Life is not all fun and games. Originally, I created this blog to address weightier issues like faith, personal safety, safe driving, and parenting. Oh yeah, politics too. A lot of it.
Shortly after creating this blog, I was robbed at gunpoint. This is where I came to vent. Providentially, it the blog was helpful in generating leads that lead to the arrest of the robbers.
A new claim is being made for the discovery of Noah's Ark, as evangelical explorers from China and Turkey believe they may have found the remnants of the legendary biblical vessel.
"It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a Hong Kong documentary filmmaker and member of the 15-person team from Noah's Ark Ministries International, told Agence France-Presse.
The team says it recovered wooden specimens from a structure on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey at an altitude of 13,000 feet and that carbon dating suggested it was 4,800 years old.
Several compartments, some with wooden beams, are said to be inside and could have been used to house animals, the group indicated.
On February 26, 2010, the Associated Press reported that two pieces of a biblical manuscript had been reunited after being separated for centuries (Demirjian). The fragments date to the 7th century A.D., a period during which almost no Hebrew manuscripts survive. This exciting discovery has once again drawn the world’s attention back, not only to one of the earliest books of the Hebrew Bible, but one of its earliest sections.
The two portions together contain the Song of the Sea from Exodus 15:1-20. The song was sung just after the crossing of the Red/Reed Sea (Exodus 14). The song celebrates God’s victory over the Egyptian military, which was the strongest at the time in the ancient Near East. The Exodus event is so momentous in Jewish history that it has often been called the “Gospel of the Old Testament.” It was the foundational salvation event in Hebrew history that gave birth to the Jewish nation.
Scholars studying the manuscript believe that they were not only written by the same scribe, but were once part of the same scroll. This is remarkable given the fact that manuscripts from the Hebrew Bible dating to the period between the 3rd and 10th centuries B.C. are extremely rare. To the casual observer, these two Hebrew manuscripts may be little more than historical artifacts from a distant age and culture. But to believers, these manuscripts are yet another signpost pointing to the historical veracity of Scripture.
Scholars generally recognize the Song of the Sea as one of the oldest compositions found in the Hebrew Bible. The Song of the Sea is written in archaic Hebrew, consisting of a hymn (vss. 1-3), a short narrative (vss. 4-12) and a closing note on the victory (vss. 13-18). Its archaic appearance is important, since the first few books of the Bible are under fire by some scholars who claim that they were not written until very late in Israel’s history.
A jury deliberated for 37 minutes Friday before finding Scott Roeder guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder. The 51-year-old Kansas City, Missouri, man faces a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 25 years. Roeder testified that he shot Tiller in the head May 31 in the foyer of Tiller's church in Wichita because he believed Tiller posed an "immediate danger" to unborn children.
As Christians, we must not view this case too lightly. Tiller, the abortionist, was clearly engaged in some disgusting practices. Even though the law allowed him to abort babies, his actions were morally abhorrent.
Even so, Roeder did plan and calculate Tiller's murder. His actions were equally morally abhorrent. That he claims he did so for God does nothing to edify the church in our post-modern culture.
While I can surely find justification for God's displeasure over the death of innocents, I can not imagine Jesus cutting the man's hands off with a sword (as Roeder planned) or shooting him as Roeder did. As Christians, we must not choose to act as "God's vigilante" which neither gives glory to God nor does it serve to advance the cause of Christ.
Having discerned that Tiller attended a church, Roeder would have acted better to befriend attempt to persuade him that abortion is antithetical to the value God places on human life. Instead, both men must face harsh justice.
On the night of his betrayal at the hands of Judas Iscariot, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away. "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword," he continued. This statement hearkens back to God's own words that urge us not to take justice into our own hands, "Vengeance is mine. I will repay." Some would extend this statement to public policy, but I think it is abundantly clear from Jesus' ministry that he is not concerned with corrupt government institutions, rather, he is speaking to the state of the individuals heart. So too, I have every reason to believe that Jesus did not command Scott Roeder to shoot Dr. Tiller and so Roeder will face justice here on earth just as he administered justice of his own.
The message of the Bible should move us to be instruments of God's mercy; having the faith to believe that He Himself will administer justice in His own perfect way.
After my recent court date with a fellow who uses marijuana for "medicinal" purposes, I thought I would do a tiny bit of research. What conditions qualify a person for marijuana? The guy I saw sure didn't have cataracts.
I stumbled across an interview with a pothead. Although I did not find a list of qualifying conditions, the interview answered my question about the standard for a prescription. The quotes below are straight from the horse's mouth. The kid who was interviewed is a loadie and he knows he is exploiting the system, but at least he is honest. Here are my favorite quotes:
Most doctors don't care if you are "sick" or not. Besides, some of the legitimate reasons a person CAN be prescribed Medical Marijuana are as vague as, "Pain". So, the Doctors are trying to help sick people feel better AND they are trying to help healthy people feel better! Its a win, win. I first got my prescription about 7 years ago from a Dr. E##. He was recommended by a friend and was very professional. I had to fill out normal Doctor's Office forms and write about how I needed Cannabis for whatever medical reason I chose (They were listed on the form in case I wanted to choose one on the spot). I chose pain because of my many sk8boarding injuries and proceeded to pay his secretary $250.00 for a one year prescription for Medical Marijuana. . .
. . . I think alcohol should be illegal and weed should be legal for recreational use. As far as other drugs- keep um illegal but don't spend any money enforcing those laws. I don't know, maybe acid should be legal. Maybe acid should be mandatory, like Jury Duty.
Pot-heads will argue that marijuana is healthy and good. You can almost see the rainbows and butterflies that they see when they talk about it. Let's suppose they are right. Listen to Tommy Chong in this interview with Giraldo Rivera:
Sounds "healthy," doesn't he? No brain damage at all. Well, at least not that he would notice.
How long do we have to put up with the farce of "medical" marijuana? Do our legislators really think they are doing a good thing by legitimizing pot? Are these same legislators on pot when they write laws?
So-called "progressive" liberals view drug use as a minor crime that should not be heavily prosecuted. When jail populations are bloated, they release drug offenders--failing to recognize that drugs are related to some of our most heinous crimes like home invasions, burglary, assault, and rape. Putting these addicts back on the street (even worse, legalizing their addictions) does not serve to create a more peaceful and orderly society.
Medical Marijuana is a joke. The dealers and the addicts are the only ones who find it funny.
WASHINGTON -- With 20,000 delegates, advocates and journalists jetting to Copenhagen for planet Earth's last chance, the carbon footprint of the global warming summit will be the only impressive consequence of the climate change meeting. Its organizers had hoped it would produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanagement of everyone's choices. . . .
. . . Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be "goaded" into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.
Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.
I spent years studying natural sciences and I have a degree in biology. From the time Al Gore came out with his inconvenient "documentary" I have been skeptical of his claims because the only thing constant about our climate is change. George Will of Real Clear Politics does a fantastic job of expressing what I, and many other scientifically minded individual, have been thinking.
On the political front, his article is clear and concise. On the scientific front, one can find an abundance of evidence that global warming is not occurring at an alarming rate to include articles by the New York Times about stable temperatures and evidence that polar bears, the global warming mascot, are increasing in numbers. One could correctly argue that the New York Times is not politically neutral, but the NYT's political bias is generally in favor of the global warming alarmist, so an NYT article that publish facts that contradict the hysteria of global warming should spur thought even among GW adherents.
Two Environmental Protection Agency lawyers who made a YouTube video calling current climate legislation a "huge mistake" were told by the agency to remove the clip and edit out some references to their employer, one of them said.
Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams, a husband and wife who have worked in the EPA's San Francisco office for more than 20 years, have been outspoken in their opposition to a "cap and trade" system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
That system -- in which companies may buy and sell the right to pollute -- is at the heart of a climate bill passed by the House this summer, and another under consideration in the Senate.
On Oct. 31, the two made their case in an opinion piece in The Washington Post, saying the bill was fatally flawed by the inclusion of unreliable "carbon offsets," and would "lock in climate degradation" instead of solving it.
Although the President promised open dialog and transparency in his government, once again we have a government agency trying to silence individual free speech. Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams posted a YouTube video explaining some of the problems with the Cap and Trade bill currently being debated in congress. Although they had permission from the local EPA office where they work, when Washington DC got wind of the video, they were told to take it down over "ethics violations". The two are very clear that the video expresses their opinions and not the opinions of the EPA or the Obama administration. This is not an ethics violation by Zabel and Williams, it is a violation of the 1st Amendment by the Federal Government.
The video has been re-posted by other groups. You can read an opinion piece and view the video at http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/11/the-huge-mistake/
The day Abby Johnson witnessed an abortion with an ultrasound was the day her life changed. Johnson spent 8 years of her life working for Planned Parenthood--an organization that provides family planning services as well as abortions. She says she thought she was helping women, but when she saw through an ultrasound how a baby in utero reacted to the abortion, she could not be a part of it anymore. PP was not a family planning organization that occasionally did abortions, it was an organization that survived on the slaughter of the unborn. An article on lifesitenews.com (linked below) reveals that Planned Parenthood's abortion profits carry the weight of the companies other endeavors:
The latest financial report Planned Parenthood, for the year 2006-2007, shows that the abortion behemoth increased the number of abortions it committed from 264,943 in 2005 to 289,650 in 2006. Total revenue amounted to over $1 billion dollars, with the organization's profit margin - "excess of revenue over expenses" - soaring from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million in 2006. The organization typically receives over $300 million in taxpayer funds every year.
Johnson said she became involved with the clinic "to help women and ... [do] the right thing." The idea of increasing abortion numbers to increase revenue was repugnant to her. She said that ideally the facility's director would provide "so much family planning and so much education that there is not a demand for abortion."
But this ideal was not shared by the rest of Planned Parenthood, she said, because "abortion is the most lucrative part of Planned Parenthood's operations."
"With the family planning corporation really suffering," Johnson said, "they depend on the abortion corporation to balance their budget, help get them out of the hole and help make income for the company."
She continued, "They really wanted to increase the number of abortions so that they could increase their income."
Having now spoken out against the abortion giant, Johnson is under attack. Planned Parenthood has obtained a court order to keep her from talking. At the same time, leftist websites like Salon.com claim to have inside information from unnamed "confidential informants" who claim Johnson did not really have a conversion, and that she quit her job for the money. (Really!?!) That does not sound like such a good plan to me--but even if it is true, does it matter? If she is speaking out against the abortion giant for money, does that discredit her witness? Does it make her worse than the company that aborts babies for money?
If it were not so serious, the situation would be comical. Every few months a media blitz raves about a new “half-and-half” creature that is unlike anything ever seen. Supposedly, tiny features about this novel beast give modern humans cutting-edge insights into how primate ancestors evolved into us. The incisors are larger or smaller than most apes, the cranium has a bigger (or smaller) capacity, the tiny toe bone fragments offer amazing information about how the creature walked on all fours most of the time, except when it was being chased by a specific kind of predator on Tuesdays in the Fall, the small scraps of finger bones tell us that the creature swung from branches for the majority of its life, except for brief periods of time when it descended to the ground to walk upright for elaborate mating rituals that occurred once every 10 years during the Summer equinox, etc. And we know all this from bone fragments that are supposedly millions of years old.
If your household is like my household, you have a youngster who loves to watch Animal Planet. My son would watch it all day long if we let him.
Recently Animal Planet has been advertising a Discovery Network special, Discovering Ardi, which supposedly enlightened us on Sunday about the newest 8th-wonder-of-the-world-missing-link-greatest-discovery-since-swiss-cheese-fossil-of-the-month-club-ancestor-of-humans-and-monkeys, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba.
Apparently Ardi is not news. Ardi was 1992's fossil-de-jour. After almost 2 decades of reconstruction, the research team needs another infusion of money. All of that effort and so little payoff. But with 21st Century special effects, Ardi's story can finally be something.
Read the linked article to Apologetics Press to get some perspective on the Ardi phenomenon before you buy too deeply into the hysteria.
Do you recall all of the fanfare a few months ago surrounding the little lemur-like animal, dubbed Ida (pronounced Ē-da), which supposedly is one of our great-great-great...grandparents from 47 million years ago? Do you remember how one scientist referred to it as “the eighth wonder of the world” (as quoted in Scally, 2009), because “it will finally confirm irrefutably Sir Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution” (Leonard, 2009, emp. added). And what about how the world’s most popular search engine (Google) incorporated an illustration of the animal into its logo? The media turned Ida into a star overnight. Millions of people were “reminded” once again how certain scientists are that “we evolved” from lower mammals.
Months ago, the scientific community was in an uproar over the supposed discovery of Ida, "the Missing Link". The fossil of a lemur was discovered and billed as the "8th Wonder of the World."
In response to the hype, Richard F. Kay of Science magazine wrote Much Hype and Many Errors, a telling article detailing the gross exaggeration, fabrication, and misinformation of the Ida propaganda machine. Subscribers to Science magazine can read it here. Others can get a summary from the Apologetics Press Article linked above.
Apparently, Ida is a lemur--nothing more. And a lemur is a lemur no matter how much you want it to be a prototypical human. Fortunately, we still have honest scientists who are more concerned with scientific truth than ideology. Thank you, Mr. Kay, for your intellectual honesty. Unfortunately, Ida's fall down the evolutionary ladder will not receive nearly as much coverage as her fabricated ascendancy.
The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.
Global Warming (GW) ideologues still refuse to accept the remotest possibility that GW is overblown hysterics in spite of the facts. Now they admit that there is a temperature cycle, but they still insist the overall trend is upward and the pace is still alarming even though temperatures have not moved significantly in the last decade.
To me, this looks like politics trumping science--of course, I have said that ever since the issue was taken over by Al Gore--a politician, not a scientist. Click the link above to go to the article and notice that the concern is not for the stability of the planet, but for the stability of the GW movement.
