Join the Resistance!

Article by Cameron Spink

The Wimbledon Gentlemen's Final was held last night and taken by an emphatic Novak Djokovic in four sets. While this win will not generate as much press in Australia as his win in our iconic Open earlier this year this is the indisputable holy grail of tennis. See the final moments of the match below:

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

In doing so, he has broken the shackles held by tennis's two leading men Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. He may never match Nadal's or Federer's Grand Slam totals (ten and sixteen respectively) but, right now, he deserves the title as the best professional tennis player in the world.

Anyway, I am showing my hand as a sports fanatic. The real message that I contemplated as I watched Djokovic sink to the ground in elation was one that Paul touches on in his letter to the church in Corinth. Paul challenges his readers to:

Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

1 Corinthians 9:24-27

As Christians we have something great to hope for. It is something more worthy of elation than the Cup and large cheque which Djokovic won yesterday. It is everlasting and achievable no matter what our physical abilities. Sometimes I have to question my joy as a response to the prize that Jesus has won for us. Perhaps, it is because the nature of this prize is one which we cannot win alone (unlike Djokovic's individual performance, albeit he is backed by a superb coaching and support team).

Djokovic was ecstatic because he won the ultimate prize in tennis. Why can't we be as ecstatic about receiving the greatest prize we can receive in our paltry time on earth. Does your heart soar every time you think about the victory of the cross?

Our first young adult resource video on William Lane Craig's Hard Questions, Real Answers.

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

A disappointing verdict has been reached by the US Supreme Court in regards to violent games. It has decided that California cannot regulate violent video games to stop them getting into the hands of children.

Grand Theft Auto no different to Cinderella, rules US Supreme Court
Herald Sun, 28th June 2011

"Ripping out your video game opponents' spine is akin to Hansel and Gretel baking their captor in an oven.

That's the message sent to gamers by the US Supreme Court yesterday, after it refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children.

California's 2005 law would have prohibited anyone under 18 from buying or renting games that give players the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being".

That means that children would have needed an adult to get games like Postal 2, the first-person shooter by developer Running With Scissors that includes the ability to light unarmed bystanders on fire.

However, governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed", the court ruled, despite complaints about graphic violence.

On a 7-2 vote, it upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, saying the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment.

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.

"But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18....."

Click here to read the full article on the Herald Sun's website.

Article by Cameron Spink

An article appeared today on The Punch. This was written by Babette Francis supporting the involvement of Catholic organisations in the pro-life movement. Now, I am not Catholic but I am pro-life, and I wish to write to debunk some of the many fallacious arguments from posts below Babette's article. There were claims that members from organisations like The Helpers (a Catholic pro-life group) hurled abuse at those attending the abortion clinics and sometimes even spat on those pregnant women. Here is a quote from a spokesman from The Helpers:

"Our primary goal is the conversion of hearts. Obviously you don’t spit on somebody when you wish to change their heart.

We mainly pray and offer assistance. We endeavour to save the life of the child. Abortion is a tragedy. But all is not lost. There is no rush to judgment. We try to alleviate that feeling that there is no other choice.

We’re under very strict standards of behaviour. The police can now issue a fine for an offensive behaviour. None of The Helpers have ever been convicted of an offence.

It’s all very well to make these accusations but there is no evidence to support it."

Spokesman for The Helpers

With such accusations being clarified as false (I have no reason to doubt the scincerity of the quote above) I wish to concentrate upon is the fallacy (or the poor logic) of many posters below that article. When abortion is discussed there really is no middle ground. This is probably because it is difficult for somebody to say "It is wrong, but I support people's choice to do it".

The first point of note is concerned with clarification. One poster said "You shouldn't refer to your movement as 'pro life', it should be 'anti-abortion'" and then went on to state that pro-lifers resort to killing people. This is obviously in reference to what is classified as incidents of "anti-abortion violence" and makes for some grime reading. If, infact, there was any rational connection between these people using violence (usually a group called the Army of God) and those who take a pro-life stance. The fact is, that I, and nearly all others in the pro-life movement abhor the violence caused by these people who masquerade as pro-life while acting with detestable hypocrisy. You can read an article here where Greg Koukl deals with some of these incidents directly.

So, in the first instance, I would like to refute the title "pro-choice". This is widely inaccurate. The very concept of abortion belies this name as the child is given no choice as to their existence. So if we are called to chance our movement's name to "anti-abortion" (which we won't) then the opposition should change their name to pro-abortion. Unfortunately, this won't happen. However, if it "quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...".

My clarification above draws out the first logical argument from the "pro-choice" side. Several posters state this and I will quote verbatim "a foetus is not a baby, despite the dishonest psychological tactics that Ms Francis and her cohorts deploy". Despite the fact that this poster seems to be playing the man rather than the ball they have enunciated the most regular defence for abortion. This argument is debunked in Randy Alcorn's book Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments. He says "[m]any people have been told that there is no medical or scientific consensus as to when human life begins. This is simply untrue. Among those scientists who have no vested interests in the abortion issue, there is an overwhelming consensus that human life begins at conception. (Conception is the moment when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, bringing into existence the zygote, which is a genetically distinct individual.)" (Part 1b, pg 39). He then goes on to list many experts who support such a position. However, to understand this argument completely you should buy his book and read through his more thorough response.

Usually no consensus can be met on this first argument. The thing with science is that there are always experts who support any position under the sun, no matter how irrational. So it is likely most "pro-choicers" will ignore the argument of life beginning at conception and jump straight to their second argument, which usually goes something like "I am pro-choice because I believe that the only person to have a say in my body and reproductive health is me". This argument is used in many different spheres and can be simplified to "mind your own business!". It is unfortunate that this argument has gained any credence at all and must be testament to the overwhelming selfishness of inhabitants of western nations. In the end this reasoning is found to be rather delusional. Here is Greg Koukl's take on this argument:

"But women have a freedom to choose." False. No one has an open-ended freedom to choose anything they want. You only have the freedom to choose morally acceptable alternatives. Killing innocent human beings because they are inconvenient is not one of those morally acceptable alternatives.

"It's my body and I can do anything I want with it." False on two counts. Even if I agreed that we are only talking about one woman's body, the law does not allow you to do whatever you want with your body. You can't do anything you want with your body. Secondly, an unborn child can have a penis and women don't have penises. That is proof that there is a separate individual human being involved. By the way, that is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party.

This kind of personal property argument was used to declare black slave Dred Scott a non-human, so you are in good company if you are arguing that way (facetiously, good company being Judge Taney). The point is, we are not talking about the woman's body. We are talking about another human being domiciled within the woman. Does the dentist become part of the woman's body when he sticks his hand in her mouth to do her teeth? No, of course not. It just goes to show how ridiculous these kinds of slogans are.

Abortion Rhetoric - Greg Koukl, Stand To Reason

One of the most non-sensical arguments also reared its head on The Punch's website. It goes like this "Sure, you could make it illegal - and the backyard operators will simply open up shop again". This is jaw-dropping stupidity. In news today there is growing worries that a gang-related feud is going to explode in Melbourne's northern suburbs. Now drive-by shootings and even assassinations occur enough in Melbourne to make this type of behaviour a regular occurrence. But it would be a strange argument to state that authorities should turn their backs on a very dangerous behaviour. The risk of backyard abortions occurring is unfortunate because it is dangerous for the woman. However, this does not justify legalising abortion, which is a morally reprehensible act.

Of course, many people feel this wording is too fierce and fire back "you have no right to try and impose your beliefs and values on others who don't share them". Well, I'll be! We're being shouted down by a group of people who don't think that anyone should impose their values on anyone else. Even putting aside the rather humorous logical fallacy of the above quote I can't help thinking why not? If abortion is the killing of human life then such an action is synonymous with murder. I have no qualms against denouncing murder so why should I spare abortion the same condemnation.

There was one poster who, perhaps, showed the hand of the pro-abortionists too well. He said "[a]s a scientist you'd know our planet has a disastrous human population problem.  When 'pro-life' means lack of birth control, it should be stamped out!". Thankfully, a reply called his bluff. Because, indeed, if the world has a human population problem there is something he can do to fix it. Of course, and mercifully, this poster will not follow his comments to their logical conclusion (and commit suicide). What we realise is that our existence is precious and worth fighting for. As a Christian I realise that it is not my own existence which is merely precious but everyone around me as well. So while we may have to take a beating for our stance we know that it is God who created us for His glory and we will struggle for the right of the most innocent to receive the riches of His promise.

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

One channel that I regularly watch on YouTube is Bobby Conway's OneMinuteApologist with a large amount of information compacted into a short space of time. Be sure to check it out.

Also Bobby Conway has just released a book entitled Hell, Rob Bell, & What Happens When People Die.

Check out the trailer below:

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

In great, but not unexpected news, Geert Wilders, who stands against the Islamification of Europe has been acquitted from the claims that he was inciting hatred against Muslims. Bill Muehlenberg reports further.

Wilders, Holland, and Hope

Bill Muehlenberg, 23rd June 2011

Just when things start looking the darkest, things can suddenly turn around. One of the best examples of this, in my eyes, is the European nation of Holland. For decades now it has been one of the darkest, sleaziest and most secular nations on earth.

Every lousy anti-faith, anti-family and anti-life initiative one can imagine seems to have occurred there. And in many instances the Netherlands actually led the way. This was the first nation on earth to legalise same-sex marriage (April 2001). This was the first nation on earth to legalise euthanasia (April 2002).

This was a nation noted for its brash and vulgar red-light districts, at least in its major cities. This was a country noted for its marijuana cafes (again, in places like Amsterdam). Drug dealing, crime and violence were rife in all the major cities. This was a country so keen on "tolerance" that just about anything and everything was permitted.

The place was a cesspool in other words, and like much of Europe looked to be heading down a one-way street to oblivion. It was radically secularised and seemed to be in a major moral freefall. I know this from firsthand experience, since I lived in that nation for five years in the early 80s.

But incredibly things have been turning around there. Let me begin with the most recent bit of news. Just today a Dutch court has acquitted the anti-Islamist politician Geert Wilders of charges of discrimination and hate speech. This is how one news report covers the story:

"Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders, cleared today of hate-speech and discrimination charges for his statements against Islam, said his acquittal was a victory for freedom of speech. 'You are being acquitted on all the charges that were put against you,' judge Marcel van Oosten told Mr Wilders, who has been on trial in the Amsterdam regional court since October last year.

"The flamboyant MP faced five counts of hate speech and discrimination for his anti-Islamic remarks on websites, internet forums and in Dutch newspapers between October 2006 and March 2008, and in his controversial 17-minute movie Fitna (Discord in Arabic).

"He also compared the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf while in Fitna he shows shocking images of the September 11 attacks in the US and other onslaughts against Western targets interspersed with verses from the Muslim holy book. 'The bench finds that your statements are acceptable within the context of the public debate,' the judge told the platinum-haired politician, whose case was boosted by a prosecution unwilling to take aim at him.

"'The bench finds that although gross and denegrating, it did not give rise to hatred,' said Judge van Oosten. The 47-year-old Mr Wilders, whose right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV) lends its support to a right-leaning Dutch coalition government, told journalists afterwards he was 'overjoyed and very happy' to have been acquitted. 'It is not only a victory for me, but also a victory for freedom of speech,' he said outside the courtroom. He added: 'It means it is legal to criticise Islam.'

"The acquittal comes after Mr Wilders last month argued before judges that he was 'defending freedom in The Netherlands' against Islam. One of Europe's most heavily guarded politicians, he told the court he was 'obliged to speak' because The Netherlands was 'under threat' from Islam."

This is tremendous news indeed, and as Wilders said, it is a significant win for freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. It seems there is hope yet for this spiritually malnourished and woefully PC nation.

Indeed, others fighting for freedom should take real hope and reassurance out of this. Perhaps Andrew Bolt will also find a win for freedom of speech here in Australia. It will hopefully result in many more people being willing to stand up and be counted - even if a heavy price must be paid for doing so.

Now Wilders of course is not a Christian - as least as far as I am aware. But since all truth is God's truth, I think this was in many ways a victory which believers should also greatly savour. Secularists like Wilders and Christians alike would have had much to lose if this case would have gone the other way.

Indeed, his case was a real battle between Islamist totalitarianism and Western freedom. And if a Dutch court can side with him against those who would drag us into an Islamist police state then there is real hope indeed. I would say it is another sign that God is still at work in even dark and decadent places like Holland.

God has not yet abandoned Europe

I mentioned before how I once lived and worked in Holland as a Christian missionary. It was an uphill battle. Back then it was such a spiritually dead and morally vile place. It was not easy living in such a sin-soaked city such as Amsterdam.

But the good news is that God is able to turn around the most miserable and diabolical situations. Let me finish with a quick story. A few years ago I went back to Holland. After some 25 years I was again walking the streets of Amsterdam.

It is such a beautiful city in so many ways. It is rightly called the "Venice of the North". Its many canals, quaint historic buildings, and tree-lined streets filled with bicyclists is a joy to behold. But all the sin, corruption and degradation makes the experience a bittersweet one for any Christian who longs to see God's will done on earth as it is in heaven.

I vividly recall one day during that 2009 visit sitting in a third-story room overlooking the streets of Amsterdam. As always it was a hub of activity with people scurrying about everywhere. My heart was very heavy as I looked out my window and prayed for this lost city.

I remember telling the Lord, 'There must have been millions of prayers uttered over the centuries for this perverse and godless city. How many thousands of God's people have prayed and wept over this city? How long O Lord before you move again in this place?'

Soon after that time of intercession I made some amazing discoveries. God in fact had been at work in Amsterdam, and in other parts of Holland. When I lived there decades ago all the churches that were even half alive were quite small and struggling.

But things have really begun to change in the past few decades. Indeed, when I returned from Europe I wrote up a piece entitled "Europe: God is not finished yet." Let me quote a short part of that here: "There are clear signs of God at work. Holland at the moment is actually being run by a coalition of Christian political parties, and the Prime Minister is a Christian.

"Some of the famous Dutch liberalism and tolerance has been tightened up a bit. The once ubiquitous drug dealers around Amsterdam's central district and the sprawling red light districts have both been cleaned up and curtailed. Even some of the drug cafes have been restricted in number and scope.

"But it is the revitalisation of the church in the nation that is especially intriguing. There are now numerous evangelical churches in Holland with large and thriving congregations. One church in Amsterdam has over 2000 members. Such numbers were unheard of a few decades ago.

"And the amazing thing is, many of these large and spiritually vital churches are led by migrants who have come to Holland. The large Amsterdam church has as its head pastor an African. Indeed, many of these big churches are being led by Nigerians and Ghanaians. Missionaries and church planters from places such as South Korea, Brazil and Uganda are doing great works for God in the Netherlands and throughout Europe."

So the prayers I had uttered just hours earlier I found were in fact already being answered. In between my two times in Holland God was in fact at work in a major way. Revival is breaking forth in Amsterdam, and in Holland, and in Europe.

Of course whereas before Christian missionaries from Europe went to the developing world to reach it for Christ, now Christian missionaries from the developing world are going to Europe to re-win it for Christ and his Kingdom. This is tremendous.

God is not finished yet with the ungodly, immoral continent of Europe. He still has a plan and a purpose for it. And the just-declared victory of Geert Wilders can be seen as part of God's bigger plan for Holland and the continent. Secularism and Islam are both working overtime to take control of Europe and its millions of souls.

But God is also at work to see Europe once again become a place where the name of Jesus Christ is honoured and where the glorious gospel goes forth. There is still reason to hope. There is much darkness and discouragement, naturally. But with our God we shall prevail and do great things.

So please everyone keep fighting the good fight. We owe it to a broken and needy world to not give up. And we owe it to the one who died on a cross so that we might have life, and have it more abundantly.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/dutch-anti-islam-mp-geert-wilders-acquitted-of-hate-speech-charges/story-e6frg6so-1226080840626
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/08/25/europe-god-is-not-finished-yet/

Used with Permission

Click here to go to Bill's full article.