Recently I put a post up on my Facebook wall that was, admittedly, quite harsh. Yet, was likely interpreted to be much more callous than actually intended. However, I stand by my comment, which chided a newspaper for having an extremely liberal leaning. What is interesting, though, is one of my friend's posts in response to my status. She said:
"I am not a Christian, yet I respect your faith and your beliefs-though I may not feel the same way about religion as you, I respect you enough as a person, and respect your right as a human being to make your own choices in life...."
Now, I appreciate that she kept a level tone. Very few people can do that when discussing a heated, controversial topic. Unfortunately, there's something that doesn't sit right with this comment. She has repeatedly said in this comment that she respects me. Yet, she has no reason to give me such respect. I could imagine from a humanist perspective I would be considered hateful, homophobic, bigoted and racist. Of course, these are just words with little substance, yet, my point remains. If I am wrong then I shouldn't be respected. As Paul says:
"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." (1 Cor 15:19NKJV).
So, indeed, if my faith is baseless then I should be pitied. But, more than that, I should be considered a dangerous fool. Perhaps, then, Richard Dawkins provides us with a more accurate atheistic response:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Yet, Dawkins method has significant short-comings, as well. His approach polarises both sides of this debate. The theistic and the atheistic. There is no middle ground and no respect, whatsoever, for the other side. Incidentally, in this style, he and I are similar. You see, I think Richard Dawkins is extremely dangerous and, while there are those who oppose Dawkins and still have the upmost respect for him, I cannot share the same courtesy for someone who is actively striving to do Satan's job for him. Regardless of whether Dawkins is conscious of his deception or not. I do differ from Dawkins, however, by appreciating that there are people who would overshadow my intellect who fall on the other side of this debate to me. Yet, I am comfortable with the company I hold.
I think you can love someone without respecting their ideology or, indeed, even them as a person. There are several examples of this in the Bible. Elijah is a sterling illustration of someone who did not put up with the nonsense of other worldviews. We read in 1 Kings about his interactions with the prophets of Baal.
"Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it." And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened." And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention." (1 Kings 18:25-29ESV)
As Christians we should not respect any other worldview. These worldviews are smoke-screens of deception that leave their followers with no footing to stand on once they are shown for what they really are. It is worth quoting at length what follows in Paul's letter to the Corinthians:
"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" Do not be deceived: "Evil company corrupts good habits." Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame." (1 Cor 15:20-34NKJV)
It is through Christ's historical actions that we are able to avoid the pity that we would deserve were our worldview based on lies. Because of this, we cannot boast (Eph 2:9) and we certainly don't deserve any of the respect. You see, my choices are frail and my desires faulty. If, indeed, I was to stand before God, without someone interceding for me, then "[my] right as a human being to make [my] own choices in life" would be the very thing that would condemn me.
Yet, Paul assures us that our struggles are not in vain. That the dead will rise and everyone will become subject to His will. However, this is both a comfort and a challenge for those of us who have the mark of God upon our souls. Because, Paul, in his wisdom, speaks about those who "[d]o not have knowledge of God". Our task has only just begun. While we may not possess the righteousness of Elijah we serve a God who demands that we fight for the damned, that we shine our beacons for the lost.
I have nothing but amiable feelings for my friend who posted her comment on Facebook. She is extremely pleasant to socialise with and displays a generous and caring nature to her friends. Yet, I grieve for her, and others who are entrapped by Satan's lies. I know something for sure, though. I am not doing enough to try and steer them from the destructive path that they are upon. Such idleness brings me great shame.
Twelve nurses represented by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit Monday against their employer, a hospital run by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, for requiring them to participate in abortions. Federal and state law both protect them from being forced to do so.
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
A brilliant article has appeared over on The Gospel Coalition. I'm going to quote the whole article, I usually don't, because it makes some very valuable points in regards to Lady Gaga's superstardom.
She had all the makings of a one-hit-wonder. Exotic flare, dance club style, and a larger-than-life ego have launched her into stardom. In record speed, she solidified her identity as the leading lady of pop culture by attracting millions of fans who memorize her lyrics, emulate her style, and imbibe her passion.
Lady Gaga is not just a stage name; it's an alter ego, a tool the 25-year-old uses as she masters the art of fame. While she claims music is her first passion and eccentric style her vehicle for expression, consistency in playing the part enables her to continuously shock the world.
The loyalty of her fan base makes Lady Gaga's reign unlike any other. She refers to them as "Little Monsters." In return they call her "Mother Monster." It's a mutually beneficial relationship because millions of people---who vary in age, gender, nationality, socio-economic standing, and sexual orientation---cling to her words and yearn for her presence, as she responds by praising them for their individuality and exhorts them to unleash the superstar within.
"Tonight I want you to let go of all of your insecurities," says Lady Gaga, offering redemption to her devotees from middle school heartbreaks, confusion about self-identity, and mid-life crises. "I want you to reject anyone or anything that ever made you feel that you don't belong. Free yourself of these things tonight!" As she imparts these words and soothes her Little Monsters with song, they claim freedom from angst and awkwardness. Like a nursing mother, she promises them solace.
Such a close relationship with fans has never been seen before. Even Madonna's followers lacked the identification with their pop-star hero that Lady Gaga has secured in a fraction of the time.
The Art of Fame
How did this modern-day heroine reach this place? Like many celebrities, it began with a childhood dream and dedicated parents. Stefani Germanotta grew up in an affluent area of New York, attended Catholic schools, and began studying music and dance when she was 4.
Today, she is a classically trained pianist with a powerful voice. But, according to Lady Gaga, this isn't the only art form she has studied. In an interview with Anderson Cooper she offered this insight: "One of my greatest artworks is the art of fame. I'm a master of the art of fame."
This is evident in her similarity to pop-icon Madonna, whose notoriety was largely due to her ability to reinvent herself. However, Madonna did this with different fashion trends every few years or so; Lady Gaga changes her appearance on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, Madonna pushed the envelope in many regards, especially in terms of sex, helping make it "acceptable" and even normal for young women to engage in premarital intercourse. Lady Gaga takes this one step further; she not only flaunts her own bedroom activity, but one of her public platforms is homosexuality.
In a recent number-one hit, "Born this Way," Lady Gaga sings, "It doesn't matter if you love him, or capital H.I.M." The song emphasizes the need to love oneself at all cost. She promotes self-love despite nationality and disability, but most of all, with reference to sexual orientation.
The basic argument runs this way: "I'm beautiful, 'Cause God makes no mistakes, I'm on the right track, I was born this way." The song has a catchy beat that masks its ideological edge, but the real shock value is in the music video. The pop diva splits her physical appearance in two; half of her is dressed like a woman, the other half, a man.
This is the Lady Gaga the world has come to expect. This, apparently, is how she has mastered the art of fame.
Who Are Her Fans?
It's also why her fans adore her. One of Lady Gaga's reasons for her behavior is "vicarious eccentricity": if she is weird, it takes pressure off of others who are seen as weird. She attracts the alienated. This is why social outsiders, in-the-closet college students, and underappreciated housewives all gravitate to her.
It's also fascinating to see how Lady Gaga appeals to society at large. She sold 1.1 million records in the first week of album sales in May. Such an accomplishment bears testimony to the sweeping scope of this "fame-monster." She speaks to virtually everyone with her message of love and understanding. "We are all born superstars," she exclaims. But if her fans truly believed and adopted this doctrine as their own, would one of her young fans recently commit suicide because of cyber bullying?
Jamey Rodemeyer, a 14-year-old from Buffalo, New York, took his own life this September. His last words were sent in a tweet to his idol. He wrote, "Goodbye, Mother Monster. Thank you for all you've done. Paws up forever." Jamey had been mercilessly taunted on account of his homosexuality. Unfortunately, his heroine and her promise of deliverance couldn't save the sorrow that plagued the young boy. He thanked her anyway.
Will the Real Deity Please Stand?
Can someone like Jamey Rodemeyer, whose life is ridden with rejection, be redeemed from self-hatred? Why didn't Jamey's inner-superstar emerge to save him as Lady Gaga had promised? Jamey needed a Savior who loved him to the point of death, even death on a cross.
A parody of so great a salvation took place at MTV's 2009 Video Music Awards. Lady Gaga ended her performance by being raised above the stage, drenched in blood. Her body hung there like an icon who had been murdered, dying in the midst of those who both loved her and scorned her. When asked about this she explained, "Everyone wants to see the decay of a superstar."
This is where Lady Gaga's philosophy gets seriously twisted, even damning. In proclaiming the message of redemption by inner illumination, she also promotes death as a spectacle. In this vein, she exploits Christian themes of redemption, only to mock and denigrate them as meaningless. For those who have eyes to see, this messiah complex is a common thread to much of her work. Its expression is profuse and explicit, including her recent song "Judas," in which Gaga sings about her ongoing love for Jesus' betrayer.
Lady Gaga, a mother to her fans, claims that she loves her Little Monsters. While exhorting them to break the shackles of self-imposed weakness, she performs in the foreground of the cross. When viewers try to peek around her theatrics to behold the man with outstretched arms wearing thorns upon his head, she reclaims their attention with provocative display of eroticism. "Keep your eyes on me all you who are rejected, ridiculed, and out of place in society," she cries. "I am your Mother."
But that Man will not be silenced. His love is too broad to be concealed. His redemption isn't a performance. It was a real cross, with real nails, in real time. Truly God and truly man, he died a physical death for actual sin resulting in genuine redemption. This one Savior, truly rose from the grave and really lives. Therefore, his promise is unyielding: "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). He is the Savior of the world; his name is Jesus.
Click here to go to The Gospel Coalition's website.
"The mainstream media has long ago become the lame-stream media. It does not any longer even pretend to be covering the news in any sort of objective and impartial fashion. Now it is all about creating the news and pushing PC agendas, nothing more.
Examples of this are easy to come by, and I have documented case after case of this over the years. Today’s papers bring us yet another prime example of this. Consider an article entitled “My Two Mums” found in the Sunday magazine in the Murdoch press. It is a large three-page spread on homosexual parenting, complete with four big colourful pics of such “happy” households.
We are assured in this article that children raised in same-sex households do just terrifically, and that this activity is very normal indeed. ‘Everyone is doing it’ is the message being given here, and time and again we are made to believe that kids raised in such households are getting along just fine.
Indeed, the entire article is one long propaganda piece. It is nothing other than a clear case of agenda pushing and indoctrination. Consider why this is so. In any controversial issue, a legitimate media outfit would strive to achieve some sort of balance, and offer contrary points of view.
But when that is completely absent, then you know you do not have news reporting but ideological warfare. The activist MSM is pushing the homosexual agenda pure and simple. It has not the slightest interest in presenting both sides of the story, and is happy to run roughshod over facts and evidence to push its bent message.
And simply reverse the situation here: if the MSM ever even dared to give a traditional pro-family point of view on such issues, it would be only the briefest of mentions, followed by one homosexual activist after another tearing into that viewpoint.
A brief comment opposing the radical homosexual agenda (if it in fact ever made it into the press) would be followed by a relentless hammering by the activists. That is how the MSM operates today on issues like homosexuality. You simply will not hear the other side of the story. And if you do, it will be featured only so it can be mercilessly attacked.
The pro-marriage and pro-family point of view has been effectively censored out of public debate in the MSM. The activists in the MSM have declared war on our values and beliefs, and they do not even worry anymore about the blatant one-sided propaganda campaign they are conducting.
The truth is, there would have been plenty of contrary voices to be heard in an article such as this, but the author and the newspaper refused to give them a run. And for good measure, they do throw in some paragraphs on Christianity, but only to attack it for being “strict” and “judgemental”. This is so darn typical of the MSM.
Thus we get the usual lies, such as the following: “Research consistently concludes that children with same-sex parents suffer no disadvantages.” This point is made throughout the article. It is blatantly false however. Indeed, such is the censorship that now fully reigns in the MSM that I have had to write a book to try to get the truth out into the public arena.
In my new volume Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality, I have several large chapters on this very issue. The reality is in fact light-years away from the message presented in this article. Let me here just offer a few snippets from my book: “Most of these studies purporting to show that children raised in same-sex households do as well as other children have been roundly criticised for methodological shortcomings.
“One meta-analysis of 49 such studies found a number of methodological flaws. These include the lack of any proper hypothesis statement, the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, the lack of proper comparison groups, the problem of measurement error and probability, neglect of extraneous variables, and so on. On a less technical level, these studies suffer from small sample sizes, lack of a proper control group, inadequacy of self-reporting, and lack of proper timeframe (longitudinal analysis).
“Two US researchers, after examining the available data, said that ‘studies on same-sex parenting are plagued with persistent limitation[s]’. They conclude their study with these words: ‘we cannot be confident concerning the generalizability of many of the findings’.
“Another expert, sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who claims to be agnostic on the question of same-sex marriage and the like, has also analysed the literature on homosexual parenting. He came up with these conclusions: ‘1) all of the studies I reviewed contained at least one flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.’
“Consider self-reporting. Most of these studies simply ask the children how they enjoy their same-sex parents. Not surprisingly, they don’t find any problems. But what child is going to bag his or her own parents? Indeed, if that is all they have known, it is even more difficult to criticise it. Thus scientific objectivity is sorely lacking in these types of studies. And since homosexual parenting is relatively recent, most children in same-sex households are relatively young. So asking 10-year-olds about their social, mental and psychological well-being may not result in very reliable data.
“But many of the children in same-sex households originally came from heterosexual families, making measurement more difficult. How much of their well-being or lack of it is attributable to heterosexual upbringing, and how much is attributable to homosexual upbringing?
“As but one example, pro-homosexual researchers have admitted that their study used ‘volunteers obtained though gay and single-parent magazines and associations. Obviously these do not constitute random samples, and it is not possible to know what biases are involved in the method of sample selection.’ Obviously indeed.”
I offer far more research and data in my book on all this. I encourage all of you to get it so that you can counter this MSM propaganda machine. We are in a war of ideas, and the MSM is only giving us its version of events. It is imperative that we all know the truth about such things, and that we get this truth out into the public arena as widely and as rapidly as possible.
If we lose this battle, we will largely have only ourselves to blame, for failing to be well read on this, for failing to make our case in the public arena, and for failing to have the courage and decency to act on the welfare of our children."
Over in America College Football has been rocked by the controversy surrounding recrod-breaking coach Joe Paterno. Albert Mohler weighs in with a timely opinion:
"No one thought it would end this way. Joe Paterno, the legendary head football coach at Penn State University heard of his firing by the school’s board of trustees by phone last night. Just two weeks after achieving the most wins of any NCAA Division One football coach in history, Paterno was fired. His firing — a necessary action by the Penn State board of trustees — holds lessons for us all.
Almost a decade ago, a graduate assistant told Coach Paterno that an assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, had been observed forcing a young boy into a sexual act in the school’s football locker room showers. Sandusky was himself a big name in Penn State football, and he was considered a likely successor to Paterno if the head coach had retired. Sandusky also ran a non-profit organization for boys, and he brought the boys onto the Penn State campus. He continued to do so even after his own retirement from Penn State’s coaching staff.
After hearing the report, Paterno informed university officials of the accusation. At that point, little or nothing seems to have happened. The scandal broke into public view last Saturday, when Sandusky was arrested and charged with 40 felony counts of sexual abuse involving young boys. Penn State had been harboring a serial child sex abuser. Also arrested were the university’s athletic director and its senior vice president of business and finance. Both were charged with failure to report the abuse and with perjury.
What about Paterno and the university’s president, Graham B. Spanier? The Pennsylvania grand jury said that both men had knowledge of the 2002 first-hand report of abuse, and neither contacted the police. Furthermore, Sandusky was allowed some use of university facilities even long after this report. Paterno went back to coaching football. Spanier went back to raising money and building the school’s reputation. Jerry Sandusky had every opportunity to keep on sexually abusing young boys.
When the facts became known, the firings of both Paterno and Spanier were inevitable and necessary. Both men had credible knowledge that young boys were being sexually abused, and neither did anything effective to stop it. Most crucially, neither man did what they should have done within minutes of hearing the first report — contact law enforcement immediately.
Every single coach, athletic director, and college or university president awoke this morning to a changed world. Nothing will ever be the same again. The firing of Joe Paterno will send shock waves through the entire world of higher education. A man who a day before had announced under pressure that he would retire at the end of the season was told by phone that he would never coach another game. Penn State University will forever be associated with a scandal the likes of which college athletics has, thankfully, never seen before.
But the world has not only changed for college athletics. The detonation of the Penn State scandal must shake the entire nation into a new moral awareness. Any failure to report and to stop the sexual abuse of children must be made inconceivable. The moral irresponsibility that Penn State officials demonstrated in this tragedy may well be criminal. There can be no doubt that all of these officials bear responsibility for allowing a sexual predator to continue his attacks.
What about churches, Christian institutions, and Christian schools? The Penn State disaster must serve as a warning to us as well, for we bear an even higher moral responsibility.
The moral and legal responsibility of every Christian — and especially every Christian leader and minister — must be to report any suspicion of the abuse of a child to law enforcement authorities. Christians are sometimes reluctant to do this, but this reluctance is both deadly and wrong.
Sometimes Christians are reluctant to report suspected sexual abuse because they do not feel that they know enough about the situation. They are afraid of making a false accusation. This is the wrong instinct. We do not have the ability to conduct the kind of investigation that is needed, nor is this assigned to the church. This is the function of government as instituted by God (Romans 13). Waiting for further information allows a predator to continue and puts children at risk. This is itself an immoral act that needs to be seen for what it is.
A Christian hearing a report of sexual abuse within a church, Christian organization, or Christian school, needs to act in exactly the same manner called for if the abuse is reported in any other context. The church and Christian organizations must not become safe places for abusers. These must be safe places for children, and for all. Any report of sexual abuse must lead immediately to action. That action cannot fall short of contacting law enforcement authorities. A clear lesson of the Penn State scandal is this: Internal reporting is simply not enough."
Click here to read the full article on Albert Mohler's website.
It's good to see that there are those in Mississippi who are fighting for personhood rights with Initiative #26. Despite yesterday's loss it is encouraging that there are those standing against the deplorable Roe vs. Wade 1973 decision. Indeed, this can be seen as a precursor to the American Presidential debate. And I hope people are paying attention this time round.
Barack Obama is not pro-life. Not even remotely. If you have a spare twenty minutes you can see his address back in 2008 to Planned Parenthood:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Obama's chief question that night was "what kind of America will our daughters grow up in?" He stresses that courts should not take away the choices of women in regards to abortion. Yet, Roe vs. Wade (a court case) created such a right. So, it seems that Obama will stand by the courts when they uphold his "pro-choice" stance yet condemn them when they don't. Obama goes on to say:
"It's an approach to the law that favours the powerful over the powerless. That holds up a flawed ideology over the rights of the individual." (7:04)
"We fought together in the Illinios state Senate against restrictive-choice legislation." (8:07)
"There will always be people, many of good will, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield." (9:18)
"It's time to turn the page on a policy that provides over $1.5 billion to teach abstinence in our schools but refuses to teach basic science and basic contraception." (11:42)
These comments display Obama's strong "pro-choice" leaning. Interestingly, the first comment (7:04) would appear to lend itself more to the "pro-life" side but contextually it is revealed to be something else. Bear in mind, also, that he is addressing Planned Parenthood who are responsible for approximately 290,000 abortions each year. It is clear that Obama's ideology and Planned Parenthood's "women's rights" strategy align. This should be the first warning sign for Christians.
Since his speech at Planned Parenthood Obama has stood with this organisation through thick and thin. In February 2011 the United States House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to defund Planned Parenthood. However, this was defeated in the Senate by Obama's Democrat's. In June this year Indiana passed a new law stripping Planned Parenthood of some of its funding. Then the Obama administration decided to play the bully and threatened to cut Indiana's Medicaid funding if they proceeded. In the future Obama has promised to veto any Federal Bills that would defund Planned Parenthood. At least Obama was being honest when he stated that he would not yield.
Until Obama is voted out of Office, Planned Parenthood will remain funded. Thankfully election time is coming around next year and several of the Republican's best chances for candidacy are pro-life. Barack Obama states that he goes to Trinity United Church of Christ yet his relationship with Planned Parenthood could not spawn from a Christian ideology. Anyone can claim that they are a Christian, and it is not up to us to determine their salvation. However, we can look at a person's fruits. And Obama's fruits are bad. So bad, in fact, that they are poisoning the tree. And it is not just on this issue that Obama acts against biblical mandates, though that is for another time.
Planned Parenthood's time is running out. To be honest, this organisation should have been defunded a long time ago. However, Obama formed an alliance that has allowed Planned Parenthood's miserable existence to continue. Such a relationship is beneficial for both parties yet it undermines the moral framework of America. Obama doesn't care about this, of course. He is too busy plotting his next social agenda that will spell destruction for the United States. And us Aussies want him to come and visit?
Since his speech at Planned Parenthood Obama has stood with this organisation through thick and thin. In February 2011 the