or post photographs of myself in cute poses (if that is possible), Facebook seemed to be something of an obstacle to more important pursuits. Instead of reading endless updates, I could be reading the Bible or praying or reading a good book or writing articles for publication in real bound volumes!


Ella Live!

A treasury of long-forgotten Ella Fitzgerald live recordings has been released, and is written up in The New York Times. She was one of the greatest jazz singers ever--perfect pronunciation, incessant joy, and fantastic range.

Friday, November 27, 2009

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.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

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.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

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.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

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.

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.

Monday, November 23, 2009

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:



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.

Sunday, November 22, 2009


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.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

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).

Friday, November 20, 2009


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.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

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."

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

From The NY Times

China Holds Firm on Major Issues in Obama’s Visit

President Obama was confronted, on his first visit, with a fast-rising China more willing to say no to the U.S.

Of course! China is economically advancing; the US is economically (and morally) declining. With this President, we are in no condition to stand in and speak out of the bully pulpit (as did Reagan). "The leader of the free world" (as US Presidents used to be called) is making his own country less free and less a force for good in the world.

But God often works in the underground, not in the foreground. The Chinese house church movement may prove to be far more influential than the Chinese civil government or the man sadly shaming the White House today.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

To My Senators: On Tax-Supported Abortion

Senator Michael F. Bennet:

Senator Mark Udall:

I am a taxpaying constituent concerned by the fact that the health care reform bills passed by both the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Senate Finance Committee would allow federal funds to pay for elective abortions and plans that cover elective abortions.
I was heartened that the House of Representatives voted to adopt the Stupak Amendment, which protects the conscience of the taxpayer on this sensitive issue by banning these funds from paying for elective abortions and plans that cover elective abortions.

I have been following this issue closely and I understand that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is planning on offering this bipartisan amendment into the Senate health care reform bill.
I am writing to request you to build upon the bipartisan consensus of the House of Representatives and insert identical language into this bill.

The vast majority of Americans do not want federal funds to go towards elective abortions and plans that cover elective abortions.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Please inform me of your decision on how you will vote on this critical issue.

Susan B. Anthony List Activist

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.

Converting to Christianity

Pray for his young convert to Christianity. Her life is in danger if she goes back to her Muslim father. God forbid we wake up to find another Fort Hood, this time with one dead: a 17-year old girl.

An Open Letter to George Will, Also Posted on his Facebook Page

Mr. Will:

I have great respect for your political and cultural judgments.

I hope you will rethink your position.I do not understand your antipathy to the Intelligent Design movement. I am a philosopher and author who has studied Darwinism and its critics for three decades. The Intelligent Design arguments against the idea that there is no evidence of design in biology are profound, as exhibited by Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Steven Meyer. Perhaps the most profound analysis and argument thus far is Dr. Meyer's magisterial work, The Signature in the Cell (HarperOne, 2009).

I hope you will rethink your position.

Doug Groothuis
Professor of Philosophy
Denver Seminary


The mainstream media is on a tare to exonerate Hasan of religious motivation for which he is responsible. It turns out it is all the military's fault--not because it failed to do anything about Hasan's dangerous Islamic statements and activity, but because it was not "sensitive" enough. Consider the following quotes, I received from "Cyberalert." I do not watch TV myself.

* "The Pentagon has made a real concerted effort to create a military that is culturally sensitive and religiously tolerant, but Muslims in uniform today face a challenge not seen since Japanese-Americans fought in World War II. They taste suspicion from some fellow soldiers who question their loyalty and resentment from fellow Muslims opposed to both American wars."-- Correspondent Bill Weir on ABC's World News, November 6.

"How disturbing is it to you that it looks like various agencies failed to connect the dots on Major Hasan?...We know from the beginning of the Iraq war, the escalation in number of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder. The other fact is, is that the more people go back to these fields, these theaters of war, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, it multiplies the incidence of these kinds of things occurring."-- CBS's Harry Smith questioning Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki on the November 11 Early Show. Hasan never served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Now consider what the press would do if a Christian soldier turned on his own while shouting, "Praise to King Jesus."

Sunday, November 15, 2009

The Deniable Darwin

Still jamming on my outline for "The Deniable Darwin" talk tomorrow at 11:45 at Auraria Campus (Multicultural Room). How to fit it all in coherently and cogently in 35 minutes?! I thought I was done on Friday. Hope to see some of you there.

How Do You Live?

More on Chan's new book, Crazy Love by Paul Adams's.

The Deniable Darwin

Look here for a list of over 600 people with earned doctorates in science who question the adequacy of Darwinism to explain the biosphere.

They signed the following statement:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Learning How to Fight

Corrie Ten Boom, Defeated Enemies. Christian Literature Crusade. 16th printing, 2002

This short pamphlet helps equip the Christian for faith and victory in spiritual warfare. The deceased author, a noteworthy teacher and evangelist, presents a basic biblical view of the spiritual topography (God, Satan, and demons) and how to resist the devil and experience freedom and victory through the work of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Ms. Ten Boom salts the text with many pertinent Scriptures along with accounts of her own dealings with the realm of the demonic. She challenges her readers to know the power of God and to not give the enemy a foothold through any sin, especially that of involvement with the occult. If she were alive today, Corrie would be warning Christians about the spiritual dangers of yoga, since it is a form of Hindu occultism. (On this, see the DVD, "Yoga Uncoiled.") Sadly, many Christians are involved in this ungodly practice and are thus opening themselves to demonic influences.

I recommend this booklet as an encouragement to Christians to lay hold of the power of the blood of Christ in their struggles against their enemy, the Devil (1 Peter 5:8-9; Colossians 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8). For a more advanced treatment of the topic, see Gary Kinamman, Winning Your Spiritual Battles and Ed Murphy, Handbook on Spiritual Warfare.

Saturday, November 14, 2009


Are you a lukewarm Christian?

Another Guru Gone

I just read in a book review that the Indian guru, Sri Chinmoy, died in 2007. I knew of him first as a teenager when I saw his blissful face and incoherent verses in albums by Carlos Santana and John McLaughlin, two of my guitar favorites at the time. (I still listen with interest to McLaughlin, a jazz virtuoso, but not much to Santana, who chops to get old after a few decades.) At that time, I was intrigued by Eastern thought, not having any real roots in Christianity or logical thinking. I had no idea what Chinmoy actually taught, but he seemed otherworldly and inspired such good music. He and his followers believed he was an avatar, a manifestation of the Hindu God. His teachings were pantheistic and included reincarnation and karma.

I saw Chinmoy in Anchorage, Alaska, some time in early 1975. He spoke to a small crowd, including some adoring followers dressed in Indian garb. He spoke in esoteric epigrams for about twenty minutes. One man became impatient and said, "We want to know what you teach. What is your philosophy?" How Western! He wanted proposition about reality that might be rationally assessed. To this, Chinmoy replied, "I have written many books. I have traveled the world." He then went into a trance, his eyes disappearing into his forehead, and began chanting: Ohm.There it is. You must simply bask in the ambiance of the God-enlightened guru, not ask questions. I was not a Christian at the time, but could not look at him in the eye. It was too strange. The young woman I went when said the opposite, "I couldn't look away."

Now Chinmoy, along with Maharishi and Da Free John (whose deaths I have written about on this blog), is dead. He faces the reality he counterfeited for so long. I thank God that a little over a year I saw Chinmoy, I became a follower of the only Incarnation of God, Jesus Christ, and that thirty three-years after that God's grace is still sufficient for me.

Bernard Ramm on Nietzsche and Evangelicals

What is the devil’s due Evangelicals can glean from Nietzsche? It is the willingness to be driven like Nietzsche. It is the willingness to spare no pains in the search for truth. It is the willingness. . . .to work into the late hours of the night or to start in the earliest hours of the day; to pick up a new project as soon as we have finished an older one; to grow weary and exhausted in our quest for truth; to have...our eyes watery from too much reading, and our bodies bent over from long, weary hours at the study desk.

No Evangelical whose reading habits are a disgrace to the seriousness of the Christian ministry, or who spends more time before a television set than he does in serious reading in his study has the right to damn Nietzsche from the pulpit to some gruesome place in the Inferno.--Bernard Ramm, The Devil, Seven Wormwoods, and God (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1977), 61-62.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Water on the Moon

Water on the moon.
Blood on the earth.
Tears on the Throne.
We are not alone.

Listen to that sound:
A Word spoken loud.
But not for the proud.

A Word speaking Truth for
A world needing proof, but
which remains too aloof
to look past the moon
and into that room
where moons are made
and blood is shed
to wake the dead.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Curmudgeon's Cry

All Americans should be forbidden from writing or saying "awesome" for two weeks. During this time they can take out a dictionary and learn some new adjectives. I doubt they would return to this tired and tiring cliche.

Can You Do This?

9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.--2 Corinthians 10:9-10.

Is ID Viable?

Listen to Bill Craig debate Franis Ayala on the viability of intelligent design.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Doug Groothuis on Spiritual Warfare at Denver Seminary

Women's Forum - November 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009, 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM

Location: Denver Seminary, 6399 S Santa Fe Dr, Littleton, CO US 80120

Join us for stimulating lectures and discussions designed for women in our community to wrestle with relevant issues of today, cultivate their own worldview and pursue a deeper relationship with Christ.

The November Women's Forum features Dr. Doug Groothuis who will share on the topic of "Everyday Spiritual Warfare: Finding Your Way." The Bible speaks much of world of angels and demons, yet most American Christians read past these references without taking them seriously. Others develop unbiblical views of the spiritual realm based on fantastic testimonies or other unreliable sources. But the Christian needs a proper understanding of their relation to the world of angels and demons in order to faithfully serve God. To that end, we will discuss the basics of spiritual warfare for the Christian today.

The Posters are Going up at Metro State

Master Plan Ministries at the Auraria Campus is getting the word out about my November 16 talk at 11:45 called, "The Deniable Darwin."

Groothuis Apologetics Articles

Nine out of ten of my TrueU apologetics articles are back on line at Denver Seminary.

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Darwin's Children: Run for Cover

This is a profound piece, despite pot shots at scientific criticis of Darwinism, on the social and moral implications of Darwinism. It is heartening to find it published in a respected British paper. See also John West, Darwin Day in America (2007).

Classic Ad hominem Fallacy

This was posted at Amazon about my review of Living Buddha, Living Christ.

PHD, YOU? Who cares? You're nothing but a stupid Christian moron! JESUS CHRIST IS A FRAUD!!! The Judeo Christian bible is a medieval tale about talking donkeys and snakes,man who supposedly lived inside a whale,men who supposedly lived more than 900 years and a lot of nonsense! One need to be VERY mentally retarded to believe in such things! BLIND FAITH IS IGNORANCE!!!

Saturday, November 07, 2009

This just in from National Right to Life

The House adopted the NRLC-backed Stupak-Pitts Amendment, 240-194. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment removed two major pro-abortion components from H.R. 3962. Specifically: (1) the amendment would permanently prohibit the new federal government insurance program, the "public option," from paying for abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest; and (2) the amendment would permanently prohibit the use of the new federal premium subsidies ("affordability credits") to purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). It was supported by 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats. It was opposed by 194 Democrats. One Republican withheld his support by voting "present."

I am somewhat happy about this vote, but...what this means, if the public (statist) option goes through, is that many women may claim rape or incest in order to get federal funds. When the civil government promises to pay, many people lie to get it. Consider all the Medicare fraud going on! That means pro-life people will be paying for abortion that they do not agree with.

In fact, I do not think rape or incest justifies abortion, since a human being has been conceived, however wrongfully. You don't solve one problem (illicit, immoral intercourse) by another one (aborting an innocent human being made in God's image). I do not want my money going to pay for these abortions.

Pro-life people have some hard days ahead. It will be worse for the unborn.

Groothuis Talk at Auraria Campus, November 16 at 11:45 AM

"Collision" DVD Review

"Collision" recounts several debates between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian pastor Douglas Wilson.

This production suffers from all the worst of the postmodern sensibility and aesthetic. While billed as a "debate," there is no linear presentation of ideas in a classic debate forum. Rather, the video jumps from one setting to another. Now it's a TV exchange; then it's a debate at a seminary; next they are in a bar. I lost track of how many settings there were. It is maddening to anyone trained in linear logical thinking and analysis. All the actual arguments between the two men are clipped and lack sufficient context. Moreover, the camera angles, set conditions, and lighting are deeply annoying. There are strange high-glare closeups, jiggling cameras, as well noisy backgrounds. It is unnerving. Call it videographic ADHD.

Despite all this unnecessary clutter and chaos, a few arguments stand out. For example, Wilson claims that Hitchens has no philosophical grounding for his moral pronouncements, and Hitchens admits as much while denying God as a foundation for morality. Those trained in apologetics, will note that Wilson uses the Van Tillian presuppositional method (with some help from C.S. Lewis on objective moral law). This approach, while helpful for critiquing non-Christian worldviews, has deep limitations in apologetics, since it can marshal no genuine constructive arguments based on natural theology, science, and history. At several points, Wilson seems to concede that he and Hitchens inhabit different thought worlds entirely. If so, how can you build a logical or evidential bridge with the unbeliever? The cumulative case approach--used by William Craig, J.P. Moreland, Douglas Geivett, (if I may) myself, and many others--is the far better method. See Craig's debate with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist (Oxford, 2003).

Unlike Hitchens, Wilson is not that articulate. However, he is knowledgeable, civil, courageous, and funny at times. He reduces Hitchens worldview to this at the end: "There is no God: s--t happens." We need more Christians, who, like Wilson, are willing to engage in meaningful debates with unbelievers. However, we need less DVDS in which the original debate form is debauched through the insane postmodern insistence on fragmentation and incoherence.

On Not Speaking Truth to Power

Obama refuses to meet with the Dali Lama and figures opposed to tyranny. This is typical of the hard left. They refuse to support those who speak truth to tyrannical power; instead they curry favor from the powerful, as long as they are hostile to the West. This is unjust, perverse, and ungodly in the extreme. Wake up, America. Your president is a no friend of freedom, democracy, or "hope."

Beyond the shiny spectacle of this "historic" president is an empty suit, political mantras (meaningless), a magic teleprompter, and a man who is putting America and its deepest ideals at risk for the sake of his neo-Marxist ideology.

Truth: Act!

Tax money for abortion: Refuse it!

Friday, November 06, 2009

Whence Mind? No Matter!

In a recent issue of The Philosophers Magazine, atheist philosopher Raymond Tallis admits that Darwinism cannot explain the human mind. Of course, Christianity can.


I posted one obscenity (from a Darwinist) for illustrative purposes. No more will be published.

Defining Terrorism Down

The mainstream press and Obama are very reluctant to admit that the homicidal rampage of a Muslim psychiatrist and General were the result of Islamic terrorism, although the evidence is mounting. Call it defining terrorism down. CAIR and their cronies (the political left) will chalk it up to mental illness or somehow blame the US armed forces. As a good friend of mine from Africa has been saying for yours, "Political correctness is killing your country." This is literally true.

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Spiritual Warfare: The Belt of Truth and Breastplate of Righteousness

My sermon on Ephesians 6:14 is available at the Wellspring Church web page. It was given on 10-11-09. Scroll down to find it. I can send you sermon notes if you'd like.

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Another Obama-nation

Obama Manufacturing Czar agrees with Mao's power politics. Mao Tse Tung was the greatest murderer of the 20th century. My God, what is happening to my country, its Constitution, and its heritage?!

Rule: Publication of the Civil

There is some new activity on this blog in light of comments about and participation in the recent conference on Darwinism and ID. As is typical, Darwinists insult, condescend, and label anyone who disagrees as an ignoramus. The policy of this blog is to not post insults and invective. If you have an argument, make it without assassinating any one's character. For some strange reason, Darwinists usually have difficulty doing this. Richard Dawkins is the poster boy on this, and serves as a model for many. I know from long experience.