Saturday, October 31, 2009

National Geographic and the big bang

I just finished watching a National Geographic special on the universe. It explains how it is meaningless to ask what happened before the big bang because all of matter, and even time and space, began with the big bang.

So we are supposed to believe that there was absolutely nothing, and then out of absolutely nothing came something--a LOT of something.

This may be philosophy or theology but I wouldn't call it science. Anyway, I don't doubt that it happened. I just don't have enough faith to believe that it happened all by itself.

Crucified and beheaded in Thailand

Islamic jihadists have killed over 3,900 people in Thailand since 2004. Their victims were slaughtered by shooting, bombing, beheading, and crucifixion.

Why crucifixion and beheading? As Robert Spencer points out, jihadists were just following the Qu'ran. Read the story at Jihad Watch.

Happy Halloween?

Someone e-mailed a great Halloween idea to me yesterday. It is designed to help children understand how our current government works.

Decorate your house to look like the U.S. Capital. Then, when the kids come, take away their candy and give it to your own "special interests."

Or maybe you could just take the candy from kids who have a lot of candy, to give to kids who don't have as much candy.

OK, maybe not such a good idea. No point scaring the kids. Democrats' plans are even more terrifying than some of us adults can handle!

Friday, October 30, 2009

$160,000 per stimulus job!

$160,000 per stimulus job? According to an article by ABC News:

The White House argues that the actual job number is actually larger than 640,000 -- closer to 1 million jobs when one factors in stimulus jobs added in October and, more importantly, jobs created indirectly, such as "the waitress who's still on the job," Vice President Biden said today.

So let's see. Assuming their number is right -- 160 billion divided by 1 million. Does that mean the stimulus costs taxpayers $160,000 per job?
That's the same kind of "efficiency" they will bring to health care.

Education, health care and the government

"Even the most fervent believer in ambitious and expensive federal initiatives must concede that President Carter's much-ballyhooed 1979 creation of the Department of Education never produced the promised renaissance in public schools--despite its current employment of five thousand full-time Washington bureaucrats and annual expenditures of more than $70 billion of the people's money" (Medved, Michael. The 10 Big Lies About America, 140).

Just think how much education might be improved if we abolished the Department of Education and gave that money to the schools!

This is what happens when government takes over. It will happen to health care too. And yet, for reasons beyond comprehension, many Americas keep on thinking this time will be different!

More on fudged stimulus numbers

Even CBS says the Obama administrations stimulus figures are not true. As Noel Sheppard says,
When Katie Couric and the folks at CBS start doubting what the Administration says about how effective February's economic stimulus package was, you know President Obama is in trouble.
Read the story at NewsBusters.

I suspect that the real fact is that the Democrats flushed our trillion dollars down the hopper and are desperately trying to cover up the fact that their stimulus didn't stimulate much of anything but the pockets of their special interest groups.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

The Democrats' health care bill

Here are ten things you should know about the Democrats health care bill.

Full text of the Health Care bill

For anyone who has trouble sleeping at night, Here is the Democrats' health care bill, all 1,990 pages! On second thought, I fear that this may actually either keep you up at night or give you nightmares!

White House overstates stimulus effect

According to the Associated Press, the White House has been overstating by thousands the number of actual jobs created or saved by the stimulus package.

What a shocker!

U.N. defamation of religions

Since 1999 Islamic nations have attempted to foist anti-blasphemy laws on the world in the guise of U.N. resolutions against the "defamation of religion." In Islamic nations like Pakistan anti-blasphemy laws have been used to imprison, torture and kill those who are charged (often without basis) with desecrating the Koran or blaspheming Muhammad.

It appears that Europe is rapidly getting on the anti-blasphemy bandwagon. I was, therefore, encouraged recently when Hillary Clinton came out in opposition of such Islamic efforts.

In America our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, second only to God. Neither the President, nor the Congress nor the Supreme Court have the legal authority to deliberately violate the Constitution. More precisely, not even the President of the United States has the authority to sign a treaty ceding our rights under the Constitution over to the U.N. or international law.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that hypothetically, if any President were to sign a treaty that would limit our freedom of speech or religion under international law, the President would have violated his oath of office.

In that case the American people would be responsible to elect Congresspeople whose number one priority would be to immediately begin impeachment proceedings with the goal of removing the President from office, nullifying the treaty and possibly even charging the President with treason for attempting to aid our enemies in undermining the Constitution of the United States.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Churches and homosexuality

I've heard or read of a lot of "Christian" leaders who support same sex marriage on the grounds that the Bible supposedly affirms loving, monogamous, gay sexual relationships.

I've never heard of or read, however, about any of these churches preaching that sex before the committed relationship is sin, or that sex with someone outside of this relationship is sin.

This makes me suspect that such churches are not nearly as interested in what the Bible actually says as they are in trying desperately to be in line with contemporary social views.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Church of Scientology convicted of fraud

The Church of Scientology has been convicted of fraud in Paris and fined the equivalent of $900,000. See the Associated Press for the story.

Is Amtrak too big to fail?

This morning Andrew Napolitano mentioned this report by the Associated Press, which says that "Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008."

"Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states.

Perhaps Amtrak is too big to fail. Maybe the government needs to step in and take over.

Oh wait, the government already runs Amtrak!!!

This is the same government that runs the failing post office, the same government that now wants to take over all banks that "are too big to fail," the same government that thinks it can run your healthcare more efficiently!

Monday, October 26, 2009

CNN falls to last place

According to the New York Times, CNN is now in last place among the cable news networks. Fox is number one. "Individually, the CNN shows were beaten resoundingly by all the Fox News programs."

"CNN executives acknowledge, viewers seem to be looking for partisan views more than objective coverage."

Some might argue that CNN executives are so absorbed in their own far left views they they honestly don't know how biased they really are.

Christians fleeing Iraq

According to UPI:

Imad Yuhanna Yaqo, a Christian member of the Assyrian Democratic Movement, tells the Iraqi analytical Web site Niqash that his group recorded nearly a dozen kidnappings or killings since April.

"The number of Christians in Kirkuk before the fall of the Baath regime was more than 20,000," he said. "This number has dropped to 10,000 and the number continues to decrease."

Is this what so many American sons and daughters died for? Is our government doing anything to protect or help those who are being persecuted?

Islam and defamation of religions

I don't often agree with the Obama administration, but when they do something right, it deserves attention:
The Obama administration on Monday came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech. "Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters. "I strongly disagree.
Read the rest at the Associated Press.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Giving pornography to children

Two librarians in Kentucky have apparently been fired for refusing to make pornographic material available to children. See the Safe Libraries blog for the story.

Assuming that the material in question is truly pornographic, aren't there laws against making such material available to minors and if so, shouldn't the library director be prosecuted for doing so?

Freedom of Speech and the hate crimes bill

The American Center for Law and Justice has provided a "legislative alert" on the new hate crimes legislation. Thanks to Republican Senator Sam Brownback the bill in its final form contained a special provision protecting religious speech.

See the ACLJ legislative alert for the story.

Terrorist bombs kill 136 in Baghdad

According to FoxNews, at least 136 are dead and more than 400 injured from terrorist bombs in Baghdad this morning.

I don't understand. Didn't Hollywood, Code Pink, and the Democrats pretty much assure us that the whole problem was George Bush?

Don't the terrorists know that America has had a new President for the last nine months?

Don't they know that he has a Muslim background?

Don't they know that he is planning to pull our troops out of Iraq?

Don't they know that he is closing Gitmo?

Don't they know that he has apologized for America's sins against Islam?

Don't they know that he is reaching out to Muslims and is even providing foreign aid to Muslim countries?

Hmm, I wonder if the real problem was not so much about America as it was about Islam.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Keith Ellision and CAIR

"Big Government" has a fascinating, though troubling, article on Minnesota's Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison and CAIR.

Pelosi: Stripping Fox News of Access

In an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olberman last night, Nancy Pelosi announced that she would move to bring a vote to the floor of The House of Representatives as early as next week to ban Fox from covering Congress. "That Fox regularly grants access to Republican Congressman to spread their lies and propaganda on their airwaves is a violation of the public trust, and their continued desire to challenge such well documented facts as Global Warming, and the efficacy of single payer health insurance, proves that they are simply doing the work of the special interests. They should thus be stripped of their journalistic access in the halls of Congress," argued Pelosi.
This is an unbelievably shocking abuse of power! In the Orwellian world of the Democrats, apparently Freedom of the Press only applies to news organizations that promote the Democrats' Leftist, socialist agendas.

The Democrats are beginning to sound more like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro than Americans!

UPDATE: Democrats spend astronomical amounts of money—without even reading the bills—under the guise of helping the economy. They have sought to regulate talk radio and call it the “fairness doctrine.” They passed CPSIA legislation that could have made it illegal for librarians to allow children into existing children’s book collections. They recently passed a bill that actually makes crimes against a particular group of people subject to more severe punishment than the exact same crimes against other people. Then they began a deliberate, orchestrated campaign to isolate, ostracize and demonize a particular news organization. So when I read on the Hugh Hewitt website that Pelosi was planning to introduce legislation stripping Fox News of their “journalistic access in the halls of Congress”—well, not much the Democrats do surprises me anymore and I posted it.

As readers have graciously—and some hatefully—pointed out, it was satire. I would have expected satire from someone like Glenn Beck who, like John Stewart, regularly engages in satire. I did not expect it from Hugh Hewitt, though if I had read farther down it was pretty clear. Bottom line: I screwed up! My sincere apologies to Nancy Pelosi and my readers for passing this satire on as fact.

Original intention of the First Amendment

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Somehow this has been twisted to mean that:

The Ten Commandments cannot be posted in court houses

Manger scenes cannot be placed in town squares.

High school football teams cannot begin their games with prayer

Students cannot mention the name Jesus in their valedictorian speeches

Teachers cannot explain the origin of Christmas to their students

Teachers are prohibited from teaching views of science that contradict naturalist philosophy.

The list could go on and on. In fact, Christians are increasingly being sued in attempts to force them to violate their most deeply held religious convictions and one of President Obama's recent appointees (a former law professor!) said that in areas where sexual freedom conflict with religious freedom, she could hardly imagine any time when freedom of religion should win!

In his absolutely outstanding book, The 10 Big Lies about America," lawyer and Yale history major Michael Medved writes,
In fact, less than twenty-four hours after Congress approved the First Amendment, they clearly indicated the way they understood its language by passing the following resolution: "Resolved, that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almights God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution for their safety and happiness." In the proclamation duly announcing the "day of public thanksgiving and prayer" that Congress had requested, President Washington declared November 26 "to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent Author of all good that was, that is, or that will be."

It never occurred to this First Congress that their call for public prayer would conflict with the amendment they had adopted a day earlier prohibiting "an establishment of religion" (83-84).
As you can see, the abuses I listed above are clearly unconstitional when considered in light of the founding Fathers' original intentions. The First Amendment was never intended to restrict religious expression but to keep government from restricting religious expression. Yet our our freedom of religion is being systematically stripped away from us.

How is this possible? How can the govenment get away with this?

Judges who treat the Constitution as a "living breathing document" no longer feel bound to interpret it in light of the intention of our founding fathers. They can twist it to mean anything they want and when this happens, the Constitution is no longer worth the paper on which it was written.

What is even more unbelievable, however, is that even Christians vote for people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democrats who think the Constitution should be interpreted as a living breathing document! Christians have voted for the very politicians who are systematically stripping freedom of religion from us and our children!

Bolton, Iran and WMD

According to NewMajority, "Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton addressed a crowded room at the American Enterprise Institute today, saying that “the use of force is required” to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,"

I agree. I think a nuclear Iran would literally be more dangerous than Nazi Germany and I'm afraid that the West just doesn't have the guts to face up to the harsh reality of the truth.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Millions for technology to Muslim nations

According to AFP. "The White House Friday highlighted a new multi-million dollar technology fund for Muslim nations.

Wouldn't it be better if we used these multi-millions of dollars to pay down our own debt and asked Saudi-Arabia to fund this technology? Does the Obama administration honestly think that this money is going to buy us good will in the Arab world?

Could they possibly be any more out of touch?

Thursday, October 22, 2009

The Trinity

This essay will attempt to provide a quick overview of the reasons why Christians believe in the Trinity—a word that never appears in the Bible. I make no claim to be exhaustive in the passages I cite and this is certainly not a scholarly treatise. It is just a quick overview of the topic.

The essay assumes the Judeo/Christian belief that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19). Upon that foundation, the paper will show that 1) The New Testament teaches the deity of Jesus. This is by far the longest section of the paper since the deity of Jesus is the aspect of the Trinity which comes under the strongest attack, 2) The New Testament teaches the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit (i.e. that the Holy Spirit is a sentient being and not just an impersonal force like gravity, magnetism, etc.) 3) That the New Testament distinguishes between Father, Son and Spirit. 4) That the theological doctrine of Trinity best accounts for the biblical data.


The question we are addressing first is, what does the New Testament teach about Jesus?

Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke)

According to most scholars, Mark was the first biblical gospel to be written. The writer of Mark begins his gospel with quotes from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 about how a messenger would go before and prepare the way for Yahweh (God). In the verses that follow (Mark 1:4-9), Mark introduces John the Baptist who is preparing the way for Jesus. Mark sees John the Baptist and Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecies about the messenger (John) preparing the way for God (Jesus).

Messenger -------> Yahweh
| |
John the Baptist --> Jesus

Now in case that parallel was lost on some readers, Mark then immediately writes about how Jesus is baptized while the Spirit of God descends on him like a dove, and a voice comes from the heavens declaring that Jesus is “my beloved Son.” God the Spirit descends on God the Son while God the Father speaks from heaven. This declaration from God that Jesus is his Son is repeated later in Mark 9:7.

It is important to note that “Son of God” (as Jesus is called in most ancient texts of Mark 1:1) can mean different things depending on the context. In Job, “sons of God” is a reference to angels. Sometimes in the Old Testament Israel was said to be God’s son. Sometimes the king was said to be God’s son.

Mark, however, makes it clear that Jesus is the son of God is a much more significant sense. In Mark 2:1-12 Jesus heals a paralyzed man and tells him, “My son, your sins are forgiven (Mark 2:5). Note that Jesus is not saying that this man has personally offended Jesus therefore Jesus forgives him of this offense. Jesus was not even acting as a priest by assuring the man of God’s forgiveness. Mark wants readers to understand that Jesus was declaring that this man’s sins are forgiven. In a Jewish context—and Jesus was a Jew, living with Jews and ministering to Jews—only God could forgive sins!

According to Mark, the people understand exactly what Jesus was claiming because they complain saying, “He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone” (Mark 2:7). Jesus then confirms that they have not misunderstood him. He tells them that he said this so they would know that he has authority “on earth” to forgive sins.

Mark was clearly intending his readers to understand that Jesus was claiming to do something only God could do. But words are cheap. Anyone can claim to forgive sins, right?. According to Mark, the paralyzed man then got up an walked! (Mark 2:9-12).

To emphasize this point further--i.e the point that Jesus claimed to do what only God could do-- Mark then tells a story about how Jesus had a run-in with Pharisees about picking grain on the Sabbath day (Mark 2:23-28). Jesus claims that he is Lord over the Sabbath.

This would have been a truly shocking claim, something that would have made Jesus sound out of his mind. After all, God instituted the Sabbath day! Only God was above the Sabbath. Yet according to Mark, Jesus claimed to be Lord over the Sabbath. Mark clearly wants readers to understand that Jesus was placing himself in the position of God.

Mark later writes about how Jesus teaches people about Jewish dietary laws. Jesus says, “Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach and is expelled?” Mark then adds his own parenthetical, theological explanation, “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:18-19).

This is another shocking statement. According to the Jewish Bible (the Christian Old Testament) God had established those dietary laws. Only God could annul those laws. Mark clearly wants the reader to understand that Jesus was placing himself in the position of God.

But there is more. In the Jewish Bible, God alone was the source of salvation in a spiritual sense, but according to the Gospels, Jesus claims that prerogative. In Mark 10:17 a man asks Jesus how to have eternal life and Jesus final answer is “follow me” (Mark 10:21).

This is remarkable. No prophet—not Moses, not Elijah, not Isaiah—no prophet would have said that the way to have eternal life was to follow them. That is because eternal life is found only in God. The prophets all pointed people to God. Only Jesus says the way to eternal life is to follow him. Mark wants readers to understand that Jesus was putting himself in the place of God!

But Mark is not done yet. Just before his death Jesus has a last supper with his disciples. He takes the cup of wine and tells his disciples, “This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:22-25).

The covenant to which Jesus is referring is from Jeremiah 31:31 which specifically declares that it will be Yahweh (God) who makes this new covenant. Mark wants the reader to understand that Jesus is, once again, putting himself in the place of God. It is no wonder some thought he was out of his mind (Mark 3:21)!

Finally, some four hundred years before Jesus’ time, Zechariah prophesied to Israel, “Behold your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). Zechariah tells us exactly who the king is: “And Yahweh will be king over all the earth” (Zechariah 14:9, cf. 14:17). Mark presents Jesus as deliberately fulfilling a prophecy about God coming to visit his people (Mark 11:1-10).

These views were not just expressed in the Gospel of Mark, however. Luke (7:47-50) and John (8:24) also claim that Jesus could personally grant forgiveness of sins.

Matthew (12:8) and Luke 6:5 also claim that Jesus was Lord over the Sabbath.

Matthew (25:21-46) and Luke (19:11-27) claim that people’s eternal destiny would be dependent on Jesus (cf. John 3:15, 10:19).

According to Matthew (13:24-30; 36-43; 25:31-46) and Luke (3:16-17; 17:23-37) Jesus claimed that he would personally judge the world claimed that he would personally judge to world; a task that belonged to God alone.

And all four Gospels (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:28-44; John 12:12-19) tell of Jesus riding into Jerusalem in fulfillment of the prophecies about God visiting his people. It is clear what the synoptic Gospel writers want readers to understand about Jesus.

Gospel of John

There is really not much dispute among scholars that the Gospel of John intends to present Jesus as God incarnate. Even most theologically liberal biblical scholars understand that this is what John is intending to say. They just don't believe it. The only ones who think John was not presenting Jesus as God are usually those with a theological axe to grind, for example, cults like Jehovah’s witnesses.

John begins his gospel declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3).

Then John declares that this “Word” which was "with God and was God," became human and lived with us (John 1:14). He is the one to whom John the Baptist bore witness (John 1:15), the one who is specifically identified as Jesus in John 1:29. He is the one whom John's Gospels calls, “the only God who is at the Father’s side” (John 1:18).

Jehovah’s witnesses try to avoid this teaching by mistranslating John 1:1. Their New World Translation of John 1:1 reads, “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

Jehovah’s witnesses insist that since the second occurrence of God/god in John 1:1 is not preceded by the definite article (i.e. “the”) in Greek, it must (MUST) be translated as “a god” not God with a big G (Note: the Greek article is often not translated into English so it usually does not appear in English Bibles).

The translators of the Jehovah's Witness Bible are factually in error in this verse. It is an absolute fact that the absence of the Greek article does not always mean the subject is indefinite. There is a grammatical reason why John could not add the definite article to the second occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 (suffice it to say that adding the definite article before God would make it impossible in Greek to determine the subject of that clause).

Anyway, it is pretty hard to see how the translators of the New World Translation could be ignorant of the fact that the lack of a definite article does not always make the subject indefinite. This is because there are at least thirteen places in John's Gospel alone (John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:21; 8:54; 9:16; 9:33; 13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17 (twice!) where the Greek word for God (theos) appears without the Greek definite article and yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses translators translate the word with a big G (God) anyway! In fact, in John 6:45 the word Theos (God) appears without the definite article and yet the New World Translation translates it not as "a god" but as "Jehovah!" Apparently Jehovah's Witnesses only follow their own translation rules where it fits their doctrine.

The fact that John attributes deity to Jesus is not just seen in chapter one, however. According to John’s gospel, people’s eternal destiny would be dependent on Jesus:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40).

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever” (John 6:51).

“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54).

“I am the door, if anyone enters by me, he will be saved…” (John 10:9).

In a first century Jewish context only God could save in a spiritual sense. Only God could grant eternal life. The writer of John’s Gospel clearly wants readers to understand that Jesus is God.

There is more. According to John 8:58 Jesus claimed, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” No only was Jesus claiming to have existed before his own birth—a claim he also makes in John 17:5—many scholars note that the phrase “I AM” is the name of God, Yahweh. This claim may be why according to the text, Jesus enemies “picked up stones to throw at him” (John 8:58).

Some would argue that maybe Jesus’ critics misunderstood him. Even if that were true (it’s not) it is still quite clear that John wants us to understand why they were preparing to stone him.

According to John 10:30 Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Some have dismissed this as the same kind of oneness that Christians experience. The Jewish audience to whom Jesus was addressing, however, understood that Jesus was talking about being one with God in a much deeper sense which is why they prepared to stone him for blasphemy saying it was because "you being a man, make yourself God."

I once spoke to a Jehovah’s Witness about this passage and his response was to say that all Jews were liars so why would I believe what they said about Jesus? Aside from the fact that this was an incredibly racist and anti-Semitic statement, we must note that the writer of the Gospel of John was Jewish. I guess it didn’t occur to this "witness against Jehovah" that if all Jews are liars then we can’t trust the Gospel of John either because it was written by a Jew! But this Jehovah’s Witness was just trying to re-interpret (twist) the Gospel of John. He would never argue that we should tear it out of our Bible.

The writer of John clearly wants readers to understand that Jesus was claiming oneness with God in a way that Jesus’ Jewish audience considered blasphemous. In the words of Jesus’ enemies, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33).

John begins his gospel proclaiming the deity of Jesus and he ends it the same way. In 20:24-29 “doubting Thomas” sees the risen Jesus and exclaims “My Lord and My God (John 20:28)! It is important to note that Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for this worship but rather blesses him! There can be no serious doubt that the writer of John’s Gospel wants readers to understand that Jesus is the very incarnation of God!


In the Old Testament salvation, in a spiritual sense was found only in God, but Acts 4:12, speaking of Jesus, says, “and there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 16:31 reinforces this saying “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.”

In the Jewish Bible God was the final judge of the living and the dead but Acts 10:42 says that Jesus “is the One who has been appointed by God as judge of the living and dead.”

In Acts 2:21 Peter quotes from Joel 2:32 which says that “…everyone who calls upon the name to the Lord [Yahweh] will be saved.” Peter applies this directly to Jesus, i.e. everyone who calls on the name of Jesus will be saved.


Paul is actually our very earliest witness to Jesus. Paul takes the passage in Joel 2:32 which says that “…everyone who calls upon the name to the Lord [Yahweh] will be saved” and applies that directly to Jesus (Romans 10:13, 17), i.e that everyone who calls on the name of Jesus will be saved.

It is probable that Paul was also intending to directly attribute deity to Jesus in Romans 9:5 which could be translated, “from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever.” Or, as the New Living Translation puts it, “Christ himself was a Jew as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise” (NLT).

According to Paul it is through Jesus that all things exist (1 Cor. 8:6). Paul repeats this teaching in Colossians 1:16-17 where he says that it was by Jesus that “all things were created, both in heavens and on earth….”

As a good Rabbi, Paul knows full well that God is the only creator. No wonder Paul writes that Jesus “existed in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) and that “in Him the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

In Titus 2:13 Paul writes, “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” There is a way, in Greek in which Paul could have distinguished between Father and Son in this passage, but the way he writes this makes it pretty clear that he intended to call Jesus “our great God and Savior.”

Hebrews and General Epistles

The Book of Hebrews refers to Jesus as the very “radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” and says that Jesus “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3).

According to Hebrews, quoting from Psalm 2:7, God himself called Jesus his Son (Hebrews 1:5). According to Hebrews God said to Jesus, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8). It is clear that the author of Hebrews intends to teach the deity of Jesus.

The deity of Jesus is also taught in First and Second Peter. Isaiah 8:13 says “The LORD [Yahweh] of Hosts, him you shall regard as holy…” First Peter 3:15 says Jesus is the one we should regard as holy!

Second Peter 1:1 speaks of “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” There is a way in Greek in which Peter could have made a distinction between our God, and our Savior Jesus Christ but Peter does not do this. He intends to call Jesus, “Our God.”


According to Revelation 22:13 Jesus says, “I am the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end,” but Revelation 1:8 says it was the Lord God who was the alpha and omega.

What is particularly interesting about these passages is that they are also found in the Jehovah’s Witness’s New World Translation which goes to great lengths to remove any trace of Jesus’ deity. They missed one. The New World Translation translates Revelation 1:8 as “I am the alpha and omega, says Jehovah God.” But at the end of Revelation, the alpha and omega is the one who is coming quickly (Revelation 22:12-13), identified specifically as Jesus in Revelation 22:16. Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses own translation teaches the deity of Jesus!

It is no wonder, therefore, that Jesus was also the object of worship in the New Testament...and remember, in a Jewish context only God was the object of worship! Paul says that “at the name of Jesus every knee will bow (Philippians 2:10). Paul exclaims that to Jesus “be glory forever and ever” (2 Timothy 4:18). Second Peter 3:18 also says that to Jesus “be glory, both now and to the day of eternity.” Hebrews 1:6 says of Jesus, “let all the angels of God worship him.” Revelation says that to Jesus “be the glory and dominion forever and ever” (1:5-6) and “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb [Jesus], be blessing and honor and dominion forever and ever…and the elders fell down and worshiped” (5:11-14).

After the New Testament

Is it possible, however, that we have misunderstood what the New Testament teaches about Jesus’ deity?

Not a chance! Those who wrote shortly after the New Testament understood exactly what the New Testament taught about Jesus!

Clement of Rome (AD 97), for example, described Jesus as the “majestic scepter of God” and the radiance of God’s majesty (Clement to the Corinthians, 16, 36).

Ignatius (AD 110) wrote about “our God, Jesus Christ” (to the Romans, 3; to the Ephesians, 18) and “Jesus Christ, our God” (to the Ephesians, Intro), and “stirring up yourselves by the blood of God (to the Ephesians, 1), and “God Himself being manifested in human form” (to the Ephesians, 19) and “servants of Christ our God” (to the Smyrneans, 10).

The letter of Barnabas—not the Barnabas of the Bible but some other Christian named Barnabas (AD 70-135), says, “…the Son of God was the divine Lord, and the future Judge of living and dead alike” (Chapter 7). The letter of Barnabas calls Jesus “the Lord of all the earth,” a title used in Joshua 3:13 to refer to God (5:1).

Justin Martyr (d. 163) writes that “…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God (First Apology of Justin LXIII).

The idea that Jesus was God is also found in ancient books known as the New Testament Apocrypha (not to be confused with the Catholic apocrypha which was written before the time of Jesus). Most New Testament Apocrypha were written from the second to fourth or fifth centuries AD. One of these books is the Acts of Andrew (4th cent.) which ways, “Andrew prayed thus: ‘I pray you, my God, Lord Jesus Christ….”

The Apocalypse of Peter” says, “… my Lord and God Jesus Christ” (Apocalypse of Peter, Ethiopic 16, 135 AD).

The “Acts of John” says, “Glory be to thee, my Jesus, the only God of truth” (Acts of John 43, 2nd-3rd c.).

The Ascension of Isaiah says, “and he who gave permission is thy Lord, God, the Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus on earth” (Ascension of Isaiah 5, 2nd c.).

In the Acts of Paul and Thecla we find, “My God, Jesus Christ” (Acts of Paul and Thecla, 185-195 AD).

The fact that these early Christians believed Jesus was God is also confirmed in secular sources.
The anti-Christian satirist, Lucian also wrote of Christians saying that they “worship” Jesus (Lucian early 100’s)

The Roman governor, Pliny the Younger (AD 112), for example, conducted an investigation of Christians and reported to the Roman emperor that they “were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternative verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god” (Letter to Emperor Trajan). Of course Pliny would write “to a god” instead of “to God” because Pliny didn’t believe in just one God.

By the way, contrary to the popular DaVinci Code, even writers of the so-called “lost gospels” believed Jesus was some kind of divine being. The “Teachings of Silvanus,” for example, says, “Know who Christ is…He is also God and Teacher. This one, being God, became man for your sake” (Teachings of Silvanus 110).

The “Letter of Philip” says, “according to the orders of our God Jesus” (Letter of Peter to Philip 133).

The “Trimorphic Protennoia says, “They blessed Perfect Son, the Christ, the only-begotten God” (Trimorphic Protennoia 38).

These “lost gospels” are not Christian documents. Contrary to Christianity, they generally believe that Jesus was one of many divine beings. The point the Da Vinci Code is factually in error whn it says that “these documents speak of Christ’s ministry in very human terms” (Brown, 234). The fact is that one of the very earliest controversies about Jesus was not about whether he was divine or not, but whether he was actually human or not!

All of this evidence, of course, does not prove that Jesus was God, but it does demonstrate rather conclusively that early Christians believed that Jesus was God and that they believed it hundreds of years before any church councils got together to discuss the issue.


The Holy Spirit of God is called God in the Bible. For example, Acts 28:25-26 says that “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet…” What follows is a quote from Isaiah 6:8-9 which was spoken by God.

Similarly Hebrews 10:15-17 says, “And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us…saying…” What follows are quotes from Jeremiah 31:31-34 which was spoken by God. The point is that the writers of Acts and Hebrews attribute to the Holy Spirit, words spoken in their original contexts by God.

The Deity of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by the fact that the Holy Spirit is said to have the attributes of God (Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; 1 Cor 2;9-11; Hebrews 9:14) and the Holy Spirit performs the works of God (Job 33:4; Ps 104:30; Luke 12:11-12; Acts 1:5; 20:28; 1 Cor 6:11; 2:8-11; 2 Peter 1:21).

The Holy Spirit is often called the “Spirit of God” (Genesis 1:2; Exodus 31:3; Numbers 42:2; First Samuel 10:10; 2 Chronicles 24:20; Job 33:4; Ezekiel 11:24; Romans 8:14, 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 4:30; Philippians 3:3; 1 John 4:2).

We might conclude that the Spirit of God is just another way of saying “God” except that many passages specifically distinguish between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. This will be covered in a separate section below.

In the mean time, it is also important to note that according to the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is not just some impersonal force like gravity or magnetism. The Holy Spirit is a being who, like any sentient being has intellect, emotion and will (theologians use the word "person" for lack of a better term).

According to the New Testament, the Holy Spirit admonishes (Jn 16:8), teaches, (Jn 14:26; 16:13-15; 1 Jn 2:27), guides (Jn 16:13) speaks (Gal 4:6), intercedes (Rom 8:26), leads (Gal 5:18), appoints for service (Acts 13:2), regenerates (Jn 3:6), baptizes (1 Cor 12:13), fills (Eph 5:18) and glorifies Jesus (Jn 16:14). He is called a Helper, Comforter/counselor or advocate (Jn 14:6-17; 26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1-2). He can be grieved (Eph 4:30), quenched (resisted; 1 Thess 5:19), blasphemed (Matt 2:31) and lied to (Acts 5:3).

The point is that no one would speak about lying to a force like gravity, or grieving magnetism or blaspheming nuclear forces!

Although the word "spirit" in Greek is grammatically neuter meaning that you would expect that a neuter pronoun would be used to refer to the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to with the masculine pronoun, "He." (e.g. John 14:16-17; 16:7-15).

In other words, the Bible usually refers to the Holy Spirit as a "He" rather than "it." The use of "He" does not mean the Holy Spirit is male (a spirit is neither male nor female), but the use of "He" does seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a personal being rather than an impersonal force.

So like any “person” the Holy Spirit has intellect (He can teach, guide, speak), emotion (He can be grieved), and will (He submits to the Father John 14:16-17; 26). The Holy Spirit is also God.

Distinction between Father, Son and Spirit

The Bible clearly make a distinction between God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit.

For example, Matthew 3:16 clearly makes this distinction as does Mark 1:9-11 and Luke 3:21-22 where Jesus is baptized while the Spirit of God descends on him and the Father speaks from heaven. A distinction between Father, Son and Spirit is also clear from John 14:26 where Jesus says his Father will send the Spirit to the disciples.

Matthew 1:18 makes a distinction between the Holy Spirit and the unborn Jesus who is still in his mother’s womb. Jesus makes a distinction between himself and the Spirit in Matthew 12:28 and in John 14:7, 12-14.

Jesus distinguishes between the Father, Spirit and himself when he speaks of blasphemy against the Spirit as worse than blasphemy of him or the Father (Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29), possibly because it is the Spirit who draws people to the Father and Son.

Luke 4:1 distinguishes between Jesus and the Holy Spirit saying that Jesus, being filled with the Spirit was led by the Spirit in the wilderness. Luke 11:13 is about how the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask.

Paul seems to distinguish between the Spirit of God and God in 1 Corinthians 2:11.

The New Testament also make a distinction between the tasks the Father, Son and Spirit perform. For example, the Holy Spirit glorifies Jesus (John 16:14). The Bible never says that Jesus "glorifies the Holy Spirit."

The Spirit is “sent” by the Father (John 14:16-17, 26) and by the Son (John 16:7). The Bible never says the Spirit sends the Father although the does say the Spirit “led” Jesus (Luke 4:1). Jesus was crucified.

The Father and Spirit were not crucified.

Finally, in the New Testament, the Father speaks to Jesus (Matthew 3:17, 17:5; Mark 1:11, 9:2; Luke 3:22; 9:35) and Jesus prays to the Father (e.g. Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:35; Luke 22:42; John 17). Jesus is not praying to himself!

Is it possible that we have misunderstood our New Testament on the distinction between Father, Son and Spirit?

Not a chance!

The earliest church “fathers” writing right after the New Testament was written understood completely what the New Testament was teaching. Although Ignatius calls Jesus God, he distinguishes between Father and Son: “by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God.” (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians).

So does Justin, “…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. (First Apology of Justin LXIII).

So does Irenaeus, “"and ‘the Word was with God…and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.” (Against Heresies 1.8.5).

We also find the distinction between Father and Son in the Epistle to Diognetus, “he sent him in gentleness and meekness, as a king might send his son who is a king; he sent him as God” (to Diognetus 7).

In fact, as early as the Didache, which could have been written any time between about AD 70 and 150, we find a full-blown statement of the Trinity, at least 300 years before any church councils met to discuss the issue: “baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water…But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit” (Didache 7)

Some in the early church argued that there is one God who appeared in three “modes”: Father in the Old Testament, Jesus in the early first century AD, and the Holy Spirit after the resurrection of Jesus. There is a modern version of this called “Jesus only” which denies the Trinity, and teaches that Jesus sometimes manifested himself as God, sometimes as Jesus and sometimes as the Spirit.

The ancient version of this became known as Modalism or Sabellianism. It was condemned as heresy because it just doesn’t account for the biblical data which not only presents Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time and place (e.g. the Baptism of Jesus), but does not preserve the Biblical distinctions between Father, Son and Spirit.


Cultists and some critics will challenge this evidence, of course. They have to! They have an agenda to preserve. It would be relatively easy to pick apart individual pieces of the evidence above and entire books have been written which interact with all the arguments. One of the best places to start would be the book, entitled, Jesus as God; the New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray Harris (Baker, 1992). The book is an indepth, scholarly evaluation of the New Testament passages that attribute deity to Jesus. It argues from the original languages but even those who don’t know Hebrew or Greek can profit from the book.

Anyway, it is for all of the reasons above and more—this is by no means a scholarly or exhaustive study!—that orthodox Christians have concluded that the Bible teaches there is ONE and only ONE God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19) who exists eternally in three “persons,” Father, Son and Spirit. The Bible doesn't have a name for this phenomena so theologians chose to call it the Trinity (I think Tri-unity may have been a better term).

Whenever you hear the tired old argument that “the word Trinity” doesn’t even appear in the Bible” know and understand that the critic is grasping at straws in desperation. The argument is completely irrelevant. All orthodox Christians—Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox—understand that “trinity” is a word developed by later Christians to describe a phenomena found in the Bible. The fact that the word itself is not found in the Bible says absolutely nothing about whether the doctrine is found in the Bible or not.

It is true, of course, that the concept of Trinity is hard to understand and even harder to explain, but this is what the Bible teaches. Many analogies have been proposed, like for example, the egg which is one, and yet composed of egg whites, a shell and yoke. But a yoke is just part of an egg and Jesus is not just part of God.

All analogies break down. The best one I’ve come up with is from science fiction. Being a Star Trek Next Generation fan, I sometimes use the “Borg” as an analogy. In Star Trek Next Generation the Borg is an alien being that resides in a gigantic cube shaped object. The Borg consists of thousands of beings appearing like grotesque-looking people, but, the show is quick to explain, these are not thousands of Borgs. The Borg is one.

Each individual is distinct and yet intimately connected with every other individual. They can hear each others thoughts and function as one organism. If they conquered the Enterprise, for example, one might be on the bridge interacting with the captain, one might be in the engineering section controlling the engines and one might be in the transporter room controlling access to the Enterprise. Three individuals with different tasks but yet so intimately connected that they function, and in fact are, one organism.

But again, all analogies break down. Star Trek is science fiction. God is science fact. In Star Trek the Borg is evil whereas God is good. In Star Trek the Borg consists of thousands of individuals where as God exists in three persons. The Borg’s power is finite where as God is all powerful, etc. And yet, I think the analogy may help to understand the concept of One God who exists eternally as Father, Son, and Spirit.

The fact is that we worship a Creator who created a universe so indescribably huge and complex (from incredibly complex micro-organisms to unimaginably gigantic galaxies) that human beings do not even begin to comprehend a tiny part of this creation. This being the case, do you suppose there might be some things about our awesome Creator that our human minds just do comprehend?

Imagine, for example, trying to explain a long distance cell phone call to someone from the 1700’s. They wouldn’t even understand the concept of telephones, much less cell phones. If you tried to explain cell phones to them, they wouldn’t understand microscopic circuits, or frequencies, or satellites or electronics or liquid crystal displays (LCD) or even plastic! In other words, they wouldn’t even understand the concepts necessary to understand the principles behind cell phones!

How much less do we understand God! So when God reveals himself as ONE God eternally existing in Father, Son and Spirit, Christians believe it even if we can’t adequately explain it.

The re-funding of ACORN?

You remember the ACORN videos in which ACORN representatives were caught on tape supporting what they thought were illegal activities including the shipping of foreign children into the United States as sex slaves?

That was too much even for our Congresspeople, many of whom are heavily funded by ACORN, so Congress voted to cut off funding for ACORN.

But wait! According to Minnesota Congresswoman Miclele Bachmann that suspension of funding was only temporary. If Congress does not specifically include re-include language de-funding ACORN in a continuing resolution, ACORN could again be receiving your tax dollars as soon as November 1st! This is certainly a story to watch.

Michele points out that this doesn't need an act of Congress. President Obama could put an end to this right now by simply barring ACORN from federal funds!

Read the entire story at Townhall.

(The more I hear about Michele Bachmann, the more I'm beginning to think that Sarah Palin should be Michele's Vice President)!

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

"If the Arabs put down their weapons..."

From my Facebook account: "If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel." Benjamin Netanyahu (hat tip, Ben H.).

It's not just a cute saying. Its a fact. Those who want to deny this fact might be more convincing if more Arab nations would simply recognize Israel's right to exist.

Cutting executive salaries

According to the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. pay czar will cut in half the average compensation for 175 employees at firms receiving large sums of government aid, with the vast majority of salaries coming in under $500,000, according to people familiar with the government's plans.

As expected, the biggest cut will be to salaries, which will drop by 90% on average.
I have a better idea. How about if we cut by 90% the salaries of those who voted for the bailouts in the first place!

Cutting executives salaries

News is that the administration is planning to drastically cut the salaries of corporate executives who received bailout money.

I've got a better idea. How about if we drastically cut the salaries of those who voted for the bailouts in the first place!

Yet another ACORN video

Here is the latest ACORN video from "Big Government." They "muted the audio of the ACORN employees...due to ACORN's legal attack..." I am amazed (though I shouldn't be) at how often the mainstream media simply buys into ACORN's lies without checking on the facts.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Check out

My congressman, John Kline, has a new website: Check it out!

The Islamic slave trade, part 5

From Jihad Watch:

The Islamic slave trade, part 4

From Jihad Watch:

The Islamic slave trade, part 3

This is getting depressing. It is hard to understand how people can be so satanically cruel to other human beings. From Jihad Watch:

The Islamic slave trade, part 2

From Jihad Watch:

The Islamic slave trade, part 1

Please try to find time out of your day to watch this 8 minute clip (via Jihad Watch).

Monday, October 19, 2009

White House campaign against Fox

There is something disturbing about a deliberate government smear campaign against a particular news organization. It smacks of the kind of thing dictatorships do just before they go into censorship mode.

The Obama administration's systematic efforts to discredit Fox News is ironic in light of the recent revelations by the White House Communication director about how the White House pretty much controls the news coming out of the main stream media. They apparently don't like any news they can't control.

If you're not a regular watcher of Fox News, it might be a good idea to find out what the White House is so afraid of.

Two million protest abortion

"Up to two million people took to the streets in Spain on Saturday to protest against Government plans to weaken the country’s abortion law" (

Iran threatenes a "crushing" strike

On Sunday there was a suicide attack against the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard which killed 42 people. Today, the commander of that military group claimed to have evidence that the United States, the UK and Pakistan were involved and he threatened "crushing" retaliation.

Surely the Obama administration wouldn't be behind a suicide bombing, would they? It is hard to imagine that the administration which so strongly condemned waterboarding would be behind a suicide terrorist attack that killed 42 people.

Reaction against the media

In light of yesterdays' post about the White House Communication Director admitting that they control the news, Rahm Emanuel's bashing of Fox News yesterday was ironic. I guess the White House doesn't like news they can't control, which is why they would undoubtedly love to see some version of the Fairness Doctrine imposed on talk radio.

Meanwhile, there may be (at long last) a bit of a reaction against lapdog media who are worshipers of Obama. Pamela Geller reports on nationwide rallies against mainstream media. Check out some of the protester's signs.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Barack Obama and fascism

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics provides the following explanation of fascism:
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it....Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities.
Isn't this pretty much what Barack Obama and the Democrats are trying to do to America?

Government controlled media

According to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, "Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control."

Some conservative pundits have half-joked about the mainstream media being the "government media." It sounds like these pundits were more accurate than I thought.

Defending terrorists with your money

This morning on Fox and Friends, Texas Representative John Culberson pointed out that because of a new law passed by Democrats, for the first time in U.S. history, enemy combatants captured on the field of battle can now "lawyer up" at taxpayer expense.

Question of the day: Would you rather spend your taxpayer dollars to educate our children, to help homeless Americans, to pay down our national debt, etc....or maybe you'd just like to keep more of those tax dollars to pay your own bills..........


would you rather spend all those millions of tax dollars paying lawyers to defend terrorists captured on the battlefield after those terrorists have been working hard to kill your sons and daughters!?

Your Democrat congresspeople have chosen to use your tax dollars to defend our enemies! If Democrats absolutely must allow our enemies a legal defense, couldn't the Democrats at least make the very-well-funded terrorist organizations pay for their own lawyers?

Could the Democrats possibly be any more out of touch?!!!

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Libraries banning books

According to an article in OneNewsNow, librarians are banning books about homosexuality. No, not those advocating homosexuality, but books about those who have left homosexual lifestyles:
The American Library Association (ALA) is being asked to include books on coming out of the homosexual lifestyle.

The American Library Assocation annually celebrates Banned Books Week (BBW) the last week of September. The Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) plans to capitalize on what they see as an opportunity.

Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX, says, "Books about leaving homosexuality are censored in most high school libraries, although gay-affirming books for youth are readily available."
When the American Library Association celebrates its annual "banned books week" they do not include the politically incorrect books librarians censor by deliberately excluding them from libraries. Read the entire article at OneNewsNow.

Anti-semitism and the Obama website

The Big Government post has a disturbing article about Barack Obama's official website:
The site was and is closely policed. The site moderators remove material that they consider to be “disrespectful to our other users” and to “detract from a welcoming community where all people can engage in positive discourse.” What they find disrespectful can be interesting: once during the campaign a conservative blogger, Bill Levinson, posted a blog on Obama’s website consisting entirely of a series of quotations from Obama’s own book, Dreams of my Father. Obama’s team did not approve of their standard-bearer’s words, and so Levinson’s blog and account were deleted from the Obama site in just under 36 hours. That’s right, Barack Obama’s website banned Obama’s own words. But the most disgusting anti-semitic ravings remained on the site, along with blogs advocating anarchy and the overthrow of the United States Congress.
Read the entire post at Big Government.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Christian media and ACORN

Doug Giles wants to know where the Christian media was when two Christian kids cracked the ACORN nut? Giles writes,
Now . . . I get that the former MSM is the mouthpiece for the Amerika that embraces Eurosocialism and all its weirdness, but the question I have, as a goofy sinner who’s part of Christ’s church, is this: Who the heck is the Christian media in the tank for? Their reportage on this ACORN slop has been conspicuously inconspicuous.
Giles continues,

No doubt some program directors and GMs are getting in a hissy right now and are saying, “Our shows only focus on Jesus!” Try to tell me with a straight face that the Christ of the Bible would be disinterested in two of His young followers devastating an organization that is on film aiding and abetting the sex trafficking of 13-year-olds. Go ahead. I’ll wait. (Insert the sound of crickets chirping here.)

Here’s a new motto I have for your networks: “Don’t Report. Don’t Complain.”

Excellent article. Read it here.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Only 54 billion dollars!

Democratic Senator Harry Reid admitted that the health care bill will actually cost two trillion dollars (yes, trillion, with a "t")! Furthermore, Reid rejected any effort on tort reform saying that it would only save 54 billion dollars (yes, billion, with a b). See Ed Morrissey for the story.

Apparently as long as it is your money, 54 billion dollars is not a lot of money to Mr. Reid and his Democrat friends!

Can these people possibly be any more out of touch? They are literally more dangerous to America's future than al Qaeda.

Are Taliban targeting Pakistan's nukes?

Are the Taliban targeting Pakistan's nukes? Sure sounds like it.

John Shelby Spong and paganism

From Don Phillips--New Paganism on the Crux blog:
A number of years ago Dr. Albert Mohler spoke at an EMNR conference and in his talk shared a story about Bishop John Shelby Spong. According to Mohler, at the Lambeth Conference, Spong had committed a cultural and political boo-boo. He had been pressing for the ordination of homosexuals but was unable to get the majority to agree at the time because the bishops from Africa held firmly against it. In a moment of frustration Spong lashed out with, “The reason the African bishops believe the Bible to literally is because they have been so recently converted from paganism.” To which the Bishop from Uganda responded, “The reason Spong doesn’t believe the Bible is because he has so recently been converted to paganism.”
John Shelby Spong was once the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark. He calls himself Christian even though he has denied virtually ever fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. I find it amazing how quickly these "tolerant," multicultural, "open-minded," academic liberal elites can become so arrogant, closed-minded, and condescending when their views are challenged.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

CAIR spying on national security committees?

According to The Hill:

Four House Republicans are accusing a Muslim advocacy group of trying to plant spies on Capitol Hill.

Republican members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus said the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have tried to plant “spies” within key national-security committees in order to shape legislative policy.
CAIR has responded by accusing its accusers of being hate-filled anti-Muslim racists.

First, the issue is not anti-Muslim, it is anti-CAIR. There is a difference.

Second, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with racism since Muslims are from all races.

Third, rather than issuing an intelligent response by attempting to allay concerns, CAIR responded like a child who, when caught doing wrong, lashes out in anger blaming someone else.

In my opinion, CAIR's response alone is enough reason to proceed with the investigation.

"We don't kidnap Imams"

Please take time to read the very short but excellent post entitled, "We don't kidnap Imams."

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Senate Finance Committee approves health care bill

Breaking news from USA Today/AP:
The Senate Finance Committee has approved a sweeping remake of the country's health care system, delivering a long-sought boost to President Obama's goal of expanding coverage. The 14-9 vote by the key panel sets up a debate on the Senate floor and moves a health care remake closer to reality than it has been for decades.
Our national socialist party has just moved us one more step on the road to socialism.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Voting on a bill that doesn't exist

According to an article on TownHall,
The Senate Finance Committee is poised to vote on a massive health care reform bill on Tuesday allegedly authored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). A glaring, outrageous, unreported fact is that the bill’s actual text has been kept secret. No one actually knows what’s in it – not even the senators who will be told to vote for it.
I must say that I agree with Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann who, according to the Townhall article,
took to the floor of the House during the earlier spendathon and said the nation is in the grip of “gangster government,” in which powerful interests are raiding the treasury to ensure their own continued power.

Global warming in Austria

The Austrian Times is reporting that"Austria’s provincial capitals are expected to see their earliest snowfalls in history today (Mon) as Arctic air sweeps the country."

Just think how bad it might have been were it not for global warming ;-)

Pulpit freedom Sunday

Recently the Alliance Defense Fund held "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" which is a peaceful event of civil disobedience in which pastors preach in specific opposition to the 1954 Johnson Amendment:
At the center of this free-speech issue is the 1954 Johnson Amendment initiated by then Sen. Lyndon Johnson. It was Johnson's move to halt pastors and conservative groups from opposing his election. Violators could lose their tax-exempt status (OneNewsNow).
The ADF (which, by the way, is very worthy of your financial support) was excited that "Eighty-three pastors from 30 states and the District of Columbia participated." I was one of them. This was up from 33 pastors in 20 states last year.

Frankly, I was disappointed. Only 83 pastors in America were willing to take a stand for freedom of speech and freedom of religion!?

That's sad.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Insurgents break into Pakistani army headquarters

I saw a TV news report this morning saying that gunmen dressed in Pakistani army uniforms broke into a Pakistani army headquarters and have taken hostages.


What I did not learn from TV, however, was that "lodged in the HQ compound is the secret department in charge of securing Pakistan's nuclear weapons."

I'm not yawning anymore. Something tells me these insurgents did not break into army headquarters for the military food (though I must say that I actually enjoyed military food).

The crisis is still going on as I write.

UPDATE: The Associated Press has more of the story (minus the nuke part)

UPDATE: As of 5:06pm EST it has been over 15 hours since this attack began and there is still a standoff. Pakistani commandos are ready to go in when they get the order. The building which the insurgents have taken is the Pakistani equivalent of our Pentagon.

UPDATE: From Associated Press/OneNews Now: "Pakistani commandos freed dozens of hostages seized by militants at the army's own headquarters Sunday, ending a deadly, 22-hour drama that embarrassed the nation's military as it plans a new offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban."

Ellison's Hajj to Mecca

Minnesota's Muslim Congressman, Kieth Ellison, made a "Hajj" to Mecca which was paid for ($13,350) by a group whose goal is to destroy America from within.

Friday, October 09, 2009

Higher priority than nuclear defense

Yesterday Recliner Commentaries reported on how the government cut funding for defending New York City against nuclear attack. Here are some of the projects that apparently have higher priority.

Unprovoked U.S. missile attack

In a blatant and unprovoked act of shear military aggression and imperialism, the United States today attacked the moon in search of water. This is the first time in history that one planet has launched an unprovoked attack on another planet in this solar system.

No word yet on whether the United Nations will call for sanctions.

See the Associated Press for the real story.

Obama--Nobel Peace Prize

Today it was announced the President Obama has received the Nobel Peace Prize. The deadline for submitting the nominations was only twelve days after he took office.

Do you think the Nobel Peace Prize might be just a wee bit political?

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Democrats cut money for NY nuclear defense

According to CBS:
Just weeks after Najibullah Zazi was nabbed in an al-Qaida terror plot to explode dirty bombs here, the feds have inexplicably slashed Big Apple terror funding designed to build a network of sensors to uncover nuclear or radioactive devices in a 50 miles radius of the city.
This is perfectly understandable. After giving stimulus money to criminals and for pornography and sex research, how can anyone expect that Democrats would have enough money for little things like protecting New York from nuclear attack?

The Democrats are running our country into bankruptcy, taking over banks, auto companies and the health care system; cutting our missile and nuclear defense systems. They offend our allies and appease our enemies! Honestly, I sometimes wonder whose side they're on!

Obama to accept Taliban involvement?

I first heard this on Hugh Hewitt: According to the Associated Press, "President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future"

Can you imagine during WWII, President Roosevelt announcing that he was prepared to accept some Nazi involvement in Europe's political future?

Muslim group calls for burka ban

In Canada a Muslim group is calling for a ban on wearing burkas in public. Farzana Hassan argues that "The burka marginalizes women" and that many women who cover their face in public are being forced to by their husbands and family."

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Is the U.S. preparing to bomb Iran?

Is the U.S. preparing to bomb Iran? This ABC News Report would seem to say, yes!

To quote that one time presidential candidate, John McCain: "Bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb bomb Iran."

Although many thought that was way too flippant, and although bombing Iran may have devastating consequences on the world economy, allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons would be like having a reincarnated version of Nazi Germany on steroids!

Sometimes there are no good choices. Only choices between the very bad and the unthinkable.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Mike Rogers on health care

Wow! Congressman Mike Rogers pretty much hits the nail on the head! Please, please take time to watch this video and send it to your friends! Your life may literally depend on it (hat tip: Kevin I).

The American form of government

Excellent video clip on the nature of governments. With the Obama administration, I think we are well on our way to the transition mentioned in the last few seconds of the clip (Hat tip: John W).

Monday, October 05, 2009

Conservative speaker censored

According to OneNewsNow,
Conservative activist David Horowitz has been asked not to present a speech titled "Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights" at St. Louis University.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Catholic school canceled his appearance because officials were concerned the speech could be viewed as "attacking another faith."

Have these Catholic academics ever read their Bible? The writers of the Old Testament constantly criticize the gods of the nations around them. Deuteronomy, for example, says,
"Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the alter you build to the LORD your God and to don erect a sacred stone for these the LORD your God hates" (Deut 16:21).
The Psalmist writes,
"The idols of the nations are silver and gold, made by the hands of men. they have mouths but cannot speak, eyes, but they cannot see, they have ears, but they cannot hear, nor is there breath in their mouths" (Ps 135:15-17).
And we won't even mention how "tolerant" Elijah was toward the prophets of Ba'al!

I can just hear them saying, Oh, but that was the Old Testament! But in the New Testament Paul tells his readers to flee idolatry (1 Cor. 10:14; Gal 5:20) and says that pagans who sacrifice to idols are sacrificing to demons (1 Cor 10:20-21).

Muslims and Evangelical Christians understand very well--even if modern liberals do not--that if the claims of Muhammad are true, Christianity cannot be true. If the claims of Christ are true, Islam cannot be true. For that matter, atheists understand that if atheism is true, all religions are lies.

This is a battle for truth and when liberal "Christian" purveyors of political correctness will not allow another religion to be criticized, they have surrendered the truth without a fight and come dangerously close to denying the faith they profess to proclaim.

What happened to academia as an open forum for debating ideas?

Windows Live Hotmail hacked

Just in from USA Breaking News on Twitter: Warning to Windows Live Hotmail users: Thousands of user accounts have been hacked. Change your passwords!

Sunday, October 04, 2009

ACORN hired convicts still in prison

"Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, a democrat, told Eric Shawn on FOX News that ACORN was hiring convicts still in prison -CONVICTED OF IDENTITY THEFT- for canvassing voters." Read the story on Big Government.

Do we have any Woodwards and Bernsteins who are exploring Barack Obama's connections with ACORN when he proudly served as their lawyer? What did Mr. Obama know and when did he know it?

And now, a word from our President

It's a terrible impersonation and its not very funny but it is enlightening. I wonder if President Obama is feeling the same way as President Nixon did when he heard a news report on the Vietnam War from Walter Cronkite and said, "If I've lost Walter, I've lost the country."

Saturday, October 03, 2009

"Progress comes in fits and starts"

Responding to the increase in the unemployment rate to 9.8%, President Obama said it was a reminder that "progress comes in fits and starts."

We've had a steady increase in unemployment to the highest level in decades! Only a politician could describe this as "progress" with a straight face.

Discovery of Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus)

This morning Fox and Friends was reporting about the discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus, affectionately being called "Ardi," which was supposedly a human ancestor which lived four million years ago. The impression I got from the scientist interviewed on Fox and Friends was that the data was unquestioned. That is not the case:
So what do we have with “Ardi”? We have an extremely crushed “Irish stew” fossil that has undergone extensive reconstruction in order to become part of a PR campaign to make bold claims of ancestral status to the human line, even though at base its qualities are very similar to previously known fossils, and there's a lot of skepticism about the claims being made. In other words, we have the typical media circus that we find every time a new "missing link" is found.
Read, "Artifically Reconstructed 'Ardi' Overturns Prevailing Evolutionary Hypotheses of Human Evolution."

U.N. resolution against freedom of speech

The United States has co-sponsored an U.N. resolution that threatens free speech. We are sponsoring exactly the same kind of ideology that has put pastors in jail in England, Canada and Australia.

Friday, October 02, 2009

Olympics in Rio. It's Bush's fault!

By now everyone knows that although President Obama gave it his best shot to get the Olympics in Chicago, they are going to be held in Rio de Janeiro.

One of Illinois Democrat Senators, Rolland Burris knows just who to blame. Not Brazil or Rio de Janeiro. Not the Olympic committee. Certainly not Chicago or Barack Obama.

According to Burris, it's George Bush's fault!

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the lunacy!

Stimulating the economy

Many Americans think of the Democrats as the party of the people while the Republican are the party of big business. I wonder if most people have noticed that the vast amount of stimulus money went to very, very rich elites and very little went to average people unless it "trickled down."

It was Republicans, on the other hand, who proposed that instead of a trillion-dollar stimulus, maybe everyone should be freed from paying all taxes for about six months. That would have put money in everyone's pocket. That would have stimulated everyone's "economy" and may have lessened the number of foreclosures and repossessions to boot.

Even if people had chosen to pay off their debt or put the money in savings, that would have made more money available through banks to help individuals and businesses (and maybe saved a few banks from failing)!

But Democrats wanted a trillion dollars of your money give to their cronies and special interests and to consolidate their power! With today's news of 9.8% unemployment, they don't appear to have stimulated much of the economy.

Unemployment now at 9.8%

President Obama promised that the stimulus package would cap the unemployment at 8.0%. Unfortunately, unemployment is still rising. Today it reached 9.8%, the highest in 26 years.
According to an Associated Press report, those who have given up looking for jobs or who have settled for part-time work were included, the actual unemployment rate would be 17%!

How high will it have to go before Democrats concede that the stimulus did not work as advertised?

Pornography and child molestation

A report by OneNewsNow says,
Morality in Media (MIM) has posted a report online showing a relationship between adult pornography and child molestation.

The report covers various sources -- news articles, court cases, studies, books, and congressional testimony -- published from 1980 to present. Among their findings -- child molesters use adult porn to "groom" their victims; many perpetrators progress from viewing adult porn to viewing child porn; and children imitate with other children the behavior they view in adult porn. (View MIM's report [PDF])
This is not the first time a connection has been demonstrated between pornography and child abuse and other sexual violence. As early as 1986, The "Final Report on the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography" made this connection very clear.

Freedom of Speech is the freedom to express ideas. Would our founding fathers have supported the idea that Freedom of Speech included the freedom to publish lewd or obscene pictures? I seriously doubt it.

Our government takes obesity and smoking seriously but they do not take pornography seriously, yet many--including me--would argue that pornography is a more serious threat to America than smoking and obesity combined.

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Banned Books: A reality check

The American Library Association is currently holding its annual "Banned Books Week." The number one "banned book" in America for 2008 was "And Tango Makes Three" by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson.

A quick reality check might be in order.

Since the 2009 "Banned Books Week" celebrates books "banned" in 2008, I thought I'd check the 2008 New York Times bestseller lists. I was looking for 1) books published by conservative religious publishing companies, e.g. Thomas Nelson, Tyndale, Zondervan, etc. and 2) politically conservative books whether religious or not.

I then checked these books on WorldCat to find out how many libraries owned each of the books.

The result was that out of 17 books (My apologies if I missed any conservative books), only two of them were held by more libraries than the most "banned" book in America,!

Here is the breakdown listed in order of the number of WorldCat libraries that own each book. The number in parenthesis after the title is the number of weeks the book appeared on the New York Times bestseller lists for 2008.

3,011 McCain, John. Faith of my Fathers (25)
1,968 Dungy, Tony. Quiet Strength (32)
1,841 Parnell, Peter. And Tango Makes Three (0)

1,741 Rice, Anne. Christ the Lord; the Road to Cana (3)
1,649 O'Reilly, Bill. A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity (12)
1,518 Morris, Dick. Fleeced (18)
1,506 Goldberg, Jonah. Liberal Fascism (11)
1,483 Beck, Glenn. Christmas Sweater (5)
1,442 Corsi, Jerome. The Obama Nation (8)
1,438 Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God (8)
1,415 Beck, Glenn. An Inconvenient Book (17)
1,366 Gosselin, Jon. Multiple Blessings (8)
1,328 Gingrich, Newt. Real Change (11)
1,174 Huckabee, Mike. Do the Right Thing (4)
1,168 Freddoso, David. The Case against Barack Obama (7)
860 Spears, Lynn. Through the Storm (2)
839 Johnson, Kaylene. Sarah [Palin] (1)
708 Nugent, Ted. Ted, White and Blue (2)

Banned indeed!