2009-01-15

Mohler comments on the report Sex and the Seminary by a group of bible-rejecting individuals who would have seminaries have inclusive policies to practitioners of homosexuality and transgender individuals. Those behind this report are trying to push for changes in accreditation to this effect, as they struggle to push the sexual revolution into seminaries. Mohler questions whether, given such a large divide, there is any basis for shared accreditation. Already, many seminaries have capitulated to the deconstruction of biblical morality: "many of these schools have already joined that bandwagon.  They long ago abandoned biblical authority and the Gospel and transformed Christianity into a form of sexualized paganism.  The "worship" practices revealed in the report suffice to establish that point." "Together," the report concludes, "we can assure that future religious leaders will indeed be pastors for sexual health and prophets for sexual justice."  If you understand what those words mean, you will see that statement for the threat that it is. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3091

Hays comments on some things related to the abortion debate. 1) Parents are often seen to value their children above anything. "It’s bizarre that so many parents are so possessive about children after they’re born, but so callous about children before they’re born. How quickly go from being disposable to being indispensable." 2) To the counter that this is because of the relationship after birth, Hays points out that this doesn't seem to square with the intense interest people have for family members that they didn't or never knew, like a long lost brother or father. 3) "this raises the question of whether children are valuable because we value them, or whether we value them because they are valuable." However, the secular idea that nothing has intrinsic value cannot be used to justify abortion because the same reasoning justifies homicide. "is homicide justifiable on the grounds that every man or woman should be valued by someone else?" 4) People would be outraged if you were a serial cat-killer. Cats have a pretty low IQ. Even if they were just your cats AND you killed them painlessly, and they had no bond with these cats [very true - people are more outraged about animal 'cruelty' than abortion] they'd violate your autonomy to protect the cats. 5) Ditto for trees. Trees also don't fair well in the personhood scale. 6) "Many environmentalists and conservationists value trees more than people. After all, a Redwood will vastly outlive anyone human individual." And the maturation of the tree makes no difference to them. They prevent private land-owners from cutting down trees. "A conservationist will argue that the fate of the forest is a larger concern. That the general public should have a say in its survival. As long as other people want it, it doesn’t matter what the developer wants. And why doesn’t that same logic apply to babies? Why does the mother or father have the final say-so?" 7) Do we punish a murderer because he killed a person or because he deprived him of his future? 8) Many critics think that the dropping the A-bomb was immoral, arguing on the basis of the birth defects of future children. But these were only possible children when the bomb was dropped. They didn't exist. "How is that worse than abortion, which takes the life of an actual existent? " 9) "Why do we feel worse when someone young dies instead of someone old? Because someone young had his whole future ahead of him. His life was cut tragically short. He died prematurely... Well, isn’t abortion the limiting case of that intuition?" If anything, the earlier, the greater the wrong. Valuing life

Here's more on how the ease of access to information can make you dumber. iPhones Have Consequences

Several news stories are quoted here that report or predict some of the coldest temperatures (in response to a commentator dogmatically insisting that anthropogenic global warming is true). Global warming is real!

Hays points to some atheists who have posed a 'de-conversion wager', as if the logic of Pascal's wager were reversible. They simply go on to assert that you should live good (as if they have a frame of reference/they have something to gain), and at the end of it, even if there was a god a benevolent god would just judge you on your good deeds (as if God-deniers are privy to what a real God would do). The deconversion wager

Here's a short PDF study on the word often translated 'all' in the NT: Does all mean all -

Lots of Carson MP3's! Carson MP3s Online for Free

JT links to an article that briefly talks about an advisory coalition of liberals and evangelicals that have some suggestions for Obama: "The recommendations include a framework for reducing demand for abortion without further restricting abortion rights, through initiatives like grants for sex education that emphasizes abstinence but includes contraception, an expanded adoption tax credit" On Abortion and Gay Rights, Evangelicals and Liberals Join to Advise Obama

Phillips illustrates how dumb it would be for pastors to disobey God because they've 'had a bad experience with people.' So why is it that laymen think they can consider themselves to have the excuse not for why they can disobey commands about church, etc? It comes down to the fact that someone else's sin is never an excuse for your own. Is God worthy of believing obedience or not? Turning tables (or pulpits)

Swan points to Cathoogle: "Cathoogle is powered by Google using "safe search" technology, it produces balanced results from all perspectives, from sites all over the internet with more weighting to given to Catholic websites and sites containing content relating to Catholics and Catholicism."" He would like to "publicly thank Cathgoogle for allowing my site to be on their safe search engine, and for also considering aomin, ntrmin, ChristianTruth.com, and Turretinfan a "balanced result."" [that's funny in case it isn't clear - in which case never mind] (title unknown)

Swan writes this self-explanatory statement: "In the past, I've had a hard time with Roman Catholics on Galatians 1:6-8. I've tried to get them to admit, from their perspective, that I, as a Protestant, should be viewed as eternally condemned because I don't believe the gospel officially taught by the Roman Church. But, the answer I've repeatedly gotten is that I can only be eternally condemned if I know the Catholic Church is the true church and I still reject her. What sophistry!" An interesting only debate from the Catholic Answers forums

"Dr. Haykin’s latest book, The Christian Lover: The Sweetness of Love and Marriage in the Letters of Believers, has just been released by Ligonier’s Reformation Trust publishing arm." It contains various love letters from significant marriages throughout church history. Dr. Haykin’s Latest Book- The Christian Lover- The Sweetness of Love and Marriage in the Letters

"While the world focused on Hamas militants launching rockets from Gaza at southern Israel, the terrorist organization also voted quietly to implement Islamic law in the Gaza Strip, including crucifixion of Christians, according to reports in the Arabic press." "But the media scarcely took notice when the decision was reported during the Christian holidays as fighting between Hamas and Israel escalated in late December." http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Hamas_bombs_Gaza_Israel/2009/01/09/169756.html. HT: Points of Interest. Also: "George Barna is reporting that Christianity is no longer the default religion of Americans."