Paragon of Intolerance

Islam is probably the most intolerant of all religions on earth. Salman Rushdie, a British writer, is now in hiding because the Ayatohlahs of Iran have sanctioned a death warrant for his execution after Rushdie published a book called "The Satanic Verses," which is critical of Islam. When Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh's "Submission," a film critical of the treatment of women in Islam aired last year on Dutch TV, a Muslim terrorist shot Van Gogh near his home, slashed his throat, and pinned a threatening note to his body. Closer to home, Hossam Armanious, a professing Christian, along with his wife and two daughters, were found stabbed to death in their Jersey City home last month. Police investigators found that Armanious regularly debated religion in a Middle Eastern chat room, where witnesses say that he was threatened for making anti-Muslim remarks online. The gruesome slayings may have been hateful retaliation, according to The New York Post's sources.

A religion of peace? You shall know a tree by its fruit.

Hold Your Tongue

On this day, the anniversary of the birth of George Washington, let us catch a glimpse of the character of the man, a fearless leader, committed to the highest codes of conduct, and unashamed of his spirituality. The following General Orders, written on August 3, 1776 were issued to the Continental army at New York before the Battle of Long Island and is known as Washington's order on profanity:

"That the Troops may have an opportunity of attending public worship, as well as take some rest after the great fatigue they have gone through; The General in future excuses them from fatigue duty on Sundays (except at the Ship Yards, or special occasions) until further orders. The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example, as well as influence, endeavour to check it, and that both they, and the men will reflect, that we can have little hopes of the blessing of Heaven on our Arms, if we insult it by our impiety, and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it."

From that standard, it sure seems like there is much vice and folly today. Not even the halls of government have been spared, as the Vice President, Dick Cheney, is known to have uttered profanity at a Senator, Leahy, for the Senator's persistent insinuation of wrongdoing on the part of the Vice President.

We have come a long way from George Washington.

The Meaning of Life and World View

In the naturalistic, atheistic point of view, there is no meaning and purpose to life other than what men and their societies create. Thus, for example, the meaning and purpose of life in Western civilizations such as Europe and North America is different from the meaning and purpose of life in Eastern Civilizations such as India. Which civilization has the truth? To the naturalists and atheists, neither one has the truth. People's respective points of view are a product of their struggle with the environment and of the evolutionary process. Man is evolving from a primitive stage to a more advanced stage.

In the Christian world view, the unity of meaning and purpose for all men regardless of race comes from the fact that all humans are descended from one man and one woman who were created in the image of God, and were created to be stewards of all the creation. Man has failed in that purpose by his disobedience to his Creator. There is a broken relationship between God and humans and all creation. Yet, God's purpose for humans has not been frustrated because a new Adam stands as representative Man for all mankind with perfect obedience to the Creator. This new Adam is not Himself created but His existence is from eternity, yet He is perfectly human because He entered time and space by being born of a human mother who had not had any sexual intercourse with man. This new Adam is Jesus Christ who died and resurrected to pay the death penalty for all men. He is coming back one day to establish political rule on the earth over all mankind, and material rule over all physical creation, thus fulfilling God's original purpose.

To realize this as the truth about humanity in general and oneself in particular is to be saved. The essence of salvation is to accept this as the meaning and purpose of life and realize it for one's self. To accept His revelation as the truth is to believe Him and accept Him for who He is, God almighty. Salvation is a change in world view.

Main Stream Media Drops Ball Again*

Fresh from the Dan Rather-CBS scandal airing forged documents, The MSM
(Main Stream Media) seems to have dropped the ball again. The head of international news at CNN, Eason Jordan, was at an international gathering where he "asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd)." He said this at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The MSM in the U.S. never reported it. The new media, in particular, the internet web loggers picked up on Jordan's remark and researched Jordan's previous statements. What has emerged is a pattern of slandering the U.S. Military on the part of this man. When he was asked to provide proof of the statements that he made, he could show no proof or documentation for such charges. Jordan has resigned his position. CNN did not want to be dragged down by this man's anti-U.S. agenda.

*Powerlineblog and Hugh Hewitt are my sources for this news.

Ambition, Expectations, and Devotion

I am reading Alexandre Dumas’ “The Count of Monte Cristo.” In the chapter called “Father and Son,” Bonapartist M. Noirtier responds to his Royalist son’s cynicism of the devotion of the followers of Napoleon. “Yes, devotion,” M. Noirtier remarked. “That is the honest way to describe ambition when it has expectations.”

We see a lot of devotion in today’s political parties and advocacy groups. In some groups, the devotion approaches a level of fanaticism. The men and women in these groups are very ambitious and their ambitions are fueled by very high expectations. The political process has rewarded their expectations with promises of more. Such is their devotion.

What about the materialist and his devotion to the acquisition of wealth? It is true that he is a very ambitions person. His high expectations of the economic system are based on past and future rewards that can be obtained from it.

You and I know of some people who seem to have no commitment in their job or their studies. Do they lack ambition? Perhaps not. They may be ambitious but have not seen or cannot now see any guarantee of a successful career, and thus have no expectations, and thus, no devotion.

This is no less true in spiritual matters. Christ’s promise, “I will raise him up in the last day,” has created a great expectation in human beings whose ambition is to conquer old age and death, and has inspired devotion among Christ followers.

The question is, is the object of our devotion able to deliver? Napoleon returned from Elba for only 100 days and was soon deposed after Waterloo. Political parties rule for four years, perhaps eight. Economic cycles are often unpredictable and men have lost fortunes due to a bad investment, and a college education does not guarantee success in life.

Christ however guarantees the resurrection with His own come-back from the grave. Unlike Napoleon, political parties, economies or great Universities, Christ has the power to grant your expectations and ambitions, based on His promises and terms. Get to know Him today.

tiny-dna-stumps-mighty-darwin

The complexity of the cell, in particular DNA, which was not understood during the time of Darwin would now throw Darwin's theory of Natural Selection into chaos.

In a previous post, I talked about the principle of Irreducible Complexity as a major obstacle to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. There are many more examples of complex structures that could not have come about by natural selection. These complex structures need ALL of the elements to be present and functioning together, and not gradually building up as Evolutionary theory prescribes.

Evolutionists cite laboratory experiments that were able to produce a molecule of water by passing an electric current in a gaseous mixture of hydrogen and oxygen as an example of the spontaneous phenomena that could produce the building blocks of life. They say lightning could have hit a primordial gas to form water and start the chain of life.
That experiment does not even come close to approximating the astounding complexity
required in the composition of a single strand of DNA. Amino Acids have a property known as Chirality. To illustrate this property, amino acids are termed "right handed" or "left handed", referring to their structures. A DNA chain must be composed of hundreds of amino acids that are either all "right handed" or all "left handed". This will allow the amino acids to bond to their opposite nucleotides and form DNA. A single error in the hundreds of amino acids renders the chain useless and DNA would not survive.

This is totally different from a single molecule of water. All laboratory attempts to produce amino acids have consistently produced equal proportions of "right handed" and "left handed" amino acids. Despite all the advances in scientific technique, separation of right handed from left handed amino acids has been impossible. The chance of these "pure" acids' natural occurrence is zero and thus, Natural Selection, Darwin's cornerstone theory, could never account for the formation of DNA, the basic building block of all living things.

It sure takes a lot of (blind) faith to believe in Evolution.

Looking Back at the Sexual Revolution

I would like to recommend a very well-written article on sexuality in today's culture in The Illinois Leader. It is analytical, enlightening, and comprehensive. The link to the article is here:

Sexual Revolution Knocked Sex Off Track Part 1.

and here: Part 2.

Thanks to The Alliance Defense Fund for referring this article.

Update: The Illionis Leader has gone out of circulation. I will replace this topic with another one. - Norm

Insatiable Thirst for Legitimacy

The primary motivation behind the homosexual movement is its need for legitimacy. While the American constitution has a foundational respect for the dignity of all human beings, it is not enough for those who practice homosexuality to be recognized as human beings. To them the American Constitution does not go far enough. It does not grant legitimacy to their sexual orientation, preference, and practice. Thus, under the cover of "equal rights", what the homosexual movement has been able to accomplish is achieve special rights. With the help of sympathetic federal judges, the homosexuals have been given special treatment because they are not just human beings like everybody else. They have become a protected class of people, and to accomodate them the nation must now abandon its religious heritage, beliefs, morality, and freedom of religious expression.

This is not merely political but deeply psychological. They cannot find any basis in natural law or natural history for this practice. Trying to stifle the inner voice that cries out against the abnormal, the homosexual uses the freedoms granted by society to remake society. He tries to abolish any and all reminders of cultural taboos. He searches for every bit of evidence from science, history, and current events, anywhere in order to convince himself and society that his situation is normal. Like a virus that feeds on its host, the homosexual movement feeds on the culture, breaking down its resistance, capturing the media, turning shame into glory, revising history, trying to replicate among elementary schools and multiply by recruitment. The homosexual quest for legitimacy is insatiable. Just as the host is soon used up by a virus, so a culture will soon be changed beyond recognition.

An Addiction to Big Government

At the heart of the Democratic Party's reluctance to endorse President
George W. Bush's initiative to reform Social Security is their socialist
mentality, an addiction to big government. The leadership of the Party
would rather trust in government than in market forces. They believe more in
the state's taxing power than in ownership of stocks and bonds. The stock
market has returned consistently 8% to 10% annually over a 25-year period
but the Democrats have no faith in this statistic at all. They would
rather rely on accounting hocus-pocus to make it appear that social
security is in good shape. Also, the politicians do not want to loose that big
pool of money that they can dip into from time to time in order to fund big
socialistic programs. They forget that the government and the Social
Security system is subject to economic laws and forces, and there are
inevitable consequences if they are ignored. One of those laws is that
you cannot get more than what you put in. There are less and less workers
to fund a steady and increasing retirement population. It doesn't take an
expert to figure out that soon the funds will be exhausted. Perhaps the
Democrats are counting on future tax increases to bail out the Social Security
system.

Taking a Stand or Standing Down?

I heard this conversation told this morning on Bill Bennet's "Morning in
America" show:

Question from person who failed to watch the broadcast of the State of the
Union: "Did the Democrats stand during the applause when President Bush
mentioned the need for Social Security reform?"

Response: "The Democrats don't stand for anything."

Leave Social Security Alone For The Democrats

The Democratic Party says that there is nothing wrong with Social Security.
They must be dreaming or they must be "spinning." In my lifetime alone,
the retirement age has been pushed back once, which effectively decreases
my benefits should I decide to retire at the same age. There is no
assurance that it won't get pushed back again. I also know that people's
life expectancies are improving, thanks to advances in medicine and health
care, thus prolonging the time period that Social Security is called upon
to provide benefits. The working population of the U.S. has not kept pace
with the aging population, thanks to legalized abortion (40 million babies
aborted since RoeVWade). Thus, there is something instinctively wrong with
the official Democratic Party line to leave Social Security alone. The
explanation for this must be the following:

1) The Democratic Party does not want the Republican Party to get the
credit for improving one of the greatest institutions of the U.S. They
would rather wait when the Democratic Party is in power, before improving
Social Security for political reasons.

2) The Democratic Party will oppose anything that President George W. Bush
is in favor of. The upcoming chairman of the Democratic Party, former
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is quoted by the New York Daily News as saying, "I
hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." Dean was addressing a
DNC forum at a Manhattan Hotel, Jan. 30, 2005.