I really want to share a recent news story with everyone. This story is about Omaha area ministers uniting in signing a proclamation regarding homosexuality. They feel that Christians owe the homosexual community an apology. (Are they apologizing for the Bible or for the One who wrote it?) I was going to include excerpts here on the blog until I noticed the following sentence at the bottom of the story...
Copyright 2011 by KETV.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
I want to be very cautious in following these guidelines. Instead of publishing any part of this story I will just add the link to this post. I must say though that there is no fear of any of the ministers at Valley View signing this proclamation. These "Omaha area ministers" are either extremely ignorant of Biblical truth or they are intentionally rebellious.
It seems that many professing Christians either don't believe that by one man sin entered the world and sin has therefore been passed down from generation to generation or they have forgotten Biblical history. Yes, man was created in the image of God. However, man has sinned and is no longer perfect. This means that we cannot claim "God created them this way" as an excuse.
Can the murderer claim that God created him to be a murderer? Can the fornicator claim God created him to fornicate? Can the liar say that lying is perfectly acceptable because God created him to lie? How about the adulterer, pedophile, thief or spousal abuser?
No, sin is to blame! Don't be deceived, God is not mocked. Only one man was born perfect. That man didn't have an earthly father. Oh, and don't think I am referring to Adam, he was created - not born.
Romans 1:26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Here it is...
http://www.ketv.com/news/28214658/detail.html
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Pet Peeve
In Romans chapter 1 Paul talks about how people abandon the God of creation and "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator..."
I believe the following story makes perfect sense when one considers the lie of evolution that has been adopted as truth in this country. Since we supposedly evolved from animals we now have to be politically correct when referring to our pets.
The Journal of Animal Ethics says calling the family dog a pet is simply derogatory. Instead, editors of the journal said owners should call their dogs and cats "companion animals."
According to the article, the term '"pets,' whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint."
And don't call rats, raccoons or any other woodland fauna "wild animals," or "pests." The journal asks people to call all those untamed animals "free-living" or "free-roaming."
*"We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them," the journal argued.
Veterinarian Jane Corkum said that the politically-correct terms might be a little overboard. But she said the idea of identifying an "animal-companion" as more than just a critter is important to most pet owners. "I don't find it an offense to calling them a pet because I think of my pet as a friend or as a companion, so I think it is just a word," said Corkum. "But I can certainly see why some people do want to get rid of it and just call them a companion or a friend or family member even."© 2004-2011 LSN, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Story posted 2011.05.10 at 10:30 AM CDT (KETV)
http://www.localwireless.com/wap/news/text.jsp?sid=140&nid=48332554&cid=16030&scid=-1&oid=140&device=android,shadow_vzw,verizon,DROIDX,2.2.1&speed=21952&version=1.1.0%22
*"think clearly"?
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools... Romans 1:22
I believe the following story makes perfect sense when one considers the lie of evolution that has been adopted as truth in this country. Since we supposedly evolved from animals we now have to be politically correct when referring to our pets.
The Journal of Animal Ethics says calling the family dog a pet is simply derogatory. Instead, editors of the journal said owners should call their dogs and cats "companion animals."
According to the article, the term '"pets,' whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint."
And don't call rats, raccoons or any other woodland fauna "wild animals," or "pests." The journal asks people to call all those untamed animals "free-living" or "free-roaming."
*"We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them," the journal argued.
Veterinarian Jane Corkum said that the politically-correct terms might be a little overboard. But she said the idea of identifying an "animal-companion" as more than just a critter is important to most pet owners. "I don't find it an offense to calling them a pet because I think of my pet as a friend or as a companion, so I think it is just a word," said Corkum. "But I can certainly see why some people do want to get rid of it and just call them a companion or a friend or family member even."© 2004-2011 LSN, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Story posted 2011.05.10 at 10:30 AM CDT (KETV)
http://www.localwireless.com/wap/news/text.jsp?sid=140&nid=48332554&cid=16030&scid=-1&oid=140&device=android,shadow_vzw,verizon,DROIDX,2.2.1&speed=21952&version=1.1.0%22
*"think clearly"?
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools... Romans 1:22
Monday, February 21, 2011
Compartmentalized
I have been reading about this idea of compartmentalization. The reason for this is that David Barton referred to a time in American history when everyone in politics had to affirm a Christian doctrinal statement in order to serve in public office. In fact, he went on to say that for 200 years it was imperative that voters looked at the private life of an individual to know if he would be fit for public service.
We have now encountered a shift in societal thinking. Now people assert that public and private life are unrelated. This means that many Americans would say that though a man does not operate morally in his private life, he will still perform the duties of his public office morally. The politician may behave and live in one manner, yet that lifestyle will have no effect on his policy decisions. People blindly trust this to be the case when they support Supreme Court Justices. They believe that each Justice is capable of separating their world view (their belief system) from their rulings. This idea of separation is called compartmentalization.
I have heard that Bertrand Russell was one of the early proponents of compartmentalization in politics. He was opposed to the idea that those in political office must affirm Christian principles. In fact, he openly condemned the very idea of Christianity...
“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably, some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he does not dare face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they are disputed.”
Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics
While America slept, Bertrand Russell (British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian) was able to influence the landscape of American politics. The attacks from Academia don't end there. Finite human reason and logic are the only basis for intellectualism today. If one looks to any power other than human intelligence alone he is ridiculed and abased. These attacks on Christianity and our Creator are blatant and condemning. Yet Christians sleep.
*Robert Green Ingersoll:
“I do not regard religious opinions…as exotics that have to be kept under glass, protected from the frosts of common sense or the tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants are hardly worth preserving. They certainly ought to be hardy enough to stand the climate of free discussion, and if they cannot, the sooner they die the better.”
*American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism.
We sleep because we have been lulled into compartmentalization. We have bought into the thinking that there is a disconnect between sacred and secular. Sacred is for the church in very compartmentalized ways, secular is for every other area of our lives... work, home, play, etc.,
Let me illustrate by asking how we should apply the following verse:
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
II Peter 2:1-2
We have now encountered a shift in societal thinking. Now people assert that public and private life are unrelated. This means that many Americans would say that though a man does not operate morally in his private life, he will still perform the duties of his public office morally. The politician may behave and live in one manner, yet that lifestyle will have no effect on his policy decisions. People blindly trust this to be the case when they support Supreme Court Justices. They believe that each Justice is capable of separating their world view (their belief system) from their rulings. This idea of separation is called compartmentalization.
I have heard that Bertrand Russell was one of the early proponents of compartmentalization in politics. He was opposed to the idea that those in political office must affirm Christian principles. In fact, he openly condemned the very idea of Christianity...
“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably, some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he does not dare face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they are disputed.”
Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics
While America slept, Bertrand Russell (British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian) was able to influence the landscape of American politics. The attacks from Academia don't end there. Finite human reason and logic are the only basis for intellectualism today. If one looks to any power other than human intelligence alone he is ridiculed and abased. These attacks on Christianity and our Creator are blatant and condemning. Yet Christians sleep.
*Robert Green Ingersoll:
“I do not regard religious opinions…as exotics that have to be kept under glass, protected from the frosts of common sense or the tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants are hardly worth preserving. They certainly ought to be hardy enough to stand the climate of free discussion, and if they cannot, the sooner they die the better.”
*American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism.
We sleep because we have been lulled into compartmentalization. We have bought into the thinking that there is a disconnect between sacred and secular. Sacred is for the church in very compartmentalized ways, secular is for every other area of our lives... work, home, play, etc.,
Let me illustrate by asking how we should apply the following verse:
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
II Peter 2:1-2
Thursday, February 17, 2011
February Special
We had a violin concert at the house today as Becky was getting the girls ready for their special music this Sunday. Enjoy!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Anti-Evolution Crusade
I have posted the following article in blue ink. The black font is mine.
"Science Guy" Bill Nye: Anti-Evolution Crusade "Horrible"
Opinion by AUSCS
Religion / Religion in Society
By Sandhya Bathija
With Darwin Day (Feb. 12) just around the corner, scientists, educators and citizens across the world are gearing up to celebrate the birth of Charles Darwin and his contributions to science.
As Bill Nye “The Science Guy” recently put it, teachers’ reluctance to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution is “horrible.” Scientific advances that benefit everyone could be at risk if students don’t learn sound science.
“People make flu vaccinations that stop people from getting sick,” he said. “Farmers raise crops with science; they hybridize them and make them better with every generation. That’s all evolution. Evolution is a theory, and it’s a theory that you can test. We’ve tested evolution in many ways. You can’t present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact. ”
The statements made here are pretty bold, however, they are also deceptive. Darwin's theory of evolution regarding changes within a species is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the "origin" of the species. I contend that you can't present any evidence that says origins evolution is a fact.
Additionally, if you were to take Darwin at his word, then you wouldn't care much about whether we could make flu vaccinations. After all, survival of the fittest is all about weeding out the weak. Disease and death is to the advantage of the origins evolutionist and is a valuable tool for natural selection. Finding and using vaccines keeps the weak in the gene pool and hinders our ability to evolve into a stronger species.
Yet some Religious Right-oriented state legislators across the country want to derail the teaching of evolution and weaken science education in public schools. We are barely into 2011 and, according to the National Center for Science Education, already four states are pondering anti-evolution bills, including: New Mexico, Oklahoma (where there are two anti-evolution bills!), Missouri and Kentucky.
All of these measures are carefully crafted with creationist code language intended to sidestep decades of federal court decisions preventing creationism from being taught in public schools. These courts have ruled time and time again that creationism is religious dogma and our Constitution prevents our public schools from favoring any religious belief.
"creationist code language"?
By the way, can someone show me where our Constitution prevents our public schools from favoring any religious belief?
The latest bill, out of New Mexico, HB 302, would allow teachers to inform students “about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses” pertaining to “controversial” topics. The bill would protect teachers from “reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so.
The Oklahoma Senate bill, SB 554, provides that teachers and administrators be free to inform students about “relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses of controversial topics in sciences,” where such topics “include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution.” The bill also ensures that teachers not be disciplined for teaching science in this manner.
Oklahoma’s House Bill, HB 1551, sponsored by the Religious Right favorite Sally Kern, an avid anti-evolutionist, requires that teachers be permitted to teach the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.”
And why is it that teachers shouldn't be permitted to teach "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories"?
Missouri’s HB 195 uses similar “academic freedom” type language, calling on teachers to encourage students to explore “scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution.” The bill also requires teachers to find “more effective ways” to teach scientific controversies.
And why is it that teachers shouldn't encourage students to explore "scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately..."?
Kentucky’s HB 169, the first anti-evolution bill of 2011, would allow teachers to “use, as permitted by the local school board, other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner.”
And why is it that teachers shouldn't be permitted to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner?
Most of these bills are similar to legislation introduced in past years that have failed to become law. The bad news is that those who want our public schools to adopt poor science standards just won’t go away.
If you live in any of these states, let your state legislators know you want strong science standards in your home state.
"Strong science standards" apparently means everything occurred "accidentally". If it didn't occur accidentally then it is not to be considered science.
As “The Science Guy” said, “”Science is the key to our future, and if you don’t believe in science, then you’re holding everybody back.”
I doubt that anyone is claiming they "don't believe in science". Here again they are twisting the truth to propagate their agenda. An agenda that is a direct attack on the Lord Jesus Christ as the Creator and sustainer of all life. How can we as believers bury our heads in the sand and pretend that Satan is not at work in this world?
The information in this post came from the following link...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/science-guy-bill-nye-anti-evolution-crusade-horrible
"Science Guy" Bill Nye: Anti-Evolution Crusade "Horrible"
Opinion by AUSCS
Religion / Religion in Society
By Sandhya Bathija
With Darwin Day (Feb. 12) just around the corner, scientists, educators and citizens across the world are gearing up to celebrate the birth of Charles Darwin and his contributions to science.
As Bill Nye “The Science Guy” recently put it, teachers’ reluctance to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution is “horrible.” Scientific advances that benefit everyone could be at risk if students don’t learn sound science.
“People make flu vaccinations that stop people from getting sick,” he said. “Farmers raise crops with science; they hybridize them and make them better with every generation. That’s all evolution. Evolution is a theory, and it’s a theory that you can test. We’ve tested evolution in many ways. You can’t present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact. ”
The statements made here are pretty bold, however, they are also deceptive. Darwin's theory of evolution regarding changes within a species is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the "origin" of the species. I contend that you can't present any evidence that says origins evolution is a fact.
Additionally, if you were to take Darwin at his word, then you wouldn't care much about whether we could make flu vaccinations. After all, survival of the fittest is all about weeding out the weak. Disease and death is to the advantage of the origins evolutionist and is a valuable tool for natural selection. Finding and using vaccines keeps the weak in the gene pool and hinders our ability to evolve into a stronger species.
Yet some Religious Right-oriented state legislators across the country want to derail the teaching of evolution and weaken science education in public schools. We are barely into 2011 and, according to the National Center for Science Education, already four states are pondering anti-evolution bills, including: New Mexico, Oklahoma (where there are two anti-evolution bills!), Missouri and Kentucky.
All of these measures are carefully crafted with creationist code language intended to sidestep decades of federal court decisions preventing creationism from being taught in public schools. These courts have ruled time and time again that creationism is religious dogma and our Constitution prevents our public schools from favoring any religious belief.
"creationist code language"?
By the way, can someone show me where our Constitution prevents our public schools from favoring any religious belief?
The latest bill, out of New Mexico, HB 302, would allow teachers to inform students “about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses” pertaining to “controversial” topics. The bill would protect teachers from “reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so.
The Oklahoma Senate bill, SB 554, provides that teachers and administrators be free to inform students about “relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses of controversial topics in sciences,” where such topics “include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution.” The bill also ensures that teachers not be disciplined for teaching science in this manner.
Oklahoma’s House Bill, HB 1551, sponsored by the Religious Right favorite Sally Kern, an avid anti-evolutionist, requires that teachers be permitted to teach the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.”
And why is it that teachers shouldn't be permitted to teach "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories"?
Missouri’s HB 195 uses similar “academic freedom” type language, calling on teachers to encourage students to explore “scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution.” The bill also requires teachers to find “more effective ways” to teach scientific controversies.
And why is it that teachers shouldn't encourage students to explore "scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately..."?
Kentucky’s HB 169, the first anti-evolution bill of 2011, would allow teachers to “use, as permitted by the local school board, other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner.”
And why is it that teachers shouldn't be permitted to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner?
Most of these bills are similar to legislation introduced in past years that have failed to become law. The bad news is that those who want our public schools to adopt poor science standards just won’t go away.
If you live in any of these states, let your state legislators know you want strong science standards in your home state.
"Strong science standards" apparently means everything occurred "accidentally". If it didn't occur accidentally then it is not to be considered science.
As “The Science Guy” said, “”Science is the key to our future, and if you don’t believe in science, then you’re holding everybody back.”
I doubt that anyone is claiming they "don't believe in science". Here again they are twisting the truth to propagate their agenda. An agenda that is a direct attack on the Lord Jesus Christ as the Creator and sustainer of all life. How can we as believers bury our heads in the sand and pretend that Satan is not at work in this world?
The information in this post came from the following link...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/science-guy-bill-nye-anti-evolution-crusade-horrible
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Criminal
I can't help it, I had to laugh.
The Fire Department has been given a hard time the last couple years, even to the point of being called "Union Thugs". Politics aside, that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this cartoon...
The Fire Department has been given a hard time the last couple years, even to the point of being called "Union Thugs". Politics aside, that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this cartoon...
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Ye Have Wearied the Lord
On the front page of the Midlands section of the Omaha World Herald there was an article titled "Bill would require comprehensive sex ed". Believe it or not, though the title piqued my interest, I regret reading it. I feel sick...
"Nebraska public schools would have to offer comprehensive sex education, which some districts already teach, under a bill introduced by an Omaha lawmaker.
Schools would have to include instruction in the proper use of all contraceptive methods approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has OK'd a variety of devices and medications, among them the 'morning after' pill that prevents pregnancy after intercourse."
Does it prevent pregnancy or end pregnancy?
That aside, what are we doing? The article states that the purpose of this sex education is to reduce the rate of STD's in the state. The article also says that the bill "would require schools to teach the benefits of abstinence." So, we teach them how to use contraceptives, then we tell them it is also beneficial to be abstinent? Is there a contradiction here? A mixed message?
By the way, how is the morning after pill going to prevent STD's?
The article goes on to say...
"The Omaha Public Schools has provided students with comprehensive sex education, including contraceptive education, since the mid-1980's.
Even so, Council, a former Omaha school board member, said she doesn't believe the message is reaching kids."
I guess that if we legislate it, it will be more effective? There is a reason that Council doesn't believe the message is reaching kids, it's because the STD rates are climbing...
http://www.ketv.com/health/18780006/detail.html
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/1370126.html
The article gets worse...
"The [current] OPS curriculum does not discuss abortion, she [Karen Spencer-May, the districts supervisor for family and consumer sciences and human growth and development] said. When the curriculum was written, she said, 'there were certain things that our community didn't want us to talk about, and that was one of the things'.
The curriculum also does not discuss issues surrounding sexual orientation, she said.
OPS teachers are trained not to deviate from the curriculum. When students raise questions beyond the scope, teachers are to refer them to counselors."
Now we are getting to some of the real reasons behind the new bill. Obviously this is not about reducing STD rates...
"Council's bill, however, would authorize sex-education instructors to 'answer in good faith any questions initiated by a student that is germane to the material of the course.'"
Listen to this...
"The bill would require that instruction materials not 'promote bias' against sexually active students or students of any sexual orientation or gender identity."
We are going to teach our kids that evil is good and good is evil. Not only are we going to teach it to them, we are going to make it a law that we must teach it to them!
Malachi 2:17 "Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?"
Just so you know, "Officials with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland support the effort."
Folks, don't be confused. Satan wants to destroy the family!
Remember, whoever is teaching your children is discipling your children. Who do you want your children to be a disciple of?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)