Biblical worldview: events, culture and religion

Easter

2006-04-16T14:02:00.000-07:00

This Easter morning across America children are searching for Easter baskets filled with goodies or colored eggs allegedly placed by the Easter bunny. These are fun activities, and it is quite appropriate to be joyous and happy on this day. However, it is important to remember the reason we celebrate this day, and teach your children the significance of Easter Sunday. On this day, 2,000 years ago, a group of women were walking to Jesus’ tomb. They were His followers, but three days before, Jesus had been crucified, and laid in the tomb. All of His followers were deeply grieved at their Lord’s death. How could this happen? Wasn’t He the Messiah? Isn’t the Messiah supposed to rule the world and set up the Kingdom? Their own lives were in danger because of their association with Jesus. He said “I will never leave your nor forsake you.” What happened? Why did He die?

Jesus did warn them that He would have to die, but then rise from the dead:

“And it came about that after Jesus finished all these words, He said to His disciples, ‘You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be delivered up for crucifixion’ ” (Matthew 26:1, 2).

“Then Jesus said to them, ‘You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, “I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.’ But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee’ ” (Matthew 26:31-32).

Jesus also told them the reason He was going to die:

“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep….the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.” (John 10:11, 17).

“just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).

The Apostle Paul wrote, “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again according to the Scriptures” (1Corinthians 15:1-4).

This is what the Gospel is: that Christ died for our sins, and rose from the dead; and Easter Sunday is when we celebrate His resurrection. On this day, about 2,000 years ago, Christ conquered sin and death forever.

“Christ died for our sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit.” (1Peter 3:18)

God told the prophet Hosea, “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death” (Hosea 13:14 NKJV).

“then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ ‘O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?’ The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1Corinthians 15:54-57 NKJV)

As the women walked to the tomb, they were the first human beings on earth to witness discover that the tomb is empty, that death, the ultimate worst enemy of mankind is defeated, that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead. He is alive, but by His sacrifice on the cross He paid for our sins, as was prophesied in the Old Testament:

“Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried…He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him…By oppression and judgment He was taken away; and for His generation, who considered that He was cut off from the land of the living…But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring…As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:4-6, 8, 10-11)

Easter Sunday is a joyous day because it is the day Christ rose, but it is by His blood shed on the cross that our sins are paid. God became man, out of His great love for rebellious mankind. He suffered to redeem us.

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2Corinthians 5:21).

A person might ask, how then do we get this victory over death applied to us? How do we "become the righteousness of God in Him"? Jesus answers, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him…Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (John 3:16-17, 5:24).

Jesus said that we need to believe in Him to obtain everlasting life. The Greek word for believe is Pisteuo, which means two things: 1)to accept something as true, and 2)to trust or depend on someone for something. To be saved, we must accept the Gospel as true and put our trust in Christ alone as our only salvation from death.

We must not trust in our own works or abilities, whether it be going to church, giving to the poor, being nice, or taking communion. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9). We are not saved by our deeds, but by God’s grace in sending His Son to die for your sins, and that we believe in Him. However, it is of course important that a Christian do good works, since it pleases God, whom we should earnestly desire to serve because of His magnificent, unfailing love towards us; though we were sinners in open rebellion against God, He died for us. Even as Christians, we still sin - a lot - and yet He is still gracious and loving towards us. Therefore, He is deserving of our allegiance, and we should strive to be totally commited to Him. We love Him because He first loved us.

The Resurrection story, the Gospel message, is what we need to tell our children after all the eggs and baskets have been found. It is the Gospel that we need to tell our friends and relatives as we sit down for Easter dinner. I encourage you to read Isaiah 53, 1Corinthians 15, and the Gospel accounts of Easter; it helps us put Easter into at least some of the perspective it deserves, as finite as our human minds are.

Happy Resurrection Day everyone.

Salute to John Wycliffe

2006-04-08T16:51:00.000-07:00

Christians should remember our brothers and sisters of the past and their accomplishments. One good man worthy of remembrance is John Wycliffe, the first man to translate the Bible into our language. This is a speech I delivered at my Worldview class about John Wycliffe:

“Even though there were a hundred popes and though every mendicant monk were a cardinal, they would be entitled to confidence only in so far as they accorded with the Bible.” The idea behind these words that John Wycliffe spoke is foundational to the Protestant Reformation. Although Wycliffe lived 200 years before the Reformation, his teachings are very similar to those of Luther and the other Reformers. He was the first glimpse of the light, the religious truth and the freedom that would soon come.

John Wycliffe was probably born around the year 1324 near Richmond in Yorkshire, England. He studied at Oxford University, and became master of Balliol college in 1361. In 1372 he received the degree of doctor of theology. Wycliffe was well-educated and highly respected even by his enemies as a scholar, philosopher, and theologian.

Wycliffe was critical of the Roman Catholic church of the time. He held that the Roman church had too much power in civil government and that the church was gouging the common people to become too wealthy, and he did not keep quiet about his views; Wycliffe was a vocal critic of what he believed were false, unbiblical doctrines of the Roman church.. Wycliffe translated the Bible into the English language, the common language of England. Most of the church hierarchy did not want the common people to be able to read the Bible for themselves, and they thought English was too rough a language for the Holy Bible, ignoring of course what the Bible itself says that all Christians should know and study Scripture. But Wycliffe wrote in the preface to his translation his disapproval of the immoral lives of Catholic clergymen, a condemnation of the worship of saints, images, and of Transubstantiation, and he also included an assertion that all people read the Bible for themselves.

The Church did not like being crossed and criticized like this at all, and hoped to silence Wycliffe; they often pressured England for his arrest. But he was protected by the respected duke of Lancaster, and they feared his great popularity with the people, so he was able to teach and write in relative safety. Therefore, the Church settled to simply harass Wycliffe all his life. Eventually, Wycliffe died of a stroke in 1384. But Wycliffe’s followers continued his work. They were called Lollards or “poor preachers” as they liked to call themselves because they lived like the common people and did not dress richly like the Catholic priests. Seventeen years after Wycliffe’s death, the Church ordered his books burned and punished all who taught his ideas. They also had his bones dug up and burned.

John Wycliffe’s actions earn him the dubbing by historians, “morning star of the reformation” because of the closeness of his teachings to the Protestant Reformation that ignited Europe 2 centuries later. All of Wycliffe’s criticisms of the Roman church were reiterated in the Reformation. John Wycliffe was not perfect in his teachings, but he was still far ahead of his time during the middle ages in his insights on Biblical Christianity. He believed salvation was not by works, that the pope did not have authority over the Bible, that the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation was false, and that worship should be given to no one except Christ. All of these principles were key components of Protestant theology in the Reformation.

Wycliffe taught that salvation was not by works. The Catholic church taught that Christ died for our sins, but we still had to work to get that applied to us. A person had to partake of Seven Sacraments that were necessary for salvation, such as water Baptism, Holy Eucharist, and Penance; they also taught that a person could buy forgiveness from some sins by indulgences, that is, giving money to the church. So it was man’s merit who was meriting the merit of Christ. This is a works gospel, not the Biblical Gospel of grace, that Christ died for our all sins and rose from the grave, and whosoever believes in Him has everlasting life. Salvation by grace through faith alone, not of works, is a crucial doctrine that both Wycliffe and the Reformers taught.

Wycliffe was the first person to completely translate the Bible into English. Before that, English speakers had to read or hear Latin for the common Bible translation, and no one knew Latin except the priests. This prevented the common people from understanding anything what the Bible said. Wycliffe changed that so people who could read English could read for themselves what the Bible said, and people who were illiterate could listen to Bible readings in their own language. That every man have the opportunity to read the Bible for himself is an attitude that the Protestant Reformation strived to establish.

Wycliffe demanded that the Bible be the main source of authority rather than the pope. The Roman Church considered the pope as equal, if not higher than, the Bible. But the Reformation went back to early Christianity, Jesus and the Apostles; man is fallible but God’s word is infallible, and the supreme authority on all matters regardless of what any man says, whether he be king, pope, or pauper. Authority given to the Bible as priority rather than pope and clergy was Luther’s foundational premise that brought Christianity back to God’s truth, and Wycliffe shared that premise.

Wycliffe himself did not impact Martin Luther, the Father of the Reformation, but Luther was influenced by John Huss of Bohemia who was a student of Wycliffe’s works. Huss read Wycliffe’s writings and came to share many of his views. Wycliffe’s theological and philosophical influence strongly effected Bohemia. Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible into his own language inspired the Bohemians to make a translation of the Bible into their language. And Luther translated the Bible into his German language. Wycliffe’s brave act of translating the Bible into the language of the masses set a precedent for the Reformation.

John Wycliffe was a man of God in a time of spiritual darkness, who bravely stood up against the strong powers of Europe for the sake of Christ. We should salute John Wycliffe for his work to translate the first version of the Bible in our language, and remember the way God used him for his contribution the Protestant Reformation and the return to Biblical Christianity.

The passing of a hero

2006-03-04T17:47:00.000-08:00

He followed God's decrees to the end from Answers in Genesis

Memorial Service held for Dr. Morris from ICR

Henry M. Morris, the "father of modern Creationism", has died. He was 87.

He is arguably the most significant individual in defending Christianity in the 20th century. Dr. Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Christian Heritage College (Now called San Diego Christian College). He has authored numerous tracts and pamphlets as well as over thirty books, including The Genesis Flood, The Long War Against God, Many Infallible Proofs, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, Scientific Creationism, and the Defender’s Study Bible. Dr. Morris has done more to defend the book of Genesis than anyone else, not only in his own works and writings, but in the way he influenced others, like Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis, the largest Apologetics organization in the world.

Before Dr. Morris, Creationism as we know it today didn’t exist. When Darwin, Lyell, and Huxley came in the 1800s with their millions of years and evolution, Christians used no truly Biblical arguments against him. That the earth was millions of years old was treated as such an undisputable fact that Christians were afraid to deny it, and therefore introduced unbiblical compromises to “fit” long ages into the Bible, such as the Gap theory and Day-age theory. Henry Morris was the first to come up with a truly Biblical model of Scientific Creationism, explaining with his expertise in hydraulics that the power of water in the Genesis flood that God send accounted for most of the fossil record, sedimentary rock and erosion we see today. He also explained some of the scientific evidence for a young earth, and the impossibilities of evolution.

He brought to light the fact that true science does not contradict the Bible, but confirms it in every possible aspect. He formulated scientific models for the ancient events described in Bible with expert authority and research. He exposed the falsehoods of evolutionary philosophy and the danger of compromise of evolution and the Bible. We owe a lot to the work of Henry Morris and what he has done for Christianity and our security that the Bible is the inerrant, authoritative Word of God.

My dad met him once at a seminar. He was very impressed with Dr. Morris as a speaker and writer in the ways God used him, but was even more impressed when he met him. My dad found him to be a gracious, humble, unassuming man. Conversing with him you wouldn’t find him much different from the average Grandfather. How I wish I could have met him! I guess I just have to wait until I get to heaven to shake his hand.

Farewell, Dr. Morris. You leave behind you millions of grateful Christians, who will see you again when the time comes for that great marriage supper with the King. Amen.

Jesus vs. Muhammad

2006-02-17T20:37:00.000-08:00

As you probably know, the entire Muslim world has been in an uproar over the Danish political cartoons portraying the prophet Muhammad. It’s apparently illegal in Islam to depict Muhammad, in fear that the image will be worshipped as an idol.
But what really makes them angry is that the cartoons portray him in a somewhat negative light.
The cartoons can be seen here on Michelle Malkin’s blog. On her website there is a photo of a man holding up a sign, "Behead those who insult Islam"

The intolerance and hypocrisy here is amazing. The same Muslims who insult and degrade other religions, like Christianity, in terrible, hostile ways, so extreme as to kill people to show disdain of non-Islamic religions, are now angry over a few bloodless cartoons. It’s just drawings on paper, and they want the artist beheaded.

The author below notes this amazing contrast between the two main figures of two different belief systems, Christianity and Islam. Jesus shows love towards those who insult and persecute him; Muhammad shows hate and death towards those who insult and persecute him. It’s a profound difference. The following article was NOT written by me, but by a man named John Piper. It’s reproduced here by permission (see below)

Here it is:

Being Mocked: The Essence of Christ's Work, Not
Muhammad's
February 8, 2006
What we saw this past week in the Islamic
demonstrations over the Danish cartoons of Muhammad was another vivid
depiction of the difference between Muhammad and Christ, and what it means
to follow each. Not all Muslims approve the violence. But a deep lesson remains: The work of Muhammad is based on being honored and the work of Christ is based on being
insulted. This produces two very different reactions to mockery.
If Christ had not been insulted, there would be no salvation. This was his saving work: to
be insulted and die to rescue sinners from the wrath of God. Already in the Psalms the path of mockery was promised: "All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads" (Psalm 22:7). "He was despised and rejected by men . . . as one from whom men hide their faces . . . and we esteemed him not" (Isaiah 53:3).
When it actually happened it was worse than expected. "They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head. . . . And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' And they spit on him" (Matthew 27:28-30). His response to all this was patient endurance. This was the work he came to do. "Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth" (Isaiah 53:7).
This was not true of Muhammad. And Muslims do not believe it is true of Jesus. Most
Muslims have been taught that Jesus was not crucified. One Sunni Muslim
writes, "Muslims believe that Allah saved the Messiah from the ignominy of crucifixion." 1 Another adds, "We honor [Jesus] more than you [Christians] do. . . . We refuse to believe that God would permit him to suffer death on the cross." 2 An essential Muslim
impulse is to avoid the "ignominy" of the cross.
That's the most basic difference between Christ and Muhammad and between a Muslim and a follower of Christ. For Christ, enduring the mockery of the cross was the essence of his mission. And for a true follower of Christ enduring suffering patiently
for the glory of Christ is the essence of obedience. "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account" (Matthew 5:11). During his life on earth Jesus was called a bastard (John 8:41), a drunkard (Matthew 11:19), a blasphemer (Matthew 26:65), a devil (Matthew 10:25); and he promised
his followers the same: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matthew 10:25).
The caricature and mockery of Christ has continued to this day. Martin Scorsese
portrayed Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ as wracked with doubt and beset
with sexual lust. Andres Serrano was funded by the National Endowment for the
Arts to portray Jesus on a cross sunk in a bottle of urine. The Da Vinci Code
portrays Jesus as a mere mortal who married and fathered children.
How should his followers respond? On the one hand, we are grieved and
angered. On the other hand, we identify with Christ, and embrace his
suffering, and rejoice in our afflictions, and say with the apostle Paul that vengeance belongs to the Lord, let us love our enemies and win them with the gospel. If Christ did his
work by being insulted, we must do ours likewise.
When Muhammad was portrayed in twelve cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the uproar across the Muslim world was intense and sometimes violent. Flags were burned, embassies were torched, and at least one Christian church was stoned. The
cartoonists went into hiding in fear for their lives, like Salman Rushdie before
them. What does this mean?
It means that a religion with no insulted Savior
will not endure insults to win the scoffers. It means that this religion is destined to bear the impossible load of upholding the honor of one who did not die and rise again
to make that possible. It means that Jesus Christ is still the only hope of peace with God and peace with man. And it means that his
followers must be willing to "share his sufferings, becoming like him in his
death"
(Philippians 3:10).

Footnotes
1 Badru D. Kateregga and
David W. Shenk, Islam and
Christianity: A Muslim and a Christian in Dialogue
(Nairobi: Usima Press, 1980),
p. 141.
2 Quoted from The Muslim
World in J. Dudley Woodberry, editor,
Muslims and Christians on the Emmaus
Road (Monrovia, CA: MARC, 1989), p. 164.
©Desiring God
Permissions: You
are permitted and encouraged to reproduce
and distribute this material in
any format provided that you do not alter the
wording in any way, you do not
charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and
you do not make more than
1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this
document on our
website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be
explicitly
approved by Desiring God.
Please include the following statement
on any
distributed copy: By John Piper. ©Desiring God. Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll
Free:
888.346.4700.

The Christian and Capital Punishment

2006-02-08T09:48:00.000-08:00

This is a formal persuasive essay I wrote for school during the Tookie Williams fiasco. The death penalty is an important issue where Christians must be informed. Enjoy!

The Christian and Capital Punishment

Today, capital punishment is a controversial topic. People in the world are increasingly condemning this practice, and many Christians are beginning to denounce it as well. These Christians argue that the Bible says, “thou shalt not kill,” and Jesus said, “he that takes up the sword shall die by the sword,” therefore making it immoral for a government to kill its people, and it does not even prevent crime. But in reality, capital punishment is justice, and it really works. Also, the Bible strongly supports the institution of a death penalty, and nowhere does the Bible condemn civil government for taking the life of a criminal. The arguments Christians should consider for capital punishment are that the Old Testament commands it, the New Testament reaffirms it, and it works to prevent crime and execute justice.

Capital punishment was commanded for certain crimes in the Old Testament. While the Ten Commandments reads, “Thou shalt not kill” in some Bible translations, this does not apply to government using its authority to uphold justice with a death penalty, because in the same book capital punishment is instituted to punish criminals. In the laws God gave to Moses, the death penalty was the price of justice for murder, adultery, rape, and other offenses. “Thou shalt not kill” is better translated as “thou shalt not murder.” Some may argue that this is strictly in the Mosaic Law and meant only for Israel at that time. However, even before Mosaic Law God instituted capital punishment by civil government as one of His first commands to Noah after the Flood. He said, “Whoever shed man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). This command in Genesis was given for all people, not merely the nation of Israel as the Mosaic law. Some Christians counter that the New Testament repealed capital punishment as part of the old covenant and is no longer valid today.

However, the New Testament also affirms capital punishment as the duty of civil government. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans, “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God…. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil…. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (Romans 13:1,3,4). When the Bible speaks this way, “the sword” refers to death. The meaning of Christ’s saying, “He that takes up the sword shall die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52) is clarified here. The person that murders will also be killed by the sword of civil government, and this government is exercising a God-given right to justice, a tool that God uses to punish evil-doers. Capital punishment cannot merely be an outdated part of the old covenant, because laws that are no longer valid for Christians were always identified in the New Testament, and capital punishment is never repealed or spoken against in the New Testament, but reaffirmed as true for today.

Lastly, Christians should support capital punishment because it works. It has been suggested in various studies and statistics that capital punishment is a deterrent to murders, and the lack of the death penalty causes more murders. For instance, in the late 1960s and 1970s, when capital punishment was either outlawed or in question in the United States, the number of murders per year rose considerably, from 13,000 in 1967 to 19,555 in 1978*. Some argue that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murderers because most murderers are uneducated and irrational, not thinking of consequences. On the contrary, fear of consequences is the strongest of deterrents to the irrational and uneducated mind. The irrational person will not listen to reason and will refrain from an act only as a result of consequences. That is exactly why the consequences must be death, rather than life in prison which many criminals do not mind with relaxation, cable television and the possibility of escape. Further, a Christian can know capital punishment has a deterrent effect because the infallible word of God shows this with Israel, when God said, “all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you,” (Deuteronomy 13:11) as a result a death penalty. Even if the death penalty was not a deterrent, it is necessary to eliminate hardened murderers because they are detrimental to society and could kill again. Other inmates, prison guards, and any person within their reach if they escape prison are in danger as long as the hardened murderer lives.

Capital punishment should be supported by Christians because the Old Testament and New Testament establish it, and also because it works well. The Old Testament gave clear commands that people who shed innocent blood will have their own blood shed by the civil government. The New Testament never rebuked governments giving the death penalty, and in fact reaffirmed the commands of the Old Testament that the government has a God-given right to use capital punishment. Capital punishment works to carry out justice and to prevent crime by deterrence. Regardless of the arguments of the liberal anti-death penalty lobby, they are the words of fallible man, but the word of God is infallible and completely trustworthy and must be obeyed. Christians should not be influenced by humanism and liberal ideas, but stand firm in Scripture, realizing that capital punishment is the hand of God in punishing evildoers and a way to protect people.

*Glenn Dunehew, http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0131_Capital_Punishment

The meaning of Christmas

2006-02-02T20:41:00.000-08:00

Here is a letter I sent to the North County Times in December. There was as you know a "war on Christmas", and Christians were working to put the "Christ" back in "Christmas" and tried to get people to say the words, "Merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays" at stores.

But the words themselves are meaningless without the message behind the words, the Gospel, the good news message of Jesus Christ. So, here's my letter:

The true meaning of Christmas is often forgotten in the Christmas rush. Christmas is the celebration of the day Jesus was born. We do not know the exact season or date Jesus came into this world, but we do know that in Bethlehem, the King of kings was born in a miserable stable and laid in an animal feeding trough. He could have come in all the wealth and influence of Rome, yet He came into the family of a poor carpenter in Judea.

Jesus, the Son of God, came with a message of love and good news for the world. The human race is fallen in sin, and we justly deserve the penalty of hell, but “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” (John 3:16-17)Jesus said, “He who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life.” (John 5:24) Whoever believes Christ’s death and resurrection and trusts in Him alone for forgiveness has assurance of heaven with God; this is the marvelous meaning of Christmas.

I have returned!

2006-02-01T20:54:00.000-08:00

Hello all! No, I'm not dead, hospitalized, or held hostage by crazed Marxist guerrillas. But I have been away from this blog for the past 3 months.

I am sorry that I have been away for so long. I've been very busy, and I was on a short-term missions trip to Argentina in December.

But I'm back now to discuss the Biblical worldview and its relationship to news, culture and religion!

Editorial - The Bible is God's word

2005-11-04T22:55:00.000-08:00

Tony San Miguel responded to my last letter, “Attacks against Bible unfounded” on October 21st in the North Country Times. I sent a letter in response which appeared in the Faith & Values letters on November 4th. Here are both Mr. Miguel’s and my response:

“Beliefs inspired by writers”
Mr. Paul Bishop (Faith & Values Letters, Oct. 14, home-schooled student) apparently is convinced that the writers of the Bible (all men?) of his Bible were inspired by his God. This is not surprising in that various people profess the same belief about writings supporting their various religions/cults. I believe in Santa Claus, even if the authors were not inspired by some God. In any event, I am not sure if Mr. Bishop’s God is that of Moses or of Paul, or a variation of them (trinity). If Mr. Bishop was a Catholic, he might also believe that the Virgin Mary also inspired the writers.
Anyhow, when I was much younger than Mr. Bishop, I tried to make sense of the prophecy in “the Revelation” that Paul claims supports his beliefs. I deduced that the writer of St. John (or whomever) must have been on drugs, or was drunk, or maybe both. Of course Mr. Bishop is entitled to his beliefs. If he can find time in his home-school education, I recommend that he master the Britannica’s Syntopicon (Index of Great Ideas). He might appreciate the complexity of Western civilization, with and without religious beliefs.
It’s not nice to attack people (homosexuals, Mormons, etc.) because they have different beliefs than you. What goes around comes around.
- Tony San Miguel, Vista

Here is my article in response:

“The Bible is God’s Word”

In Response to Tony San Miguel (Faith & Values letters, Oct. 21st): that the Bible is inspired by God is more than my personal opinion. The Bible itself claims, “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2Timothy 3:16). However, other religions, such as Muslims and Mormons, think their own books are from God. How do we know who is right?

The Bible is unique among other religious books in that it’s historically verifiable. Ancient extra-biblical documents and archaeological finds have confirmed many of the facts and stories in the Bible with such great accuracy, that most historians and archaeologists regard the Bible as a trustworthy guide in their fields.

Also, unlike other books, the Bible makes hundreds of specific, unambiguous prophecies accurately predicting events that happened one thousand years later. Only God is omniscient, accurately foretelling future events.

The Bible records numerous supernatural occurrences that only God can perform. Jesus healed the lepers, the maimed, the blind, and ultimately, He rose from the dead. This is provable using the same legal methods used in courts of law today. Other religions have no such documentation, but are based solely on the subjective philosophies of their founders. Visit www.christiantruthanditsdefense.org/ for more information.
- Paul Bishop, home schooled student, Valley Center

If I may, I would like to say these additional comments on Tony San Miguel’s letter: Notice that Tony San Miguel makes mostly condescending remarks, with no real depth to them. The Bible is so profound that any logical reader would find the idea that a man penned it while drunk preposterous and impossible, even if he didn’t believe in Biblical inspiration. Mr. San Miguel implies that I attacked homosexuals and Mormons because they had different beliefs than me. If you look back in my letter, you see I did not even mention Mormons, and I did not “attack” homosexuals, but pointed out the lifestyle of homosexuality is wrong. Neither did I deny that homosexuals and Mormons should have basic rights as other Americans do in this country; they have the right to have their beliefs, I have the right to criticize those beliefs and vice versa. Liberals constantly try to turn homosexuality into a civil rights issue – it isn’t. They already have the same rights as other Americans do, but are within – or should be within – certain limits and laws, such as not marrying the same sex.

Samuel Alito nominated

2005-11-03T22:41:00.000-08:00

Today we have three articles. Sorry to use so many, but I couldn't find one having all of this information combined.

FoxNews: Fast facts: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
CNN: Bush’s new nominee: not always on the same page as Scalia
FoxNews: Alito supported Gay, privacy rights in college

President Bush has named another supreme court nominee to replace Sandra Day O’Connor after the botched nomination of Harriet Miers. His name is Samuel A. Alito, a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He has been advertised as a “Conservative pick” and it does seem most Conservatives and Evangelicals are happy with him, while the democrats are against him – making the Conservatives even more confident in Alito.

I was the same way, seeing all the headlines of “Conservative pick” and being nicknamed “Scalito”, but I am beginning to have some doubts as to how near he is to Scalia. Justice Antonin Scalia is the most dedicated Conservative, Originalist justice on the court. Conservatives consider Scalia a true hero, and deem him to be the standard by which Justices and judges should be chosen. However, many are saying that “Scalito” is a not a good nickname for Alito, claiming that he is more “fair-minded” than Scalia, as former clerk Katherine K. Huang said, “He doesn't have his head in the clouds. He's not going to be carried away by some legal doctrine or some arcane grammatical rule.” I have noticed, however, that often Scalia is criticized in the process of comparing him to Alito, and this may simply be an effort by liberal people who liked Alito to separate him from the “extreme” (it is interesting that Scalia is considered extreme, since his views are that of the majority of the founding fathers; justices are supposed to use legal doctrines and grammatical rules! How things have changed!).

I am fairly certain that a Justice Alito is conservative, and is personally against abortion, but would he vote down Roe vs. Wade, as Clarence Thomas and Scalia would? Court precedent is important to Alito. Samuel Alito has ruled with the pro-life side from the bench, but he also has had favorable rulings in the past toward pro-choice advocates. This could be explained away by the fact that he had to follow the law, and the Supreme Court made a law that abortion is legal, therefore he had to interpret the law faithfully and rule with the pro-abortion side. However, if given the chance, would he overturn a Supreme Court precedent? Roe vs. Wade was ruled with nothing but a terribly twisted Constitutional support (I hold it was Unconstitutional in the first place) yet since Rove vs. Wade has now been established law for decades, will he dare to overturn it? It is certainly not unheard of for the court to overturn its own precedent, and it is often for a good purpose, such as the overturning of the Dred Scott ruling. However, it is something most justices like to avoid if they can.

We should at least expect Alito to prevent anti-life laws from getting worse, for instance not allowing the murder of newborns and the elderly, but as for whether or not he would overturn a major precedent in Roe vs. Wade, I do not know what to expect.

It is also reported that Samuel Alito spoke out for equal rights for homosexuals while in college. In particular, he was against anti-sodomy laws (By contrast, Harriet Miers supported anti-sodomy laws) and non-discrimination in hiring homosexuals. These two issues cause debate even among Christians, on whether we should support a government mandate against acts of sodomy and discrimination in hiring homosexuals. FoxNews isn’t clear on if Alito wanted government laws requiring non-discrimination against hiring homosexuals, or if he simply wanted businesses and organizations to take some initiative.

Government laws requiring non-discrimination of homosexuals is absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. While I support the idea of Americans having equal rights to the extent feasible, there are some jobs homosexuals should be rightly be barred from. Among them are childcare, Christian/faith-based organizations, churches, and Christian businesses; because 1) parents and childcare should be able to make its own decision on whether to have homosexuals around their children and 2) The Bible is clear that Christians should not be “unequally yoked” or have ungodly men in ministry. And, even if an individual is a Christian, if he is living a homosexual lifestyle, he is living an ungodly shameful life against his Savior, and Christians should not hire wayward Christians if they do not wish to. Christian organizations and churches should have the right to not hire homosexuals, whether they are Christian or non-Christian. As long as Samuel Alito recognizes this, we have nothing to worry about.

We should continue to keep close track of Samuel Alito. As of now, I think he would make a very good Justice, and I hope he will be confirmed. However, I am unsure whether he will be a help in taking back America and reversing her current decay (i.e. overturning Rove vs. Wade, allowing prayer and Bibles back in schools, etc), or if he will just maintain status quo, and simply prevent the US from getting worse (i.e. prevent homosexual marriage, protecting “under God” in the pledge, keeping “in God we trust” on coins, etc).

Throughout this, however, we should remember that it is not in the courts that a nation is won or lost, but it is in the hearts of the people a nation depends.

The Intelligent Design Movement

2005-10-24T18:04:00.000-07:00

Today we have two articles from AnswersInGenesis.org
AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement
ID and President Bush - the deeper issues

Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is being hailed by Conservatives, moralists, theists, and Christians as a great idea, and they are jumping on the bandwagon of IDM to re-establish the Creator in the public square. No doubt, their motives are just and sincere. But as Biblical Christians, should we really support the IDM wholeheartedly? What is IDM, and what is its relationship to the Bible?

Basically, IDM and Biblical Creationism is not the same thing. Skeptics, naturalists, and evolutionists have vehemently charged that IDM is “Creationism in sheep’s clothing” “stealth Creationism” “a secret, underhanded attempt by Creationists to put religion in schools” etc, etc. This is grossly incorrect, however.

IDM’s claim is this: life began by an Intelligent Designer, and there is evidence for this from the irreducible complexity of living organisms, even as small as a cell, and it is impossible that life has evolved (or spontaneously generated) by itself; purely natural processes cannot explain the origin of life.

However, the Bible, the book of Genesis, the age of the earth, macro-evolution, and Christianity is not addressed by IDM as a whole. The IDM loosely contains anyone who is a theist, and this includes theistic evolutionists, old earth creationists, and young earth creationists; both Christians and non-Christians. People of various religions, including agnosticism and the occult, are involved with IDM. IDM simply says an Intelligent Designer created the first life (this “Designer” could be an alien according to some!). Many of the foremost figures of IDM are theistic evolutionists, meaning they believe in millions of years age for the age of the earth, evolution, and that man evolved from ape-like creatures. This is a far-cry from Creationism, and in fact, those ideas are strongly opposed and refuted by Biblical Creationists. Some IDers are even criticizing Biblical Creationism, as the AiG articles show.

What shall Christians do about IDM? I think we can sum it up with two things: 1) The course the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and other Creationists are taking is a good route: speak out, defend, and investigate the same Biblical truths as we have always done, and point out the scientific evidence for the Biblical view of history and origins. Stand against anti-biblical rhetoric, even if it comes from the IDM. 2) It is perfectly alright for a Biblical Creationist to be involved in the ID movement, and many Christians are. Teaching a balanced view of the origin of life in schools and educating the public about the evidence for a Creator is a good thing. It is also good to refute the destructive philosophy of Naturalism*, which has taken over nearly every aspect of American society, science, and law.

Indeed, the IDM has Biblical Creationists in it, as well as fine theistic thinkers. Philip Johnson, a leader among the IDers, author of Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance (one of my favorite books, it’s a critique of naturalism), is a good Christian man, and he has destroyed Naturalism and Darwinism. However, even Johnson wants to shelve Genesis in the IDM to make debate easier and draw old earthers and theistic evolutionists. Other Biblical Christians should not be drawn away from standing for the truth. The only attacks IDM has against evolution are the ideas of spontaneous generation** and naturalism.

Of course, the IDM is beneficial to the debate against evolution, and it does ultimately help Biblical Creation. It puts more pressure on Darwinism, it gives the idea of a Creator more prestige and plausibility, it thrusts the question of origins into public debate, it dismantles Naturalism, and it utterly destroys spontaneous generation.

In conclusion, the IDM is not Creationist, but an effort by a mixture of both Christians and non-Christians of highly varied beliefs to show that life began with an Intelligent Designer. Biblical Christians should still advocate Biblical truths of Creation and of Science, and Christians can still be involved in IDM as long as they do not compromise with the Scriptures.

Please read the AiG articles above for another more through opinion.

*Naturalism is the idea that all proccesses occur by purely natural causes, and God must be taken out of the picture.
**Spontaneous generation is the idea that living organisms arose spontaneously from non-living material.

Editorial - Attacks against Bible unfounded

2005-10-17T12:36:00.000-07:00

Here’s another article printed in the North County Times. On this blog, these past two weeks I have been focusing on politics and wars, not giving that much attention to religion. It usually will not be like this. Most of my letters to the NCT are religious in nature; they appear in the Faith & Values letters section, which comes out every Friday. The limit between letters by the same person is two weeks, and I try to have letters in the paper that often. Here I responded to two letter writers from the previous week. I will show them first, then mine.

'Christian arrogance is dismissive'
The Bible (both the Old Testament and the New) contains a number of references to homosexuality. Of course, non-Christians, particularly secularists, are not burdened by the grinding biblical prejudices. Also, not everything historical, even in the Bible, is touched upon by writers. PP. Random crevices occur everywhere in the information (and disinformation) continuum. It is not known, for instance, whether Jesus and the Apostles were homosexuals, perhaps even practicing homosexuals. PP. Christian arrogance is generally dismissive of secular – and calmer – points of view regarding human nature. – Clay Northcote, Carlsbad.

'Hating others in the name of an invented god'
As a child living on my grandfather’s sugar plantation in Cuba, my mother taught me how to recognize homosexual animals, such as a tuerca, chicken. These homosexuals were identified as primary candidates for family meals. My grandfather later taught me that some people were tuerca, just like the various farm animals. PP. The perceived homosexual problem was reproduction (important to a farmer) and had nothing to do with any evil. It was natural. PP. During my long lifetime I’ve had a few friends and relatives who were homosexual. I wondered over the years as to why some of my Bible-thumping friends could be so hateful against homosexuals. I wondered if these friends were also hateful against the so-called freaks of nature. PP. I have no problem with homosexuals (or bible-thumpers) having idealistic equal rights and opportunities under the law, regardless of what some ignorant humans wrote in some Scripture a long time ago in the middle of a desert. PP. On the other hand, there will always be people who justify hating others in the name of their invented God(s).
- Tony San Miguel, Vista

Attacks against the Bible unfounded

Mr. San Miguel and Mr. Northcote (Faith & Values Letters, Sept. 30th) said the Bible is “man-made” written by “ignorant” humans, full of human “prejudices”. They use this as an argument against the Christian/Biblical stand against homosexual practices.

While it is true the Bible was hand-written by men, it was inspired by God. God dictated His message through the Holy Spirit to the authors, while still using their unique personalities. It is not a book of myths or human prejudices, but God’s message to humankind. There is strong evidence for this, among which are fulfilled prophecy, archeological confirmation, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ was raised from the dead.

Biblical Christians are not “hateful” against homosexuals. We stand against the practice of homosexuality because its sin, just as lying, murder, and idolatry are sins. We do not hate homosexuals, because Christ loved them enough to die for them on the cross, and whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life. Non-christian homosexuals are as lost as any other non-christian. A homosexual who becomes a Christian should stop his practice out of respect for his Savior, which has been done by thousands of former homosexuals.

-Paul B. Bishop, homeschooled student. Valley Center

You may notice, I could not answer all of their arguments in just one letter, since we have a 200 word limit. For instance, Mr. Northcote's claim that we don't know whether or not Jesus and the disciples were homosexual (of course we know they were not). I value your input on how well I answered those two letters with such limited space.

Anniversary of USS Cole bombing

2005-10-12T12:21:00.000-07:00

Anniversary of USS Cole bombing (post on 12th)

Primary article for today is from the BBC
Secondary article is on Michelle Malkin’s blog.

Today is the 5th anniversary of the attack on the USS Cole, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. A small boat packed with explosives was steered by the suicide bombers to the side of the ship, then detonated, blasting a hole in the hull 40 feet wide. Seventeen sailors were killed and at least forty were injured. The ship was severely damaged, but it was not destroyed; it is still on duty today.

This is a reminder to us how long-lasting and continuous the Jihad Muslim’s hostility towards the United States, and Western civilization itself. Only two years before, the US embassies at Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, killing 224 people. The latter half of the 20th century was pierced by terrorist attacks: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the plane hijackings, the hostage-taking, and more. Very little was done by the US, or any other nation, to stop this Islamic jihad violence. The little action that was taken was to kill or capture those directly responsible, usually no more than a handful of men; this is called, “police action.” Sometimes, no action was taken at all. This emboldened the terrorists, and they continued to plan and carry out attacks and increase their forces. With the 2001 September 11th attacks, the Bush administration decided to do things differently. September 11th was seen as an act of war, requiring a massive military response, not merely a police action. This, I believe, is the wisest way to deal with the problem.

If we take out a few here and there, only those directly responsible for a particular attack, then others will quickly replace them in the terrorist network. However, the continued mass capturing and killing of terrorist leaders and troops would leave terror networks always struggling, and with skeleton forces and resources. As a general once said, “hit hard, hit fast, and keep on hitting.”

The passive resistance of the United States before September 11th is illustrated very well in

Sean Hannity's tour

2005-10-05T11:53:00.000-07:00

I had the privilege last night to hear the popular Conservative commentator Sean Hannity here in San Diego. He spoke at the Symphony hall, and was sponsored by the local radio station, 760 KFMB. I had a good friend who won two VIP tickets from a radio contest, and I found myself with my friend in the front row.

Overall, I had a good time, as I did last time he came to town (this is the second time I’ve been to a Sean Hannity speech). We arrived at the place at 5:30pm. Even though it was one and half hours early, there was not a small crowd of people there. I must say, standing in a crowded line for over an hour with nothing to do but study the grain of wooden wall panels is rather dull. We were allowed into the sanctuary at 7:05pm, and shortly afterward came Sean Hannity. Some of his speech was stand-up comedy, but he got into serious issues aggressively. Sean is an entertaining speaker, even when he is talking seriously.

Here are some of my notes from what he said. I have my own comments in brackets [ ]. I do not necessarily agree with everything he said, nor necessarily disagree, but here it is:

Sean believes the liberal Democratic party is imploding. Their loud, radical rhetoric is increasingly shrill, showing desperation. In the opinion of most Americans, the quality and esteem of their representatives (Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Rev. Jesse Jackson for example) is poor. He has great hope for the Conservative movement, and for the accomplishments to be.
[I, personally, am still in doubt who will ultimately prevail. America will either become thoroughly morally deviant and anti-Christian, or we will rise to a Biblical, moral culture. While Political Conservatism and Christianity are not the same, it would be fair to say that if America becomes more conservative, a Christian revival will accompany it; in fact, it is likely that a Christian revival would lead a politically conservative movement, since the Conservatism is based in traditional American values, which has Judeo-Christian standards.]

He said he strongly loves and respects the President, and praised him for his work in the War on Terror. However, Sean, (noting to the audience that he is a conservative first, and Republican second, and that conservatives should think rather than blindly follow and agree with everything a Republican leaders does or says), laid out three criticisms of President Bush. 1) he does not control the border, 2) he is not vetoing spending bills enough, and 3) he doesn’t communicate to Americans enough. [These are my own main criticisms of the President as well.]

Sean noted the progress Republicans have made under President Bush. He won 80% of the counties in the United States in the 2004 election, and for the first time since Frankin D. Roosevelt, a President’s party took both houses of congress.

Sean talked about Hurricane Katrina, and that was educational. He said there were over 1,000 buses that sat empty and flooded in Louisiana, because the local government officials did not use them. Amtrac offered trains to be used by Louisiana to transport people, but where rejected by the officials. The local government in Louisiana was far worse off in their mistakes than the Federal government or the Bush administration. And the local government was democrat!
[I found this impressive. I heard that buses sat flooded, but I thought it was one hundred or so, not enough to really make a difference. But with 1,000+ buses and amtrac trains, it seems to me this entire crisis of stranded people could have been avoided.]

Yet, despite this major democrat failure, the liberal cry, even among ranks as high as former President Bill Clinton, is “it’s Bush’s fault.” He laughed the conservative joke that liberals would be someday blaming the weather on Bush is now reality. He mockingly mimicked liberal pundits saying, “the terrorists are Bush’s fault, the bird flu is Bush’s fault, the weather is Bush’s fault, I had an argument with my wife and it’s Bush’s fault,” then he pointed to my friend, who happened to have crutches and a broken foot, and said, “your broken foot is Bush’s fault!” John Kerry accused President Bush of leading a “Katrina administration”, making a campaign speech only one week after the hurricane.
[I agree with Sean that they too readily blame President Bush for things that go wrong. This is detrimental to both sides, ignoring the real issues and spend time talking about problems and blame that don’t exist.]

Sean made a case that the liberal democrat rhetoric is becoming more shrill. Howard Dean in particular keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. He has said since he became head of the Democrat National Committee chairman, he has said the most incendiary things against the opposing party, among them are “I hate Republicans” “Republicans are brain-dead” “Republicans are mean” and a “white Christian party.”
[Dean’s remarks are definitely out of line, and it reflects badly on the Democratic party. The Democrats should never have opted for such a controversial, angry, and radical person to lead their party. It will not only hurt them, but hurt America as well. It is not good for the world perception of America to be nothing but a polarized morass of nasty, rash people insulting each other. Debate is good, but this insulting behavior is not.]

Dean accused Bush/Republicans of not caring about minorities. Sean pointed out that President Bush has done more for minorities than any other President, spending more money on the poor than Bill Clinton. President Bush has appointed more minorities to government positions than any other President, surpassing Bill Clinton in this respect. When Howard Dean was governor, he had no African-Americans at all in his staff.
[It’s true that Republicans are giving attention to minorities, but I think we should dwell more on what unites us rather than what divides us. We need to stop continually thinking of America as a confederacy of minorities and ethnic groups, and think of ourselves as one, united nation first, and our differences second. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted a day when people looked at our character as a defining quality, not skin color. This hasn’t happened among most politicians. Skin color is still politicized. I will post another article on this at a later date.]

Sean quoted Howard Dean as saying that same-sex marriage protection is a “step towards change” further showing how out of touch he is with Americans.
[The liberal battle-cry for the past three centuries is “Change! Change!” The so-called “progressives” throughout history have called for change, but often do not realize what change means, or how change will benefit them. They often want to change a certain idea or practice for no other reason than change. This is what is called, “change for change’s sake”. This is a harmful idea. If we want to change something, it should be for the purpose of making something better; change in itself doesn’t make things better. Change can be for either bad or good. The Red Communists called for change when they overturned the czar, but the Russians found themselves in a worse position than they were before the czar fell – under oppressive communist rule. Howard Dean is right when he said same-sex marriage protection is a step towards change, but it would be change for the worse. It would undermine marriage, and therefore family, thereby undermining the entire United States.]

Eventually, Sean held a Town hall meeting with fellow Conservative talk-show host Rick Roberts. They talked about the border. Actually, the primary focus of this entire event is on the border situation, since San Diego county borders Mexico, and has a problem with illegal immigration. They had quite a long discussion on the need to fix the border problem. They also opened up for questions from the audience; the questioners lined up to speak into a microphone, since there were so many people. The common opinion was this: illegal immigration should not be tolerated, legal immigration should be welcomed, the system of accepting legal immigrants should be more stream-lined and efficient so good, hard-working people could get in easier without coming illegally. Rick Roberts thought that the first step in securing the border is to enforce the laws we already have.
[My present view is similar. However, I think that enforcing the laws we already have first, then months or years later fix the system to stream-line legal immigration, would result in hurt for a lot of people, both for American businesses who need workers and for the hard workers that can’t legally get into out country. Some of the immigration laws we have are faulty, and we need to fix them quickly first before we start alienating good migrants from America. We need immigration, and plenty of it. But it does need to be legal and documented so terrorists would not be able to slip through the cracks.]

When the town hall meeting was over, Sean spoke for a little while longer, encouraging conservatives to act, and let their voice be heard on important issues. He said there is much work to do, because the liberal elite controls most of the media, money, and even much of the government in America. He said we need to change the liberal 9th Circuit court of appeals, the most over-turned court in the US, we need to use the natural resources here in America, and drill for oil, reminding the audience that over 60% of the nations oil comes from outside the US, making us dependent on foreign governments who are hostile to the US.
[The Ninth circuit is out of control. I think Bush’s judicial nominees have helped the situation.]

When it was over, Sean stayed for an extra 20 minutes to sign autographs and take pictures before he left.
[My friend got his book by Hannity, Deliver Us from Evil, signed. Unfortunately, none of the pictures I took there turned out. The bright lights played havoc with my camera exposure, and his face was all washed out in my photos. The picture I have included was from the last time he came to speak.]

Overall, we had a great time. Sean Hannity is an engaging speaker, and has a charming sense of humor, though his humor is often downright insulting to liberals. Nonetheless, he is a good conservative commentator and thinker, and his insights were interesting. I listen to him sometimes on 760 KFMB. His show runs from noon to 3:00 pm.

Fierce Culture war in Massachusetts

2005-10-04T21:59:00.000-07:00

A father in Massachusetts is banned from the public school grounds of Estabrook Elementary because he wants to have a say in the teaching about homosexuality in his son’s kindergarten class. Please read the full article, “The Culture War’s Battle of Lexington” by Wendy Mcelroy here (FoxNews address)

In liberal, “progressive” schools tolerance is taught to the students as the best possible quality: tolerance of other religions, tolerance of homosexuals, tolerance of African-Americans, tolerance of many other viewpoints and people. For perfection of society, the schools in Massachusetts make tolerance their holy grail.

But see what they are doing now. One parent, David Parker, has a viewpoint that he should teach his little child about homosexuality himself at home; expressing his freedom to control how his child is taught. And yet the school is intolerant of his view; they not only break Massachusetts state law of parental notification before discussing sexuality with children, but they also ban him from the school grounds, because he refused to leave the grounds until his he was guaranteed the parental notification that the law requires (and from what I understand, he never got it). Is Estabrook Elementary school practicing its highest virtue of tolerance, at least to hear what he has to say?

The only intolerance they support is intolerance against intolerance; but then this makes them intolerant! They are not truly tolerant as they say they are. Apparently, then tolerance is a two-way street. There are some things that should be tolerated, and some that shouldn’t be; but the schools don’t tell the children this, unless there is an opinion against what they believe. This is what it comes down to – the progressives are no more intolerant than we absolutists are. In fact, they are more intolerant. Most of us are at least willing for open dialogue and debate, but they wish to stifle all opposition to their ideology.

David Parker has been extremely patient and noble throughout his ordeal, and he is truly a hero for the Absolute truth side of worldview. Yet the “gay” activists have smeared, insulted and trashed him in an attempt to discredit his words, trying to make him as a “bigot” “homophobe” “anti-gay” “hater”. They cannot afford to have honest debate, but must try to destroy any who gives them opposition.

The trial is being held in Lexington, Massachusetts, hence, the christening, “second battle of Lexington” by Ms. Mcelroy – quite appropriate, I would say. We should keep track of this, since a pivotal case as this may have a profound affect on the culture of the United States.

God bless.

Editorial, "Bush did not lie about WMDs"

2005-10-02T22:05:00.000-07:00

Here is a letter to the editor I sent to the North County Times. I do this fairly often, and I will post them here whenever they are printed in the paper. I usually write in response to another writer, and when that's the case, I will include his/her editorial along with mine, so you can see both sides of the issue. This editorial was not responding to one particular letter, but to the constant liberal cry, "Bush lied people died" "Bush lied about WMDs" rhetoric that I know all who read this will be familiar with.

Feel free to tell me what you think, and how I could have improved.

Bush did not lie about WMDs

The common expression, "Bush lied about WMDs" is false. President Bush only repeated the reports gathered from the world's most prestigious intelligence organizations. Everyone - the French, Germans, Russians, and Democrats included -- agreed Saddam had WMDs at the time; it was not in question. As one senator said, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destrucion in his (Saddam) hands is a grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region." Who said this? None other than John Kerry.

The debate was if a terrorist tyrant with WMDs was worth pre-emptive strike. We decided it was. Although we found that Saddam didn't have WMDs at the time, it was an intelligence failure, not a presidential conspiracy. To lie is to knowingly say something untrue. President Bush didn't lie. He didn't fabricate information. He relied, as any President would, on our nation's intelligence.

There are many other reasons we went to war in Iraq; Saddam was our dangerous enemy whether or not he had WMDs on hand. He had the infrastructure and programs in place to build WMDs. All he needed were the raw materials, and we could not allow this.

- Paul B. Bishop, home-schooled student [city]*

* I am not ready to disclose my city to cyberspace at this time. Sorry for being overly paranoid.

What Is Worldview?

2005-10-01T21:19:00.000-07:00

Worldview is the way an individual or group thinks of reality; how experiences are explained; a philosophy on life. As David Noebel said in his book, Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth,

"…worldview refers to any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement, or religion that provides an overarching approach to understanding God, the world, and man’s relations to God and the world. Specifically, a worldview should contain each of the following ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history. . . . Each worldview offers a particular perspective from which to approach each discipline. Conversely, each discipline is value laden with worldview implications." (Eugene Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1991, page 8)

A person’s worldview is often determined by their experiences or geography. A native who lived his whole life in the African Congo would have a worldview limited to what he knows and sees every day where he lives. Trees, rocks, rivers, huts, and other natives are what he experiences in his isolated geographic location. His outlook on life is largely determined by these things on which he is familiar. If he were to go to a modern city, such as Cairo or New York, his worldview would change considerably. He sees cars, skyscrapers, motorboats, and modern people that he has to explain and accommodate into his understanding of life.

The native’s philosophy was determined also by what his parents and elders told him; his religion is spiritualism and animism. However, when something from the outside comes, perhaps a missionary bearing the Bible, his worldview will have to be altered somewhat, whether or not he accepts the message of the Bible; he knows that another belief system exists apart from what he has been taught.

The world is full of different ideas and philosophies and propositions, with as many philosophies as there are people. It is impossible to look at one’s outlook on things from total objectivity. We cannot fully escape the viewpoint we have already. However, it is possible to examine the world with some level of objectivity. We can be open-minded, and try to look at the facts, as well as other ideas, using common sense and rationale.

As a Christian, I view the world from what I know from the Bible. The Bible is the one constant that brings sanity to our complexity of viewpoints. While worldviews vary, there are ideas that are available to everyone, regardless of what they have experienced or where they live. God, the Creator and Lord of the world and the universe, has revealed Himself to mankind through the wonders of His creation; this is natural revelation. All humans, regardless of location, religion, skin color, or philosophy, have the opportunity to accept or reject God’s natural revelation; and the result of accepting this is the availability of God’s special revelation, the Bible.

The Bible is God’s message to mankind. Through it we can learn about God, how to live, and most importantly, how to obtain eternal life. The Bible says all people are sinners (Romans 3:23), and “the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) Jesus Christ was both God and man, and He died on the cross to pay the penalty of death for our sins, then rose again three days later. Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” (John 6:47). This is the message of the Bible, that we can have everlasting life in heaven with Him through faith in Him. To have a Biblical worldview, one must trust in Jesus Christ first.

Worldview is of utmost importance. In all the study and discussion about the various worldviews and ideas, there is one reoccurring theme – the struggle of absolute truth versus humanism.

Absolute truth says there are moral absolutes. Truth exists. There is an transcendent, omnipotent, perfect God who rules in the lives of men. Human beings are specially created in the image of God, and our lives have worth. The Christian brand of absolute truth also elevates the Bible as the source of constant truth. Its precepts, wisdom, teachings, and laws are good and true.

In contrast, humanism denies there can be absolute truth. The only truth is science. There is no such thing as moral absolutes – morality is whatever society says it is; it evolves on man’s whims. There is no God – man is the measure of all things. It is a religion that ultimately worships man, or environment. Man is nothing more than a highly evolved animal, smarter than a bug in life, but no different than a bug in destiny – death.

The Biblical worldview seeks to overturn the hoplessness of humanism, and humanism tries to overturn the absolutism of the Bible. This theme will be prominent on this blog.

I will be taking different areas of media (newspaper, TV, radio, and internet) articles and reports, and commenting on them from what I believe is a Biblical worldview. The Bible is the standard by which we will view the world.

Sources will be diverse, including CNN, FoxNews, BBC, Newsmax, Asia Times, World magazine, New York Times, the National Liberty Journal, and many others, in attempting to have as open-minded, varying viewpoints and accurate information as I can. I will use my local news sources, The North County Times and the Christian Examiner as well. From the above sources I will comment on current events, the cultural and religious ramifications from those events, as well as how they relate to the Biblical worldview. I will also post commentaries, articles, and essays on culture and religion in general, without reference to a particular media source. My goal is to post on this blog at least once a week.

It is my hope and prayer that this blog will help people think rationally and critically, and that people who have not yet trusted in Jesus Christ to save them would believe, and that Christians would look at the world the way God wants us to, through a Biblical worldview.